skip to main content
10.1145/2998181.2998277acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Shaping Pro and Anti-Social Behavior on Twitch Through Moderation and Example-Setting

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 February 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Online communities have the potential to be supportive, cruel, or anywhere in between. The development of positive norms for interaction can help users build bonds, grow, and learn. Using millions of messages sent in Twitch chatrooms, we explore the effectiveness of methods for encouraging and discouraging specific behaviors, including taking advantage of imitation effects through setting positive examples and using moderation tools to discourage antisocial behaviors. Consistent with aspects of imitation theory and deterrence theory, users imitated examples of behavior that they saw, and more so for behaviors from high status users. Proactive moderation tools, such as chat modes which restricted the ability to post certain content, proved effective at discouraging spam behaviors, while reactive bans were able to discourage a wider variety of behaviors. This work considers the intersection of tools, authority, and types of behaviors, offering a new frame through which to consider the development of moderation strategies.

References

  1. Akers, R. L., & Cochran, J. K. 1985. Adolescent marijuana use: A test of three theories of deviant behavior. Deviant Behavior. 6, 4: 323--346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Akers, R. L., & La Greca, A. J. 1991. Alcohol use among the elderly: Social learning, community context, and life events. In Society, culture, and drinking patterns reexamined. 242--262.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. 1996. A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues. 26, 2: 317--343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Akers, R. L., Skinner, W. F., Krohn, M. D., & Lauer, R. M. 1987. Recent trends in teenage tobacco usefindings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Sociology and Social Research. 71, 2: 110--114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. AnyKey. 2016. AnyKey Workshop #2 White Paper: Barriers to inclusion and retention: The role of community management and moderation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Aral, S., & Walker, D. 2011. Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science. 57, 9: 1623--1639. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Asch, S. E. 1956. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied. 70, 9: 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L. April. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, 519--528. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bayer, J. B., Ellison, N. B., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Falk, E. B. 2015. Sharing the small moments: ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. boyd, d. 2014. It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. 1999. The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76, 6: 893.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Cialdini, R. B. 2009. Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Pearson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Citron, D. K. 2014. Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Coleman, G. 2014. Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy: The many faces of Anonymous. Verso Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Das, S., Kramer, A. D., Dabbish, L. A., & Hong, J. I. 2015. The Role of Social Influence In Security Feature Adoption. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15), 1416--1426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Donath, J. 1996. Identity and deception in the virtual community. In Communities in cyberspace. 29--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Feigenbaum, J., Hendler, J. A., Jaggard, A. D., Weitzner, D. J., & Wright, R. N. 2011. Accountability and deterrence in online life. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Web Science Conference, 7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Fotigames. 2015. "How to Handle Malicious Viewers/Trolls". From https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/3p4px8/ho w_to_handle_malicious_viewers_trolls/. Retrieved 11 May 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, J., & Tang, W. Y. 2016. Women's experiences with general and sexual harassment in online video games: Rumination, organizational responsiveness, withdrawal, and coping strategies. New Media & Society. March 8, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldenberg, D. 2015. "How Kappa Became the Face of Twitch". Five-thirty-eight. Retrieved 21 May 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton, W. A., Garretson, O., & Kerne, A. 2014. Streaming on twitch: fostering participatory communities of play within live mixed media. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1315--1324. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Harry, D. 2014. "Past and Future of Game Spectating". Speakerdeck.com. Retrieved 21 May 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. 2002. Searching for safety online: Managing "trolling" in a feminist forum. The Information Society. 18, 5: 371--384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Higgins, G. E., Fell, B. D., & Wilson, A. L. 2006. Digital piracy: Assessing the contributions of an integrated self-control theory and social learning theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice Studies. 19, 1: 3--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Higgins, G. E., Wilson, A. L., & Fell, B. D. 2005. An application of deterrence theory to software piracy. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture. 12, 3: 166--184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., Graves, N., & Pierce, C. M. 1966. An experimental study in nurse-physician relationships. The Journal of nervous and mental disease. 143, 2: 171--180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Hogg, M. A. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and social psychology review. 5, 3: 184--200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Houston, T. K., Cooper, L. A., & Ford, D. E. 2014. Internet support groups for depression: a 1-year prospective cohort study. American Journal of Psychiatry.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Kittur, A., Pendleton, B., & Kraut, R. E. 2009. Herding the cats: the influence of groups in coordinating peer production. In Proceedings of the 5th international Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (p. 7). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kraut, R. E., & Resnick, P. 2012. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Levmore, S., & Nussbaum, M. C. 2010. The Offensive Internet. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Li, X., & Nergadze, N. 2009. Deterrence effect of four legal and extralegal factors on online copyright infringement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 14, 2: 307--327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Maiberg, E. 2014. "Twitch ranked 4th in peak internet traffic, ahead of Valve, Facebook, Hulu". From http://www.gamespot.com/articles/twitch-ranked-4thin-peak-internet-traffic-ahead-of-valve-facebookhulu/1100-6417621/. Retrieved 11 May 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Marwick, A. E. 2013. Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Milgram, S. 1978. Obedience to authority. Harpercollins College.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Munroe, R. 2008. "ROBOT9000 and #xkcd-signal: Attacking Noise in Chat". From blog.xkcd.com. Retrieved 11 May 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Nagin, D. S. 1998. Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime and justice, 142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. 2008. Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and social psychology bulletin. 34, 7: 913--923.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 5, 2: 187--195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Phillips, D. P. 1974. The influence of suggestion on suicide: Substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. American Sociological Review, 340354.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Phillips, W. 2011. LOLing at tragedy: Facebook trolls, memorial pages and resistance to grief online. First Monday. 16, 12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. PsychCentral. 2008. Terms of Use, from http://psychcentral.com/about/terms.htm. Retrieved 8 Mar 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Quantcast. 2016. "Twitch.tv Traffic and Demographics." From https://www.quantcast.com/twitch.tv. Retrieved 11 May 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Resnick, P. 2001. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. 10, 2: 173--199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Romero, D. M., Meeder, B., & Kleinberg, J. 2011. Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, 695--704. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Scott-Parker, B., Hyde, M. K., Watson, B., & King, M. J. 2013. Speeding by young novice drivers: What can personal characteristics and psychosocial theory add to our understanding?. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 50: 242--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Sherif, M. 1936. The psychology of social norms. Harper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. 1993. A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 30(2), 123--135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Suler. 2004. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & behavior. 7, 3: 321--326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor, T. L. 2009. Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Tonry, M. 2008. Learning from the limitations of deterrence research. Crime and Justice. 37, 1: 279--311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Wheeler, L. 1966. Toward a theory of behavioral contagion. Psychological Review. 73, 2: 179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. 2008. How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics. 121, 2: e350-e357.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Zhu, H., Kraut, R., & Kittur, A. 2012. Organizing without formal organization: group identification, goal setting and social modeling in directing online production. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 935--944. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Shaping Pro and Anti-Social Behavior on Twitch Through Moderation and Example-Setting

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
      February 2017
      2556 pages
      ISBN:9781450343350
      DOI:10.1145/2998181

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 February 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CSCW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate183of530submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader