Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Electronic Markets Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1996). The responsive community: a communitarian perspective. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., Khan, P. H., Jr., & Howe, D. C. (2000). Trust online. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganley, D. (2011). Social motivations to pay for services: lessons from virtual communities. Electronic Markets, 21(3), 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganley, D., & Lampe, C. (2009). The ties that bind: social network principles in online communities. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 266–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbarino, E., & Lee, O. F. (2003). Dynamic pricing in internet retail: effects on consumer trust. Psychology and Marketing, 20(6), 495–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing?: the strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3), 252–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C., & De Ruyter, K. (2008). Social capital production in a virtual P3 community. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 832–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñiz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E. (2000). Reputation systems. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., & Mackie, D. (2000). Social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. (2005). Social status in an open-source community. American Sociological Review, 70(5), 823–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1983). Measurement of interpersonal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadelis, S. (2002). The market for reputations as an incentive mechanism. Journal of Political Economy, 110(4), 854–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walden, E. (2000). Some value propositions of online communities. Electronic Markets, 10(4), 244–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington, M., & Zajac, E. (2005). Status evolution and competition: theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 282–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA

    Sara Hanson

  2. College of Business G7759, Academic 1, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Lan Jiang

Authors
  1. Sara Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lan Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Hanson.

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:

figure a

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.

figure b
figure c

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0200-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation