Advertisement

Introductions and Requests: Rhetorical Strategies That Elicit Response in Online Communities

  • Moira Burke
  • Elisabeth Joyce
  • Tackjin Kim
  • Vivek Anand
  • Robert Kraut

Abstract

Online communities allow millions of people who would never meet in person to interact. People join web-based discussion boards, email lists, and chat rooms for friendship, social support, entertainment, and information on technical, health, and leisure activities [24]. And they do so in droves. One of the earliest networks of online communities, Usenet, had over nine million unique contributors, 250 million messages, and approximately 200,000 active groups in 2003 [27], while the newer My Space, founded in 2003, attracts a quarter million new members every day [27].

Keywords

Online Community Person Pronoun Rhetorical Strategy Online Support Group Issue Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arguello, J., Butler, B., Joyce, E., Kraut, R., Ling, K., and Wang, X. Talk to me: Foundations for successful individual-group interactions in online communities. In Proc. CHI 2006, ACM Press (2006), 959–968.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baym, N. Interpreting soap operas and creating community: Inside a computer mediated fan culture. Journal of Folklore Research, 30 (1993), 143–176.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, R., and Gilman, A. The pronouns of power and solidarity. Bobbs-Merril, 1960.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butler, B. Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based Model of Online Social Structures. Information Systems Research 12, 4 (2001), 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carvalho, V. and Cohen, W. Learning to Extract Signature and Reply Lines from Email. Paper presented at the Conference on Email and Anti-Spam. 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cramton, C. Attribution in distributed work groups. Distributed Work, Hinds, P. and Kiesler, S., Eds.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002, 191–212.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ducheneaut, N. Socialization in an open source software community: A sociotechnical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14 (2006), 323–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher, D., Smith, M., & Welser, H. You are who you talk to: Detecting roles in Usenet newsgroups. Paper presented at the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Francik, E., and Clark, H. How to make requests that overcome obstacles to compliance. Journal of Memory and Language, 24 (1985), 560–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galegher, J., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. Legitimacy, authority, and community in electronic support groups. Written Communication 15, 4 (1998), 493–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones, Q., Rafaeli, S., and Ravid, G. Information overload and the message dy namics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15, 2 (2004), 194–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joyce, E. and Kraut, R. Predicting continued participation in newsgroups. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 11, 3 (2006).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karau, S. and K. Williams, Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 65, 4 (1993), 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, A., Community Building on the Web: Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krogh, G.v., Spaeth, S., Lakhani, K., and Hippel, E. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study. Research Policy, 32 (2003), 1217–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lampe, C. and Johnston, E. Follow the (slash) dot: Effects of feedback on new members in an online community. In Proc. GROUP 2005, ACM Press (2005), 11–20.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levine, J. and Moreland, R. Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, 283–308.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linde, C, The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse. Language in Society, 17, 1998, 375–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKenna, K., Green, A., Gleason, M. Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues 58, 1 (2002), 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pennebaker, J., Francis, M., and Booth, R. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pennebaker, J., Mehl, M, and Niederhoffer, K. Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology 54 (2003), 547–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Preece, J., Ed. Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Sociability. John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Preece, JK., Nonnecke, B., and Andrews, D. The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior 20, 1 (2004), 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raymond, E, Moen, R. How to Ask Questions the Smart Way (2006). http://www.catb.org/-esr/faqs/smart-questions.htmlGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ridings, C. and Gefen, D. Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out on line. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 1 (2004).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sacks, H., Jefferson, and Schegloff, E. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 4 (1974), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sellers, P. My Space Cowboys. (2006). http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/09/04/8384727Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith, M. Measures and Maps of Usenet. From Usenet to Cowebs: Interacting with Social Information, C. Leug and D. Fisher, Editors. 2003, Springer Verlag: Amsterdam, Holland, p. 47–78.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith, M. Netscan: A Social Accounting Search Engine (http://netscan.research.microsoft.com). 2004, Community Technologies Group, Microsoft Corporation.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, X., Butler, B., Joyce, E. An ecological perspective on online communities. In Academy of Management conference (2006).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wasko, M., and Faraj, S. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly 29, 1 (2005), 35–57.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., Hill W., and Cherny, L., The Dynamics of Mass Interaction. From Usenet to Co Webs: Interacting with Social Information, C. Leug and Fisher, Editors. 2003, Springer Verlag: Amsterdam, Holland, p. 79–91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moira Burke
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Joyce
    • 2
  • Tackjin Kim
    • 1
  • Vivek Anand
    • 1
  • Robert Kraut
    • 1
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Edinboro UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations