IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i11p6354-d822394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the User Interaction Network in an Anxiety Disorder Online Community: An Exponential Random Graph Model with Topical and Emotional Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Jingfang Liu

    (School of Management, Shanghai University, 99 Shangda Road, Shanghai 201900, China)

  • Yafei Liu

    (School of Management, Shanghai University, 99 Shangda Road, Shanghai 201900, China)

Abstract

The increasing number of people with anxiety disorders presents challenges when gathering health information. Users in anxiety disorder online communities (ADOCs) share and obtain a variety of health information, such as treatment experience, drug efficacy, and emotional support. This interaction alleviates the difficulties involved in obtaining health information. Users engage in community interaction via posts, comments, and replies, which promotes the development of an online community as well as the wellbeing of community users, and research concerning the formation mechanism of the user interaction network in ADOCs could be beneficial to users. Taking the Anxiety Disorder Post Bar as the research object, this study constructed an ADOC user interaction network based on users’ posts, comments, and personal information data. With the help of exponential random graph models (ERGMs), we studied the effects of the network structure, user attributes, topics, and emotional intensity on user interaction networks. We found that there was significant reciprocity in the user interaction network in ADOCs. In terms of user attributes, gender homogeneity had no impact on the formation of the user interaction network. Experienced users in the community had obvious advantages, and experienced users could obtain replies more easily from other members. In terms of topics, pathology popularization showed obvious homogeneity, and symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder showed obvious heterogeneity. In terms of emotional intensity, users with polarized emotions were more likely to receive replies from users with positive emotions. The probability of interaction between two users with negative emotions was small, and users with opposite emotional polarity tended to interact, especially when the interaction was initiated by users with positive emotions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jingfang Liu & Yafei Liu, 2022. "Exploring the User Interaction Network in an Anxiety Disorder Online Community: An Exponential Random Graph Model with Topical and Emotional Effects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-13, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6354-:d:822394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6354/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6354/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    2. Fan, Rui & Xu, Ke & Zhao, Jichang, 2018. "An agent-based model for emotion contagion and competition in online social media," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 495(C), pages 245-259.
    3. Jing-Wen Huang & Yong-Hui Li, 2017. "Green Innovation and Performance: The View of Organizational Capability and Social Reciprocity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 309-324, October.
    4. Zhigang Li & Xu Xu, 2020. "Analysis of Network Structure and Doctor Behaviors in E-Health Communities from a Social-Capital Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Pratyush Bharati & Abhijit Chaudhury, 2019. "Assimilation of Big Data Innovation: Investigating the Roles of IT, Social Media, and Relational Capital," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1357-1368, December.
    6. Anwar Said & Timothy D. Bowman & Rabeeh Ayaz Abbasi & Naif Radi Aljohani & Saeed-Ul Hassan & Raheel Nawaz, 2019. "Mining network-level properties of Twitter altmetrics data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 217-235, July.
    7. Lorenz Goette & David Huffman & Stephan Meier, 2012. "The Impact of Social Ties on Group Interactions: Evidence from Minimal Groups and Randomly Assigned Real Groups," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 101-115, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yingjie Lu & Xinwei Wang & Lin Su & Han Zhao, 2023. "Multiplex Social Network Analysis to Understand the Social Engagement of Patients in Online Health Communities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tor Eriksson & Lei Mao & Marie Claire Villeval, 2017. "Saving face and group identity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 622-647, September.
    2. Wenjian Li & Yang Zhang & Yuanyuan Wu & Xue Han & Benhai Guo & Gang Xie, 2021. "Enterprise Reciprocity and Risk Preferences and the Sustainable Cooperation of Innovation Activities in Industrial Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Jingyi Zhong & Weide Chun & Wu Deng & Hui Gao, 2023. "Can Mergers and Acquisitions Promote Technological Innovation in the New Energy Industry? An Empirical Analysis Based on China’s Lithium Battery Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-25, August.
    4. Falk Armin & Kosfeld Michael, 2012. "It's all about Connections: Evidence on Network Formation," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-36, September.
    5. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    6. Anna Walecka, 2021. "The Role of Relational Capital in Anti-Crisis Measures Undertaken by Companies—Conclusions from a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    8. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    9. Simon Gaechter & Chris Starmer & Fabio Tufano, 2022. "Measuring “group cohesion” to reveal the power of social relationships in team production," Discussion Papers 2022-12, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    10. Amrei Lahno & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2015. "Peer effects in risk taking: Envy or conformity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 73-95, February.
    11. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    12. Hoffmann, Magnus & Kolmar, Martin, 2017. "Distributional preferences in probabilistic and share contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-139.
    13. Jing Wang & Gen Li & Kai-Lung Hui, 2022. "Monetary Incentives and Knowledge Spillover: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3549-3572, May.
    14. Vera Popva, 2010. "What renders financial advisors less treacherous? - On commissions and reciprocity -," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-036, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    15. Jinqiu He & Huiwen Su, 2022. "Digital Transformation and Green Innovation of Chinese Firms: The Moderating Role of Regulatory Pressure and International Opportunities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-21, October.
    16. Nadine Chlaß & Peter G. Moffatt, 2017. "Giving in Dictator Games - Experimenter Demand Effect or Preference over the Rules of the Game?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    17. Sauermann, Jan, 2015. "Worker Reciprocity and the Returns to Training: Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 9179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Christiane Bradler & Susanne Neckermann, 2019. "The Magic of the Personal Touch: Field Experimental Evidence on Money and Appreciation as Gifts," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1189-1221, July.
    19. Mechtel, Mario & Hett, Florian & Kröll, Markus, 2014. "Endogenous Social Identity and Group Choice," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100307, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. Maria V. Sigova & Igor K. Klyuchnikov & Oleg I. Klyuchnikov, 2024. "Sustainability and Security of Green Finance from the Multi-agent Games Perspective," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 1, pages 78-95, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6354-:d:822394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.