The Influence of the Valence and Evaluation Type of Social Feedback on Game Streamers’ Emotion, Attention, and Performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For social interaction on streaming platforms, chat feedback is a primary means for real-time engagement and expression of opinions. Given that social media is prone to stress by promoting social comparison, this study investigated how the valence and evaluation type of chat feedback influences streamers’ emotions, attention, and performance. In an online game-streaming context, participants engaged in a shooting game while receiving real-time chat feedback of different valence (negative, positive) and evaluation types (comparative, general). The results revealed that receiving negative feedback led to experiencing higher anxiety and lower self-efficacy and social support. Furthermore, comparative feedback negatively affected game performance and attracted more attention to the feedback. Interestingly, the tendency of comparative feedback to capture more attention was stronger when the valence was negative. These findings contribute to understanding the influence of social feedback on emotions and behavior and provide valuable insights for improving the user experience and performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it