Electronic Markets

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 199–210 | Cite as

Exploring the effects of reward and competition intensity on participation in crowdsourcing contests

  • Dan LiEmail author
  • Longying Hu
Research Paper


With the growth of web 2.0 technology, crowdsourcing contests now offer task-seekers an opportunity to access expertise and resources at a lower cost. Many studies have investigated the effects of influencing factors on solvers’ participation behaviors. However, there has been scant research on the effect of competition intensity and on the relationships between competition and reward. We collect data from the Taskcn website in China to build a two-equation model based on expectation-value theory to explore the effects of task reward and competition intensity on solvers’ registration and submission behaviors. The research results verify that task reward is positively associated with the number of registrations and submissions, and competition intensity is negatively associated with solvers’ submissions. In addition, the empirical results show that competition intensity moderates the relationship between task reward and submissions. These findings provide valuable contributions to the literature on crowdsourcing contests.


Crowdsourcing contest Task reward Competition intensity Registration Submission Two-equation model 

JEL Classification



The authors highly appreciate the Senior Editor Doug Vogel and Judith Gebauer and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. All errors remain ours.


  1. Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20(1), 1–63.Google Scholar
  2. Archak, N., & Sundararajan, A. (2009). Optimal design of crowdsourcing contests. ICIS 2009 Proceedings.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(61), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2013). Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard Business Review, 91(4), 60–69.Google Scholar
  5. Boudreau, K. J., Lacetera, N., & Lakhani, K. R. (2011). Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 57(5), 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brabham, D. C. (2008a). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving an introduction and cases. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brabham, D. C. (2008b). Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: The composition of the crowd and motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. First Monday, 13(6), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brabham, D. C. (2010). Moving the crowd at Threadless: Motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1122–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, Y., Ho, T.-H., & Kim, Y.-M. (2010). Knowledge market design: A field experiment at Google answers. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12(4), 641–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiu, C.-M., & Wang, E. (2008). Understanding web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value. Information & Management, 45, 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiPalantino, D., & Vojnovic, M. (2009). Crowdsourcing and all-pay auctions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, 119–128.Google Scholar
  15. Horton, J. J., & Chilton, L. B. (2010). The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. ACM, 209–218Google Scholar
  16. Kaufmann, N., Schulze, T., & Veit, D. (2011). More than fun and money. Worker Motivation in Crowdsourcing-A Study on Mechanical Turk. Paper presented at the AMCIS.Google Scholar
  17. Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging crowdsourcing: Activation-supporting components for IT-based ideas competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, T. X., Yang, J., Adamic, L. A., & Chen, Y. (2014). Crowdsourcing with all-pay auctions: A field experiment on taskcn. Management Science, 60(8), 2020–2037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nagengast, B., Marsh, H. W., Scalas, L. F., Xu, M. K., Hau, K.-T., & Trautwein, U. (2011). Who took the “×” out of expectancy-value theory? A psychological mystery, a substantive-methodological synergy, and a cross-national generalization. Psychological Science, 22(8), 1058–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (2012). The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy× value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sun, Y., Fang, Y., & Lim, K. H. (2012). Understanding sustained participation in transactional virtual communities. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Terwiesch, C., & Xu, Y. (2008). Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science, 54(9), 1529–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. 1964. NY: John Wiley &sons, 47–51.Google Scholar
  26. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. Handbook of Motivation at School, 55–75.Google Scholar
  28. Wu, C.-G., Gerlach, J., & Young, C. (2007). An empirical analysis of open source software developers' motivations and continuance intentions. Information & Management, 44(3), 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yang, J., Adamic, L. A., & Ackerman, M. S. (2008a). Competing to share expertise: The taskcn knowledge sharing community. Paper presented at the ICWSM, 161–169.Google Scholar
  30. Yang, J., Adamic, L.A., & Ackerman, M.S. (2008b). Crowdsourcing and knowledge sharing: strategic user behavior on taskcn. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, 246–255Google Scholar
  31. Yang, Y., Chen, P.-Y., & Pavlou, P. (2009). Open innovation: An empirical study of online contests. Paper presented at ICIS, 1–16.Google Scholar
  32. Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2014). Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(3), 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zheng, H., Li, D., & Hou, W. (2011). Task design, motivation, and participation in crowdsourcing contests. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(4), 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations