IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tbitxx/v43y2024i5p811-830.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are sticky users less likely to lurk? Evidence from online reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Jin Yang
  • Zili Zhang
  • Chuangyin Dang
  • Ziqiong Zhang

Abstract

Although many product providers deem user contributions (e.g. online reviews) important, providers often struggle to obtain them, i.e. most users are lurkers who are reluctant to post reviews. This study is conducted to understand better how to delurk users by investigating the role of user stickiness in review posting behaviour. By employing a large-scale dataset from TapTap, a Chinese mobile game community, and conducting a multimethod investigation, this study found that sticky users with a product are more likely to engage in review posting behaviour related to the product. Also, this positive stickiness-post effect varies for some user and product features: (a) the positive relationship between user stickiness and posting behaviour will be strengthened as user expertise rises, (b) the positive stickiness-post relationship will be alleviated when products are collaborative-consuming products (vs. private-consuming products), (c) and the positive stickiness effect on review posting behaviour will be stronger when product providers are small-scale (vs. large-scale). These findings provide a comprehensive understanding of biases in lurking/posting behaviour related to user stickiness and help product providers gain insights into delurking users and gathering user intelligence.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin Yang & Zili Zhang & Chuangyin Dang & Ziqiong Zhang, 2024. "Are sticky users less likely to lurk? Evidence from online reviews," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 811-830, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:43:y:2024:i:5:p:811-830
    DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2023.2190415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2190415
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2190415?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:tbitxx:v:43:y:2024:i:5:p:811-830. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tbit .

    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.