Psychological Barriers and Facilitators in Online Support Exchange
The Interplay of Psychological Discomforts of Asking for Help,
Community Belonging, Confidence in Giving and Getting Support in Shaping Future Participation
Deliverables
Timeline
September 2023 — January 2024
My Role
Developed hypotheses based on literature review
Designed app prototypes with Adobe XD
Designed survey questions based on literature review using Qualtrics
Performed and validated structural equation modeling and linear mixed-effects models with and without interaction terms using the SEMinR and the nlme package
Ideated design recommendations
Problems
Online support exchange platforms face a relative lack of support requests due to psychological discomforts associated with asking for help, calling for designs that can encourage help-seeking behaviors
Interactions in online support exchange is intracommunal, but how self-effcacy, collective effcacy, and a sense of community belonging affect future participation is unknown
The visibility of user-generated content can influence distress disclosing behaviors [1], but its impact on psychological discomfort of asking for help is unknown
Support seekers offer a sense of self-worth and rewarding experiences to helpers, but the value of seeking and accepting help is often overlooked
[1] Pengfei Zhao, Matthew A Lapierre, Stephen A Rains, and Chris Segrin. 2021. When and why we disclose distress on SNSs: Perceived affordances, disclosure goals, and anticipated negative evaluations. Computers in Human Behavior 125 (2021), 106964.
What psychological factors affect future participation in online support exchange platforms?
How does the visibility of support requests affect psychological discomfort of asking for help?
How does the support seeker's value recognition affect psychological discomfort of asking for help?
Hypotheses
Confidence in Getting and Giving Support
H1: Confidence in getting support is positively associated with future willingness to seek support within the group
Lower confidence in getting support may lead to reduced inclination to seek help, based on the Behavioral Theory of Reasoned Action
📘 the Behavioral Theory of Reasoned Action:
An individual's behavioral intention is based on their beliefs about the outcomes of that behavior
H2: Confidence in giving support is positively associated with future willingness to seek support within the group
Individuals feel obligated to reciprocate aid received [1]
May opt out of seeking or accepting help to avoid the potential negative emotions if they feel they cannot reciprocate [2, 3]
[1] Edwina S Uehara. 1995. Reciprocity reconsidered: Gouldner’s moral norm of reciprocity and social support. Journal of social and personal relationships 12, 4 (1995), 483–502
[2] Airi Lampinen. 2021. Reciprocity and Indebtedness. In The Trouble with Sharing: Interpersonal Challenges in Peer-to-Peer Exchange. Springer, 33–46
[3] Emmi Suhonen, Airi Lampinen, Coye Cheshire, and Judd Antin. 2010. Everyday favors: a case study of a local online gift exchange system. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work. 11–20
H3: Confidence in getting support is positively associated with future willingness to give support within the group
Fear of exploitation by freeloaders may discourage offering help if individuals doubt receiving help in return, impacting their willingness to give support within the group [1, 2, 3]
[1] Jenny Onyx and Paul Bullen. 2000. Measuring social capital in five communities. The journal of applied behavioral science 36, 1 (2000), 23–42
[2] Gerald Marwell and Ruth E Ames. 1979. Experiments on the provision of public goods. I. Resources, interest, group size, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of sociology 84, 6 (1979), 1335–1360.
[3] Catherine M Ridings, David Gefen, and Bay Arinze. 2002. Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The journal of strategic information systems 11, 3-4 (2002), 271–295.
H4: Confidence in giving support is positively associated with future willingness to give support within the group
Support self-efficacy, reflecting perceived abilities to offer effective support, influences individuals' willingness and effort to provide support [1, 2, 3]
[1] Deborah E Gibbons and Laurie R Weingart. 2001. Can I do it? Will I try? Personal efficacy, assigned goals, and performance norms as motivators of individual performance 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, 3 (2001), 624–648
[2] Kelly R Rossetto, Pamela J Lannutti, and Rachel A Smith. 2014. Investigating self-efficacy and emotional challenge as contributors to willingness to provide emotional support. Southern Communication Journal 79, 1 (2014), 41–58.
[3] Dale H Schunk. 1995. Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of applied sport psychology 7, 2 (1995), 112–137
Hypotheses
Social Costs of Seeking Support
Seeking support entails social costs due to the nature of interpersonal interactions
Incompetence Concerns
the cost of acknowledging incompetence [1, 2]
[1] Fiona Lee. 1997. When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in organizations. Organizationalbehavior and human decision processes 72, 3 (1997), 336–363
[2] Fiona Lee. 2002. The social costs of seeking help. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 38, 1 (2002), 17–35.
Dependence Concerns
the cost of acknowledging dependence [1, 2, 3]
[1] Victoria ME Bellotti, Sara Cambridge, Karen Hoy, Patrick C Shih, Lisa Renery Handalian, Kyungsik Han, and John M Carroll. 2014. Towards community-centered support for peer-to-peer service exchange: rethinking the timebanking metaphor. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2975–2984
[2] Fiona Lee. 1997. When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in organizations. Organizationalbehavior and human decision processes 72, 3 (1997), 336–363
[3] Fiona Lee. 2002. The social costs of seeking help. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 38, 1 (2002), 17–35
Social Image Concerns
the cost of harming self-image [1, 2]
[1] Bella M DePaulo and Jeffrey D Fisher. 1980. The costs of asking for help. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1, 1 (1980), 23–35
[2] John B Williamson. 1974. The stigma of public dependency: A comparison of alternative forms of public aid to the poor. Social Problems 22, 2(1974), 213–228
Consideration Concerns
the cost of bothering others
[1] Kenneth J Gergen, Phoebe Ellsworth, Christina Maslach, and Magnus Seipel. 1975. Obligation, donor resources, and reactions to aid in threecultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, 3 (1975), 390
[2] Bella M DePaulo and Jeffrey D Fisher. 1980. The costs of asking for help. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1, 1 (1980), 23–35
H5a: Perceived social costs of seeking support decrease future willingness to seek support within the group
Social costs of seeking support can deter individuals from asking for help
H5b: Perceived social costs of seeking support decrease future willingness to seek support within the group through reduced confidence in getting support
If an individual believes support requests portray them as incompetent, overly dependent, or burdensome, they might doubt others' inclination to assist, thus eroding their confidence in receiving help
H5c: Perceived social costs of seeking support decrease future willingness to seek support within the group through reduced confidence in giving support
Those who regard their support requests as admissions of incompetence and dependence could have lower self-esteem and self-efficacy [1], leading them to doubt their capability to help others [2]; to avoid being stuck in indebtedness, they might be less willing to seek support [3, 4]
[1] Richard C Tessler and Shalom H Schwartz. 1972. Help seeking, self-esteem, and achievement motivation: an attributional analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology 21, 3 (1972), 318
[2] Erina L MacGeorge, Bo Feng, Ginger L Butler, Jennifer L Dane, and Stacey A Passalacqua. 2005. Sex differences in goals for supportive interactions. Communication Studies 56, 1 (2005), 23–46
[3] Airi Lampinen. 2021. Reciprocity and Indebtedness. In The Trouble with Sharing: Interpersonal Challenges in Peer-to-Peer Exchange. Springer, 33–46 [4] Emmi Suhonen, Airi Lampinen, Coye Cheshire, and Judd Antin. 2010. Everyday favors: a case study of a local online gift exchange system. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work. 11–20
H6a: Perceived social costs of seeking support decrease future willingness to give support within the group
Individuals might perceive that in a high social cost environment, offering help may be less effective or appreciated
H6b: Perceived social costs of seeking support decrease future willingness to give support within the group through reduced confidence in getting support
Those who perceive the high social costs of asking for help can be less confident in getting support and might not envision themselves as future support recipients [1]
[1] Robyn M Dawes, Jeanne McTavish, and Harriet Shaklee. 1977. Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in acommons dilemma situation. Journal of personality and social psychology 35, 1 (1977), 1
H6c: Perceived social costs of seeking support decrease future willingness to give support within the group through reduced confidence in giving support
Individuals who perceive high social costs of asking for help can have lower confidence in giving support and be less willingness to give support [1, 2, 3]
[1] Deborah E Gibbons and Laurie R Weingart. 2001. Can I do it? Will I try? Personal efficacy, assigned goals, and performance norms as motivators of individual performance 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, 3 (2001), 624–648
[2] Kelly R Rossetto, Pamela J Lannutti, and Rachel A Smith. 2014. Investigating self-efficacy and emotional challenge as contributors to willingness to provide emotional support. Southern Communication Journal 79, 1 (2014), 41–58.
