Power and Perceived Power Use by Moderators in Online Communities

Gnafaki Katerina 1834952

Abstract Online community sites, in which users interact with each other to share knowledge, represent an interesting context to study the motivations of collective action as well as individual ones in the form of knowledge contribution to online community sites. We extend a model of social capital and individual motivations based on Wasko and Faraj (2005) to incorporate and contrast the direct impact of commitment to community, reciprocity, enjoyment in helping others and reputation, on users intentions to share knowledge. In addition, taking the approach/inhibition theory into account, we examine the moderating influence of perceived coercive power use of moderators on users willingness to contribute in online community sites. We empirically test our framework using objective data derived from 207 respondents, all of whom are members of an online community site. In addition to the interesting moderating effect, we find that a users commitment to the community and reputation are the strongest drivers of his intentions to share knowledge. Keywords: Online communities, knowledge sharing, online moderation, power

1. Introduction
With the rapid growth of the Internet, online communities emerge as a new place for individuals to interact with each other (Yang and Lai, 2008). Intuitively, everyone seems to understand the concept of online community but so far there is no agreed upon definition. Sociologists define a virtual community as a group of individuals who communicate and build social relationships with each other via Internet-based technology, (Rheingold, 1993) while knowledge management theory explains that an online community provides a new way for individuals to exchange the knowledge they possess (Yang and Lai, 2008). A common definition that is used to describe an online community is a group of people, who come together for a purpose online, and who are governed by norms and policies (Preece, 2000) and this is the one we adopt in our study. Online communities are dynamic, evolving and constantly change (De Souza and Preece, 2004). Understanding why people use online communities can provide valuable information about their success. Recent theorizing on online communities (Preece, 2004; Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2002; Ridings et al., 2002) suggests that an important characteristic that all online communities share is textbased communication, and that information sharing constitutes an essential element in fostering online community use and thereby success. For example, Yang and Lai (2008) argue that if everyone in the virtual community plays the role of free-rider, i.e., acquiring the information without sharing, the community would collapse. While information sharing has been found to be a motivation for using online communities (Wasko and Faraj, 2000), ensuring information quality or inducing quality content, however, remains a challenge (Chen et al., 2007). Valck et al. (2009) discuss that communities can facilitate computer-mediated interactions between members by providing a code of conduct that specifies community standards with regard to behavior, language or content, and that is regulated by online community managers. For example, Slashdot has constructed a moderation system that has been recognized for its quality of content unlike many other social

networks. On Slashdot, each comment posted by a user, receives a score ranging from -1 to 5, indicating the quality of the comment. Once a comment is posted, it may be checked or moderated by selected users who can change its score according to the quality of information provided (Chen et al., 2007). The scholarly literature emphasizes the importance of moderating content in online communities. Davis (2005) argues that community moderation appears essential for the discussions to run smoothly. In order to achieve this, moderators are given the power and authority to remove any content that does not correspond with the communitys policy (Johnson et al., 2004; Preece, 2001). Several ways of power use to moderate online content have been discussed in the past (Edwards, 2002; Wright, 2006). For instance, moderators use their power to filter, facilitate and help online discussions by removing those that disrespect communitys rules, as well as mediate when individuals come into conflict. However, as observed in the literature, moderators have not always used the power that is given to them to regulate information sharing in the right way, as online community moderation if done incorrectly can be worse than having no moderation at all. This is confirmed by Wright (2009) who claims that the fear remains, however, that the power to moderate the content of online forums may be abused. Wright (2009) also explains that this could be done when moderators use their power to set overly restrictive rules or ignore fair rules and delete messages. Despite the fact that online communities have existed for almost 30 years, little research has been done on how moderators can influence users willingness to share information. Interestingly, we find that there is a gap in existing literature as theories about online communities (Ridings et al., 2002) focus on just one part of community members, users, without taking into consideration moderators. We also observe that past research mostly discusses that moderation is positive (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2003; De Schutter et al., 2004; Berge, 1996). Strangely enough, negative ways of power use to achieve moderation have not been examined thoroughly. To comprehend the concept of power that is given to moderators, it is wise to examine the existing literature on power and authority. According to Ba (2001) and Bahruth (2000) power is often defined as the capacity for one social unit (e.g., the leader) to determine the behavior of another (e.g.,

followers) and the ability to control its actions. If we translate this to online communities, power can be defined as the capacity of moderators to determine the behavior of the users. In online community moderation, power can be used in positive as well as negative ways. For example, Michelson (2006) considers power as a positive force that is continually used to achieve group as well as individual goals and that when power is used in an ethical and purposeful way there is nothing evil about it. On the other hand, Ba (2001) points out the negative ways of power use by stating that there are ways in which leaders, even those who are otherwise well-intentioned, may abuse a specific type of power. Applying this perspective to our study, we focus on the negative ways of power use by moderators in online communities. 1.2 Contributions of the Research Understanding various ways of power use can provide valuable information about moderators role in an online community. Following the study of Chen et al, (2007) who discuss the effective role of moderators to regulate users who otherwise would take advantage of the anonymity in online communities, we introduce an adverse selection problem; opportunistic moderators. Recent publications have suggested that it may be conceptually relevant to investigate community members by splitting them to users and moderators (Bakker et al., 2000). Therefore, it seems necessary to refine our understanding and consider online communities which consist of both parties; the users on one hand and the moderators on the other, equally important for the success of the community.We hence investigate the implications of opportunistic moderation and we address the question of how perceived power of the moderators impacts on users willingness to share information. The problem is that although declarations about the importance of moderation are made widely in the literature, often little or no detail is given about what happens in case online moderation is done incorrectly, either by accident or on purpose. Research efforts to date have specifically advanced our understanding of the effective moderation of electronic discussions, i.e., the positive ways of power use in achieving moderation and the ways that moderation facilitates online discussions. However, what happens in the opposite way, i.e., the negative ways of power use and how they influence information sharing remains

obscure. Consequently, many knowledge gaps still exist and this is where our study aims to shed light on. Additionally, the contributions for practice can be noteworthy. The results of this study can be very useful for online communities to sustain their websites, blogs, wikis etc. as it attempts to address the role of moderation and how it can be more effective by overcoming barriers concerning power use Specifically, this study can make practical contributions by exposing problems arising from bad moderation and therefore helping community managers to eliminate them. Additionally, by emphasizing the dark side of moderation our study also generates practical insight for community managers to comprehend how moderation can be improved, showing the way to a better facilitation of online discussions, enhanced cooperation and less disputes among members and moderators. 1.3 Thesis Outline Our paper is organized as follows. Chapter two discusses theories about online communities, how they stimulate information sharing and the role that moderators play in facilitating information sharing. Furthermore we introduce the concept of power use by moderators and we examine how perceived power use by moderators impacts users willingness to share information. Additionally, we include the development of hypotheses and the presentation of the research model. Chapter three focus on the respondents, the design, methods and variables that were used for our study, while chapter four presents the findings of our study. Finally, in chapter five we conclude this paper by addressing the relevance and implication of our findings.

2. Theoretical Framework

The first paragraph (2.1) of this theoretical framework will be focused on introducing the history of online communities through the years as well as the motivations to join an online community, focusing on information sharing. The second paragraph (2.2) will shed light on information sharing, its history on the internet and what is the role of information sharing in online communities. The following paragraph (2.3) will discuss about moderation, what kind of roles moderators have, and in what ways they use the power that is given to them in online communities. In addition, section (2.4) will offer some insights on power, reviewing power from different perspectives, introducing French and Ravens classification (1959) on bases of social power while highlighting the approach/inhibition theory that will play an important role in our study. Finally, in paragraph fifth (2.5), the last part of this chapter, the research model and an overview of the hypotheses will be presented. 2.1 What are online communities? Online communities have existed on the Internet for almost a quarter of a century (Ridings and Gefen, 2004). The Well (http://www.well.com/), started in 1985, and Usenet newsgroups, started in 1979, are widely regarded as the first virtual communities on the Internet. Since then there has been a steady flow of new versions and new technologies (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2003) as with the shift from the early static Web pages that appeared in the mid 1990s to highly interactive Web pages, virtual communities have swiftly appeared on the World Wide Web (Ridings and Gefen, 2004). The past years, more and more private individuals clustered online with similar others to anchor themselves, support each other, and exchange information (Bressler and Grantham, 2000). Early descriptions of online communities were anecdotal and tended to make comparisons with face to face communication (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2003). Preece (2000) explains that the term was then hard to define is due to the fact that it means different things to different people. In 1993, though, Rheingold captured the essence of an online community in a way that still endures today: virtual communities are cultural aggregations that emerge when enough people

bump into each other often in cyberspace. A virtual community is a group of people who may or may not meet one another face-to-face, and who exchange words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks (Rheingold, 1993). More interpretations of online communities have then followed Rheingolds definition. For example, virtual communities have been characterized as people with shared interests or goals for whom electronic communication is a primary form of interaction (Dennis, Pootheri, and Natarajan, 1998), as groups of people who meet regularly to discuss a subject of interest to all members (Figallo, 1998), and groups of people brought together by shared interests or a geographic bond (Kilsheimer, 1997). For individuals and groups, online communities facilitate virtual collaboration among community members with the potential of transforming the activities of off-line into an online context (Massey et al. 2003). Finally, the definition we use in our study comes from Preece (2000), who defines an online community as a group of people, who come together for a purpose online, and who are governed by norms and policies. The reason why we selected this definition is mirrored in the summary of De Souza and Preece (2004) who argue that 1) it encourages a balanced view of both social and technical issues; and 2) it is widely applicable to a range of communities both online and physical. Through the years previous discussions on online communities have focused on different aspects. Initially, for example, communities were characterized mainly by their physical features, such as size, location and their boundaries (Preece, 2001). The location of the virtual community, although not physical, is regarded important because it establishes the virtual place where the members meet (Ridings et al., 2002). This location or mechanism may be a listserv email program, chat room, multiuser domain or bulletin board. Listservs are one type of community, where the members communicate through a common email program. Chat rooms are another place where members interact. Multiuser domains (MUDs) are programs that accept network connections from multiple simultaneous users and provide access to a shared database of rooms, exits, and other objects (Curtis and Nichols, 1993). Finally, bulletin boards or newsgroups are places where members interact asynchronously.

