Conclusions and discussion

The tests of the hypotheses are summarized in Table 2. H7 is the only hypothesis not supported for both of viewers and posters. The case company was established relatively recently, and it is very likely still at an early stage of development. Its users have not built a strong sense of belonging toward this virtual community. In addition, the identification construct is insignificant for both of viewers and posters. On the other hand, rewards are the most significant factor for both posters and viewers in their participating behavior, and it might serve as a

salient motivator for knowledge contributors when the identification factor is weak [11]. Various types of reward system are commonly observed for online services at their early development stage.

Table 2 Summarized results of the hypotheses tests

Hypotheses Results

Viewer (a) Poster (b) H1 Reputation is positively

associated with a higher level of participation

Supported Supported

H2 Rewards are positively associated with a higher level of participation

Supported Supported

H3 Structural capital is positively associated with a higher level of participation

Supported Supported

H4 Higher cognitive capital is positively associated with a higher level of participation

Not supported

Supported

H5 Trust is positively

associated with a higher level of participation

Supported Supported

H6 Norm of reciprocity is positively associated with a

In addition to individual factors of reward and reputation, structural capital, trust, and norm of reciprocity are significant factors related to the intention to participate regardless of whether users are viewers or posters. Trust is the most important factor for a successful virtual community from the perspective of members as well as operators [29], and it is also positively related to the quality of knowledge sharing [25]. Trust is an antecedent factor for participating in virtual brand communities [22]

and plays the same important role for any user to participate in a website on a continuous basis. For structural capital, the results are similar to those of another study [9], despite the slightly different measures applied.

It is interesting to note that cognitive capital has inconsistent results for viewers and posters. Reputation and cognitive capital are significant predictors of participation for posters, consistent with prior research in online settings for knowledge contribution [9], but are insignificant for viewers. Viewers are not motivated by reputation, possibly because they are not easily identified by other users and many virtual communities, including funP, provide the mechanism to rank posters based on either their posting frequencies and/or the responses to their postings from other users. In general, users with a higher ranking are considered to have better reputations in that virtual community.

Contrary to expectations, reciprocity and cognitive capital do not have a significant impact on the intention to participate for either posters or viewers. When posters have a higher level of cognitive capital--indicating a longer tenure in this virtual community and being accustomed to certain patterns of communication with other users in this site--they are more willing to participate.

Viewers have considerably less structural capital implies fewer interactions with others; hence, the factor of cognitive capital for viewers becomes irrelevant to their intention of participation. As for reciprocity, it affects the intention of viewers, but not posters, to participate. These results are very similar to those of another study [13] in which reciprocity had a significant effect on the intention to use knowledge-sharing mechanisms and an insignificant effect on knowledge-sharing intention. This finding seems to be consistent with the argument that relational capital may not develop in electronic networks due to a lack of shared history, high interdependence, frequent interactions, and co-presence [30].

5.1

Managerial implications

Web operators should continue their reward system because it is the best way to motivate both viewers and posters. Nevertheless, the reward system requires a significant amount of resources and the company will not be able to match pace with the increase in users if it is to grow exponentially. Strengthening the sense of community builds loyalty among users and encourages them to revisit the site on a continuous basis [31], thereby reinforcing purchasing behavior [32]. The weak identification according to the survey indicates that the users of this site still lack a sense of community. Offline activities which have a positive impact on user participation, and making use of multimedia are suggested means of elevating a sense of belonging [4]. The initiation of offline activities is another unresolved issue concerning which activities can be activated by web operators or users.

The latter seems to comply with the principle of Web 2.0 and will help the community grow on its own without additional resources, but the former is better controlled and monitored by web management.

Viewers are not motivated by reputation, something normally reserved for posters. However, it is feasible to provide several levels of privilege for frequent viewers.

The significance of structural capital to user intention to participate indicates that web services should continue to enhance their platform facilitating the interaction of users.

The cognitive factor affects only posters’ participation, not viewers’. To ensure long-lasting users, a web service needs to encourage viewers to become posters in order to become accustomed to the common communication pattern in a particular web service. Simplifying the posting

process and differentiating the privileges designated exclusively for posters should provide the incentives needed for this purpose.

Trust is the essential element of a web service and the value of a virtual community is dependent upon how the web operator is able to cultivate trust among the community’s users [20]. Site management should be very careful when handling the personal information of their members. Since the degree of participating intention motivated by trust is higher for posters than for viewers, the website management should direct their resources more on posters with respect to security so that their trust in virtual communities remains strong. Reciprocity is insignificant for posters possibly because they do not feel the need of receiving help from others at this site. The web operator can consider establishing a direct connection between content providers and receivers. For example, an area can be designated where users can post certain questions on topics of interest to be answered by other users.

5.2

Limitations and future research

Several limitations of this study indicate the need for further studies. First, an extensive survey on multiple web services should provide more convincing results. Second, this study assumes that viewers and posters are two different types of user affected by social and personal factors. However, it is still unclear why and how such a transformation takes place. It could be caused by external factors such as social norms or stress, or certain internal characteristics that a person is more willing to share.

Although the demographic data in this study shows no significant difference between viewers and posters, one study indicated that they differed in several aspects [6].

Further research is needed to understand whether or not the fundamental differences between posters and viewers exist or whether users change their status based on some other factors.

6 Acknowledgement

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Ministry of Science and Technology (Grant 102-2410-H-004 -198 -).

7 References

[1] Cooke, M., Buckley, N. (2008). Web 2.0, social networks and the future of market research, International Journal of Market Research, 50(2), 267-292.

[2] Hagel III, J., Armstrong, A. (1997). Net Gain:

Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, MA.

[3] Williams, R.L., Cothrel, J. (2000). Four smart ways to run online communities, Sloan Management Review, 41(4), 81-91.

[4] Koh, J., Kim, Y.-G., Butter, B., Bock, G.-W. (2007).

Encouraging participation in virtual communities, Communication of the ACM, 50(2), 69-73.

[5] Kollock, P., Smith, M. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated Communication: Logistics, Social, and Cross-cultural Perspectives, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 109-128.

[6] Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D., Preece, J. (2006). Non-public and Non-public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior, Electronic Commerce Research, 6(1), p. 7-20.

[7] Preece, J., Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2004).

Designing and evaluating online communities: Research speaks to emerging practice. International Journal of Web-based Communities 1(1), 2-18.

[8] Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone, Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201-223.

[9] Wasko, M.M., Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share?

Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice, MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.

[10] Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, and the organizational advantage, Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.

[11] Kankanhalli, Q., Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K-K. (2005).

Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation, MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113-143.

[12] Ridings, C., Gefen, D., Arinze, B. (2006).

Psychological barriers: Lurker and poster motivation and behavior in online communities, Communications of AIS 18(1), 329-354.

[13] Cho, N., Li, G.Z., Su, C.-J. (2007). An empirical study on the effect of individual factors on knowledge

sharing by knowledge type, Journal of Global Business &

Technology, 3(2), 1-15.

[14] Constant, D., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing, Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400-421.

[15] Putman, R.D. (1995). Turning in, turning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in American, Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 663-683.

[16] Tsai, W., Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: An empirical study of intrafirm networks, Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.

[17] Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P., Pearo, L.K. (2004).

A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241-263.

[18] Enders, A., Hungenberg, H., Denker, H-P., Mauch, S. (2008). The long tail of social networking: Revenue models of social networking sites, European Management Journal, 26(4), 199-211.

[19] Bauer, H.H., Grether, M. (2005). Virtual communities: Its contribution to customer relationships by providing social capital, Journal of Relationship Marketing, 4(1/2), 91-108.

[20] Porter, C.E., Donthu, N. (2008). Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtual communities, Management Science 54(1), 113-128.

[21] Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues &

the Creation of Prosperity, New York: Free Press.

[22] Casalo, L.V., Flavian, C., Guinaliu, M. (2008).

Promoting consumer's participation in virtual brand communities: A new paradigm in branding strategy, Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(1), 19-36.

[23] Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Transaction Publishers.

[24] Hars, A., Qu, S. (2002). Working for free?

Motivations for participating in open-source projects, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 25-39.

[25] Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., Wang, E.T.G. (2006).

Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities:

An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories, Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.

[26] Lo, J., Chen, I., Lee, S. (2010). Top 100 list of Taiwan web sites in 2010, Business Next, 3(190), 83-89.

[27] Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct, Journal of Consumer Research 12(4), 341-352.

[28] Bagozzi, R.P., Edwards, J.R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research, Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45-87.

[29] Lee, H., Lee, Y., Yoo, D. (2000). The determinants of perceived service quality and its relationship with satisfaction, Journal of Services Marketing, 14(3), 217-231.Lin, H.-F. (2008). Determinants of successful virtual communities: Contributions from system characteristics and social factors, Information & Management, 45(8), 522-527.

[30] Cohen, D., Prusak, L. (2001). In Good Company:

How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA,.

[31] Thacher, J. B., George, J.F. (2004). Commitment, trust, and social involvement: An exploratory study of antecedents to web shopper loyalty, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 14(4), 243-268.

[32] Koh, J., Kim, Y.-G. (2003). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and empirical validation, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75-93.