IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v66y2021ics0160791x21001196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the antecedents of idea contribution in online innovation communities: A perspective of creative self-efficacy

Author

Listed:
  • Liao, Junyun
  • Chen, Jiawen
  • Mou, Jian

Abstract

In recent decades, firms have increasingly utilized online innovation communities to facilitate product development and improvement by encouraging users' product idea submission. An emerging research stream examines the driver of users' idea contributions. The present study explores the impact of peer feedback on the basis of creative self-efficacy theory, sponsoring firm feedback, direct mastery experiences, and social learning on idea contribution. Using data from 13,116 users of MIUI Forum, our empirical results show that peer feedback and sponsoring firm feedback are positively related to the quantity and quality of users' ideas. Although social learning positively affects the number of user's ideas, it is negatively associated with idea quality. Direct mastery experiences have no significant effect on idea quantity but reduce idea quality. The negative impact of direct mastery experiences on idea quality is stronger with users' higher membership status. These findings offer significant implications for online innovation community management.

Suggested Citation

  • Liao, Junyun & Chen, Jiawen & Mou, Jian, 2021. "Examining the antecedents of idea contribution in online innovation communities: A perspective of creative self-efficacy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:66:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x21001196
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X21001196
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101644?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. Mark Boons & Daan Stam & Harry G. Barkema, 2015. "Feelings of Pride and Respect as Drivers of Ongoing Member Activity on Crowdsourcing Platforms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(6), pages 717-741, September.
    2. Steils, Nadia & Hanine, Salwa, 2019. "Recruiting valuable participants in online IDEA generation: The role of brief instructions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 14-25.
    3. Ogink, Timko & Dong, John Qi, 2019. "Stimulating innovation by user feedback on social media: The case of an online user innovation community," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 295-302.
    4. Nadia Steils & Salwa Hanine, 2019. "Recruiting valuable participants in online IDEA generation: The role of brief instructions," Post-Print hal-02117668, HAL.
    5. Olivier Toubia, 2006. "Idea Generation, Creativity, and Incentives," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 411-425, September.
    6. Jiao, Yuanyuan & Wu, Yepeng & Lu, Steven, 2021. "The role of crowdsourcing in product design: The moderating effect of user expertise and network connectivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. Dost, Mir & Badir, Yuosre F. & Sambasivan, Murali & Umrani, Waheed Ali, 2020. "Open-and-closed process innovation generation and adoption: Analyzing the effects of sources of knowledge," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    8. Yan Huang & Param Vir Singh & Kannan Srinivasan, 2014. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas Under Consumer Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(9), pages 2138-2159, September.
    9. Fernandes, S. & Cesário, M. & Barata, J.M., 2017. "Ways to open innovation: Main agents and sources in the Portuguese case," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 153-162.
    10. Oguz Ali Acar & Jan van den Ende, 2015. "Understanding Fear of Opportunism in Global Prize-Based Science Contests: Evidence for Gender and Age Differences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    11. Chan, Kimmy Wa & Li, Stella Yiyan & Zhu, John Jianjun, 2015. "Fostering Customer Ideation in Crowdsourcing Community: The Role of Peer-to-peer and Peer-to-firm Interactions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 42-62.
    12. Juncai Jiang & Yu Wang, 2020. "A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation of Feedback in Ideation Contests," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(2), pages 481-500, February.
    13. Shunyuan Zhang & Param Vir Singh & Anindya Ghose, 2019. "A Structural Analysis of the Role of Superstars in Crowdsourcing Contests," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 15-33, March.
    14. Matsuo, Makoto & Minami, Chieko & Matsuyama, Takuya, 2018. "Social influence on innovation resistance in internet banking services," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 42-51.
    15. Xu, Luyun & Zeng, Deming, 2021. "When does the diverse partnership of R&D alliances promote new product development? The contingent effect of the knowledge base," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    16. Pollok, Patrick & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2019. "Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 98-114.
    17. Muller, Eitan & Peres, Renana, 2019. "The effect of social networks structure on innovation performance: A review and directions for research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 3-19.
    18. Malthouse, Edward C. & Haenlein, Michael & Skiera, Bernd & Wege, Egbert & Zhang, Michael, 2013. "Managing Customer Relationships in the Social Media Era: Introducing the Social CRM House," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 270-280.
    19. Oguz Ali Acar, 2018. "Harnessing the creative potential of consumers: money, participation, and creativity in idea crowdsourcing," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 177-188, June.