Another facet of the definition of a virtual community is the frequency with which its members participate in it. According to Sproull and Faraj (1997), the people in a virtual community have a notion of membership, whether formal or informal, and form personal relationships with others in the community while communities often develop strong norms and expectations for behavior (Sproull and Kiesler, 1991). Consequently, people typically are attached to the communities and visit them often (Hiltz and Wellman, 1997). Despite the discussions about the online communities from a variety of angles, researchers agree that online communities can be made feasible by the presence of groups of people who interact with specific purposes, under the governance of certain policies, and with the facilitation of computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Lin and Lee, 2006). However, the presence of people, location, or frequency mentioned before, as facets for the development of online communities can be also met in the offline, traditional, face-to-face communities. Therefore, what is exactly the difference between electronic communities from traditional ones? Hiltz and Wellman (1997) argue that compared to communities offline, computer-supported communities tend to be larger, more dispersed in space and time, more densely knit, and have members with more heterogeneous social characteristics, such as lifecycle stage, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status but with more homogeneous attitudes. According to Sproull and Faraj (1997), there are three main differences between online and traditional communities. First, physical location is irrelevant to participation in virtual communities. Second, most participants in virtual communities are invisible (i.e., if an individual only reads messages and does not post, other members may not be aware of his presence at all). Third, the logistical and social costs to participate in virtual communities are lower than those for participation in face-to-face communities. Kollock and Smith (1999) also observed that virtual communities differ from face-to-face communities in important ways such as the lack of real-world physical cues, the ability of members to change their identities, degree of social order and control, as well as purpose. 2.1.2 Motivations to join an online community Research in social psychology has revealed different motivations for individuals to join regular, non-Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) groups (Ridings and

Gefen, 2004). Humans have a need to belong and be connected with others (Watson and Johnson, 1972). According to social identity theory (Hogg, 1996; Tajfel, 1978), people form a social identity of values, attitudes and behavioral intentions from the perceived membership in distinct self-inclusive real or imagined social groups. Moving from traditional, face-to face groups, the aforementioned motivations for joining a community can be applied to online communities as well (Ridings and Gefen, 2004). Rheingold (1991) describes the essence of virtual communities and suggests motivations to use: People in virtual communities use words as screens to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them, play games, flirt, create a little high art, and a lot of idle talk. Ridings and Gefen (2004) argue that another possible reason why people join virtual communities is to seek friendship. They mention that the interactivity achieved with chat rooms, instant messaging, and bulletin boards, and the various search facilities available on the Internet provide a way for individuals to search for and to communicate with others for the purpose of establishing and continuing friendships. In addition, this interactivity gives them the feeling of being together; being part of a group, spending time together, engaging in small-talk with people around the world (Ridings and Gefen, 2004; Wellman, 1997). According to Butler et al. (2002), online groups can provide a place to build and maintain social ties with people already known offline as well as those first met online. Furthermore, recreation can also constitute another reason to join an online community (Ridings and Gefen, 2004; Wasko and Faraj, 2000; Utz, 2000). Virtual community participants have been found to believe that the communities are fun and enjoyable (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). For instance, Utz (2000) proposes that the primary motivation for individuals in MUDs is an interest in recreational roleplaying and game playing. In addition, prior studies of online groups suggest that people often participate as a way to gain access to otherwise obscure or inaccessible information that is relevant to their work, hobbies, health, and other fields in which they are personally interested (Galegher, Sproull and Kiesler, 1998; von Hippel, 2001). This

information benefit may come in the form of receiving answers to specific questions or general knowledge arising from exposure to group communications (Butler et al., 2002). Indeed, the most frequently cited reason for individuals to join an online community in the literature is to access information (Jones, 1995; Wellman et al., 1996). Ridings and Gefen (2004) discuss what makes virtual communities unique is that most of their content is member-generated, as opposed to other Internet information which is typically provided by the site provider. Baxter (2007) argues that it is the member-generated content that adds stickiness to a site, encouraging people to stay, participate and revisit. The importance of member-generated content as a motivation to join online communities has been discussed by Hagel and Armstrong (1997) who highlight that as more members generate more content, the increased content draws more members. Ridings et al. (2002) discuss that there are two basic modes in which individuals can use a virtual community; to get information or give information. This study examines information sharing in virtual communities and the effect of moderation on this exchange. Next section will be focused on introducing a brief history of information sharing on the internet, how do we conceptualize it and what is the role of information sharing in online communities. 2.2 A brief history of information sharing on the internet The earliest known versions of online information sharing environments date back to the email-based discussion lists that predate the internet. Implemented in the form of Listservs and other centralized hub implementers of group email, these early interpretations leveraged collections of email addresses and allowed a limited form of group consultation (Rafaeli and Raban, 2005). Usenet constituted the next generation to follow. On average, in 2001 about 700,000 messages were contributed to Usenet per day (Viegas and Smith, 2004), a number that revealed its great popularity. Furthermore, with the emergence of WWW protocol in the early 90s many web-based forums for information sharing were created, allowing much more intricate and sophisticated designs while appealing to a much larger audience (Rafaeli and Raban, 2005). Few years later, the web evolved into a new stage, with the emergence of blogs or weblogs. According to Drezner and Farrell (2004) a weblog is a type of website with minimal to no external editing, providing on-line commentary, periodically updated and presented in reverse chronological

order, with hyperlinks to other online sources. Blogs can function as personal diaries, technical advice columns, sports chat, celebrity gossip, political commentary, or all of the above and the process of posts commenting on posts are a key form of information exchange in the blogosphere (Drezner and Farrell, 2004). Among the latest innovations in online mechanisms that encourage information sharing are the so called Wikis, which are server-based software systems that allow users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. Wikis support hyperlinks and have simple text syntax for creating new pages; they are designed to enable open editing, encourage democratic use of the Web and promote content composition by nontechnical users (Rafaeli and Raban, 2005). Encyclopedias and dictionaries are a good example of wiki-powered information collections. Finally, social networking that emerged in 2003 is another example of online mechanism which promotes information sharing. LinkedIn.com,

Friendster.com and Facebook.com are regarded among the more heavily populated of these sites. As it has become clear from the discussion above the information sharing continuum, ranging from the free flow of gossip to the highly restricted flow of specialized and proprietary information has been studied through the years. The plethora of available systems for information sharing discussed gives us a good view of information sharing on the internet. However what do we mean by information sharing and how we conceptualize it? 2.2.2 Conceptualizing information sharing Many descriptions of information sharing have been given through the years. For example, Sharratt and Usoro (2003) defined sharing as a process whereby a resource is given by one party and received by another. It seems that sharing occurs uniquely with information, in ways not replicated with other goods or services (Rafaeli and Raban, 2005). Specifically, Rafaeli and Raban (2005) suggest that people would rather share something intangible like information than tangible goods e.g., their car or their house. For sharing to occur, there must be an exchange; a resource must pass between source and recipient (Sharatt and Usoro, 2003). The term information sharing thus implies the giving and receiving of information (Sharatt and Usoro, 2003). Information sharing is also regarded to be

the act of providing a helpful answer in response to a request for information (Rafaeli and Raban, 2005). Therefore, sharing is also responsive. It depends on the kindness of peers, friends, or complete strangers or on some intangible reward structure. Furthermore, Hidding and Catterall (1998) also tried to conceptualize information sharing by reasoning that knowledge has no value unless it has been shared and used in some way. In other words, sharing knowledge is the natural way to increase the value of knowledge (Yang and Lai, 2008). In addition, Hendriks (1999) argued that generally knowledge-sharing presumes at least two kinds of people to engage in; one who possess knowledge and the other who request for acquire knowledge.1 2.2.3 Information sharing in online communities In its current form, the World Wide Web (W3) provides a simple and effective means for users to search, browse and retrieve information, as well as to make information of their own available for others (Bentley et al., 1995). One of the most popular points at which content is generated and contributed is within online communities where people share news, information, jokes, music, discussion, pictures, and social support (Ling et al., 2005). Although an increasing number of online communities support interaction between participants via multimedia applications such as video conferencing tools, Internet telephony tools, webcams and the like, almost all rely upon the exchange of texts between writers and readers in an ongoing discursive activity (Burnett, 2000). Virtual communities owe their existence to information exchange between members (Hagel and Armstrong, 1997; Rheingold, 1993). Whether members participate in the community for its topical content or to socially connect with
1

Although it is important to distinguish between knowledge and information (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), what

gets transmitted electronically is either data or information (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000). In particular, the terms knowledge and information are often used interchangeably by many researchers. Kogut and Zander (1992) for example, define information as knowledge which can be transmitted without loss of integrity, thus suggesting that information is one form of knowledge. Sharatt and Usoro (2003) also discuss that information by definition is informative and, therefore, tells us something and that knowledge is gained through the interpretation of information. Van Beveren (2002) however states that the sharing of information covers a broad spectrum of exchanges and does not necessarily lead to the creation of new knowledge. For the purpose of this study, we also use the term interchangeably, since our scope is not concerned with the interpretation of information that is exchanged but with the information itself.

other members, contact is made by producing and processing textual or graphical member contributions (Valck et al., 2009) and members are passively informed about noteworthy issues (Hoffman and Novak, 1996). Knowledge sharing is enabled through mechanisms that support posting and responding to questions, sharing stories of personal experience as well as discussing and debating issues relevant to the community (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). According to Ridings et al. (2002) sharing in online communities embodies both giving and getting information. Getting information is simply reading the ongoing conversation in a community, as well as actively soliciting information by posting questions and comments, whereas giving information is done by posting conversation, either in direct response to another members post or simply by starting a new topic in the community (Ridings et al., 2002). For instance, in an online forum, individuals, may post a topic to request specific knowledge while someone else who possesses the knowledge may reply the topic by providing the knowledge they have (Yang and Lai, 2008). In addition, Lueg (2003) argues that members do not only get to know new information but they also learn from others about how and where to find further information and how to make use of this information. For example, community members may also use other online communication channels, such as email, mailing lists, chats, instant messengers and other newsgroups, to disseminate information they received in a community or to search for new one. Interestingly, both receivers and senders of information are found to presumably gain from information exchange (Valck et al., 2009). However, this can only be achieved as long as active participation is ensured (Butler et al., 2002). Specifically, Butler et al. (2002) explain that participation is secured by creating and consuming content. Creating content implies generating messages, responding to messages, organizing discussion, and offering other online activities of interest to members. On the other hand, consuming content is equally important because if members do not regularly read the material that others provide, the online groups will not remain viable (Butler et al., 2002). Since information sharing and user-generated content have become popular online phenomena, the quality of content has become a concern (Chen et al., 2007). For example, in Wikipedia, readers may be provided with content that is

misleading or even incorrect and the quality of it may not be equal for all the articles represented (Kolbitsch and Maurer, 2006). On Slashdot, commentators may post some biased or useless comments; e.g., advertisers from companies may post biased comments to promote their products (Chen et al., 2007). A large part of the increase in coordination and regulation efforts in Wikipedia is due to the need of defining quality standards and assuring the quality of content (Vigas et. al., 2007). Therefore, it is of vital importance for the online world to secure the dissemination of information and to communicate what information should or should not be presented (Preece, 2001). It appears that having clearly defined policies and rules safeguards the dissemination of information. For example, the literature on offline organizational communities indicates that organizations should take a proactive approach to changing the shared social norms of sharing by instituting organizational policies (Davenport, 1997). The policies Davenport suggested include creating a committee or assigning responsibility to addressing information use issues and clarifying the organization's objectives for using and sharing information. Preece (2001) also discussed the importance of policy for securing information flow as it is the language and protocols that guide peoples interactions and contribute to the development of folklore and rituals that bring a sense of history and accepted social norms. Studies by Preece (2001) and Wang (2002) suggest that policies can influence who joins the community, how easy it is to get into the community, the style of communication among participants as well as privacy and security issues. However, despite having clearly defined policies and rules in an online community, how these should be enforced is also a matter of discussion. Specifically, Preece and Maloney-Krichmar (2003) emphasize that there is no point in making rules if they are not enforced. In addition, Valck et al. (2009) discuss that is important to enforce group norms as these will allow them to establish and maintain an amiable ambiance in the community. So, how can these rules be enforced in order to facilitate information sharing? The answer is given by Lazar and Preece (2002) who state that community rules are usually enforced by the moderator. Moderators can perform a range of different activities. There are a number of tools and roles given to moderator depending on administrations aims, the technology used as wells as the context in which the discussion forum

