MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176073091 · doi:10.1108/jkm-07-2020-0530

The influence mechanism of rewards on knowledge sharing behaviors in virtual communities

2021· article· en· W3176073091 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Knowledge Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementKnowledge sharingTacit knowledgeVirtual communityExplicit knowledgeVirtual organizationContext (archaeology)IncentiveOriginalityComputer sciencePsychologyThe InternetSocial psychologyWorld Wide WebCreativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of organizational rewards on two forms of knowledge sharing – explicit knowledge sharing and tacit knowledge sharing in virtual communities, and further to explore the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation on the effect of virtual community rewards on implicit knowledge sharing. Design/methodology/approach Based on relevant knowledge sharing theories, this study develops an integrated framework to explore virtual community rewards and tacit and explicit knowledge sharing in a virtual context. This study then collected data from 429 virtual community users in four virtual communities via an online survey. Hierarchical regression analyzes were used to test the proposed research model. Findings The results of this study show that virtual rewards have a significantly positive linear relationship with explicit knowledge sharing but have an inverse U-shape relationship with tacit knowledge sharing in virtual communities. In addition, intrinsic motivations including enjoyment and self-efficacy mediate the relationship between rewards and tacit knowledge sharing. Practical implications This study suggests more virtual community rewards may not always lead to more tacit knowledge sharing. Instead, too many rewards may weaken the motivation for tacit knowledge sharing. Knowledge management practitioners should make full use of the positive impact of self-efficacy and enjoyment to set up appropriate reward incentives to encourage knowledge-sharing, in particular, tacit knowledge sharing and to better manage virtual communities. Originality/value This study explores knowledge-sharing behavior in virtual communities, an important step toward more integrated knowledge-sharing theories. While online communities have become increasingly important for today’s knowledge economy, few studies have explored knowledge and knowledge sharing in a virtual context and this study helps to bridge the gap. In addition, this study develops an integrated framework to explore the mechanism through which virtual community rewards affect knowledge sharing with intrinsic motivation mediating this relationship in online communities, which further enriches the understanding on how to use virtual rewards to motivate knowledge sharing behaviors in the virtual context.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it