[3] Dale H Schunk. 1995. Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of applied sport psychology 7, 2 (1995), 112–137
Hypotheses
Community Belonging
H7a: Perceived community belonging increases future willingness to seek support within the group
People find it easier to seek help from people they share stronger emotional and interpersonal bonds [1, 2]
[1] Sebastian Deri, Daniel H Stein, and Vanessa K Bohns. 2019. With a little help from my friends (and strangers): Closeness as a moderator of the underestimation-of-compliance effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019), 6–15
[2] Earnest Wheeler and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2018. Navigating the job search as a low-resourced job seeker. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–10
H7b: Perceived community belonging increases future willingness to seek support within the group through reduced confidence in getting support
Individuals expect empathy and a favorable response to their requests for help from people they have stronger bonds with [1]
[1] E Gary Shapiro. 1980. Is seeking help from a friend like seeking help from a stranger? Social Psychology Quarterly (1980), 259–263
H7c: Perceived community belonging increases future willingness to seek support within the group through reduced confidence in giving support
When people view others as those they will interact with frequently, their belief in opportunities to reciprocate increases, enhancing their confidence in giving support
H8a: Perceived community belonging increases future willingness to give support within the group
A sense of belonging positively affects willingness to provide goods and services [1, 2]
[1] David W McMillan and David M Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of community psychology 14, 1 (1986), 6–23
[2] Patricia Quirós and Stanislav Chankov. 2021. What inspires us to “share”? Motives to provide goods and services in the sharing economy. (2021)
H8b: Perceived community belonging increases future willingness to give support within the group through reduced confidence in giving support
A sense of belonging can increase an individual's perceived own capacity to make contributions to the community [1, 2]
[1] John M Carroll and Mary Beth Rosson. 2003. A trajectory for community networks. Information Society 19, 5 (2003), 381–394
[2] Alejandro Portes. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual review of sociology 24, 1 (1998), 1–24
H8c: Perceived community belonging increases future willingness to give support within the group through reduced confidence in getting support
Individuals with stronger community belonging feel that the community can meet their needs [1] and have stronger collective efficacy [2]
[1] David W McMillan and David M Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of community psychology 14, 1 (1986), 6–23
[2] John M Carroll, Mary Beth Rosson, and Jingying Zhou. 2005. Collective efficacy as a measure of community. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conferenceon human factors in computing systems. 1–10
Hypotheses
Interaction Effects of Social Costs of Seeking Support and Community Belonging
H9a: There is an interaction effect of perceived social costs of seeking support and community belonging on future willingness to seek support within the group
Developing a sense of connection is effective in alleviating concerns about social and psychological costs [1]
(e.g., expect less negative judgements [2, 3])
[1] Thomas J Allen et al. 1984. Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within theR&D organization. MIT Press Books 1 (1984)
[2] Silvia Dominguez. 2011. Getting ahead: Social mobility, public housing, and immigrant networks. NYU Press
[3] Debra Winter and Chuck Huff. 1996. Adapting the Internet: Comments from a women-only electronic forum. The American Sociologist 27, 1 (1996), 30–54.