operates (Wright, 2006). The role that moderation plays in online communities as well as the levels of activity undertaken by community moderators are discussed more thoroughly in the following sections. 2.3 Moderation in online communities Moderation in online communities has existed for nearly as long as online communities, and has been designed to combat problems that arise from the interaction of its members (Lackaff, 2004). Lackaff (2004) suggests that some of the most frequently acknowledged problems an online community experiences are content overload, spam, and malice, though different online communities will experience different problems as they increase in popularity. Content or information overload is the state of an individual (or system) in which not all communication inputs can be processed and utilized, leading to breakdown (Rogers and Agarwala-Rogers 1975). In the context of CMC, researchers refer to both conversational overload when too many messages are delivered, and information entropy when incoming messages are not sufficiently organized to be easily recognized as significant or as part of a conversations history (Jones et al., 2004). Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately, while malice refers to cases of intentional abuse, such as trolling, flaming, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt the community. Surprisingly, discussions in online communities are challenged by the aforementioned problems. Therefore an effective way to cope with these problems is to address them to moderators so that they can facilitate and maintain forward progress in the discussions (De Loach and Greenlaw, 2007). Lackaff (2004) distinguishes two options for community moderation; social moderation and technical moderation. Social moderation is the process by which community norms are maintained through social constructions and interaction, i.e. constitutions, declarations of purpose, and education of new members (Lackaff, 2004). On the other hand, technical moderation involves two general classes; user level moderation and post level moderation. An example of user level moderation is the Usenet kill file, that allows a user to completely ignore a set of postings based on simple criteria, such as the posters name or keywords in the text. In contrast, post level moderation is a process where either all messages are only

posted after they have been explicitly approved or all messages are read after they are posted, and inappropriate messages are deleted (Lackaff, 2004). Apart from the aforementioned options for community moderation, it is also important to identify the various roles that moderators perform in an online environment. These roles have been discussed exhaustively by many researchers (Berge, 1992; Collins and Berge, 1997; Salmon, 2000) and will be reviewed in the following section of our study. 2.3.1 The role of moderators in online communities Literature to date has identified that moderators are given the power to undertake various roles within online communities. Particularly, Scott Wright detects no less than eleven functions which may be given to the moderator. For instance, by posting new questions and topics, the moderator assumes the role of a conversation stimulator; he can act as a mediator when participants come into conflict; he can facilitate debate between elected representatives and citizens by summarizing the main points of the various messages; he can also be an open censor by removing messages disrespecting the forums rules, whilst at the same time providing senders with explanations concerning the censorship so that they can reword the contentious message(Wright, 2006). In addition, several other ways of power use to moderate online content have been discussed by other researchers (Berge, 1992; Collins and Berge, 1997; Salmon, 2000) including: Facilitating, so that the group is kept focused and on topic Managing the list, e.g. archiving, deleting and adding subscribers Filtering messages and deciding which ones to post, e.g. removing flames, libelous posts, spam, inappropriate jokes and generally keeping the ratio of messages high Being an expert, meaning that he can answer frequently asked questions (FAQS) or direct people to read FAQs and policies of the community Being an editor, s/he edits texts and format messages Promoting questions to generate discussions Being marketer, he promotes the list to others so that they join Helping users with general needs, and finally , Being a fireman, he ensures that flaming is done offline.

An alternative approach by La Bonte et al. (2003) highlights further roles that are mandated to moderators. Specifically, their study suggests that moderators, in order to manage an online learning environment, they have to pay attention to the intellectual, social as well as managerial and technical factors of the community. For example, the moderator should encourage participation through use of questions and probing; he should focus the discussion on critical concepts, principles and skills; he should contribute to the creation of a friendly, social environment, the promotion of healthy and social interactions, as well as the creation of opportunities to sustain discussions (La Bonte et al., 2003). In addition, their study also suggest that managerial factors require moderators to manage the flow and direction of discussion without stifling creative opportunity, while challenges coming from technological factors expect that moderator becomes familiar and proficient at the use of technology (La Bonte et al., 2003). Studies by Coleman and Gotze (2001) examine various other ways of power use to moderate online discussions. For instance, their study distinguishes seven kinds of moderators: The social host helps create an environment where the members feel comfortable to participate. The moderator as manager leads the discussion and pays attention to adherence to focus, timelines, tasks lists, commitments and process. The community of practice facilitates exchanges amongst the

participants, facilitating group interaction and highlighting points of agreement as they emerge. The cybrarian participates as an expert on a specific topic, stimulating discussions by providing relevant information as needed. The help desk provides simple technical pointers on using the software. The referee is considered probably the best-known moderator role, in that s/he aims at making participants respect the rules of the debate and keeping them on topic. The janitor tidies up forgotten topics by freezing and archiving and redirects activity if it is in the wrong area (Coleman and Gotze, 2001). Similarly, Berge and Collins (2000) detect the role of moderator as intellectual leader. In particular, their study suggests that a subset of the roles and tasks of

online teachers seems to be the same or very similar to those of moderators. Furthermore, the role of moderator as intellectual leader has also been emphasized by Berge (1995), who suggests that some of the most important roles of moderators revolve around their duties as educational facilitator. For example, the moderator may use questions and probe for student responses that focus discussions on critical concepts, principles and skills. Reviewing the aforementioned roles that are assigned to moderators, we observe that the facilitator role is widely discussed in the literature (Berge, 1995; DeLoach and Greenlaw, 2007; Salmon, 2000; Wright, 2006). Interestingly, facilitation is regarded crucial as may encourage greater participation in the discussion, prevent domination of the discussion by a few individuals, and lead to greater online collaboration among members (Salmon, 2000). In contrast, Wojcik (2008) considers the referee as probably the best-known moderator role, in that his actions are aimed at making participants respect the rules of the discussion and keeping them on topic. In addition, one of the common roles of moderation is also regarded to be the open censor where the moderator filters the messages and intervenes when posts violate communitys policy (Coleman and Gotze, 2001; Collins and Berge, 1997). Interestingly, it appears that in order to facilitate discussions effectively, the moderator must have a clear understanding of why intervention is necessary and what he hopes to accomplish with the intervention (DeLoach and Greenlaw, 2007). Thus, moderators, are considered crucial to shaping the democratic potential of online discussion (Edwards 2002; Coleman and Gtze 2001; Wright 2006). There are, however, persistent fears that moderators censor rather than promote free speech, leading to a shadow of control (Wright, 2006). For example, Beth Noveck (2004,) suggests that to be deliberative, the conversation must be free from censorship and this includes any distortion or restraint of speech that would hinder the independence of the discussion or cause participants to selfcensor. As such, the moderator needs to know when and how to intervene (DeLoach and Greenlaw, 2007) because an unsuccessful intervention could set overly restrictive rules or ignore community rules and delete messages, thus hindering freedom of discussion (Wright, 2006).

Following the study of Wright (2009), who states that the fear remains, however, that the power to moderate the content of online forums will be abused, our next section sets out, then, to examine power as a mechanism of fostering unsuccessful moderation. 2.4 Conceptualizing Power The idea of power is a thoroughly examined theme in existing literature. Interestingly, it seems that there is not a general consensus about what power is or how it operates (Cook et al., 1983). Power has long been discussed both in sociology as well as in the offline organizational context. For example, underlying most current definitions of power in social psychology is the idea that power is a theoretical construct that accounts for the portion of social influence that is under the actors control: Power refers to the ability to achieve ends through influence (Huston, 1983, pp. 170). Similarly, Robert Bahruth (2000) defines power as the ability to control the actions of other people as well as the ability to escape from the control of others. In addition, many definitions of power involve the ability of one actor to overcome resistance in achieving a desired result (Pfeffer, 1981), or, simply, the ability to affect outcomes or get things done (Mintzberg, 1983; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977). Karen Cook (Cook and Emerson, 1978) sees power coming from exchange networks: Power is an attribute of position in a network structure observable in the occupants behavior, even though the occupant does not know what position or what amount of power s/he possesses. Discussions of power also focus on the bases of power. For example, French and Raven described five bases of power: reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power and expert power (French and Raven, 1958). In their study, French and Raven define reward power as the agents ability to provide the target with desired outcomes such as pay increases or job promotions. Coercive power is the agents ability to affect negative consequences, such as a demotion or transfer to a less desirable assignment. Legitimate power is the agents right to make a request, based upon their official position in the organization, as perceived by the target. Referent power refers to the agents ability to seek the targets response, based upon the targets desire to please the agent. Expert power is derived from

the perceived expertise of the agent, gained by experience, education or training (French and Raven, 1959). Furthermore, examples of research from the behavioral perspective on power are frequent in the organizational literature (e.g., Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson, 1980). Thompson and Luthans (1983) provided a summary of the behavioral approach. They noted that "power is manifested through behavioral actions"; thus, to study power empirically, researchers must ultimately study behaviors. Likewise, Mintzberg emphasized both "will and skill": "But having a basis for power is not enough. The individual must act" (Mintzberg, 1983). People who are able to control relevant resources and thereby increase others' dependence on them are in a position to acquire power (Brass and Marlene E. Burkhardt, 1993). Following the study of Fiske (2004) we define power as a core social motive (Fiske, 2004) that can be used to control over anothers valued outcomes (Dpret and Fiske, 1993). Researchers have argued that individuals in powerful roles tend to favor less social equality (Fiske, 1993; Sachdev and Bourhis, 1985) and discriminate more against outgroups (Sachdev and Bourhis, 1985, 1991). Therefore, by definition, the powerful have relative control over valued outcomes, namely, they can act with relatively little interference or constraint from others who lack such control (Berdahl and Marorana, 2006). This means that those low in power, will have relatively little control over valued outcomes and are likely to perceive threats and uncertainty in their environment (Berdahl and Marorana, 2006). Several theories have already focused on power and how lack of power increases the experience of negative emotions (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002; Keltner et al., 2003; Smith and Bargh, 2003). Specifically, as relative control over others outcomes, power comes with opportunities to use control for ones own satisfaction, which might increase positive emotions (Chen, Lee-Chai and Bargh, 2001) but can also lead others to a relative dependence on them, which in turn might increase others negative emotions and experiences (Berdahl and Marorana, 2006). For example, Anderson and Berdahl (2002) studied the behavior of dyads, where each dyad was given one individual power over the outcomes of another. The dyads had to engage in a decision-making task. Anderson and Berdahl

concluded that those with power had more influence over the groups decisions than those without power. Along similar lines, in 1972, Kipnis raised the question "Does power corrupt?" in the title of his empirical article. The bulk of his findings suggested that the answer to this question was "yes." For example, Kipnis found that having power was associated with an increase in attempts to exert influence over the less powerful, and with the devaluation of the less powerful in terms of their ability and worth (Kipnis, 1972, 1976). Research on social participation and group dynamics has shown that people with high power tend to speak more than people with low power (e.g., Dovidio et al., 1988). For example, Dovidio et al. (1988) found that people randomly assigned to high power positions in a discussion task spoke more than twice as much as people randomly assigned to low power positions. In addition, Steve Jones (1998a) stated that just because the spaces with which we are now concerned are electronic there is not a guarantee that they are democratic, egalitarian or accessible. Specifically, this fear comes from the fact that power exercised from community managers may range from force through manipulation of symbols, information, and environment and because a critical characteristic of power is the emphasis on private-goal orientation rather than collective goal orientation (Grimes, 1978, pp. 727). In other words, in an online context, community managers, e.g., moderators can take advantage of the power that is given to them to moderate the content of online discussions, either by setting overly restrictive rules, or by ignoring community rules and delete critical messages (Wright, 2009). However, if community managers do not stick to these rules, or take advantage of the power that is given to them, what would be the effect on information sharing? 2.4.1 Power and the approach/inhibition system In 2002, Anderson and Berdahl presented a good example of an interaction between a power holder and a powerless. They suggested: Imagine a meeting between a faculty advisor and his 1st-year graduate student. The advisor has a great deal of power because he has the ability to provide or withhold resources or administer punishments. The 1st-year student, in contrast, has control over fewer resources and is less able to administer punishments to her advisor. When these two people meet, how will the advisors power influence his behavior? How will it

