Understanding the Motivation of Contribution in Online Communities An Empirical Investigation of an Online Travel Community Youcheng Wang Daniel R. Fesenmaier National Laboratory for Tourism and eCommerce University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Champaign, Illinois USA
ABSTRACT This study intends to contribute to the understanding of online community by empirically answering the question of why community members are willing to making active contributions to their community. The relationships between members’ perceived importance of contribution motivation and their level of contribution in online communities are identified. In addition, the results of factor analysis and reliability tests indicate that the proposed conceptual framework is valid and can serve as a basis for the understanding of online community members’ motivation of contribution. The results of the regression analysis show that efficacy, instrumental, and expectancy have positive effects on level of contribution. Discussion and implications are provided based on the study results. INTRODUCTION With the emergence of networked technologies, communities exist as social networks of kin, friends, and workmates who do not necessarily live in the same neighborhoods (Wellman, 1998a, 1994). It is not that the world is a global village, but that one’s ‘village’ could span the globe. Thought the concept of community has been an old one which cut all through the evolution of human society, the emergence of computer-mediated community has generated a great deal of interest and enthusiasm among academic researchers (Wang, Yu, & Fesenmaier, forthcoming; Armstrong & Hagel, 1996; Kim, 2000; Rheingold, 1993; Werry, 1999) as well as business practitioners (Cothrel, 1999; Warms, Cothrel, & Underberg, 2000; Shafer, 2001), and different aspects of online community and its meaning, role, and impact have been highlighted. It is clear that online communities allow people to create a range of new social spaces in which to meet and interact with one another. Indeed, this phenomenon has provided a new line of experience – new people, new stories, comfort from fellow-travelers, and insights from different cultures. At the application level, online community has been depicted as central to models of commercial Internet development as well as to the future of narrow casting and mass customization in the wider world of marketing and advertising (Werry, 1999). Armstrong & Hagel (2000) also argue that traditional business functions such as marketing and sales will be significantly transformed in a community environment. It is believed that online community as a basic business model will increase in importance in the coming years as
the Internet becomes more pervasive in the new global economy (Bressler & Grantham, 2000). This fluid and dynamic revolution is also true in the travel industry where it is becoming easier than ever to ‘travel’ the world and to stay in touch with people who live far away. In the travel industry the Web is becoming a collective ‘travel square’ as more and more travelers are turning to online travel communities to fulfill their travel-related tasks, ranging from seeking and giving travel information and advice, making travel transactions, fostering relationships with people from far away, finding travel companions, or simply sharing travel stories with other peers (Wang, Yu, & Fesenmaier, forthcoming). At the same time, travel organizations are beginning to realize the importance of utilizing the power of online communities in their endeavor of relationship marketing and we see more and more such online travel communities emerging. However for such online communities to evolve and prosper, and for all the community members to benefit, the biggest challenge is to make certain that a large/balanced proportion of members in the community actively contribute to the community in various forms such as asking questions, providing information and expertise, sharing ideas, etc. Unfortunately, the benefits provided in online communities have the quality of public goods, which are goods that anyone might benefit from, regardless of whether they have helped contribute to their production. This can easily create the problem of free riding. An important starting point in designing/developing online tourist community is to gain an understanding of people’s motivation to participate based on the following questions: Why would anyone be willing to give away important information and valuable advice? What can explain the amount of cooperation that does occur in online communities? How should we get individuals to contribute to the provision of a public good despite the temptation to free ride? Thus, the goals of this study are: 1) To identify the fundamental motivations for online community members to contribute and measure these motivations using empirical data; and, 2) To identify and test the relationship between members’ motivation to contribute and their level of involvement in online communities. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Online communities exist within an environment which is: (1) a network; (2) digital and, (3) information (Kollock, 1999). Each of these three features drives important changes in terms of the costs to producing public goods, the value of the public goods, and the production function of the public goods. The specific effects of these changes will depend on what general motivations are driving the decision to contribute and cooperate. Researchers have tried to explain this phenomenon by using the theory of gift economy (Kollock, 1999) where a gift is defined as: (1) the obligatory transfer, (2) of inalienable objects or services, (3) between related and mutually obligated transactors (Mauss, 1935; Carrier, 1991). The underlying assumption is that a gift transaction involves a diffuse and usually unstated obligation to repay the gift at some future time. While gift giving as classically defined certainly occurs in the online communities, much of the help and sharing that occurs is actually different than traditional gift exchange. When people pass on free advice or offer useful information, the recipient is often unknown to them and the giver may never encounter the recipient again. Thus, the usual
obligation of a loose reciprocity between two specific individuals is difficult or impossible. Indeed, “gifts of information” and advice are often offered not to particular individuals, but to a group as a whole. However, others argue that while a balanced reciprocity with a particular individual may not be possible, there is a sense in which a balance might occur within a group as a whole. Ekeh (1974) called this kind of networkwide accounting system generalized exchange. The combination of the two arguments provide a feasible explanation for online community members to contribute: that is, the motivation is an anticipated reciprocity, and sometimes it is the case that reciprocity will occur within the group as a whole in a system of generalized exchange. Such a system in which accounts do not need to be kept continually and exact in balance has numerous potential benefits (Kollock, 1993). If a person shares actively and freely the group as a whole is better off having access to information and advice that no single person might match. Another motivation theory which can be used to explain the phenomenon of contribution to online communities is the self concept theory which consists of set of subtheories – social identity theory (Stryker, 1980, 1986; Tajfel & Turner, 1985), self presentation theory (Beach & Mitchell, 1990; Schlenker, 1985), and self efficacy theory (Bandura, 1982, 1986) and is fundamentally rooted in the concept of self. According to this theory the ideal self is derived by adopting the role expectations of reference groups. The individual behaves in ways which satisfy reference group members in order to satisfy their own needs of affiliation and power. In a virtual environment, high quality information, impressive technical details in one’s answers, a willingness to help others, and elegant writing can all work to increase one’s status and prestige in the community. Rheingold (1993) in his discussion of the WELL lists the desire for status and prestige as some of the key motivations of individuals’ contributions to the group. There is also a well-developed research literature that has shown how important a sense of efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1995), and making regular and high quality contribution to the group can help a person believe he/she has the impact on the group and support his/her own self-image as an efficacious person. In addition, this theory can also account attachment or commitment one can have to the community as a motivation to contribute. RESEARCH METHODS Questionnaire Development A list of possible motivations to contribute to online communities was tentatively identified based on an extensive literature review and synthesis of the theories of gift exchange and motivation discussed above. This preliminary list of motivations was reviewed at a graduate seminar where the students attending the seminar have a deep understanding about the concept of online communities, and many of them are even members of online communities of one type or another. Based on the discussion, a list of 20 motivations for contribution was finalized and a survey questionnaire was constructed. In this study a case study approach was used whereby members of a virtual tourism community were selected from a relatively large U.S. based travel community website with over 150,000 members. The survey questionnaire was first published on a Web server and a database was constructed to receive and store the online responses automatically. Access to the survey was obtained by providing a link on the front page of
