Cited by 64Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesKnowledge Management and Sharing

Developer Centrality and the Impact of Value Congruence and Incongruence on Commitment and Code Contribution Activity in Open Source Software Communities1

Maruping, Likoebe M., Daniel, Sherae L., Cataldo, Marcelo·2019·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

Open source software (OSS) communities are dependent on the code contributions of developers who, in many cases, never meet face-to-face and collaborate primarily through technology-enabled means. With their fluid membership, such communities often rely on engaging the commitment of developers to their cause. Given the changing nature of OSS communities, developers face barriers in appreciating appropriate ways of contributing to the collaborative effort. Such uncertainty about how to contribute results in OSS communities losing developers as they devote their attention to other, more welcoming, communities. In this research, we draw upon uncertainty reduction theory to argue that developers have two alternative avenues at their disposal to gain certainty about how to contribute: passive and interactive. Leveraging the person–environment fit perspective, we argue that congruence and incongruence in the OSS values of a developer and an OSS community serve as an avenue for passive approaches to gaining certainty, to the degree that appropriate ways of contributing are encoded in these values. Further, leveraging social network theory, we argue that centrality within a community’s communication network constitutes an avenue for interactive approaches for gaining certainty about how to contribute. Using polynomial regression analysis, we analyze survey and archival data from 410 developers in an OSS community. Results suggest that developer centrality moderates the impact of cong…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2019/13928

Cites

131 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Why open source is sustainable remains a key question in information systems.

    “Despite extensive research in open source, why it is sustainable remains a key question in information systems (Maruping et al., 2019).”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Maruping et al., 2019

  • The open source context might be more complex than Ostrom's CPRs, with new contributors to a project needing to understand and establish common values with the community.

    “the open source context might be more complex, with new contributors to a project needing to understand and establish common values with the community”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Maruping et al., 2019

  • Sustainability is a key problem in open source.

    “Still, sustainability is a key problem in open source (Maruping et al., 2019).”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Maruping et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Allen, 1997, Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application
  2. Bollen, 1990, Regression Diagnostics: An Expository Treatment of Outliers and Influential Cases
  3. Cohen, 2003, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
  4. Freeman, 2004, An Examination of Factors That Affect the Credibility of Online Health Information, Technical Communication, 51, 239
  5. Ghosh, 2002, Free/ Libre Open Source Software: Survey and Study
  6. Kluckhohn, 1951, Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification
  7. Lydon, 1996, Toward a Theory of Commitment
  8. Raymond, 2001, The cathedral and the Bazaar: Musing on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary
  9. Schein, 1985, Organisational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View
  10. Trice, 1993, The Cultures of Work Organizations
  11. Wagstrom, 2009, Vertical Communication in Open Software Engineering Communities
  12. Weinberg, 1998, The Psychology of Computer Programming (Silver Anniversary Edition)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maruping, L. M., Daniel, S. L., & Cataldo, M.
Affiliations
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2019-09-01
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
951-976
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W2970812854
Cited by
64
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
open source communities, value congruence, value incongruence, uncertainty reduction theory, person-environment fit, social network centrality, developer retention

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