H9a: There is an interaction effect of perceived social costs of seeking support and community belonging on future willingness to give support within the group
Although individuals can perceive that support requests can be burdensome, attachment to the community can increase dedication to the community [1]
[1] David W McMillan and David M Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of community psychology 14, 1 (1986), 6–23
H9c: There is an interaction effect of perceived social costs of seeking support and community belonging on confidence in getting support within the group
An increased sense of community belonging can increase the perceived social capital from which they can expect support in the future [1, 2]
[1] Robert D Putnam. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and schuster
[2] John M Carroll, Mary Beth Rosson, and Jingying Zhou. 2005. Collective efficacy as a measure of community. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–10
H9d: There is an interaction effect of perceived social costs of seeking support and community belonging on confidence in giving support within the group
Community belonging can strengthen individuals' belief that they can contribute to the community [1]
[1] John M Carroll and Mary Beth Rosson. 2003. A trajectory for community networks. Information Society 19, 5 (2003), 381–394
Research Question
How do different levels of support request visibility affect the perceived social costs of seeking support?
Three different levels of support request visibility:
Private Requests
(Lowest Visibility)
(Lowest Visibility)
Support seekers fill out their details (e.g., contact information and needs) in standardized templates
Moderators review submitted requests and match support seekers with helpers
Public Indirect Requests
(Moderate Visibility)
(Moderate Visibility)
Support seekers communicate their needs to moderators, who then disseminate this information to other community members
Public Direct Requests
(High Visibility)
(High Visibility)
Individuals directly post and ask for their needs from the community
Highly Visible Requests 👎
Fear of judgments and threats to social images [1]
Increased perceived stigma from a broader audience [2]
→ Less visible and indirect channels (e.g., messengers) are preferred over public ones (e.g., timelines) [3]
[1] Daniel Eisenberg, Marilyn F Downs, Ezra Golberstein, and Kara Zivin. 2009. Stigma and help seeking for mental health among college students. Medical Care Research and Review 66, 5 (2009), 522–541
[2] Jennifer G Kim, Kristen Vaccaro, Karrie Karahalios, and Hwajung Hong. 2017. "Not by Money Alone" Social Support Opportunities in MedicalCrowdfunding Campaigns. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM CSCW. 1997–2009
[3] Soon Ang, Larry L Cummings, Detmar W Straub, and P Christopher Earley. 1993. The effects of information technology and the perceived mood of the feedback giver on feedback seeking. Information Systems Research 4, 3 (1993), 240
Highly Visible Requests 👍
Can see others' supportive interactions and normalize help-seeking behaviors, mitigating the perceived social costs of asking for support
Research Question
How do different levels of support seeker's value recognition affect the perceived social costs of seeking support?
The value of being a recipient of others' contributions is often underestimated [1, 2]
The source of acknowledgment, whether from the system or directly from the helper, can have different effects
[1] Joey Chiao-Yin Hsiao, Sylvia Darling, and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2023. How Recent Migrants Develop Trust Through Community Commerce: The Emergence of Sociotechnical Adaptation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–24
[2] Airi Lampinen, Vilma Lehtinen, Coye Cheshire, and Emmi Suhonen. 2013. Indebtedness and reciprocity in local online exchange. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 661–672
Methodology
Designing scenarios and Interventions
Scenarios
9 scenarios requiring different types of support (e.g., needing a ride)
Asked participants to write a message seeking help for each scenario in the given support request interfaces
Ensured all the scenarios represented moderately stressful situations and asked participants to measure the perceived level of stress for each scenario on 10-point Likert scales (mean: 6.5–6.94, SD: 1.62–1.91) (overall mean: 6.75, overall SD: 1.77)
Interventions for Support Requests Visibility
Highly Visible, Moderately Visible, and Less Visible Interventions
Interventions for the Recipient's Value Recognition
Recipient's value recognition from the system and from the support provider
Methodology
Conducting the Survey Study
Conducted using Qualtrics and utilized its feature to prevent multiple submissions
The survey link was shared on Facebook's local neighbor support groups in the United States, with a prior approval from the group moderators