the travel community website; in addition, members were contacted directly through a community newsletter by the hosting organization. In total 323 responses were received since the first publication of the survey questionnaire. Data Analysis Analyses were conducted using SPSS 10.1 and Amos 3.6 in order to: 1) Assess the characteristics of respondents in terms of their socio-demographic information; 2) Assess their perceived importance of members’ motivation for contribution; 3) Examine the relationship between the self-rated member classifications (i.e., tourist, mingler, devotee, and insider) and their motivation for contribution; and 4) Identify the relationship between members’ motivation for contribution and their involvement level. Specifically, descriptive analyses (frequency, cross tabulation, etc. were conducted to provide a basic understanding of the respondents); factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha were used to assess the structure of member’s motivation to contribute to online communities. Last, multiple regression analysis using Amos 3.6 was used to assess the importance of various independent variables in explaining variation in membership motivation. FINDINGS Profiles of respondents Among the 323 survey respondents, men and women are equally divided which is consistent with other studies on Internet usage. Approximately 73% of the respondents were in the age range of 21 – 50 years old. In terms of race/ethnicity, 82.3% of the respondents classified themselves as Caucasian/White. One obvious characteristic of the respondents is that the majority (85%) are highly educated (some college education or higher). When asked where they are located, the majority of respondents reported that they are either from Europe (40%) or USA (37.2%). Perceived Importance of Online Community Members’ Motivation for Contribution The respondents rated the perceived importance of 20 items related to community members’ motivations for contribution. Respondents rated ‘low cost of providing information’, ‘sharing enjoyment’, ‘gaining a sense of helpfulness to others’, ‘seeking/providing advice’, and ‘satisfying other members needs’ as the most important motivations. Interestingly, ‘finding friends/peers’, ‘enforcing service excellence’, ‘product suggestions/evaluations’, ‘enforcing service excellence’, ‘relationship building’, ‘controlling products/service quality’, ‘seeking future exchange from whom I provide help’, and ‘seeking future exchange from anybody in the community’ were not rated as important aspects/reasons for joining the virtual travel community. Factor Analysis and Construct Validation An exploratory factor analysis was conducted and five constructs were identified which was named nominally according to the nature of the elements under each factor: instrumental, expectancy, quality assurance, and efficacy and status. Then, confirmatory
factor analysis and reliability tests were conducted to evaluate the adequacy of each of the four constructs. Based on these tests, 17 out of the 20 items were retained in the final list. The factor structure appears robust and valid and acceptable coefficient alpha values were obtained for each of the respective constructs (Cronbach’s alpha = .92, .82, .90, .82, and .86 for instrumental, efficacy, quality assurance, status, and expectancy respectively). The results were further confirmed by the goodness-of- fit summary for the measurement models. The correlation matrix of the 17 motivation items and the results of factor analysis are presented in Table 1. Perceived Importance of Contribution Motivation
Perceived Importance
5 4 3 2
G ai ni ng
Lo w
co st s
of pr ov id in g
in fo rm at io n a S on se ha lin ns rin e e g of en he jo ym lp fu en ln Se es t ek s Sa to in g/ ot tis Pr he fy ov in rs g id ot in he g ad rm v ice em be rs Fi Pr 'n nd od ee in uc g ds ts fre ug in ds ge /p st ee En io ns rs fo /e rc va in g l ua se tio rv Se ns ice ek ex C in on Se Re ce g tro fu ek lle la tu tio llin ig nc re n ns e g fu ex pr hi tu p ch od re b an uc ui ex l g t di s/ ch e ng se fro an rv m ge ice w fro ho qu m m al ity an Ip yb ro od vid y e in he th lp e co M m ak m un in g ity ar ra Ex ng pr G em es ro sin up en t g at m ta y ch id Se m e en nt ek i ty t/c in Se g/ om pr ek m ov in itm g/ id in pr en g ov t co id m in pa g In em ni cr on ea ot s io sin na g At ls se ta u lfpp in es in or g te t st em at /re us sp in ec th e t co m m un G ai ity ni ng pr es tig e
1
Motivation
Fig. 1 Perceived Importance of Contribution Motivation Members’ perceived importance of motivation and contribution in online communities Respondents were asked to classify themselves as a community member in terms of making contributions to the community on four levels: tourist, mingler, devotee, and insider. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between members’ motivation for contribution and their level of involvement in online communities and the results are presented in Table 2. In this analysis, the factor scores of each of the five constructs were used as independent variables, and the level of contribution was the dependent variable. Efficacy was found to be significant at the .01 level, and instrumental and expectancy were found to be significant at the .10 level.
Table 1 Factor Loadings and Reliability Test for the Need Measurement Model Motivation Construct
Factor Loading
Instrumental Seeking/Providing emotional support Finding friends/peers Relationship building Group attachment/commitment Expressing my identity Increasing self esteem/respect
.80 .74 .74 .66 .65 .63
Efficacy Satisfying other members’ needs Being helpful to others Seeking/Providing advice Sharing enjoyment
.82 .77 .69 .54
Quality Assurance Controlling products/service quality Enforcing service excellence Product suggestions/evaluations
.90 .87 .81
Status Gaining prestige Attaining status in the community
.82 .80
Expectancy Seeking future exchange from anybody Seeking future exchange from whom I provide help
.84
Eigenvalue
% of Variance
Cronbach Alpha
10.50
46.60
.92
2.55
11.32
.82
1.69
7.49
.90
1.18
5.26
.82
1.12
4.97
.86
.79
Note: Extraction method: Principle Component Analysis Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
Table 2 Results of Regression Analysis (DV = Level of Contribution) Variable
Parameter Estimates (β)
Intercept .77 Quality Assurance -.04 Status .025 Instrumental .13 Efficacy .26 Expectancy .11 2 2 Note: R = .18, Adjusted R = .17, DF = 5, F = 13.94, p = .000
Standard Error
Significance Level
.048 .053 .07 .07 .05
.56 .70 .09 .00 .09
APPLICATION OF RESULTS The results of this study have important implications for online community developers in terms of how to encourage maximum dynamism and interaction. The study showed that efficacy is a major factor affecting members’ active contribution to online communities, and this further confirms the strong social aspects of any kind communities,
including online communities. The possibility of future reciprocation (expectancy) is another major motivation driving an individual’s contribution, suggesting the likelihood of providing public goods will be increased to the extent individuals are likely to interact with each other in the future and to the extent that there is some way to keep track of past actions (for example, by making sure contributions are seen by group as a whole or by providing archives of past actions and contributions). Identity persistence is also a very important feature in encouraging contributions based on reciprocity. Identities should be registered to a particular users and stable across time, so that a record of past actions and contributions could be kept. Another feature that would encourage reciprocity over time is a well defined and defended group boundary. That is, if the population of a group is extremely unstable, then there appears to be the temptation to come into a group and take advantage of its resources and then leave. Community developers should keep these rules in mind if they want to make their communities dynamic and prosperous. CONCLUSIONS Online community is regarded as one of the most effective business models in the information age and the rise of online communities has provided great opportunities for both business organizations and their customers. However, the achievement of this goal depends, fore and foremost, on a comprehensive understanding of the community members’ motivation for contribution so that the community has enough public goods for consuming. This study proposes a theoretical foundation to understand this new phenomenon and provides insights on how travel organizations can better organize and facilitate their online contribution inducing systems so that everybody in the system can benefit. REFERENCES Armstrong, A. & Hagel, J. (1996). The real Value of On-line Communities. Harvard Business Review, May-June. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Beach, L.R. & Mitchell, T.R. (1990). Image theory: A behavioral theory of decision making in organizations. In B. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. JAI Press, Inc. Bressler, S. & Granthan, C. (2000). Communities of Commerce. New York: McGrawHill. Carrier, J. (1991). Gifts, Commodities, and Social Relations: A Maussian View of Exchange. Sociological forum 6(1): 119-136. Cothrel, J. (July, 1999). Virtual communities today. The Journalof AGSI, 52 – 55. Ekeh, P. (1974). Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kim Amy J. (2000). Community Building on the Web. Berkeley: Peachpit Press.
Kollock, P. (1999). The Economics of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. In Marc Smith and Peter Kollock (editors), 1999. Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge. Maus, M. (1969). The Gift. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Rheingold, H. (1993). “The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier”, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Shafer, D. (2001). Community is the Building Block of Online Marketplaces. http://www.onlinecommunityreport.com/features/marketplaces/ Schlenker, B. R. ( 1985) Identity and selfidentification, In The self and social life. B.R. Schlenker (ed.), 1599. New York: McGraw Hill. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Stryker, S. (1986). Idnetity theory: Development and extensions. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), Self and Identity. New York: Wiley. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations: 7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Wang, Y.C., Yu, Q., & Fesenmaier, D.F. (2001). Defining the Virtual Tourist Community: Implications for Tourism Marketing. Touring Management, forthcoming. Warms, A., Cothrel, J., Underberg, T. (June, 2000). Active Management: The Discipline of Successful Online communities. Participate.com white report, http://www.participate.com Wellman, Barry (1998a). The Community Question Re-evaluated. In Power, Community and the City, edited by Michael Peter Smith. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Pp. 81 – 107. Werry, C. (1999). “Imagined Electronic Community: Representations of Virtual Community in Contemporary Business Discourse”, First Monday, 4(9), http://firstmonday.org/isssues/issue4_9/werry/index.html Contact information: Youcheng Wang National Laboratory for Tourism and eCommerce University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 104 Huff Hall, 1206 S. Fourth Street Champaign, IL 61820 Phone: (217) 333-4410
[email protected]