affect what he says, shape the emotions he feels, or direct the focus of his attention? The aforementioned example derived from their study reflects the exact intention of our study; to examine how a power holder, e.g., a moderator, influences the behavior of a less powerful, e.g., a member, and how the power holder will affect his attitude and intentions towards information sharing. The research model for explaining how power use affects users attitudes and intentions towards information sharing is based on the approach/inhibition theory. With the aim of providing a theoretical framework of the effects of power, Keltner et al. (in press) recently proposed the approach/inhibition theory of power. The approach system of power is activated because power holders experience relatively little fear of reprisal from others for their actions (Berdahl and Martorana , 2006), they are aware that they will encounter less interference from others when approaching potential rewards (Keltner et al.,1998) and when people have power, they have access to more material resources, such as financial resources and physical comforts, as well as social resources, such as higher esteem, praise, and positive attention ( French & Raven, 1959; Keltner et al., 1998;). In contrast, those low in power have relatively little control over valued outcomes; they must consider the reactions of the powerful before acting because the powerful can punish them if they disapprove of their actions (Berdahl and Martorana, 2006). Those low in power are therefore likely to perceive threats and uncertainty in their environment (Berdahl and Martorana, 2006; Fiske, 1993). This focus on threats helps to activate the inhibition system. The notion that those with power are likely to experience and express relatively positive emotions while those without power are likely to experience and express relatively negative ones has long been discussed in the literature (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002;Chen, Lee-Chai and Bargh, 2001). Research to date has found that a lack of power, or relatively little control over others outcomes, is accompanied by relative dependence on others, which might increase negative emotions (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002; Keltner et al., 2003; Smith and Bargh, 2003). In addition, recent cross-cultural research suggests that people believe the powerful elicit anger and contempt in others (Mondillon et al., 2005).

Many findings from previous research support the approach/inhibition framework. People in positions associated with high power (e.g., leaders, people high in socioeconomic status) often exhibit signs of an active approach system, and people in positions of low power (e.g., followers, people low in socioeconomic status) often exhibit signs of an active inhibition system (Keltner et al., in press). Thus, the approach/inhibition theory of power has shown initial promise as a broad theoretical framework that integrates diverse findings on the effects of power (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002). For our specific hypotheses in the following section, we expected participants higher in power to affect those that are lower by having an impact on their intentions to share knowledge. We expected participants lower in power, in contrast, to show greater inhibition in social and individual motivations. We address each of these hypotheses in the following sections. 2.5. Research model and hypotheses The research model for explaining how power use affects users intentions towards information sharing incorporates constructs from the power literature, relational social capital and collective action. Previous research (Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Wiertz and Ruyter, 2007) has shown that overall, social capital and individual characteristics are among the main determinants of knowledge sharing. These authors have tested a theoretical framework incorporating individual motivations and social capital to explain voluntary behavior in computer-mediated knowledge exchange networks. Therefore, in accordance with their study we examine the role of relational social capital (commitment and reciprocity) as well as individual motivations (enjoyment in helping others and reputation) as predictors of knowledge contribution. Figure 1 presents the model of our hypotheses. We describe each of the constructs and their relationships to knowledge contribution in the following sections. 2.5.1 Relational Social Capital Relational social capital refers to the affective nature of social relationships within a collective (Wasko and Faraj 2005) and has been identified as an important facilitator of an individuals actions within the collective (Coleman, 1990). Therefore, the relational dimension of social capital is expected to have a strong

influence on individual member behavior, such as knowledge contribution (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). There are two main aspects of relational social capital, commitment to community and reciprocity. Commitment to community As members have repeated positive exchange experiences, the importance of the relationship with the community as a whole increases accordingly and members become committed (Wiertz and Ruyter, 2007). Kollock (1999) posits that it is this commitment that motivates members to contribute content. Prior research also finds that when commitment to the community increases, members feel a sense of responsibility to assist others in the collective by sharing their valuable knowledge (Wasko and Faraj 2005). This leads to the following hypothesis H1a: An individuals commitment to community has a positive impact on the intentions to share knowledge Reciprocity The second aspect of relational social capital is reciprocity. Reciprocity is defined as the benefit expectancy of a future request for knowledge being met as a result of the current contribution (Kankanhalli et al., 2005a). Research has found that people who share knowledge in online communities believe in reciprocity (Wasko and Farah, 2000). In addition, reciprocity is thought to exert influence on information sharing by means of a return-in-kind attitude (Kolekofski and Heminger, 2003). Thus, when the individual members of an online community perceive that a strong norm of reciprocity governs the exchanges within the community, they expect that their valuable knowledge contribution will be reciprocated at some point in the future (Wiertz and Ruyter, 2007). In line with Wasko and Faraj (2000, 2005) we derive the following hypothesis H1b: An individuals perception of the norm of reciprocity has a positive impact on the intentions to share knowledge In addition to social capital, previous research proposes that knowledge contribution is also influenced by individual attributes of network participants (e.g. Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Wasko et al., 2004; Wasko and Faraj 2005). In the next section, we will elaborate on the potential impact of two individual variables that are particularly important in the context; enjoy helping others and reputation.

2.5.2 Individual Motivations Social capital researchers have proposed that one important reason why some individuals build up more social capital and engage more willingly in collective action than others are individual attributes, such as motivations and abilities (Adler and Kwon 2002; Coleman 1990; Lakhani and von Hippel 2003; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Putnam 1993). In line with Wasko and Faraj (2005), who examine how an individuals cognitive capital affects his or her level of knowledge contribution to the network, we adopt two individual motivations. motivations are 1) enjoy helping others, and 2) reputation. Enjoy helping others In addition to individual online interaction propensity, members may also receive intrinsic benefits from contributing knowledge. Prior research has found that knowledge is deeply integrated in an individuals personal character and identity (Wasko and Faraj, 2005)., Bandura (1986) argues that individuals sometimes engage in activities for the sake of the activity itself, rather than external rewards due to the fact that they pursue social acceptance and intrinsic benefits. Thus, individuals may contribute knowledge in an electronic network of practice because they perceive that helping others with challenging problems is interesting, and because it feels good to help other people (Kollock 1999). Similarly, Wasko and Faraj (2000) discuss that individuals are motivated intrinsically to contribute knowledge to others because they enjoy it. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis H2a: An individuals enjoyment of helping others has a positive impact on the intentions to share knowledge Reputation Prior research on social exchange theory (Blau 1964) argues that individuals engage in a social interaction based on an expectation that it will lead in some way to social rewards such as approval, status, and respect. This suggests that one potential way an individual can benefit from active participation is the perception that participation enhances his or her personal reputation in the network (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). According to Hsu and Lin (2008), reputation is the degree to which a person believes that participation could enhance personal reputation through knowledge sharing. Thus, the perception that contributing knowledge will These

enhance ones reputation and status in the profession may motivate individuals to contribute their valuable, personal knowledge to others in the network (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). This leads to the following hypothesis H2b: An individuals reputation has a positive impact on the intentions to share knowledge 2.5.3 Moderating Effects of perceived power use One of the most popular frameworks for studying the effects of perceived power use on individuals attitudes and behaviors has been French and Ravens (1959) classification of five bases of social power (i.e. reward, coercive, legitimate, expert and referent). In order to successfully measure our moderating variable and since we focus on the negative ways of power use, we follow the study of Hart and Saunders (1997) who adopt in their model one of the five bases of social power, coercive power. Having already discussed in the previous chapter, coercive power is defined as the agents ability to manipulate the attainment of valences and stems from the expectation on the part of the individual that will be punished by the agent if he fails to conform to influence attempt (French and Raven, 1959). Coercive power focuses on punishment rather than benefits or inducements (Hart and Saunders, 1997). Thus, when individuals disagree, the use of coercive power by either party makes the reestablishment of harmonious relations very difficult (Kipnis et al., 1973). For example, in an online community the moderator can use the power to remove posts or comments that otherwise should not be deleted while at the same time make members feel that they will be punished in case they do not conform. Through the years many studies have focused on the relationship between the five leader power bases and subordinate attitudes and behaviors (Fiorelli, 1988; Martin and Hunt; 1980). According to Elangovan and Xie (1999, pp. 320) studies to date can be classified as focusing on a) the relationship between supervisor power and subordinate behavior b) the effects of supervisor power on various facets of supervisor-subordinate relationships c) the relationship between supervisor power and subordinate work attitudes. Missing from this body of research, however, are inquiries into the relationships between perceived moderator power and member behavior not in an offline community as already examined but in an online one.

Recent studies have suggested that the relationship between bases of social power and subordinate variables is more complex than originally specified (Elangovan and Xie, 2000). For example, in their study, Elangovan and Xie (2000) concluded that there is no single base of power that is all-beneficial in influencing subordinates or all-powerful as a predictor of employee criteria variables. They suggested that different perceptions of supervisor power (i.e., different types of power) might differentially affect employee motivation, satisfaction, commitment and stress. Therefore, an alternative approach has been to consider the social bases of power as moderators on subordinate attitudes. For example, Richmond et al. (1980) sought to increase our understanding of the importance of supervisorsubordinate relationship by examining the moderating impact of differential use of supervisory power bases on satisfaction of subordinates perceptions. In this way Richmond et al. could better understand the impact of each power base on subordinate attitudes. Another example comes from Kleef et al. (2006) who study the moderating impact of power on the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness. The reason why they used power as a moderating variable comes from the fact that low-power individuals can be strongly affected by their opponents emotions but high power ones remain unaffected. These researchers clearly suggest that power could also be used as a moderating variable for studying the impact of high power individuals on low power ones. Similarly, we also consider power as a moderating variable. The rationale is as follows. Current research on the approach/inhibition theory shows that the behavioral inhibition system has been equated to an alarm system (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002). Once activated by threats or potential punishments, this system triggers affective states such as anxiety, heightened vigilance for threats in the environment, avoidance, and response inhibition (Gray, 1982, 1987, 1991; Higgins, 1997, 1998). Further studies highlight that people who lack power are more attentive to threatening aspects of the social environment (Keltner et al., in press). If people with low power are more attentive to threats, they should perceive the same environment as more threatening than should people with high power and as a consequence they inhibit themselves from speaking (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002, pp 1365). For instance, one particularly salient threat to people with low power is the potential for conflict with others (Operario & Fiske,

2001). Therefore, to avoid the threat of interpersonal conflict, people who lack power might be more inhibited in what they expressthey might keep themselves from expressing their attitudes if such expression might provoke conflict (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002). Similarly, classic research on obedience to authority (Milgram, 1963) and social conformity (Asch, 1955) showed that people in a presumably low power position keep their opinions to themselves. In addition, Kipnis (1987, 1991) presents the argument that as people gain power (and use influence tactics) over others they come to believe more positive things about themselves and more negative things about their subordinates, as a result, the increase of subordinates monitoring and the decrease of their participation in decision making (Kipnis 1987, 1991). If we translate the aforementioned findings to online discussions, moderators who are perceived as using coercive power, communicate messages of threat or force in an attempt to influence users. This can be done by increasing monitoring of users, decreasing their participation in decision making, etc. Therefore, we expect users who lack this kind of power to inhibit themselves from speaking and keeping their opinions to themselves out of fear that they might provoke conflict with moderators. More specifically, we expect that higher levels of perceived power use will weaken the relationship between enjoyment in helping others, the ability to reciprocate knowledge, the loyalty towards the community, users reputation and the intentions to share knowledge. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses: H3a: If an individuals perception of coercive power use increases, the relationship between commitment to community and intentions to share knowledge will be weakened H3b: If an individuals perception of coercive power use increases, the relationship between reciprocity and intentions to share knowledge will be weakened H3c: If an individuals perception of coercive power use increases, the relationship between enjoyment in helping others and intentions to share knowledge will be weakened H3d: If an individuals perception of coercive power use increases, the relationship between reputation and intentions to share knowledge will be weakened 2.5.4 Overview of the hypotheses

