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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adjei, M. T., Noble, S. N., & Noble, C. H. (2010). The influence of C2C communications in online brand communities on customer purchase behaviour. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(5), 634–653.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Open source software user communities: a study of participation in Linux user groups. Management Science, 52(7), 1099–1115.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 268–275.
Brinkerhoff, D.B., White, L.K., Ortega, S., & Weitz, R. (2007). Social structure and social interaction. Essentials of sociology.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114.
Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards, J. M. (1992). When Gulliver travels: social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 717–727.
Chen, Y., Harper, F. M., Konstan, J., & Li, S.X. (2010). Social comparisons and contributions to online communities: a field experiment on Movielens. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1358–1398.
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.
Drèze, X., & Nunes, J. C. (2009). Feeling superior: the impact of loyalty program structure on consumers’ perceptions of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 890–905.
Etzioni, A. (1996). The responsive community: a communitarian perspective. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 1–11.
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., & Brownholtz, E. A. (2008). Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 563–572). ACM.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Friedman, B., Khan, P. H., Jr., & Howe, D. C. (2000). Trust online. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 34–40.
Ganley, D. (2011). Social motivations to pay for services: lessons from virtual communities. Electronic Markets, 21(3), 177–184.
Ganley, D., & Lampe, C. (2009). The ties that bind: social network principles in online communities. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 266–274.
Garbarino, E., & Lee, O. F. (2003). Dynamic pricing in internet retail: effects on consumer trust. Psychology and Marketing, 20(6), 495–513.
Gaughan, T, & Ferguson, R. (2005). The great value proposition debate. Colloquy talk: The art and science of changing customer behaviour. http://www.colloquy.com.
Ghosh, A. (2013). Game theory and incentives in human computation systems. In Handbook of Human Computation (pp. 725–742). New York: Springer.
Henderson, C. M., Beck, J. T., & Palmatier, R. W. (2011). Review of the theoretical underpinnings of loyalty programs. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 256–276.
Hertel, G., Niedner, S., & Herrmann, S. (2003). Motivation of software developers in open source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research Policy, 32(7), 1159–1177.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: the relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169.
Jiang, L., Hoegg, J., Dahl, D. W., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2010). The persuasive role of incidental similarity on attitudes and purchase intentions in a sales context. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 778–791.
Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618–644.
Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing?: the strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3), 252–264.
Lakhani, K., & Wolf, R. (2003). Why hackers do what they do: understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software.
Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2007). The role of status seeking in online communities: giving the gift of experience. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 434–455.
Lim, K. H., Sia, C. L., Lee, M. K., & Benbasat, I. (2006). Do I trust you online, and if so, will I buy? An empirical study of two trust-building strategies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(2), 233–266.
Marchi, G., Giachetti, C., & de Gennaro, P. (2011). Extending lead-user theory to online brand communities: the case of the community Ducati. Technovation, 31(8), 350–361.
Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C., & De Ruyter, K. (2008). Social capital production in a virtual P3 community. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 832–849.
Morse, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 148–156.
Muñiz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432.
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: instant messaging in action. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 79–88.
Parsons, T., & Jones, I. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. New York: Free Press.
Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2002). Trust among strangers in Internet transactions: empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system. Advances in Applied Microeconomics, 11, 127–157.
Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E. (2000). Reputation systems. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 45–48.
Rettie, R.M. (2003). A comparison of four new communication technologies. Proceedings of HCI International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, 686-690.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, 281–310.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878–891.
Smith, E., & Mackie, D. (2000). Social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
Stewart, D. (2005). Social status in an open-source community. American Sociological Review, 70(5), 823–842.
Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56–64.
Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1983). Measurement of interpersonal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 208.
Tadelis, S. (2002). The market for reputations as an incentive mechanism. Journal of Political Economy, 110(4), 854–882.
Thompson, S. A., & Sinha, R. K. (2008). Brand communities and new product adoption: the influence and limits of oppositional loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 65–80.
Uddin, M. (2001). Loyalty programs: The ultimate gift. DSN Retailing Today. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FNP/is_5_40/ai_71561019.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.
Walden, E. (2000). Some value propositions of online communities. Electronic Markets, 10(4), 244–249.
Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2003). Assessing motivation of contribution in online communities: an empirical investigation of an online travel community. Electronic Markets, 13(1), 33–45.
Washington, M., & Zajac, E. (2005). Status evolution and competition: theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 282–296.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Ulrike Baumöl
Appendix
Appendix
Study stimuli
In this study, you will be asked to imagine a scenario and then answer some questions about your experience.
Please try your best to imagine the situation described on the following page, and then proceed to answer the questions about this experience.
Imagine you recently purchased a new car.
----------
Utilitarian Product Motive Condition
You’re specifically interested in the functional and practical aspects of the car, such as the blind-spot warning technology and emergency response system, to help you stay safe.
Utilitarian Community Motive Condition
You decide to visit the community to find information about how other car owners have maintained their cars to gain maximum gas mileage.
Hedonic Product Motive Condition
You’re specifically interested in the fun and enjoyable aspects of the car, such as the panoramic sunroof and the six-speaker audio system, to have an exciting experience.
Hedonic Community Motive Condition
You decide to visit the community to chat with other car owners about the cool new colors and features available in the new models, and maybe what movie everyone is seeing this weekend.
----------
You find that company’s website contains a link to an online community, where users of the company’s products ask and answer questions and discuss other product-related topics with their fellow users. You decide to visit the online community.
In the community, each user can achieve a status. The user’s status is comprised of:
Stars - When a user answers a question or posts a new topic, they receive a point. When another user rates the answer as a quality or helpful answer, they receive a point. Depending on the number of points a user has, the community will award the user a star under their username.
Here is an example of a user’s status:
Next, the company would like to show you the changes they are considering for their online community and get your opinion about those changes.
On the next page, you will view a screenshot of a random selection of users in the community. The screenshot will remain on the page for a minimum of 30 s, then we will ask you some questions about the community.
Construct measures
Participation Intentions (α = 0.95; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
-
I would participate in this community.
-
I would communicate with others in this community.
-
I would post content to this community.
Need for Connectedness (r = 0.68; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
-
I feel connected to this community.
-
I am willing to talk about my personal life with the members of this community.
Need for Legitimacy (r = 0.88; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
-
The members of this community are credible sources of information.
-
I feel like the members of this community are authorities.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hanson, S., Jiang, L. The low status advantage: the effect of status structure on participation in an online community. Electron Markets 26, 233–244 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0200-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0200-3