The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards: An exploratory study
Abstract
Purpose: The proliferation and advance of web‐based technologies create expanded opportunities for retailers to gain a better understanding of their customers. However, the success of these web‐based discussion boards depends solely on whether customers are willing to share their knowledge and experience with other customers in these discussion boards. Thus, this study aims at identifying the factors that drive knowledge sharing among customers in web‐based discussion boards. Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory study with 104 respondents was conducted to identify and categorize the key factors of customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards. Findings: The results indicate that the enjoyment of helping others is the most frequently cited reason for customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge self‐efficacy is the mostly cited reason explaining why customers do not want to share knowledge with others. Research limitations/implications: The exploratory analysis suggests that the underlying reasons that motivate and inhibit customers to share are very different. There is a need to integrate multiple theoretical perspectives from across the social and technical domains if this phenomenon is to be better understood. Practical implications: Building upon the findings of this study, some generic guidelines for retailers and web designers for promoting customer sharing in web‐based discussion boards are outlined. Originality/value: This research is one of the first studies to use the socio‐technical perspective to investigate customer knowledge sharing phenomena in web‐based discussion boards.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.10073 · Cited by 5,916 · cited 1×
“The decision to share in a discussion board may also be partly determined by intrinsic motivation, for instances, the enjoyment of helping others (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004).”
Background
Cited by
Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Rabjohn, N. (2008) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662240810883290 · Cited by 1,364
Self-citationWhat drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms
Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, M. K. O. (2012) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.01.015 · Cited by 1,016
Self-citationReichelt, J., Sievert, J., & Jacob, F. (2014) · Journal of Marketing Communications · doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.797758 · Cited by 262
Zamiri, M., & Esmaeili, A. (2024) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci14010017 · Cited by 267
Zhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J., & Yu, X. (2019) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2359 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., Lim, K. H., & Ling Sia, C.
- Venue
- Internet Research
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2006-05-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 289-303
- ISSN
- 1066-2243 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1545970977
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 26.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards: An exploratory study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/10662240610673709
- The paper
- Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., Lim, K. H., & Ling Sia, C. (2006). Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards: An exploratory study. Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240610673709
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.