    20. Schemmann, Brita & Herrmann, Andrea M. & Chappin, Maryse M.H. & Heimeriks, Gaston J., 2016. "Crowdsourcing ideas: Involving ordinary users in the ideation phase of new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1145-1154.
    21. Boons, Mark & Stam, Daan, 2019. "Crowdsourcing for innovation: How related and unrelated perspectives interact to increase creative performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1758-1770.
    22. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    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. Kim, Miyea & Oh, Joohyun & Kim, Beomsoo, 2021. "Experience of digital music services and digital self-efficacy among older adults: Enjoyment and anxiety as mediators," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Li, Keyao & Griffin, Mark A., 2023. "Unpacking human systems in data science innovations: Key innovator perspectives," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. Ye, Jiangfeng & Wan, Qunchao & Li, Ruida & Yao, Zhu & Huang, Dujuan, 2022. "How do R&D agglomeration and economic policy uncertainty affect the innovative performance of Chinese high-tech industry?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    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. Patel, Chirag & Ahmad Husairi, Mariyani & Haon, Christophe & Oberoi, Poonam, 2023. "Monetary rewards and self-selection in design crowdsourcing contests: Managing participation, contribution appropriateness, and winning trade-offs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. Piazza, Mariangela & Mazzola, Erica & Perrone, Giovanni, 2022. "How can I signal my quality to emerge from the crowd? A study in the crowdsourcing context," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ren, Jie & Han, Yue & Genc, Yegin & Yeoh, William & Popovič, Aleš, 2021. "The boundary of crowdsourcing in the domain of creativity✰," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    5. Oguz Ali Acar, 2018. "Harnessing the creative potential of consumers: money, participation, and creativity in idea crowdsourcing," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 177-188, June.
    6. Feng, Yuanyue & Yi, Zihui & Yang, Congcong & Chen, Ruoyi & Feng, Ye, 2022. "How do gamification mechanics drive solvers’ Knowledge contribution? A study of collaborative knowledge crowdsourcing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    7. Hu, Feng & Bijmolt, Tammo H.A. & Huizingh, Eelko K.R.E., 2020. "The impact of innovation contest briefs on the quality of solvers and solutions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 90.
    8. Dargahi, Rambod & Namin, Aidin & Ketron, Seth C. & Saint Clair, Julian K., 2021. "Is self-knowledge the ultimate prize? A quantitative analysis of participation choice in online ideation crowdsourcing contests," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    9. Tat Koon Koh & Muller Y. M. Cheung, 2022. "Seeker Exemplars and Quantitative Ideation Outcomes in Crowdsourcing Contests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 265-284, March.
    10. Xu, Hui & Wu, Yang & Hamari, Juho, 2022. "What determines the successfulness of a crowdsourcing campaign: A study on the relationships between indicators of trustworthiness, popularity, and success," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 484-495.
    11. Jiao, Yuanyuan & Wu, Yepeng & Lu, Steven, 2021. "The role of crowdsourcing in product design: The moderating effect of user expertise and network connectivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    12. Lars Hornuf & Sabrina Jeworrek, 2018. "How Community Managers Affect Online Idea Crowdsourcing Activities," CESifo Working Paper Series 7153, CESifo.
    13. Boons, Mark & Stam, Daan, 2019. "Crowdsourcing for innovation: How related and unrelated perspectives interact to increase creative performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1758-1770.
    14. Hornuf, Lars & Jeworrek, Sabrina, 2018. "Crowdsourced innovation: How community managers affect crowd activities," IWH Discussion Papers 13/2018, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    15. Yang, Mu & Ooi, Yat Ming & Han, Chunjia, 2022. "Lead users as idea supplier in online community platform: How to choose the right ideas to implement?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    16. Dahlander, Linus & Beretta, Michela & Thomas, Arne & Kazemi, Shahab & Fenger, Morten H.J. & Frederiksen, Lars, 2023. "Weeding out or picking winners in open innovation? Factors driving multi-stage crowd selection on LEGO ideas," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    17. Kimmy Wa Chan & Stella Yiyan Li & Jian Ni & John JianJun Zhu, 2021. "What Feedback Matters? The Role of Experience in Motivating Crowdsourcing Innovation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(1), pages 103-126, January.
    18. Muninger, Marie-Isabelle & Mahr, Dominik & Hammedi, Wafa, 2022. "Social media use: A review of innovation management practices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 140-156.
    19. Shi, Xiaoxiao & Evans, Richard & Shan, Wei, 2022. "Solver engagement in online crowdsourcing communities: The roles of perceived interactivity, relationship quality and psychological ownership," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    20. Foege, J. Nils & Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl & Tietze, Frank & Salge, Torsten Oliver, 2019. "Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1323-1339.
    21. Deichmann, Dirk & Gillier, Thomas & Tonellato, Marco, 2021. "Getting on board with new ideas: An analysis of idea commitments on a crowdsourcing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).

    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:eee:teinso:v:66:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x21001196. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.