Emotions under discussion

gender, status and communication in online collaboration

Daniela Iosub, David Laniado, Carlos Castillo, Mayo Fuster Morell, Andreas Kaltenbrunner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the undisputed role of emotions in teamwork, not much is known about the make-up of emotions in online collaboration. Publicly available repositories of collaboration data, such as Wikipedia editor discussions, now enable the large-scale study of affect and dialogue in peer production.

METHODS: We investigate the established Wikipedia community and focus on how emotion and dialogue differ depending on the status, gender, and the communication network of the [Formula: see text] editors who have written at least 100 comments on the English Wikipedia's article talk pages. Emotions are quantified using a word-based approach comparing the results of two predefined lexicon-based methods: LIWC and SentiStrength.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that administrators maintain a rather neutral, impersonal tone, while regular editors are more emotional and relationship-oriented, that is, they use language to form and maintain connections to other editors. A persistent gender difference is that female contributors communicate in a manner that promotes social affiliation and emotional connection more than male editors, irrespective of their status in the community. Female regular editors are the most relationship-oriented, whereas male administrators are the least relationship-focused. Finally, emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles (e.g., editors expressing more anger connect more with one another).

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e104880
JournalPLoS One
Volume9
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

emotions
communication (human)
Linguistics
Telecommunication networks
Emotions
File editors
Communication
gender
Administrative Personnel
Anger
peers
gender differences
Language
methodology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Iosub, D., Laniado, D., Castillo, C., Fuster Morell, M., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2014). Emotions under discussion: gender, status and communication in online collaboration. PLoS One, 9(8), e104880. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104880

Emotions under discussion : gender, status and communication in online collaboration. / Iosub, Daniela; Laniado, David; Castillo, Carlos; Fuster Morell, Mayo; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 9, No. 8, 2014, p. e104880.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Iosub, D, Laniado, D, Castillo, C, Fuster Morell, M & Kaltenbrunner, A 2014, 'Emotions under discussion: gender, status and communication in online collaboration', PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. e104880. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104880
Iosub, Daniela ; Laniado, David ; Castillo, Carlos ; Fuster Morell, Mayo ; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas. / Emotions under discussion : gender, status and communication in online collaboration. In: PLoS One. 2014 ; Vol. 9, No. 8. pp. e104880.
@article{4f526afb984b47508addf85717e3681d,
title = "Emotions under discussion: gender, status and communication in online collaboration",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Despite the undisputed role of emotions in teamwork, not much is known about the make-up of emotions in online collaboration. Publicly available repositories of collaboration data, such as Wikipedia editor discussions, now enable the large-scale study of affect and dialogue in peer production.METHODS: We investigate the established Wikipedia community and focus on how emotion and dialogue differ depending on the status, gender, and the communication network of the [Formula: see text] editors who have written at least 100 comments on the English Wikipedia's article talk pages. Emotions are quantified using a word-based approach comparing the results of two predefined lexicon-based methods: LIWC and SentiStrength.PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that administrators maintain a rather neutral, impersonal tone, while regular editors are more emotional and relationship-oriented, that is, they use language to form and maintain connections to other editors. A persistent gender difference is that female contributors communicate in a manner that promotes social affiliation and emotional connection more than male editors, irrespective of their status in the community. Female regular editors are the most relationship-oriented, whereas male administrators are the least relationship-focused. Finally, emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles (e.g., editors expressing more anger connect more with one another).CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.",
author = "Daniela Iosub and David Laniado and Carlos Castillo and {Fuster Morell}, Mayo and Andreas Kaltenbrunner",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0104880",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "e104880",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Emotions under discussion

T2 - gender, status and communication in online collaboration

AU - Iosub, Daniela

AU - Laniado, David

AU - Castillo, Carlos

AU - Fuster Morell, Mayo

AU - Kaltenbrunner, Andreas

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - BACKGROUND: Despite the undisputed role of emotions in teamwork, not much is known about the make-up of emotions in online collaboration. Publicly available repositories of collaboration data, such as Wikipedia editor discussions, now enable the large-scale study of affect and dialogue in peer production.METHODS: We investigate the established Wikipedia community and focus on how emotion and dialogue differ depending on the status, gender, and the communication network of the [Formula: see text] editors who have written at least 100 comments on the English Wikipedia's article talk pages. Emotions are quantified using a word-based approach comparing the results of two predefined lexicon-based methods: LIWC and SentiStrength.PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that administrators maintain a rather neutral, impersonal tone, while regular editors are more emotional and relationship-oriented, that is, they use language to form and maintain connections to other editors. A persistent gender difference is that female contributors communicate in a manner that promotes social affiliation and emotional connection more than male editors, irrespective of their status in the community. Female regular editors are the most relationship-oriented, whereas male administrators are the least relationship-focused. Finally, emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles (e.g., editors expressing more anger connect more with one another).CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.

AB - BACKGROUND: Despite the undisputed role of emotions in teamwork, not much is known about the make-up of emotions in online collaboration. Publicly available repositories of collaboration data, such as Wikipedia editor discussions, now enable the large-scale study of affect and dialogue in peer production.METHODS: We investigate the established Wikipedia community and focus on how emotion and dialogue differ depending on the status, gender, and the communication network of the [Formula: see text] editors who have written at least 100 comments on the English Wikipedia's article talk pages. Emotions are quantified using a word-based approach comparing the results of two predefined lexicon-based methods: LIWC and SentiStrength.PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that administrators maintain a rather neutral, impersonal tone, while regular editors are more emotional and relationship-oriented, that is, they use language to form and maintain connections to other editors. A persistent gender difference is that female contributors communicate in a manner that promotes social affiliation and emotional connection more than male editors, irrespective of their status in the community. Female regular editors are the most relationship-oriented, whereas male administrators are the least relationship-focused. Finally, emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles (e.g., editors expressing more anger connect more with one another).CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84914176445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84914176445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0104880

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0104880

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - e104880

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 8

ER -