How do we elicit more user feedback in the social Q&A community? A consideration of the expertise-required question

Mi Zhou, Bo Meng, Weiguo Fan
{"title":"How do we elicit more user feedback in the social Q&A community? A consideration of the expertise-required question","authors":"Mi Zhou, Bo Meng, Weiguo Fan","doi":"10.1108/itp-10-2022-0751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe current study aims to investigate the factors that impact the feedback received on answers to questions in social Q&A communities and whether the expertise-required question influences the role of these factors on the feedback.Design/methodology/approachTo understand the antecedents and consequences that influence the feedback received on answers to online community questions, the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is applied in this study. The authors use web data crawling methods and a combination of quantitative analyses. The data for this study came from Zhihu; in total, 353,775 responses were obtained to 1,531 questions, ranging from 49 to 23,681 responses per question. Each answer received 0 to 113,892 likes and 0 to 6,250 comments.FindingsThe answers' cognitive and emotional components and the answerer's influence positively affect user feedback behavior. In addition, the expertise-required question moderates the effects of the answer's cognitive component and emotional component on the user feedback, moderating the effects of the answerer's influence on the user approval feedback.Originality/valueThis study builds upon a limited yet growing body of literature on a theme of great relevance to scholars, practitioners and social media users concerning the effects of the connotation of answers (i.e. their cognitive and emotional components) and the answerer's influence on user feedback (i.e. approval and collaborative feedback) in social Q&A communities. The authors further consider the moderating role of the domain expertise required by the question (expertise-required question). The ELM model is applied to explore the relationships between questions, answers and feedback. The findings of this study add a new perspective to the research on user feedback and have implications for the management of social Q&A communities.","PeriodicalId":168000,"journal":{"name":"Information Technology & People","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Technology & People","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-10-2022-0751","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe current study aims to investigate the factors that impact the feedback received on answers to questions in social Q&A communities and whether the expertise-required question influences the role of these factors on the feedback.Design/methodology/approachTo understand the antecedents and consequences that influence the feedback received on answers to online community questions, the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is applied in this study. The authors use web data crawling methods and a combination of quantitative analyses. The data for this study came from Zhihu; in total, 353,775 responses were obtained to 1,531 questions, ranging from 49 to 23,681 responses per question. Each answer received 0 to 113,892 likes and 0 to 6,250 comments.FindingsThe answers' cognitive and emotional components and the answerer's influence positively affect user feedback behavior. In addition, the expertise-required question moderates the effects of the answer's cognitive component and emotional component on the user feedback, moderating the effects of the answerer's influence on the user approval feedback.Originality/valueThis study builds upon a limited yet growing body of literature on a theme of great relevance to scholars, practitioners and social media users concerning the effects of the connotation of answers (i.e. their cognitive and emotional components) and the answerer's influence on user feedback (i.e. approval and collaborative feedback) in social Q&A communities. The authors further consider the moderating role of the domain expertise required by the question (expertise-required question). The ELM model is applied to explore the relationships between questions, answers and feedback. The findings of this study add a new perspective to the research on user feedback and have implications for the management of social Q&A communities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们如何在社交问答社区中获得更多用户反馈?考虑需要专业知识的问题
目的本研究旨在探讨影响社会问答社区问题答案反馈的因素,以及专业要求问题是否会影响这些因素对反馈的作用。设计/方法/方法为了理解影响在线社区问题答案反馈的前因和后果,本研究采用了细化似然模型(ELM)。作者使用网络数据抓取方法和定量分析相结合。本研究数据来自知乎;调查共收到353775份回复,涉及1531个问题,每个问题有49至23681份回复。每个回答都得到了0到113892个赞和0到6250条评论。结果:答案的认知成分和情感成分以及回答者的影响力正向影响用户反馈行为。此外,专业要求问题调节了答案的认知成分和情感成分对用户反馈的影响,调节了回答者对用户认可反馈的影响。原创性/价值本研究建立在有限但不断增长的文献基础上,该主题与学者,从业者和社交媒体用户非常相关,涉及答案内涵(即其认知和情感成分)的影响以及答题者对社交问答社区中用户反馈(即认可和协作反馈)的影响。作者进一步考虑了问题所需的领域专门知识的调节作用(专家-需要的问题)。应用ELM模型探索问题、答案和反馈之间的关系。本研究的发现为用户反馈的研究提供了一个新的视角,并对社交问答社区的管理具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unraveling the factors that influence connectedness and relationship performance with augmented reality apps Audience analytics and tensions in digital news work: evidence from Swiss news media Unraveling the dark side of ChatGPT: a moderated mediation model of technology anxiety and technostress See it, share it: what makes social media content viral in the higher education context? The power of positive affective content Behavioral dedication, constraint or obligation? A tripartite model of active participation in multiplayer online battle arena game community
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1