H1a: An individuals commitment to community has a positive impact on the intentions to share knowledge H1b: An individuals perception of the norm of reciprocity has a positive impact on the intentions to share knowledge H2a: An individuals enjoyment of helping others has a positive impact on the intentions to share knowledge H2b: An individuals reputation has a positive impact on the intentions to share knowledge H3a: If an individuals perception of coercive power use increases, the relationship between commitment to community and intentions to share knowledge will be weakened H3b: If an individuals perception of coercive power use increases, the relationship between reciprocity and intentions to share knowledge will be weakened H3c: If an individuals perception of coercive power use increases, the relationship between enjoyment in helping others and intentions to share knowledge will be weakened H3d: If an individuals perception of coercive power use increases, the relationship between reputation and intentions to share knowledge will be weakened

Perceived Coercive power use

Social Capital/Motivations

Commitment to community
Reciprocity

intentions to
Individual Enjoy helping others Reputation Motivations

share knowledge

Figure 1: Conceptual model

3. Research Design and Method

In this chapter the research method will be described. In the first paragraph (3.1), the design of the research is clarified and the research details are provided. Paragraph 3.2 discusses the sample. The following paragraph (3.3) sheds light on the research variables, while the last paragraph (3.4) focuses on the procedures used in the research. 3.1 Research Design In order to collect data and empirically test the hypotheses an online survey was conducted. Online survey was selected since a survey can reach a large quantity of people in a fast manner while the data collected from the questions can be processed relatively easy (Van der Velde et al., 2004). This methodology was also chosen because it enhances the generalizability of results (Dooley, 2001). Furthermore, when conducting a survey the respondent has a greater feeling of anonymity thus resulting in a willingness to participate (Van der Velde et al., 2004). An additional reason to choose a survey comes from the fact that several prior studies have adopted this methodology (e.g., Bock et al. 2003, Constant et al. 1996, Jarvenpaa and Staples 2000; Wasko and Faraj 2003) to successfully model and explain contributor behavior in online communities. In the power literature, Elangovan and Xie (2000) also adopted a survey methodology in order to examine the effects of perceived power of the supervisor on subordinate work attitudes. All of the questions used for this research were closed questions. A reason for choosing closed questions for this survey comes from the study of Van der Velde et al. (2004) who state that respondents see closed questions as more pleasant since it takes less time to fill them in and no excessive typing takes place. The questions were clustered around our research variables where each one of them contained multiple items drawn from the literature. All variables were measured using a multiple-item measurement scale. These measures use a seven-point Likert type response format, with strongly disagree and strongly agree as the anchors, thus, allowing the respondents for more selections between answers. The survey was placed on the website

http://thesistools.com/. The website allowed the respondents to fill in the survey anonymously while making it easier for them to forward the link to their friends so that they can also fill it in. The link to the survey was distributed mainly by means of email so as to reach as many people as possible. 3.2 Sample The sample of this research is regarded as a convenience sample. A convenience sample is a sample where the respondents are selected, in part or in whole, at the convenience of the researcher (Lunsford and Lunsford, 1995). Unlike other samples, with a convenience sample the selection cost is minimal and the researcher does not need to insure that the sample is an accurate presentation of some larger group or population (Ferber, 1977; Lunsford and Lunsford, 1995). This research focused on online communities and, as a result, the target respondents were all members of online communities or members who at least one time they were registered users of a community. In addition, the questionnaire was administered in English in order to capture a wide range of respondents and to be accessible in a variety of online community sites. The importance of a well representative set of target group is highlighted in the study of Van der Velde et al. (2004) who argue that a survey filled in by a relevant group of people can obtain reliable data. Respondents were ranging from family members and friends to students and online community users. They were contacted mostly by emails, through social network sites like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, as well as through online discussion forums and blogs. The results of the survey have led to a sample of 207 respondents. As we do not know how many community members have read the threads featuring the survey, but decided not to respond, it is difficult to estimate a precise response rate. 3.3 Research Instrument In this paragraph the measurement of constructs (relational social capital, individual motivations) will be described. Next to the examination of the measures for the research variables concerning relational social capital and individual motivations, this paragraph will also shed some light on the measurement of the moderating variable of our study, perceived power use. Finally, the measurement of the dependent variable of this study will be portrayed. 3.3.1 Measurement of social motivations

Commitment to community The items that were used to measure the influence of commitment to community on the intentions to share knowledge were based on the research conducted by Wiertz and Ruyter (2007). The total number of items for this research variable was three. Reciprocity The research of Kankanhalli et al. (2005), Lin (2007) as well as Wiertz and Ruyter (2007) were used to measure the influence of reciprocity on the intentions to share knowledge. To be precise, the items When I receive help, I feel it is only right to give back and help others and The principle of give and take is important for me in the community came from the study of Wiertz and Ruyter (2007). The third item of this variable, When I share ideas, experiences and information, I expect to receive ideas, experiences and information in return when necessary, was based on the research of Kankanhalli et al. (2005) and Lin (2007). The latter item was reworded and adapted in order to be more relevant for this research. The total number of items for this research variable was three. 3.3.2 Measurement of individual motivations Enjoy helping others The items measuring the enjoyment to help others in the community were adopted by the study of Kankanhalli et al. (2005) and Wasko and Faraj (2005). In order to get the items in line with this study, they all had to be adjusted textually. In addition, not all the items that cover this construct were used. For example, the item I like helping other people (Wasko and Faraj, 2005) was dropped since it was already covered by the items of Kankanhalli et al. (2005). The total number of items concerning this variable was three. Reputation The items to measure reputation were taken from the research of Hsu and Lin (2008) as well as Wasko and Faraj (2005). Specifically, the items I earn respect from others by participating in the community and Participating in community's activity enhances my personal reputation were derived from Hsu and Lin (2008) while the item I feel that participating in online discussions improves my status in the community came from Wasko and Faraj (2005). All the items were reworded

and adjusted for the purpose of this study. The total number of items for this research variable was three. 3.3.3 Measurement of the moderating variable Perceived coercive power use The research of Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989) was used to measure the moderating impact of power on the intentions to share knowledge. Since Hinkin and Schriesheims study focuses on supervisor-subordinate relationship in an offline context, all the items for this research variable had to be adjusted textually. For example, the item makes being at work distasteful from Hinkin and Schriesheim was converted to makes Online Community Site unattractive while the item makes my work difficult for me was changed to makes it difficult for me to participate in online discussions. The total number of items for this research variable was four. 3.3.4 Measurement of the dependent variable Intentions to share knowledge The items to measure the intentions to share knowledge were derived from the study of Lin (2007). The total number of items for this research variable was three. Summarizing the measurement items, it can be stated that all of them were based on prior literature. All of the items used for this study were also validated in previous research. Nevertheless, most of them were reworded to fit the context of this study. A detailed description of all the measurement items can be found in Appendix A.

4. Results
In this chapter the results of the research will be presented. The first paragraph (4.1), discusses about the demographics like age, sex and education, as well as general output derived from the survey. The second paragraph (4.2) contains the methods used to measure the variables for factor analysis and reliability analyses. Finally, in the third paragraph (4.3), the results of the hypotheses testing will be demonstrated, showing which hypotheses are supported and which have to be rejected. 4.1 Demographics 131 of the total of 207 respondents were male with the remaining 76 to be female. 12 respondents indicated to have an age between 15 and 20 years. 52 respondents we in the age group of 20 until 25 years old. The majority of respondents, 106 in total, fall in the group of 25 until 30 years. 27 respondents were in the group between 30 and 40 years, while the remaining 10 indicated to have an age between 40-70 years, only 2 of whom were over 65 years. Furthermore, when looking at the educational level, it can be stated that respondents were relatively high educated. 40 percent of the respondents claim to have a master degree or higher education. An almost equal number of respondents (41 percent) indicated that they have a bachelor degree; while a 7 percent claim to have an HBO degree. The remaining 12 percent have pointed one of the other educational levels (MBO, VWO, HAVO, VMBO/ MAVO). When analyzing the data of the survey, the results demonstrate that the majority of the respondents (95.34 percent) are active online community users, 48 percent of which are using it for longer than 3 years. A considerable amount of

respondents (27 percent) indicated that they have been online community site users for 2-3 years, while a 19 percent fall in the category between 1 and 2 years. 151 respondents claim to be active users in Facebook, 150 in YouTube, 46 in MySpace, 38 in LinkedIn, 35 in Twitter and 6 in Del.icio.us. A number of 28 respondents indicated to be active in another online community site, for example, deviantART, Vimeo, Hyves and TVXS. In the question regarding which online community site they visit the most, 110 respondents selected Facebook, 59 YouTube, 7 MySpace, 6 Twitter and 8 other than the aforementioned. The results

regarding the frequency of their favorite online community use is also interesting. A 46 percent of the respondents use it more than once a day, a 33 percent daily, a 15 percent several times a week, and the remaining uses it between once a week and less than once a week. 4.2 Validation of Measures In order to measure the validity of our variables, construct validity has to be checked, thus, convergent and discriminant validity is applied. Convergent validity determines with which comparable constructs the concepts correlates (Van der Velde et al., 2004, p.55). In contrast discriminant validity indicates the extent to which a given construct is different from other constructs (Wasko and Faraj, 2005, p.46). The measures of the constructs should be distinct and the indicators should load on the appropriate construct. One criterion for adequate discriminant validity is that the construct should share more variance with its measures than with other constructs in the model (Barclay et al. 1995). In order to test the data for discriminant and convergent validity, factor analyses have been performed in SPSS. The exploratory factor analysis (using principal axis factoring with Varimax rotation) found a six-factor solution that explains 81.6 % of the total variance. The six factors correspond exactly to the six constructs investigated in our study. In addition, the factor loadings demonstrate that each indicator loads higher on the construct of interest than on any other factor. According to Hair et al. (1998) loadings of 0.40 and greater are considered important while if the loadings are 0.50 or greater, they are considered practically significant. Therefore, the higher the loading, the more important it is regarded in interpreting the factor matrix (Van der Velde et al., 2004).Moreover, as we observe the factor matrix (Appendix B), CC3 seems to have high loadings on more than one factor. For example, in factor 6 CC3 has a loading of .671, while in factor 2 has a loading of .416. However, this item was not dropped because it is of importance for the content validity and has a strong communality; 0.698. Furthermore, the results of the factor analyses indicate that all of the items have communalities above 0.50. According to Hair et al. (1998) communalities less than 0.50 should be identified as not having sufficient explanation. Table 1 summarizes

the results of the factor analyses presenting the communalities and factor loadings of each item measured. After assessing the validity of the items in the factor analyses, a Cronbachs alpha analysis was applied to test the items for reliability. Van der Velde et al. (2004, pp. 53) state that Alpha is approximately equal to the mean correlation of all items with each other. Furthermore, the authors add that, for testing purposes, an Alpha of o.60 is considered a minimum, 0.70 is acceptable and 0.80 or higher is significant. Results showed significant Alpha values ranging from 0.835 to 0.936. An extensive overview of the Cronbachs Alpha analyses results can be found in Appendix C.

Table 1: Results of the validity analyses

items

communalities

Factor loadings

CC1 CC2 CC3 R1 R2 R3 EH1 EH2 EH3 REP1 REP2 REP3 IN1 IN2 IN3 PCPU1 PCPU2 PCPU3 PCPU4

.665 .613 .698 .662 .759 .722 .836 .836 .755 .777 .837 .844 .822 .847 .651 .835 .859 .856 .803

.739 .829 .671 .762 .783 .845 .845 .831 .745 .811 .872 .866 .896 .919 .808 .911 .922 .920 .900

4.3 Testing Hypotheses Studies in information systems (e.g., Weill and Olson, 1989) and in other disciplines (e.g., Jehn et al., 1999) have used moderated multiple regression to test interaction effects. Moderated multiple regression is a hierarchical procedure that first tests the relationship between independent constructs and the dependent construct, and then tests the relationship between interaction terms and the dependent construct (Stone and Hollenbeck, 1984). Interaction terms are computed by multiplying two independent constructs. A significant change in explanatory power between the two steps, which can be assessed by looking at the significance of the change in F value, indicates the presence of moderating effects (Kankanhalli et al., 2005a, pp.24). Therefore, to assess the moderating effects of perceived power use a regression analysis was conducted in which intentions to share knowledge was regressed first onto perceived power use, commitment to community, reciprocity, enjoyment in helping others and reputation. These variables had a satisfactory effect on intentions to share knowledge; R = .207; F (5, 310), p .000. The results of the regression analysis show that commitment to community had a significant effect on the intentions to share knowledge ( = 0, 19, p < 0.05) and reputation ( = 0.27, p < 0.01), thus, supporting hypotheses H1a and H2b. Contrary to expectations, reciprocity ( = 0.12, p > 0.05), and enjoy helping others ( = - 0.20, p > 0.05), had no significant relationship with intentions to share knowledge. For this reason, H1b and H2a were not supported. A second regression was conducted that added four interaction terms, perceived power use commitment to community, perceived power use reciprocity, perceived power use enjoyment in helping others and perceived power use reputation, to the main-effects model. To alleviate possible collinearity problems, the values of all constructs were centered (mean subtracted) during regression (Aiken and West 1991). The results indicated that the change was significant (R = .358 and F =5, 778, p .000) in R from the main-effects model to the full model ( R2 .151, p .000) indicating that the moderating effects of perceived power use on commitment to community, reciprocity, enjoyment in helping others and reputation explained a significant amount of variance with respect to intentions to share knowledge. Further, the beta coefficient for the perceived power use

enjoyment in helping others (standardized beta= 0.31) was significant (t = 2.354, p < 0 .05). Therefore, H3c was supported. Unexpectedly, the interaction terms between perceived power use commitment to community, perceived power use reciprocity and perceived power use reputation had no influence on the intentions to share knowledge. Hence, H3a, H3b and H3d were not supported. Table 2 summarizes the results of hypotheses tests.

Table 2: Results of Hypotheses Testing

Intentions to share knowledge H1a commitment to community 0.19* 2.05 H1b reciprocity H2a enjoy helping others 0.12 0.078 1.24 0.771 not supported not supported supported not supported not supported supported not supported t-statistic supported

H2b reputation H3a PCPUCC

0.27** 3.02 - 0.05 -0.11 -0.31* 0.06 -0.34 - 0.76 2.354 0.55

H3b PCPUR H3c PCPUEH

H3d PCPUREP *p < .05, ** p < .01

5. Discussion and Implications

The aim of this study was to identify the drivers of knowledge contribution by users and to test the moderating effects of perceived power exercised by moderators in online communities. To that end, we extended and empirically tested a model of social capital and individual motivations based on Wasko and Faraj (2005) and Wiertz and Ruyter (2007) as well as French and Ravens classification (1959). Given our research context, we focused our model on the relationship between the relational dimension of social capital, individual motivations and intentions to share knowledge, and then investigated the moderating effects of perceived coercive power use of moderators on that relationship. Our results clearly indicate that it is worthwhile to consider this interaction effect, as evidenced by the significant improvement in the R of the intentions to share knowledge when the interaction term is added. To begin with, contrary to Wasko and Farajs (2005) findings but in line with Wiertz and Ruyter (2007) users who are committed to the online community have greater intentions to share knowledge. This indicates that even though members in online communities do not know each other offline, strong relationships between individual members and to the collective as a whole develop. As a result, users feel a relational bond with the community that encourages them to share their information, ideas or experiences. This is even more the case in online community sites like Facebook where users usually already know each other and they are friends or acquainted with each other in the offline context. Contrary to our expectations, reciprocity did not have a significant effect on the intentions to share knowledge. This finding, even surprising, is in line with Wasko and Faraj (2005) as well as Wiertz and Ruyter (2007). One possible explanation is given by Wasko and Faraj (2005, pp.51) who state that network-based interactions may be generalized rather than dyadic, and direct reciprocity is not necessary for sustaining collective action. In contrast to personal exchanges between two individuals where there is an expectation of direct reciprocity, reciprocity in online communities may be generalized (Wasko and Teigland, 2002). Furthermore, the results from this study also provide weak evidence that individuals who enjoy helping others have greater intentions to share knowledge,

as suggested by prior research examining electronic networks openly available on the Internet (Kollock and Smith 1996). Our findings are in line with Wasko and Faraj (2005) who also found a non significant relationship between intrinsic motivations and knowledge contribution. One potential explanation of the weak influence of intrinsic motivation and reciprocal relationships is the anonymous nature of online communities as well as the existence of lurkers. According to Wasko and Faraj (2005, pp. 37) Knowledge contributors have no assurances that those they are helping will ever return the favor, and lurkers may draw upon the knowledge of others without contributing anything in return. This sharply

contrasts with traditional communities and face-to-face knowledge exchanges where people typically know one another and interact over time, creating expectations of help and reciprocity that are enforceable through social sanctions. Another result that deserves highlighting is the significant effect of reputation on the intentions to share knowledge. These results are also consistent with prior research in online settings, providing additional evidence that building reputation is a strong motivator for active participation and knowledge contribution (Donath 1999). The above finding clearly indicates users perception that participation enhances their reputation, thus, increasing their volume of contribution. With regard to the moderating hypotheses, we find that hypotheses H3a, H3b and H3d are not supported with the exception of hypothesis H3c. The relationship between commitment to community, reciprocity, reputation and intentions to share knowledge does not seem to be moderated by perceived coercive power use even though a slight moderating effect is implied by the results. A possible reason we came up with this finding lies in the anonymity of online communities and the fact that the user even though is registered in the community with a specific name and account, he can easily create a new one in case of potential conflict with the moderator. Furthermore, another reason could lie in users mutual understanding and the fact that in some online community sites they are bound together and support each other, thus diminishing moderators influence. It might be the case that in an organizational context, or in a professional electronic network of practice, the moderating effect of perceived coercive power use is stronger than in an online community site. In contrast, perceived coercive power use does

moderate the relationship between enjoyment in helping others and intentions to

share knowledge. As we expected, when moderators are perceived to use coercive power, users tend to be more inhibited in what they expressthey might keep themselves from expressing their attitudes if such expression might provoke conflict (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002). Therefore, the relationship between users enjoyment in helping others and their intentions to share knowledge is weakened. Our results have several interesting implications, both theoretical and practical. The outcomes of this study demonstrate that the effect of perceived coercive power use of the moderator does have a moderating effect on the relationship between users individual motivations (e.g. enjoyment in helping others) and their intentions to share knowledge. In the literature no preceding study was found that examines this relationship in the context of online communities. Therefore, this study has implications for other research in this field. The research model that was developed in this study can be used to examine why people are or are not sharing their information and what role moderators play in users willingness or unwillingness to contribute to online communities. Given the demographics presented, it can also be used to present a cultural driven approach to information and knowledge sharing by focusing on users age, level of education or frequency of online community visit. Taking the approach/inhibition theory emphasized in this study, our model can also be a basis of an emotional driven understanding of information sharing processes. Understanding and appreciating the role of human emotion and its reaction to perceived power use is likely to be critical in moving beyond information sharing to knowledge sharing because as Jarvenpaa and Staples (2000, pp. 148) state without people feeling that they are part of the community that cares for them, they will not share their knowledge. From a practitioner standpoint, the results of this study indicate the circumstances under which online community measures to promote knowledge contribution may be more effective. These results offer suggestions to management about how to promote online community sites by knowledge contributors. First, management can raise the perceptions of commitment and reputation among valued knowledge contributors by indicating to them that their knowledge contribution makes a significant difference to the online community site. This can be done by highlighting the improved community performance arising from their knowledge contributions. Online community sites such as Amazon.com regularly recognize

their top reviewers, serving as a way to enhance their commitment and reputation. Furthermore, many companies launch online community sites as a marketing channel. Thus, marketers should understand what drives people to share in the online community context. The findings highlighted the importance of altruism and individual reputation. Therefore, publicly praising individual participants effort can enhance attitude toward online community sharing. Managers interested in developing and sustaining knowledge exchange through online community sites should focus attention on the creation and maintenance of a set of core, centralized individuals by using extrinsic motivators such as enhanced reputation to actively promote contributions to the network. As Wasko and Faraj (2005, pp. 52) state promoting individual reputations may also help signal the potential quality of responses to novice participants and lurkers, making the knowledge more accessible to all participants in the network. Gaining status and recognition in this way would motivate individuals to participate more (von Hippel and von Krogh, 2003). Community to community is important in online community sharing. Therefore, online community-hosting service providers should promote and encourage people to share their ideas, experiences and information or at least add comments. Reward systems, such as keeping a billboard of top 100 posts, rewarding virtual points for participations, etc. can also be a positive motivator. The more information and comments posted and discussed, the longer users will stay in the billboard. This will, in turn, establish a stronger sense of commitment to community among participants. For example, the BlueShop community provides a list of top knowledge contributors for each week and month, enhancing the contributors' commitment to the community and also their reputation within the community. Finally, the findings underscored the importance of considering perceived power use as a moderator, especially for intrinsic motivations on the intentions to share knowledge. The fear of possible reprimands and punishment might prompt a user to inhibit his attitudes towards knowledge sharing and at the same time reduce his attachment to the online community site. In light of these effects and the implications for moderator effectiveness, moderators should pay more attention

to how their power is perceived by users as well as carefully examine the trade-off between short-term and long-term consequences of such perceptions. 5.2 Limitations and Directions for Future Research Our findings can only be interpreted in the light of certain limitations. To start with, from the findings of our sample demographics we can clearly see that most of the respondents were in the age between 25 and 30, and the majority of them were highly educated. This could mean that the sample could have more diversity in age and level of education. Furthermore, while we have focused on the

relational social capital and individual attributes that seem particularly important in the context of online communities, the structural and cognitive dimensions of social capital and other individual difference variables are clearly important in studying knowledge contribution. For example, several researchers have focused on the role of generalized trust and identification with the group (e.g. Ridings et al. 2002) while Bock et al. (2005) highlight the importance of organizational climate (e.g. fairness, affiliation, innovativeness) as a predictor of the intentions to share knowledge. Another limitation of this study is its focus on active users. In this research we did not investigate individuals who read but do not post, e.g. lurkers, or members who do not log onto online communities at all. Thus, the results may have been impacted by self-selection bias. For example, individuals who had already ceased to participate in online communities might have different perceptions about the influence of moderators on their intentions to share knowledge, and so could have been differently affected by them. For this reason, the results should be interpreted as only explaining knowledge sharing of current knowledge contributors of online communities. Additionally, whether our findings could be generalized to all types of online communities is unclear. Knowledge sharing in virtual communities of interest might be different from that of online communities of practice or communities of transaction. Therefore, further research is necessary to verify the generalizability of our findings. Given these limitations, we strongly encourage others to examine our findings through more rigorous research designs and across different national cultures.

Finally, another limitation of this research comes from the fact that we focused only on coercive power use from French and Ravens classification (1959). Future research could also examine moderators legitimate, reward, referent and expert power on the intentions to share knowledge. Overall, this study has provided useful information regarding the general moderating effects of moderator power on user intentions to share knowledge. Future research needs to seek a fuller understanding of how perceptions of moderator power may influence user responses. There are a number of important questions that remain unresolved. Are user perceptions of moderator power influenced by critical incidents between the user and the moderator or by observations of the moderator's dealings with others or both? How does online community culture influence these perceptions of moderator power? Additional empirical studies are required to address these questions and enhance our understanding of this area.

References:
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 13621377. Anderson, C., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (in press). Emotional convergence in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Anderson, C., Langner, C., & Keltner, D. (2001). Status, power, and emotion. Unpublished manuscript. Ba, S. (2001). Establishing online trust through a community responsibility system. Decision Support Systems, 31 (3), pp. 323-336 Ba, S., Stallaert, J., and Whinston, A. B. (2001). Research commentary: Introducing a third dimension in information systems design - the case for incentive alignment. Information Systems Research 12(3): 225-239. Bacharach, S., & Lawler, E. (1981). Bargaining: Power, tactics, and outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Bagozzi, R. P., and Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 2 21. Bahruth, R. (2000). Bilingual education. In David A. Gabbard (Ed.), Knowledge and power in the global economy: Politics and rhetoric of school reform pp. 203209, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bahruth, R. (2007). Schooling. In D. Gabbard (Ed.), Knowledge and power in the global economy: The effects of school reform in a

neoliberal/neoconservative age (2nd edition, Chapter 28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bakker, A., Amade, E., Ballintijn, G., Kuz, I., Verkaik, P., Van Der Wijk, I., Van Steen, M., And Tanenbaum., A., (2000). The Globe distribution network. In Proc. 2000 USENIX Annual Conf. (FREENIX Track) (San Diego, CA, June 2000), pp. 141152. Bandura, A. (1978). The Self System in Reciprocal Determinism. American Psychology (33), pp. 344-358. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman

Barber, Benjamin R. (2003). Which technology and which democracy? In Henry Jenkins and David Thorburn (Eds.), Democracy and the new media (pp. 33-48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baxter, H. (2007). An Introduction to Online Communities. Retrieved on 13/07/2007 from

http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/An_Introduction_to_Onlin e_Communities. Bentley, R., Horstmann, T., Sikkel, K. and Trevor, J. (1995). Supporting collaborative information sharing with the World Wide Web: The BSCW Shared Workspace system, in Proceedings of the 4th International World Wide Web Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, 12-14 December, OReilley and Associates, pp 63-74. Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 495509. Berge, Z. L. (1996). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 15(1), 22-30. Berge, Z.L., & Collins, M. (Eds.). (1996). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom, vol. 2, Higher education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Berge, Z.L., & Collins, M.P. (2000). Perceptions of e-moderators about their roles and functions in moderating electronic mailing lists. Distance Education: An International Journal, 21(1), 81-100 Bishop, J. (2002). Development and evaluation of a virtual community. Unpublished dissertation. Available from

http://www.jonathanbishop.com/publications/display.aspx?Item=1. Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87-111 Bock, G.W., Kim, Y.G., Lee, J.N., and Zmud, B. (2003). "Determinants of the Individual's Knowledge Sharing Behavior: From The Theory of Reasoned

Action Perspective," Proceedings of Minnesota Symposium on Knowledge Management Brass, D. J., and Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 440470. Bressler, S. E., and C. E. Grantham. (2000). Communities of commerce. New York: McGraw-Hill. Burnett, G., (2000). Information exchange in virtual communities: A typology. Information Research, 5(4). Retrieved June 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.shef.ac.uW-

islpublicationslinfres/paper82a.html Butler, B. S. (2001). Membership size, community activity, and sustainability: A resource-based model of online social structures. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 346362. Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., and Kraut, R. (2001). Community Effort in Online Groups: Who Does the Work and Why? in Leadership at a Distance, Erlbaum Associates, 346362 Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 173187. Chen, J., Xu H. and Whinston A., (2007). Moderated Online Communities, Web-based Information Systems and Applications Chiu, C.-M., M.-H. Hsu, E. T. G. Wang. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3) 18721888. Coleman, J., (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Coleman, S., and Gtze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London: Hansard Society. Collins, M. P., and Berge, Z. L., (1997.). Moderating online electronic discussion groups. Paper presented at the 1997 American Educational Research Association (AREA) Meeting., Chicago, IL

Constant, D., Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L. (1994). Whats Mine is Ours, or Is it? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing. Research (5:4), pp. 400-421. Information Systems

Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1996). The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice. Organization Science (7:2), pp. 119-135.

Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M., (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43, 721-739.

Curtis, P., and D. Nichols (1993). "MUDs Grow Up: Social Virtual Reality in the Real World." Report presented to Xerox PARC, Palo Alto

Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., and Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review 39(2): 43-57.

Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease Of Use, And User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319-341.

Davis R., (2005). Politics Online: Blogs, Chat rooms, and Discussion Groups in American Democracy, New York and London, Routledge

De Schutter, A., Fahrni, P. and Rudolph, J. (2004). Best practices in online conference moderation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(1).

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/164/245 De Souza, C., S., and Preece, J. (2004). A framework for analyzing and understanding online communities. Interacting with Computers, The Interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16 (3), 579-610. Dellarocas, C. (2004). Strategic Manipulation of Internet Opinion Forums: Implications for Consumers and Firms, MIT Working Paper. Dennis, A. R., Pootheri S. K., and Natarajan V. L. (1998). Lessons from the early adopters of web groupware. Journal of Management Information Systems 14 (4): 6586.

Dholakia, U., Bagozzi R., P., and Pearo L., K. (2004). A Social Influence Model of Consumer Participation in Network and Small-Group-Based Virtual Communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (3), 241 63.

Dovidio, J. F., & Ellyson, S. L. (1985). Patterns of visual dominance behavior in humans. In J. F. Dovidio, & S. L. Ellyson (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 128149). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Drezner, D. & Farrell, H., (2004). The power and politics of blogs. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, September 2-5, 2004

Ebenbach, D. H., & Keltner, D. (1998). Power, emotion and judgmental accuracy in social conflict: Motivating the cognitive miser. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20 , 721

Edwards, A. E. (2002). The Moderator as an Emerging Democratic Intermediary: The Role of the Moderator in Internet Discussions about Public Issues. Information Polity 7:3-20.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power dependence relations. American Journal of Sociology, 27, 3141.

Figallo, C. (1998). Hosting Web Communities: Building Relationships, Increasing Customer Loyalty and Maintaining a Competitive Edge, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY. 1

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621628.

Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. L. (in press). Social power. In A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (2nd Ed.). New York: Guilford.

Fiske, S. T., & Dpret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 3161). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Galegher, J., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S., (1998). Legitimacy, authority, and community in electronic support groups. Written Communication, 15, 493 530

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453466.

Grimes, A. J., (1978). Authority, power, influence and social control: A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 724-737.

Hagel J III, Armstrong AG. 1997. Net Gain: Expanding Markets through Virtual Communities. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

Hart P, Saunders C. (1997). Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange. Organizational Science, 8(1):2342

Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing, Knowledge and Process Management 6 (2) pp. 91100.

Hidding, G. J., and Catterall, S. M. (1998). Anatomy of a Learning Organization: Turning Knowledge into Capital at Andersen Consulting. Knowledge and Process Management, 5 (1), 3-13.

Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as a moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515525.

Hiltz, S.R., Wellman, B., (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM 40 (9), 4449.

Hoffman, D.L.

and Novak, Th. P., (1996). Marketing in hypermedia

computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations, Journal of Marketing Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group structure and social identity. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 65-94). UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1986). Sex, power, and influence tactics in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 102109.

Huston, T. L., (1983). Power. In Kelley, H. H. et al. (Eds), Close Relationships (pp. 169-219). New York: Freeman Jarvenpaa, S. L., and Staples, D. S. (2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants. Journal of strategic information systems 9(2-3): 129- 154.

Johnson, David R., Susan P. Crawford and John G. Palfrey, Jr. (2004) The Accountable Internet: Peer Production of Internet Governance, The Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, 9, 233.

Jones, Q. (1997). Virtual communities, virtual settlements and cyberarchaeology: A theoretical outline. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(3). Retrieved 16 January, 2001, from

<http://www.ascusc.org/cmc/vol3/issue3/ones.html>. Jones, S. G., (1995). Understanding community in the information age. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 10-35). London: Sage Publications. Jones, S. G., (1998a). Cybersociety 2.0: Computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Jones, S. G., (1998). Information, internet and community: notes towards an understanding of community in the information age, in: S. Jones (Ed.) Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer mediated Communication and Community, pp. 1-34. London: Sage. Kankanhalli, A., B. Tan, K.-K. Wei. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1) 113143. Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Zin, T. T., and Reese, D. D. (2005). Community networks: Where offline communities meet online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), article

3.http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/kavanaugh.html Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265284.

Kilsheimer, J. (1997). Virtual communities; Cyberpals keep in touch online. The Arizona Republic, p. E3.

Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web. Berkeley: Peachpit Press. Kim, Y.-G., Yu, S.-H., & Lee, J.-H. (2003). Knowledge strategy planning: Methodology and case. Expert Systems with Applications, 24(3), 295307.

Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 3341.

Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I., (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting ones way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 440452.

Kogut, B. and Zander U., (1992). 'Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology'. Organization Science, 3(3), pp. 383- 397.

Koh, J., Y.-G. Kim. (2003). Sense of virtual community: Determinants and the moderating role of the virtual community origin. Journal of Electronic Commerce 8(2) 7593.

Koh, J., Kim, Y., Butler, B. and Bock, G. (2007). Encouraging participation in virtual communities. Communications of the ACM 50, 2, 68-73.

Kolbitsch J. and Maurer H. (2006). The Transformation of the Web: How Emerging Communities Shape the Information We Consume. In: Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2006), pp. 187-213.

Kollock, P. (1999). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts, and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Communities in Cyberspace, M. A. Smith and P. Kollock (Eds.), Routledge, New York, pp. 220-239.

Kollock, P., Smith, M. (1999), Communities in Cyberspace, Routledge, London Kollock, P., and Smith, M. A., (1996). Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and Conflict in Computer Communities, Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross Cultural Perspectives, pp. 109128.

