Exploring Moral Principles Exhibited in OSS: A Case Study on GitHub Heated Issues
Pages 2092 - 2096
Abstract
To foster collaboration and inclusivity in Open Source Software (OSS) projects, it is crucial to understand and detect patterns of toxic language that may drive contributors away, especially those from underrepresented communities. Although machine learning-based toxicity detection tools trained on domain-specific data have shown promise, their design lacks an understanding of the unique nature and triggers of toxicity in OSS discussions, highlighting the need for further investigation. In this study, we employ Moral Foundations Theory to examine the relationship between moral principles and toxicity in OSS. Specifically, we analyze toxic communications in GitHub issue threads to identify and understand five types of moral principles exhibited in text, and explore their potential association with toxic behavior. Our preliminary findings suggest a possible link between moral principles and toxic comments in OSS communications, with each moral principle associated with at least one type of toxicity. The potential of MFT in toxicity detection warrants further investigation.
References
[1]
2022-11-10. GitHub’s Octoverse report finds 97% of apps use open source software. https://venturebeat.com/programming-development/github-releases-open-source-report-octoverse-2022-says-97-of-apps-use-oss/
[2]
Mohammad Atari, Aida M Davani, Drew Kogon, Brendan Kennedy, Nripsuta A Saxena, Ian A Anderson, and Morteza Dehghani. 2021. Morally Homogeneous Networks and Radicalism. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211059329
[3]
Ryan L Boyd, Ashwini Ashokkumar, Sarah Seraj, and James W Pennebaker. 2022. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
[4]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. arxiv:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
[5]
Fabio Calefato and Filippo Lanubile. 2022-07-31. Using Personality Detection Tools for Software Engineering Research: How Far Can We Go? 31, 3 (2022-07-31), 1–48. issn:1049-331X, 1557-7392
[6]
Preetha Chatterjee, Kostadin Damevski, and Lori Pollock. 2021. Automatic Extraction of Opinion-based Q&A from Online Developer Chats. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 1260–1272. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00115
[7]
Jithin Cheriyan, Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu, and Stephen Cranefield. 2021-06-21. Towards offensive language detection and reduction in four Software Engineering communities. In Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, 254–259. isbn:978-1-4503-9053-8 https://doi.org/10.1145/3463274.3463805
[8]
Carolyn D. Egelman, Emerson Murphy-Hill, Elizabeth Kammer, Margaret Morrow Hodges, Collin Green, Ciera Jaspan, and James Lin. 2020-10-01. Predicting developers’ negative feelings about code review. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, 174–185. isbn:978-1-4503-7121-6
[9]
Isabella Ferreira, Bram Adams, and Jinghui Cheng. 2022-05-23. How heated is it? Understanding GitHub locked issues. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 309–320. arxiv:2204.00155 [cs].
[10]
Isabella Ferreira, Jinghui Cheng, and Bram Adams. 2021-10-13. The "Shut the f**k up" Phenomenon: Characterizing Incivility in Open Source Code Review Discussions. 5 (2021-10-13), 1–35. issn:2573-0142 arxiv:2108.09905 [cs].
[11]
Isabella Ferreira, Ahlaam Rafiq, and Jinghui Cheng. 2022-07-07. Incivility Detection in Open Source Code Review and Issue Discussions.
[12]
Jennifer Ferreira, Michael Glynn, David Hunt, Jaganath Babu, Denis Dennehy, and Kieran Conboy. 2019-08-20. Sentiment analysis of open source communities: an exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Open Collaboration (OpenSym ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, 1–5. isbn:978-1-4503-6319-8
[13]
Marco Gerosa, Igor Wiese, Bianca Trinkenreich, Georg Link, Gregorio Robles, Christoph Treude, Igor Steinmacher, and Anita Sarma. 2021. The Shifting Sands of Motivation: Revisiting What Drives Contributors in Open Source. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 1046–1058.
[14]
Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, Sena Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, Sean P Wojcik, and Peter H Ditto. 2013. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology. 47, Elsevier.
[15]
Jonathan Haidt. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological review, 108, 4 (2001), 814.
[16]
Jonathan Haidt and Craig Joseph. 2004. Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 4 (2004), 55–66.
[17]
Joe Hoover, Gwenyth Portillo-Wightman, Leigh Yeh, Shreya Havaldar, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Ying Lin, Brendan Kennedy, Mohammad Atari, Zahra Kamel, Madelyn Mendlen, Gabriela Moreno, Christina Park, Tingyee E. Chang, Jenna Chin, Christian Leong, Jun Yen Leung, Arineh Mirinjian, and Morteza Dehghani. 2020-11-01. Moral Foundations Twitter Corpus: A Collection of 35k Tweets Annotated for Moral Sentiment. 11, 8 (2020-11-01), 1057–1071. issn:1948-5506 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc
[18]
Mia Mohammad Imran, Yashasvi Jain, Preetha Chatterjee, and Kostadin Damevski. 2022. Data Augmentation for Improving Emotion Recognition in Software Engineering Communication. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE).
[19]
Brendan Kennedy, Preni Golazizian, Jackson Trager, Mohammad Atari, Joseph Hoover, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, and Morteza Dehghani. 2022. The (Moral) Language of Hate. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/eqp34
[20]
Sarah Lewis. 2015. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Health Promotion Practice, 16, 4 (2015), 473–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839915580941 arxiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839915580941.
[21]
Yvonna S. Lincoln and Egon G. Guba. 1985-04. Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE. isbn:978-0-8039-2431-4 Google-Books-ID: 2oA9aWlNeooC
[22]
Suman Kalyan Maity, Aishik Chakraborty, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2018-11-01. Opinion Conflicts: An Effective Route to Detect Incivility in Twitter. 2 (2018-11-01), 117:1–117:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274386
[23]
Courtney Miller, Sophie Cohen, Daniel Klug, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Christian Kästner. 2022. “Did You Miss My Comment or What?” Understanding Toxicity in Open Source Discussions. In 2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 710–722. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510003.3510111
[24]
Lorelli Nowell, Jill Norris, Deborah White, and Nancy Moules. 2017-10-03. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. 16 (2017-10-03).
[25]
Paola Pascual-Ferrá, Neil Alperstein, Daniel J Barnett, and Rajiv N Rimal. 2023-04-26. Toxicity and verbal aggression on social media: Polarized discourse on wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. 8, 1 (2023-04-26), 20539517211023533. issn:2053-9517 https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211023533 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
[26]
Clara Pretus, Jennifer L Ray, Yael Granot, William A Cunningham, and Jay J Van Bavel. 2018. The psychology of hate: Moral concerns differentiate hate from dislike. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x9y2p
[27]
Huilian Sophie Qiu, Yucen Lily Li, Susmita Padala, Anita Sarma, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. The Signals That Potential Contributors Look for When Choosing Open-Source Projects. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 3, CSCW (2019), Article 122, nov, 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359224
[28]
Huilian Sophie Qiu, Bogdan Vasilescu, Christian Kästner, Carolyn Egelman, Ciera Jaspan, and Emerson Murphy-Hill. 2022. Detecting Interpersonal Conflict in Issues and Code Review: Cross Pollinating Open- and Closed-Source Approaches. In 2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEIS55304.2022.9793879
[29]
Naveen Raman, Minxuan Cao, Yulia Tsvetkov, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2020. Stress and Burnout in Open Source: Toward Finding, Understanding, and Mitigating Unhealthy Interactions. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results (ICSE-NIER ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 57–60. isbn:9781450371261 https://doi.org/10.1145/3377816.3381732
[30]
Rezvaneh Rezapour, Ly Dinh, and Jana Diesner. 2021. Incorporating the measurement of moral foundations theory into analyzing stances on controversial topics. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media.
[31]
Rezvaneh Rezapour, Saumil H Shah, and Jana Diesner. 2019. Enhancing the measurement of social effects by capturing morality. In Proceedings of the tenth workshop on computational approaches to subjectivity, sentiment and social media analysis.
[32]
Amirali Sajadi, Kostadin Damevski, and Preetha Chatterjee. 2023. Interpersonal Trust in OSS: Exploring Dimensions of Trust in GitHub Pull Requests. In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (NIER Track) (ICSE ’23).
[33]
Arghavan Sanei, Jinghui Cheng, and Bram Adams. 2021-03-18. The Impacts of Sentiments and Tones in Community-Generated Issue Discussions. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.10615 arxiv:2103.10615 [cs].
[34]
Jaydeb Sarker, Asif Kamal Turzo, and Amiangshu Bosu. 2020. A Benchmark Study of the Contemporary Toxicity Detectors on Software Engineering Interactions. 2020 27th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 218–227.
[35]
Jaydeb Sarker, Asif Kamal Turzo, Ming Dong, and Amiangshu Bosu. 2022. Automated Identification of Toxic Code Reviews Using ToxiCR. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2202.13056
[36]
Amit Sheth, Valerie L. Shalin, and Ugur Kursuncu. 2021-04-21. Defining and Detecting Toxicity on Social Media: Context and Knowledge are Key. arxiv:2104.10788. arxiv:2104.10788
[37]
Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Conte, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and David Redmiles. 2015. Social Barriers Faced by Newcomers Placing Their First Contribution in Open Source Software Projects. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 1379–1392. isbn:9781450329224 https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675215
[38]
Parastou Tourani, Bram Adams, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017-02. Code of conduct in open source projects. In 2017 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2017.7884606
[39]
Harry C Triandis. 1989. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological review, 96, 3 (1989), 506.
[40]
Bianca Trinkenreich, Klaas-Jan Stol, Anita Sarma, Daniel M. German, Marco A. Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher. 2023-02-22. Do I Belong? Modeling Sense of Virtual Community Among Linux Kernel Contributors.
[41]
Sterre van Breukelen, Ann Barcomb, Sebastian Baltes, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2023. "STILL AROUND": Experiences and Survival Strategies of Veteran Women Software Developers. In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2023). arxiv:2302.03723.
[42]
Frenk van Mil, Ayushi Rastogi, and Andy Zaidman. 2021-07-15. Promises and Perils of Inferring Personality on GitHub. arxiv:2107.05829 [cs].
Index Terms
- Exploring Moral Principles Exhibited in OSS: A Case Study on GitHub Heated Issues
Recommendations
The uniqueness debate in computer ethics: What exactly is at issue, and why does it matter?
The purpose of this essay is to determine what exactly is meant by the claim computer ethics is unique, a position that will henceforth be referred to as the CEIU thesis. A brief sketch of the CEIU debate is provided, and an empirical case involving a recent ...
Moral luck and computer ethics: Gauguin in cyberspace
I argue that the problem of `moral luck' is an unjustly neglected topic within Computer Ethics. This is unfortunate given that the very nature of computer technology, its `logical malleability', leads to ever greater levels of complexity, unreliability ...
Case study: Molecular dynamics study on the ligand recognition by tandem SH3 domains of p47phox, regulating NADPH oxidase activity
The phagocyte NADPH oxidase complex plays a crucial role in host defense against microbial infection through the production of superoxides. Chronic granulomatous disease (CGD) is an inherited immune deficiency caused by the absence of certain components ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2023
2215 pages
ISBN:9798400703270
DOI:10.1145/3611643
- General Chair:
- Satish Chandra,
- Program Chairs:
- Kelly Blincoe,
- Paolo Tonella
Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 30 November 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ESEC/FSE '23
Sponsor:
ESEC/FSE '23: 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering
December 3 - 9, 2023
CA, San Francisco, USA
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 112 of 543 submissions, 21%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 101Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)76
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in