Skip to main content

Encouraging solvers to sustain participation intention on crowdsourcing platforms: an investigation of social beliefs

Abstract

Solvers’ continuance participation intention is central to the survival and development of online crowdsourcing platforms. This study integrates sense of belonging and social beliefs (i.e., perceived fairness and platform trust) to understand continuance intention. This study proposes that perceived fairness and platform trust are helpful to build solvers’ sense of belonging, which is assumed to be positively associated with sustained intention. Another core contribution points to the complementary relationships, that is, perceived fairness and platform trust help solvers derive meaningfulness from their attachment that encourages sustained intention. Using a sample of 290 solvers obtained from an online crowdsourcing platform, the empirical testing provides support for the significant and positive effect of sense of belonging, which can be derived from high levels of procedural fairness and platform trust. Interestingly, results further support the complementaries between sense of belonging and its antecedents on continuance intention. Some new knowledge and implications can be contributed by this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Afuah A, Tucci CL (2012) Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Acad Manag Rev 37(3):355–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Anant SS (1966) Need to belong . Canadas Mental Health 14(2):21–27

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Aryee S, Budhwar PS, Chen ZX (2002) Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model. J Organ Behav 23(3):267–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ashforth BE, Harrison SH, Corley KG (2008) Identification in organizations: an examination of four fundamental questions. J Manag 34:325–374

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bagozzi R, Yi Y, Phillips L (1991) Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci Q 36(3):421–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Pintrnwski M (2002) Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. J Appl Psychol 87(1):43–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Battistella C, Nonino F (2012) Open innovation web-based platforms: the impact of different forms of motivation on collaboration. Innovation Manag Policy Pract 14(4):557–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Baumeister RF, Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull 117(3):497–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation confirmation model. MIS Q 25(3):351–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Boons M, Stam D, Barkema HG (2015) Feelings of pride and respect as drivers of ongoing member activity on crowdsourcing platforms. J Manage Stud 52(6):717–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Boudreau KJ, Lacetera N, Lakhani KR (2011) Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: an empirical Analysis. Manage Sci 57(5):843–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Chin WW (1998) The partial least square approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA (ed) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 295–336

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Cropanzano R, Byrne ZS, Bobocel DR, Rupp DE (2001) Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities and other denizens of organizational justice. J Vocat Behav 58(2):164–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Chua RYJ, Roth Y, Lemoine JF (2015) The impact of culture on creativity: how cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work. Adm Sci Q 60(2):189–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    De Cremer D, Blader SL (2006) Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. Eur J Soc Psychol 36(1):211–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    DeConinck JB (2010) The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust. J Bus Res 63:1349–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Deng XF, Joshi KD, Galliers RD (2016) The duality of empowerment and marginalization in microtask crowdsourcing: giving voice to the less powerful through value sensitive design. MIS Q 40(2):279–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Dirks KT, Ferrin DL (2001) The role of trust in organizational settings. Organ Sci 12(4):450–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Dissanayake I, Mehta N, Palvia P, Taras V, Amoako-Gyampah K (2019) Competition matters! Self-efficacy, effort, and performance in crowdsourcing teams. Inf Manag 56(8):103–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fang YL, Qureshi I, Sun HS, McCole P, Ramsey E, Lim KH (2014) Trust, satisfaction, and online repurchase Intention: the moderating role of perceived effectiveness of e-commerce institutional Mechanisms. MIS Q 38(2):407–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Feller J, Finnegan P, Hayes J, O’Reilly P (2012) ‘Orchestrating’ sustainable crowdsourcing: a characterisation of solver brokerages. J Strat Inf Syst 21:216–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ferris DL, Brown DJ, Heller D (2009) Organizational supports and organizational deviance: the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 108(2):279–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Franke N, Keinz P, Klausberger K (2013) Does this sound like a fair deal? Antecedents and consequences of fairness expectations in the individual’s decision to participate in firm innovation. Organ Sci 24(5):1495–1516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gefen D, Ridings CM (2002) Implementation team responsiveness and user evaluation of customer relationship management: a quasi-experimental design study of social exchange theory. J Manag Inf Syst 19(1):147–158

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Gefen D, Rigdon EE, Straub D (2011) An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Q 35(2):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau MC (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun AIS 4(7):1–79

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gilliland SW (1993) The perceived fairness of selection systems: an organizational justice perspective. Acad Manag Rev 18(4):694–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Guo J, Liu Z, Liu Y (2016) Key success factors for the launch of government social media platform: identifying the formation mechanism of continuance intention. Comput Hum Behav 55(12):750–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hagerty BM, Lynch-Sauer J, Patusky KL, Bouwsema M, Collier P (1992) Sense of belonging: a vital mental health concept. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 6(3):172–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2016) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark 43(1):115–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Heo M, Toomey N (2015) Motivating continued knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing: the impact of different type of visual feedback. Online Inf Rev 39(6):795–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Howe J (2008) Crowdsourcing: how the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. Random House, London

