skip to main content
10.1145/2207676.2208287acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Implicit imitation in social tagging: familiarity and semantic reconstruction

Published:05 May 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Social Tagging is a recent widespread phenomenon on the Web where people assign labels (tags) to Web resources. It has been hypothesized to support collaborative sensemaking. In this paper, we examine some of the cognitive mechanisms assumed to underlie sensemaking, namely social imitation. In line with the semantic imitation model of Fu et al., we assume that implicit processing can be understood as a semantic reconstruction of gist. Our model contrasts this process with a recall of tags from an explicit verbatim memory trace. We tested this model in an experimental study in which after the search task students had to generate tags themselves. We exposed their answers to a multinomial model derived from Fuzzy Trace Theory to obtain independent parameter estimates for the processes of explicit recall, semantic gist reconstruction and familiarity-based recall. A model that assumes all processes are at play explains the data well. Similar to results of our previous study, we find an influence of search intentions on the two processes. Our results have implications for interface and interaction design of social tagging systems, as well as for tag recommendation in these environments.

References

  1. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., and Yap, M. J. Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 133, 2 (2004), 283--316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Batchelder, W. H., and Riefer, D. M. Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 6, 1 (1999), 57--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Brainerd, C. J. and Reyna, V. F. Recollective and nonrecollective recall. Journal of Memory and Language 63, 3 (2010), 425--44Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Brainerd, C. J., Wright, R., Reyna, V. F., and Payne, D. G. Dual-retrieval processes in free and associative recall. Journal of Memory and Language 46, 1 (2002), 120--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Brainerd, C. J., Yang, Y., Reyna, V. F., Howe, M. L. and Mills, B. A. Semantic processing in "associative" false memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 6 (2008), 1035--1053.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Budiu, R., Pirolli, P., and Hong, L. Remembrance of things tagged: how tagging affects human information processing. In Proc. CHI'09, ACM press (2009), 615624. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cancho, R. F., and Sole, R. V. The small world of human language. In Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 268, (2001), 2261--2266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Cattuto, C., Loreto, V. and Pietronero, L. Semiotic dynamics and collaborative tagging. PNAS 104, 5 (2007), 1461--1464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. CiteULike http://www.citeulike.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Delicious http://delicious.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dellschaft, K., and Staab, S. (2008). An epistemic dynamic model for tagging systems. In Proc. Hypertext 2008, ACM-press (2008), 71--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Flickr http://www.flickr.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Fu, W.-T. The microstructures of social tagging: a rational model. In Proc. CSCW 2008, ACM Press (2008), 229--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Fu, W.-T., Kannampallil, T. G., and Kang, R. A Semantic Imitation Model of Social Tag Choices. In Proc. CSE 2009, ACM Press (2009), 66--73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Fu, W.-T., Kannampalli, T. G., Kang, R., and He, J. Semantic imitation in social tagging. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 17, 3 (2010), 1--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Gerjets, P., and Kammerer, Y. Topical relevance and information quality in cognitive models of Web search behavior: introducing epistemic scent into information foraging theory. Poster presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Golder, S., and Huberman, B. A. The Structure of Collaborative Tagging Systems. Journal of Information Sciences 32, 2 (2006), 198--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Halpin, H., Robu, V., and Shepherd, H. The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging. In Proc. WWW '07, ACM Press (2007), 211--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Held, C., and Cress, U. Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht. In Good Tags-Bad Tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation, B. Gaiser, T. Hampel, and S. Panke, Eds. Waxmann, Münster, 2008, 37--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Held, C., and Cress, U. Using the Social of Tagging: The Interplay of Social Tags and the Strength of Association in Navigation and Learning Processes. In Proc. COGSCI 2010, Cognitive Science Society (2010), 784--789.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang, R, Fu, W.-T., Kannampalli, T. G. Exploiting Knowledge-in-the-head and Knowledge-in-the-social-Web: Effects of domain expertise on exploratory search in individual and social search environments. In Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press (2010), 393--402. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Körner, C., Benz, D., Strohmaier, M., Hotho, A., and Stumme, G. Stop thinking, start tagging - tag semantics emerge from collaborative verbosity. In Proc. WWW 2010, ACM-press (2010), 521--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D., and Davis, M. HT06, Tagging Paper, Taxonomy, Flickr, Academic Article, To Read. In Proc. HYPERTEXT 2006, ACMPress (2006), 31--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Miller, G. A. WordNet: a lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM 38, 11 (1995), 39--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Moshagen, M. multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods 42, 1 (2010). 42--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Nelson, D. L., Goodmon, L. B., and Akirmak, U. Implicitly activated memories are associated to general context cues. Memory & Cognition 35, 8 (2007), 1878--1891.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Nelson, L., Held, C., Pirolli, P., Hong, L., Schiano, D., and Chi, E. H. With a little help from my friends: examining the impact of social annotations in sensemaking tasks. In Proc. CHI09, ACM Press (2009), 1795--1798. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L. and Schreiber, T. A. The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms (1998). http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson, D. L., McKinney, V. M., Gee, N. R., and Janczura, G. A. Interpreting the Influence of Implicitly Activated Memories on Recall and Recognition. Psychological Review 105, 2 (1998), 299--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Picasa http://picasa.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Rader, E., and Wash, R. Influences on tag choices in del.icio.us. In Proc. CSCW08, ACM-press (2008), 239--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Schmitz, C., Grahl, M., Hotho, A., Stumme, G., Catutto, C., Baldassarri, A., Loreto, V., and Servedio, V. D. P. Network Properties of Folksonomies. In Proc. WWW 2007, ACM-Press (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Schrammel, J., Leitner, M., Tscheligi, M. Semantically structured tag clouds: an empirical evaluation of clustered presentation approaches. In Proc. CHI09. ACM Press, New York (2009), 2037--2040. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Seitlinger, P., and Ley, T. Implicit and explicit memory in social tagging: evidence from a process dissociation procedure. In Proc ECCE 2011, ACM-Press (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Sen, S., Lam, S.K., Rashid, A. M., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Osterhouse, J., Harper, F. M., and Riedl, J. tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. In Proc. CSCW06, ACM-press (2006), 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Shen, K., and L. Wu, L. Folksonomy as a complex network. In Proc. Workshop Series on Knowledge in Social Software, 2005. http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0509072Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Yonelinas, A. P. The nature of recollection and familiarity: a review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language 46, 3 (2002), 441--517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Implicit imitation in social tagging: familiarity and semantic reconstruction

        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
          CHI '12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 2012
          3276 pages
          ISBN:9781450310154
          DOI:10.1145/2207676

          Copyright © 2012 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: 5 May 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

          Upcoming Conference

          CHI '24
          CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 11 - 16, 2024
          Honolulu , HI , USA

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader