skip to main content
10.1145/2858036.2858175acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Supporting Opportunities for Context-Aware Social Matching: An Experience Sampling Study

Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Mobile social matching systems aim to bring people together in the physical world by recommending people nearby to each other. Going beyond simple similarity and proximity matching mechanisms, we explore a proposed framework of relational, social and personal context as predictors of match opportunities to map out the design space of opportunistic social matching systems. We contribute insights gained from a study combining Experience Sampling Method (ESM) with 85 students of a U.S. university and interviews with 15 of these participants. A generalized linear mixed model analysis (n=1704) showed that personal context (mood and busyness) as well as sociability of others nearby are the strongest predictors of contextual match interest. Participant interviews suggest operationalizing relational context using social network rarity and discoverable rarity, and incorporating skill level and learning/teaching needs for activity partnering. Based on these findings we propose passive context-awareness for opportunistic social matching.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Gregory D. Abowd, Anind K. Dey, Peter J. Brown, Nigel Davies, Mark Smith, and Pete Steggles. 1999. Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context-Awareness. In Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, Hans-W. Gellersen (ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 304--307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Rebecca G. Adams and Graham Allan. 1998. Placing Friendship in Context. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Louise Barkhuus and Anind Dey. 2003. Is ContextAware Computing Taking Control Away from the User? Three Levels of Interactivity Examined. In Proceedings of Ubicomp 2003, Springer, 149--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Louise Barkhuus and Paul Dourish. 2004. Everyday Encounters with Context-Aware Computing in a Campus Environment. In UbiComp 2004: Ubiquitous Computing, Nigel Davies, Elizabeth D. Mynatt and Itiro Siio (eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 232--249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Beach, M. Gartrell, S. Akkala, et al. 2008. WhozThat? evolving an ecosystem for context-aware mobile social networks. IEEE Network 22, 4: 50--55. http://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2008.4579771 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Donn Byrne and Don Nelson. 1965. Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive reinforcements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1, 6: 659--663. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0022073Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Guanling Chen and David Kotz. 2000. A Survey of Context-Aware Mobile Computing Research. Technical Report TR2000-381, Dartmouth Computer Science. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sunny Consolvo and Miriam Walker. 2003. Using the Experience Sampling Method to Evaluate Ubicomp Applications. IEEE Pervasive Computing 2, 2: 24--31. http://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2003.1203750 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Deborah Davis. 1981. Implications for interaction versus effectance as mediators of the similarityattraction relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 17, 1: 96--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Anind K. Dey. 2001. Understanding and Using Context. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 5, 1: 4--7. http://doi.org/10.1007/s007790170019 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Paul Dourish. 2004. What We Talk About when We Talk About Context. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 8, 1: 19--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Nathan Eagle and Alex Pentland. 2005. Social serendipity: mobilizing social software. IEEE Pervasive Computing 4, 2: 28--34. http://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2005.37 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J R Eiser, M Morgan, P Gammage, N Brooks, and R Kirby. 1991. Adolescent health behaviour and similarity-attraction: friends share smoking habits (really), but much else besides. The British journal of social psychology / the British Psychological Society 30 ( Pt 4): 339--348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Scott Feld and William C. Carter. 1998. Foci of Activity as Changing Contexts for Friendship. In Placing Friendship in Context. Cambridge Univsersity Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Claude S. Fischer. 1977. Networks and places: social relations in the urban setting. Free Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Steve Harrison and Paul Dourish. 1996. Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, ACM, 67--76. http://doi.org/10.1145/240080.240193 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Quentin Jones, Sukeshini A. Grandhi, Samer Karam, Steve Whittaker, Changqing Zhou, and Loren Terveen. 2008. Geographic 'Place' and 'Community Information? Preferences. Journal Computer Supported Cooperative Work 17, 2--3: 137--167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Quentin Jones, Sukeshini A. Grandhi, Loren Terveen, and Steve Whittaker. 2004. People-to-People-toGeographical-Places: The P3 Framework for LocationBased Community Systems. Compututer Supported Cooperative Work: Journal of Collaborative Computing 13, 3--4: 249--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Matthijs Kalmijn and Henk Flap. 2001. Assortative Meeting and Mating: Unintended Consequences of Organized Settings for Partner Choices. Social Forces 79, 4: 1289--1312.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Reed Larson and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1983. The Experience Sampling Method. New Directions for Methodology of Social & Behavioral Science 15: 41--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Natasha Lomas. 2013. Stop Trying To Make Proximity-Based Social Networking Happen. TechCrunch. Retrieved September 23, 2015 from http://social.techcrunch.com/2013/07/23/location-vscommunication/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Peter V. Marsden. 1990. Network Diversity, Substructures, and Opportunities for Contact. In Structures of Power and Constraint. Cambridge University Press, 397--410.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Julia M. Mayer, Starr Roxanne Hiltz, and Quentin Jones. 2015. Making Social Matching Context-Aware: Design Concepts and Open Challenges. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 545--554. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Julia M. Mayer and Quentin Jones. 2016. Encount'r: Exploring Passive Context-Awareness for Opportunistic Social Matching. CSCW Companion 2016 Proceedings of the companion publication of the 19th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing, ACM. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2818052.28690 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Julia M. Mayer, Quentin Jones, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz. 2015. Identifying Opportunities for Valuable Encounters: Toward Context-Aware Social Matching Systems. ACM Transaction of Information Systems 34, 1: 1:1--1:32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Julia M. Mayer, Sara Motahari, Richard P. Schuler, and Quentin Jones. 2010. Common attributes in an unusual context: predicting the desirability of a social match. Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, ACM, 337--340. Retrieved January 25, 2013 from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1864708.1864781 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415--444. http://doi.org/10.2307/2678628Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Gerald Mollenhorst, Beate Volker, and Henk Flap. 2014. Changes in personal relationships: How social contexts affect the emergence and discontinuation of relationships. Social Networks 37: 65--80. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.12.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Rebekah Nathan. 2006. My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student. Penguin Books, NY, N.Y.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Lisa M. Osbeck, Fathali M. Moghaddam, and Stephane Perreault. 1997. Similarity and attraction among majority and minority groups in a multicultural context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 21, 1: 113--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Per Persson and Younghee Jung. 2005. Nokia sensor: from research to product. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Designing for User eXperience, AIGA: American Institute of Graphic Arts. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Robert D. Putnam. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Thomas J. Scheff. 1994. Microsociology: Discourse, Emotion, and Social Structure. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press. http://doi.org/10.2307/2579932Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Bill N. Schilit and Marvin M. Theimer. 1994. Disseminating active map information to mobile hosts. IEEE Network 8, 5: 22--32. http://doi.org/10.1109/65.313011 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Michael Terry and Elizabeth D. Mynatt. 2002. Social Net: Using Patterns of Physical Proximity Over Time to Infer Shared Interests. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2002, ACM Press, 816--817. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Loren Terveen and David W. McDonald. 2005. Social matching: A framework and research agenda. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interactions 12, 3: 401--434. http://doi.org/10.1145/1096737.1096740 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Yi-Fu Tuan. 1977. Space and Place: the perspective of experience. University of MN press, Minneapolis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Sherry Turkle. 2011. Alone together why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Paula Wilcox, Sandra Winn, and Marylynn Fyvieff Gauld. 2005. "It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people": the role of social support in the first-year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education 30, 6: 707--722. http://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500340036Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Robert B. Zajonc. 1968. Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9, 2, Pt.2: 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Supporting Opportunities for Context-Aware Social Matching: An Experience Sampling Study

    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 '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2016
      6108 pages
      ISBN:9781450333627
      DOI:10.1145/2858036

      Copyright © 2016 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: 7 May 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate565of2,435submissions,23%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