Engaging Voluntary Contributions in Online Communities: A Hidden Markov Model1
Abstract
User contribution is critical to online communities but also difficult to sustain given its public goods nature. This paper studies the design of IT artifacts to motivate voluntary contributions in online communities. We propose a dynamic approach, which allows the effect of motivating mechanisms to change across users over time. We characterize the dynamics of user contributions using a hidden Markov model (HMM) with latent motivation states under the public goods framework. We focus on three motivating mechanisms on transitioning users between the latent states: reciprocity, peer recognition, and self-image. Based on Bayesian estimation of the model with user-level panel data, we identify three motivation states (low, medium, and high), and show that the motivating mechanisms, implemented through various IT artifacts, could work differently across states. Specifically, reciprocity is only effective to transition users from low to medium motivation state, whereas peer recognition can boost all users to higher states. And self-image shows no effect when a user is already in high motivation state, although it helps users in low and medium states move to the high state. Design simulations on our structural model provide additional insights into the consequences of changing specific IT artifacts. These findings offer implications for platform designers on how to motivate user contributions and build sustainable online communities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Positive market signals of worth are an incentive to commit in open source.
“which research has shown is an incentive to commit (W Chen et al., 2018)”
From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as W Chen et al., 2018
Cites
Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving
Andreoni, J. (1990) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234133 · Cited by 5,825 · see citing works
The Central Role of Engagement in Online Communities
Ray, S., Kim, S. S., & Morris, J. G. (2014) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0525 · Cited by 293 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4 · Cited by 945 · see citing works
Chen, L., Tong, T. W., Tang, S., & Han, N. (2022) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063211045023 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Becker, W. J., Belkin, L. Y., Conroy, S. A., & Tuskey, S. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206319890655 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
The sustainability of open source commons
Curto-Millet, D., & Corsín Jiménez, A. (2023) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2022.2046516 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chen, W., Wei, X., & Zhu, K. X.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- University of Washington Bothell (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2018-03-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 83-100
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2783899661
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 27.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Keywords
- voluntary contributions, online communities, public goods, user motivation, reciprocity, peer recognition, self-image, hidden Markov models, platform design, sustainable communities
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