To deter bot entries, a reCAPTCHA and a honeypot question were included
Screening questions to excluded those who are (1) not in any neighbor support group, (2) under 18, and (3) outside the United States
Participants were shown one of three support request interfaces for each scenario
→ Asked to write a message asking for help
→ Directed to a page indicating that their request was met
→ Presented with either one of two recognition interfaces or none
→ Completed a main questionnaire that measures perceive social costs, community belonging, confidence in giving and getting support, future willingness to seek and give supportThe sample included 93 participants, consisting of 47 males and 46 females; 76% self-identified as Caucasian/White; 64% had at least a two-year college degree; 57% were aged between 18 and 24; and 42% had a household income ranging from $50,000 to $74,999
Methodology
Structural Equation Model
Used Partial-least Squares SEM to test the hypotheses as it:
does not require large sample sizes, accepts non-normally distributed data [1]
is useful for examining a phenomenon where theory is under or undeveloped [2]95% confidence intervals judging the statistically significant difference between detected path coefficients and zero with 5000 bootstrap subsamples [3]
A power analysis to determine the required number of participants: 48 observations to achieve a statistical power of 80% for detecting R2 values of at least 0.25 with a 5% probability of error [4]
[1] Wynne W Chin, Barbara L Marcolin, and Peter R Newsted. 2003. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information systems research 14, 2 (2003), 189–217
[2] Wynne W Chin et al . 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research 295, 2 (1998), 295–336
[3] Joseph F Hair, Jeffrey J Risher, Marko Sarstedt, and Christian M Ringle. 2019. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Europeanbusiness review 31, 1 (2019), 2–24
[4] Joe Hair Jr, Joseph F Hair Jr, G Tomas M Hult, Christian M Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2021. A primer on partial least squares structural equationmodeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications
Methodology
Linear Mixed-effects Model
To answer RQ1 and RQ2
Random Effects: our participants
Control Variables: gender, age, household income, perceived level of stress, frequency and duration of past participation in P2P SE groups, and the frequency of seeking and giving support in such groups
Independent Variables: Levels of support request visibility & Levels of recipient's value recognition
Dependent Variables: Overall Perceived Social Costs, Incompetence Concerns, Independence Concerns, Social Image Concerns, Consideration Concerns
Methodology
Thematic Analysis of Survey Responses
We individually performed open coding on composed support request messages, made an affinity diagram to group codes and create themes, and collectively generated a codebook
Findings
Structural Equation Modeling
We assessed our structural equation model before the analysis based on:
Internal Consistency Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha
A value of 0.7 or above
Composite Reliability
A value of 0.7 or above
Convergent Validity
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
A value of 0.5 or greater
Factor Loadings
A value of 0.7 or above
Discriminant Validity
the Fornell–Larcker Criterion
the square root of the AVE value of each construct > correlation with other constructs
Interaction Effects of Social Cost and Community Belonging on Confidence in Getting Support
Interaction Effects of Social Cost and Community Belonging on Confidence in Giving Support
Interaction Effects of Social Cost and Community Belonging on Willingness to Seek Support
Interaction Effects of Social Cost and Community Belonging on Willingness to Give Support
Findings
Linear Mixed-Effect Models
Getting the support seeker's value recognition decreased Overall Social Costs, Social Image and Independence Concerns
Findings
Writing Support Requests
1/ Concerns about imposing burden on the helper were reflected, most prevalent in highly visible condition (n=17) than moderate (n=11) or low visibility (n=14)
“Apologies for any inconveniences this will cause anyone willing to support” [P2]
“sorry for being a bother” [P49]
2/ Tokens of appreciation were offered consistently across all visibility conditions (n=3 for high, n=3 for moderate, and n=4 for low)
“I’m happy to provide...monetary compensation for your time” [P50]
“I’d be happy to return the favor if you ever need help in the future” [P57]
3/ Only one participant articulated an understanding of generalized reciprocity by committing to pay it forward to others
“I understand that mutual aid is about supporting one another in times of need, and I am willing to offer my time and skills in return for any assistance provided” [P28]
Implications
Facilitators and Barriers in P2P SE Support Dynamics
The Role of Confidence in Enhancing Support Exchange Willingness
Confidence in giving support (𝛽=.283) has stronger effect than confidence in getting support (𝛽 =.260)
Confidence in giving support (𝛽=.306) has stronger effect than confidence in getting support (𝛽=.258)
Recommendation
Enhancing individuals’ self-efficacy, confidence in giving support, in contributing to the community could be a more effective strategy in facilitating support exchanges
Perceived Social Costs of Seeking Support: Amplifying Detriments in Support Exchange Dynamics
Perceived social costs of seeking support negatively affect all confidence in getting and giving support and willingness to seek and give support
An even stronger negative impact on willingness to give support than on willingness to seek support (total effect: .166 vs. -.152)
Recommendation
Interventions aimed at reducing perceived social costs can significantly enhance support exchange dynamics
Community Belonging as a Catalyst: Counteracting Social Costs and Enhancing Support Dynamics
Confidence of belonging positively affect all confidence in getting and giving support and willingness to seek and give support
Community Belonging → Confidence in Giving Support → Willingness to Seek Support (𝛽=.173)
Community Belonging → Confidence in Getting Support → Willingness to Seek Support (𝛽=.148)
Community Belonging → Confidence in Giving Support → Willingness to Give Support (𝛽=.187)
Community Belonging → Confidence in Getting Support → Willingness to Give Support (𝛽=.147)
Recommendation
Enhancing individuals’ self-efficacy in contributing to the community could be a more effective strategy in facilitating support exchanges
Interaction effects of community belonging and perceived social costs of seeking support suggest that:
Fostering community belonging can counteract the detrimental impacts of perceived social cost on support exchanges
Implications
The Role of Recipient Value Recognition in Social Costs of Seeking Support
Recipient Value Recognition: Encouraging Support Requests from Recipients, Helpers, and Lurkers
Acknowledgement for requesting support can reduce perceived social costs
This effect was more significant when recognition came from the helper than from the system, probably due to perceived authenticity
Future Implications
Do more personalized recognition messages (e.g., appreciating the recipient for assisting the helper to get rid of furniture) further reduce perceived social costs?
Do designs that can increase the genuineness of such recognition (e.g., virtual thank-you cards) further reduce perceived social costs?
What are nudge strategies that effectively encourage the helper to acknowledge the recipient’s value without overburdening them?
LLM could suggest customized recognition messages tailored to the specific support exchange experience and suggest the helper to send them. Reading and sending such messages can remind the helper of the value the requester brings and motivate the helper to become the support seeker as well
An option to publicly share to the community the value recognition the support requester received can motivate lurkers to seek support
Reframing Support Seeking: Transforming Social Image and Fostering Mutual Interdependence
We assume that our intervention of support seeker's value recognition effectively reduced dependence concerns, as they contained a message that "Prosocial cycles in mutual aid continue, thanks to people asking for help"
This statement reframes help-seeking behaviors as valuable contributions that sustain positive interactions within the community, not only meeting individual needs but also fostering broader social collaboration
The message redefines support requests as integral to mutual interdependence rather than a sign of personal inadequacy, possibly overturning the negative perception associated with dependence
Recommendation
Future designs for the recipient value recognition can incorporate similar messages to help support seekers realize their positive impacts on the community
Dependence concerns are tied to power dynamics, with help-seeking behaviors potentially perceived as a loss of power
Recommendation
The reconceptualization as initiators and joiners can be borrowed from the coproduction framing [1] to weaken hierarchical power dynamics between recipients and helpers
Future designs for support requests could prompt users, e.g., “What rewarding/positive experience/interactions are you seeking to initiate?” instead of “What kind of support do you need?”
Similarly, notifications that alert others’ interests in offering support can be, e.g., “[Name] wants to join the interaction you initiated” rather than “[Name] wants to provide you support”
[1] John M Carroll, Jiawei Chen, Chien Wen Tina Yuan, and Benjamin V Hanrahan. 2016. In search of coproduction: Smart services as reciprocal activities. Computer 49, 7 (2016), 26–32.