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kankanhalli A, Tan BCY, Wei KK (2005) Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Q 29(1):113–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Khasraghi HJ, Aghaie A (2014) Crowdsourcing contests: understanding the effect of competitors’ participation history on their performance. Behav Inf Technol 33(12):1383–1395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Leventhal GS (1980) What should be done with equity theory? In: Gergen KJ, Greenberg MS, Willis RH (eds) Social exchange: advances in theory and research. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Li D, Hu L (2017) Exploring the effects of reward and competition intensity on participation in crowdsourcing contests. Electron Mark 27(3):199–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Li M, Kankanhalli A, Kim SH (2016) Which ideas are more likely to be implemented in online user innovation communities? An empirical analysis. Decis Support Syst 84:28–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lin H (2008) Determinants of successful virtual communities: contributions from system characteristics and social factors. Inf Manag 45(8):522–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Lin H, Fan WG, Chau PYK (2014) Determinants of users’ continuance of social networking sites: a self-regulation perspective. Information & Management 51(5):595–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Liu Y, Liu Y (2019) The effect of workers’ justice perception on continuance participation intention in the crowdsourcing market. Internet Res 29(6):1485–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13(3):334–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW (1979) The measurement of organizational commitment. J Vocat Behav 14(2):224–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ray S, Kim SS, Morris JG (2014) The central role of engagement in online communities. Inf Syst Res 25(3):528–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Sun YQ, Fang YL, Lim KH (2012) Understanding sustained participation in transactional virtual communities. Decis Support Syst 53(1):12–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Sun Y, Wang N, Yin C, Zhang J (2015) Understanding the relationships between motivators and effort in crowdsourcing marketplaces: a nonlinear analysis. Int J Inf Manage 35(3):267–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Tyler TR, Smith HJ (1999) Justice, social identity, and group processes. In: Tyler TR, Kramer RM, John OP (eds) The psychology of the social self. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 223–264

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    van Prooijen JW, van den Bos K, Wilke HAM (2004) Group belongingness and procedural justice: social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of voice. J Personal Soc Psychol 87(1):66–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    van den Bos K, Wilke HAM, Lind EA (1998) When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. J Pers Soc Psychol 75(6):1449–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Wang MM, Wang JJ, Zhang WN (2019) How to enhance solvers’ continuance intention in crowdsourcing contest: the role of interactivity and fairness perception. Online Inf Rev 44(1):238–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Westland JC (2010) Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron Commer Res Appl 9(6):476–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ye H, Kankanhalli A (2017) Solvers’ participation in crowdsourcing platforms: examining the impacts of trust, and benefit and cost factors. J Strateg Inf Syst 26(2):101–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Zhao L, Lu Y, Wang B, Chau PYK, Zhang L (2012) Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: a social capital perspective. Int J Inf Manage 32:574–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Zhao YC, Zhu Q (2014) Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on participation in crowdsourcing contest: a perspective of self-determination theory. Online Inf Rev 38(7):896–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 72101122); Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology (Grant Number: 1521552001003)

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meng-Meng Wang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Measures

Appendix 1: Measures

Procedural fairness (PF) adapted from Gilliland [28] and Franke et al. [24].

  1. PF1.

    On Zhubajie.com, I have the right to voice my opinion during the task participation process.

  2. PF2.

    Zhubajie.com provides a transparent participation process.

  3. PF3.

    On Zhubajie.com, all solvers are treated equally during the participation process.

Distributive fairness (DF) adapted from Gilliland [28] and Franke et al. [24].

  1. DF1.

    In my eyes, the reward is split fairly between the solver with the winning solution and Zhubajie.com.

  2. DF2.

    In my eyes, the winning solution deserves the reward for my participating task.

Platform Trust (PT) adapted from McKnight et al. [44].

  1. PT1.

    Zhubajie.com provides good and reliable crowdsourcing services.

  2. PT2.

    Zhubajie.com cares about the well-being of the solvers.

  3. PT3.

    Zhubajie.com provides a secure trade system.

  4. PT4.

    Overall, I believe Zhubajie.com is trustworthy.

Sense of belonging (BS) adapted from Mowday et al. [45].

  1. BS1.

    I feel a sense of attachment with Zhubajie.com.

  2. BS2.

    I feel an obligation to Zhubajie.com.

  3. BS3.

    I have a identification with the principles of Zhubajie.com.

Continuance intention (CI) adapted from Bhattacherjee [9].

  1. CPI1.

    I intend to continue participating in the tasks on Zhubajie.com.

  2. CPI2.

    My intentions are to continue participating in Zhubajie.com rather than on other crowdsourcing platforms.

  3. CPI3.

    If I could, I would like to discontinue my participation in the tasks on Zhubajie.com.

Perceived benefits adapted from Kankanhalli et al. [35].

  1. 1.

    Participating in the tasks on Zhubajie.com can help me earn some money.

  2. 2.

    Zhubajie.com platform provides me a new chance for work.

  3. 3.

    Participating in the tasks on Zhubajie.com provides me with opportunities for increasing my knowledge and skills.

Perceived effort adapted from Barrick et al. [6].

  1. 1.

    I try hard to finish the task which I am participating in.

  2. 2.

    I need to put in effort into understanding the task requirements.

  3. 3.

    I need to input much time and effort to solve tasks on Zhubajie.com platform.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, MM. Encouraging solvers to sustain participation intention on crowdsourcing platforms: an investigation of social beliefs. Inf Technol Manag (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-021-00340-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sense of belonging
  • Continuance intention
  • Crowdsourcing platform
  • Social beliefs