Exploring the mediating role of utilitarian value and hedonic value in the formation of oppositional loyalty in online communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our research expands the scope of the research on oppositional loyalty from brands to online communities. Online communities allow members to freely express their opinions and promote the occurrence of oppositional loyalty behaviours towards the communities. Oppositional loyalty is defined in this article that, for the purpose of strengthening the market position of their preferred community, members of the online community may express negative views or even show oppositional behaviour towards adversarial communities. In view of social capital theory, the study examines the effect of hedonic value and utilitarian value on oppositional loyalty in online communities. The results show that only hedonic value significantly affects oppositional loyalty; hedonic value mediates the effect of the three dimensions of social capital (network ties, identification, and common language) on oppositional loyalty. The study identifies that community type moderates the impact of social capital (identification and common language) on hedonic value but does not moderate the effect of social capital on utilitarian value. Finally, we find that members' oppositional loyalty towards their community can promote their community participation. This research provides recommendations for online community managers to manage and benefit from members' oppositional loyalty.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".