IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elmark/v26y2016i3d10.1007_s12525-015-0200-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The low status advantage: the effect of status structure on participation in an online community

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Hanson

    (University of Oregon)

  • Lan Jiang

    (City University of Hong Kong)

Abstract

Despite the proliferation of online communities that dominantly feature its high status and most accomplished users, no research has addressed conditions under which consumers may prefer a community of low status or more inexperienced members. This study investigates the effect of status structure (i.e., the proportion of high status to low status members) and consumption motivations (i.e., utilitarian vs. hedonic) on consumers’ willingness to participate in an online community. We find that a high status-dominant structure motivates participation when the community or product motive is utilitarian. By contrast, a low status-dominant structure motivates participation to a greater degree when the motive is hedonic. A need for legitimacy underlies increased participation intentions when the status structure is high status-dominant, and a need for connectedness plays a mediating role when the status structure is low status-dominant. The findings provide important implications for marketers in regard to the ways in which status is messaged in online communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Hanson & Lan Jiang, 2016. "The low status advantage: the effect of status structure on participation in an online community," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(3), pages 233-244, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:26:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s12525-015-0200-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s12525-015-0200-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12525-015-0200-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12525-015-0200-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Babin, Barry J & Darden, William R & Griffin, Mitch, 1994. "Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(4), pages 644-656, March.
    2. Yan Chen & F. Maxwell Harper & Joseph Konstan & Sherry Xin Li, 2010. "Social Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1358-1398, September.
    3. Xavier Drèze & Joseph C. Nunes, 2009. "Feeling Superior: The Impact of Loyalty Program Structure on Consumers' Perceptions of Status," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(6), pages 890-905, April.
    4. Hertel, Guido & Niedner, Sven & Herrmann, Stefanie, 2003. "Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1159-1177, July.
    5. Kozinets, Robert V., 1999. "E-tribalized marketing?: the strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 252-264, June.
    6. Richard P. Bagozzi & Utpal M. Dholakia, 2006. "Open Source Software User Communities: A Study of Participation in Linux User Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    7. Charla Mathwick & Caroline Wiertz & Ko de Ruyter, 2008. "Social Capital Production in a Virtual P3 Community," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(6), pages 832-849, November.
    8. Lan Jiang & Joandrea Hoegg & Darren W. Dahl & Amitava Chattopadhyay, 2010. "The Persuasive Role of Incidental Similarity on Attitudes and Purchase Intentions in a Sales Context," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(5), pages 778-791, February.
    9. Steven Tadelis, 2002. "The Market for Reputations as an Incentive Mechanism," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 854-882, August.
    10. Brodie, Roderick J. & Ilic, Ana & Juric, Biljana & Hollebeek, Linda, 2013. "Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 105-114.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Miao Li & Ying Hua & Junxuan Zhu, 2021. "From Interactivity to Brand Preference: The Role of Social Comparison and Perceived Value in a Virtual Brand Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Ulrike Baumöl & Linda Hollebeek & Reinhard Jung, 2016. "Dynamics of customer interaction on social media platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(3), pages 199-202, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sara Hanson & Lan Jiang & Darren Dahl, 2019. "Enhancing consumer engagement in an online brand community via user reputation signals: a multi-method analysis," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 349-367, March.
    2. Kuo, Ying-Feng & Feng, Lien-Hui, 2013. "Relationships among community interaction characteristics, perceived benefits, community commitment, and oppositional brand loyalty in online brand communities," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 948-962.
    3. Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2019. "The consumer production journey: marketing to consumers as co-producers in the sharing economy," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 238-254, March.
    4. Akram, Umair & Junaid, Muhammad & Zafar, Abaid Ullah & Li, Zhiwen & Fan, Mingyue, 2021. "Online purchase intention in Chinese social commerce platforms: Being emotional or rational?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. Elia, Gianluca & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Urbinati, Andrea, 2020. "Implementing open innovation through virtual brand communities: A case study analysis in the semiconductor industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    6. Raïes, Karine & Mühlbacher, Hans & Gavard-Perret, Marie-Laure, 2015. "Consumption community commitment: Newbies' and longstanding members' brand engagement and loyalty," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2634-2644.
    7. Pedeliento, Giuseppe & Andreini, Daniela & Veloutsou, Cleopatra, 2020. "Brand community integration, participation and commitment: A comparison between consumer-run and company-managed communities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 481-494.
    8. Hung-Tai Tsou & Ja-Shen Chen & Cindy Yunhsin Chou & Tzu-Wen Chen, 2019. "Sharing Economy Service Experience and Its Effects on Behavioral Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-25, September.
    9. Yi-Wen Chen, 2020. "Sustainable Value Co-Creation in the Virtual Community: How Diversified Co-Creation Experience Affects Co-Creation Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Moriuchi, Emi & Takahashi, Ikuo, 2022. "The role of perceived value, trust and engagement in the C2C online secondary marketplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 76-88.
    11. Xuan Yang & Xiao Li & Daning Hu & Harry Jiannan Wang, 2021. "Differential impacts of social influence on initial and sustained participation in open source software projects," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(9), pages 1133-1147, September.
    12. Agnieszka Izabela Baruk, 2021. "Relationships between Final Purchasers and Offerors in the Context of Their Perception by Final Purchasers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, June.
    13. Brodie, Roderick J. & Ilic, Ana & Juric, Biljana & Hollebeek, Linda, 2013. "Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 105-114.
    14. Tony Cooper & Constantino Stavros & Angela R. Dobele, 2019. "The levers of engagement: an exploration of governance in an online brand community," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(3), pages 240-254, May.
    15. Caitlin McLaughlin & Kai Haverila & Matti Haverila, 2022. "Gratifications sought versus gratifications achieved in online brand communities: satisfaction and motives of lurkers and posters," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(2), pages 190-207, March.
    16. Hu, Xin & He, Liuyi & Liu, Junjun, 2022. "Status reinforcing: Unintended rating bias on online shopping platforms," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    17. Yumei Luo & Qiongwei Ye, 2019. "Understanding Consumers’ Loyalty to an Online Outshopping Platform: The Role of Social Capital and Perceived Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-18, September.
    18. He, Yi & Chen, Qimei & Lee, Ruby P. & Wang, Yonggui & Pohlmann, Attila, 2017. "Consumers' Role Performance and Brand Identification: Evidence from a Survey and a Longitudinal Field Experiment," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-11.
    19. Yuxiang Zhao & Qinghua Zhu, 2014. "Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 417-434, July.
    20. Ana Babić Rosario & Kristine Valck & Francesca Sotgiu, 2020. "Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 422-448, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:26:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s12525-015-0200-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.