LaBonte, R., S. Crichton and D. Allison (2003). Moderating tips for synchronous learning using virtual classroom technologies.

http://www.odysseylearn.com/resource/emod.html Lackaff. D., (2004). Norm Maintenance in Online Communities: A Review of Moderation Regimes. Unpublished master's (preliminary) thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia. Draft 07/01/04. Available online: http://lackaff.net/node/20. Lampe, C., and Resnick, P. (2004). Slash (dot) and Burn: Distributed Moderation in a Large Online Conversation Space, in Proceedings of ACM CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna Austria, pp. 543-550. Lazar, J. and Preece J., (2002) Social Considerations in Online Communities: Usability, Sociability and Success Factors in H. van Oostendorp (ed.) Cognition in the Digital World. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Lee, J.-H., & Kim, Y.-G. (2001). A stage model of organizational knowledge management: A latent content analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(3), 299311. Lin, H.F., The role of online and offline features in sustaining virtual communities: an empirical study, Internet Research, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2007, pp. 119-138. Lin, H-F., and Lee, G-G (2006). Determinants of success for online communities: an empirical study, Behavior and Information Technology, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 479-488. Ling, K., G. Beenen, P. Ludford, X. Wang, K. Chang, X. Li, D. Cosley, D. Frankowski, L. Terveen, A. M. Rashid, P. Resnick, R. Kraut. (2005). Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Journal of Computer.-Mediated Communication. 10(4). Loach, S. and Greenlaw, S. (2007). Effectively Modeling Electronic Discussions, Journal of Economic Education, 37 (4): 419-434. Lueg, C. (2003) Knowledge sharing in online communities and its relevance to knowledge management in the business era, International Journal of Electronic Business, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 140-151

Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. F. (1999). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Account for Social Influence: Theoretical Bases and Empirical Validation. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA

Maltz,

T.

(1996). Customary

law

and

power

in

Internet

communities. Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication [On-line], 2 (1) Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M. and Hung, Y. T. (2003). Because time matters: temporal coordination in global virtual project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems 19 , pp. 129-156 McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., and Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review 23(3): 473-490. Michelson, B.J. (2006). Leadership and power base development: using power effectively to manage diversity and job-related interdependence in complex organizations, available at: www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au24/michelson.pdf (accessed February 2006). Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York, Harper & Row. Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive Power in Social Exchange. NY, Cambridge University Press. Mondillon, L., Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Rohmann, A., Dalle, N., & Uchida, Y. (2005). Beliefs about power and its relation to emotional experience: A comparison of Japan, France, Germany, and the United States. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 11121122. Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242266. Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and

individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431444.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Noveck, B. S., (2004) Unchat: Democratic solution for a wired world, in P. M. Shame (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet (London: Routledge).

O'Reilly, C., and Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3): 492-499.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power. Cambridge, MA: HBS Press. Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.

Preece, J. (2001) 'Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and measuring success', Behavior and Information

Technology, 20: 5, 347 356 Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette, empathy and trust in communities of practice: Stepping stones to social capital. Journal of Universal Computing Science, 10(3), 63-77. Preece, J. and Maloney-Krichmar D. (2003). Online Communities. In J. Jacko and A. Sears, A. (Eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers. Mahwah: NJ. 596-620. Rafaeli, S. and Raban D. R., (2005). Information sharing online: a research challenge. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 1(1/2), 62-79. Raven, B. H. (1999). Influence, power, religion, and the mechanisms of social control. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 161186. Rheingold, H., (1991). Virtual Reality. Summit Books. Rheingold, H., (1993). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computerized world. London: Secker & Warburg. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., and Arinze, B. (2002). Some Antecedents and Effects of Trust in Virtual Communities, Journal of Strategic Information Systems (11), pp. 271-295.

Ridings, C. and Gefen D., (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 10(1).

Sachdev, I., and Bourhis, R. Y., (1985). Social categorization and power differentials in group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15: 415434.

Sachdev, I., and Bourhis, R. Y., (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21:124

Salancik, G. R., and Pfeffer, J., (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Sharratt, M; Usoro, A., (2003). Understanding Knowledge-Sharing in Online Communities of Practice. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), December 2003.

Silva, L.; Goel, L. and Mousavidin, E. (2008). Exploring the dynamics of blog communities: the case of MetaFilter. Information Systems Journal, 19, 55-81.

Smith, P. K., and Bargh, J. A. (2003). Nonconscious effects of power on basic approach and avoidance tendencies. Unpublished manuscript.

Sproull, L., and Faraj, S., (1997), "Atheism, sex and databases: the net as a social technology", in Kiesler, S. (Eds), Culture of the Internet, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp.35-51.

Sproull, L., and Kiesler S., (1991). L. Sproull and S. Kiesler Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization, The MIT Press, Cambridge (1991).

Stenmark, D. (2001). The Relationship between Information and Knowledge, Proceedings of IRIS 24, Ulvik, Norway, August 11-14.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 6176). UK: Academic Press.

Thompson, K. R. and Luthans, F., (1983). A Behavioral Interpretation of Power. (in Allan & Porter 1983), pp. 72-86.

Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(1). Retrieved October 16, 2003 from http://www.behavior.net/job/v1n1/utz.html.

Valck, K., Bruggen, G. H., and Wierenga, B. (2009). Virtual communities: A marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems 47(3): 185203.

Van Beveren, J., (2002). A Model of Knowledge Acquisition that Refocuses Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), pp 1822.

Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu. C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004a). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 5776.

Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu. C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004b). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 510528.

Viegas, F. B., and Smith, M. A., (2004). Newsgroup Crowds and Author Lines:

Visualizing the Activity of Individuals in Conversational Cyberspaces. Big Island, HI: IEEE.

Vigas, F. B., Wattenberg, M. and McKeon, M. M. (2007). The Hidden Order of Wikipedia. In HCII (15), 445454.

von Hippel, E., (2001). Innovation by user communities: Learning from open source software. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 42(4) 8286

Wang, Y., Yu, Q. and Fesenmaier, D. F. (2002) Defining the Virtual Tourist Community: Implications for Tourism Marketing, Tourism Management 23(4), 40717.

Wasko, M., and Faraj, S. (2000). It Is What One Does: Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems (9:2-3), pp. 155-173.

Wasko, M. M. and Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1), 35-57

Watson, G. and Johnson, D. (1972). Social psychology: Issues and insights. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.

Wellman, B., (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. S. Kiesler, ed. Culture of the Internet. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Mahwah, NJ. 17920

Wiertz, C., de Ruyter, K. (2007). Beyond the call of duty: Why customers contribute to firm-hosted commercial online communities, Organization Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.347-376.

Wilkinson, I. and D. Kipnis (1978), "Interfirm Use of Power," Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 315-320.

Wojcik, S., (2008). The Three Key Roles of Moderator in Municipal Online Forums. Paper presented at the Politics: Web 2.0 International Conference, April 17-18, 2008. London: Royal Holloway, University of London. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/politics-web20-paper-download/Wojcik,Web%202.0%20London,April%202008.pdf

Wright S., (2006). Government-run Online Discussion Fora: Moderation, Censorship and the Shadow of Control, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8,pp 550-568,

Wright S. (2009). The Role of the Moderator: Problems and Possibilities for Government-Run Online Discussion Forums

H Yang, C Lai (2008). Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas in Virtual Communities: The Impact of Anonymity, International Conference on Business and Information, academic-papers.org

Appendix A
Survey Based on a seven point Likert scale Highly disagree Disagree Some disagreement Neutral Some agreement Highly agree Agree What is your gender? What is your age? What is your highest level of education? Do you make use of Online Community Sites like YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter? On which of the following Online Communities are you active? What is the Online Community Site you visit the most? How long are you an Online Community Site user? What is the frequency of your Online Community Site use?

Commitment to community CC1: The relationship I have with the community is something to which I am very committed CC2: The relationship I have with the community is one I intend to maintain indefinitely CC3: The relationship I have with the community deserves my effort to maintain

Reciprocity R1: When I receive help, I feel it is only right to give back and help others R2: When I share ideas, experiences and information, I expect to receive ideas, experiences and information in return when necessary R3: The principle of give and take is important for me in the community

Enjoyment in helping others EH1: I enjoy sharing my ideas, experiences and information with others in the community EH2: Sharing my ideas, experiences and information with others gives me pleasure EH3: It feels good to help others by sharing my ideas, experiences and information

Reputation REP1: I earn respect from others by participating in the community REP2: Participating in community's activity enhances my personal reputation REP3: I feel that participating in online discussions improves my status in the community

Perceived Coercive Power Use PCPU1: makes things unpleasant here PCPU2: makes Online Community Site unattractive PCPU3: has an undesirable impact on my willingness to contribute my ideas, experiences and information PCPU4: makes difficult for me to participate in online discussions

Intention to share knowledge IN1: I intend to share my ideas, experiences and information with others more frequently in the future

IN2: I will always make an effort to share my ideas, experiences and information with others IN3: I intend to share my ideas, experiences and information with members who ask

Appendix B
Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotated):

Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 CC1 CC2 CC3 R1 R2 R3 EH1 EH2 EH3 REP1 REP2 REP3 IN1 IN2 IN3 PCPU1 PCPU2 PCPU3 PCPU4 .067 -.056 .081 -.083 -.022 .073 .043 .002 .068 -.071 -.055 .025 .029 .006 .038 .911 .922 .920 .900 2 .257 .168 .416 .151 .254 .159 .228 .339 .165 .811 .872 .866 .107 .006 .026 -.008 .001 -.065 .006 3 .295 .220 .260 .762 .783 .845 .260 .142 .375 .280 .157 .134 -.003 .014 -.049 .003 -.087 -.039 .111 4 .233 .177 .189 .240 .203 .225 .845 .831 .745 .280 .195 .202 -.005 .017 .057 .024 .024 .045 -.004 5 .095 -.066 -.075 -.061 -.038 .036 .049 .063 -.013 .058 .043 .091 .896 .919 .808 .071 .022 .010 -.019 6 .739 .829 .671 .211 .307 .165 .134 .251 .200 .156 .229 .245 -.117 -.042 .115 .007 .025 .066 -.053

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Appendix C
Reliability analyses
Commitment to community:
Item-Total Statistics Corrected Scale Mean if Item Deleted CC1 CC2 CC3 7.48 7.18 7.20 Scale Variance Item-Total if Item Deleted Correlation 9.465 10.282 10.218 .732 .717 .726 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .789 .802 .793

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .853 N of Items 3

Reciprocity:
Item-Total Statistics Corrected Scale Mean if Item Deleted R1 R2 R3 8.99 9.55 9.28 Scale Variance Item-Total if Item Deleted Correlation 11.458 10.975 10.559 .727 .792 .785 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .865 .809 .814

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .880 N of Items 3

Enjoyment in helping others:

Item-Total Statistics Corrected Scale Mean if Item Deleted EH1 EH2 EH3 9.33 9.51 9.24 Scale Variance Item-Total if Item Deleted Correlation 10.483 10.382 10.634 .851 .862 .777 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .861 .851 .922

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .915 N of Items 3

Reputation:
Item-Total Statistics Corrected Scale Mean if Item Deleted REP1 REP2 REP3 6.75 6.68 6.88 Scale Variance Item-Total if Item Deleted Correlation 13.212 12.254 12.359 .833 .881 .860 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .919 .880 .897

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .931 N of Items 3

Intentions to share knowledge:

Item-Total Statistics Corrected Scale Mean if Item Deleted IN1 IN2 IN3 9.33 9.19 7.89 Scale Variance Item-Total if Item Deleted Correlation 7.990 7.507 8.727 .749 .768 .583 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .722 .699 .880

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .835 N of Items 3

Perceived coercive power use

Item-Total Statistics Corrected Scale Mean if Item Deleted PCPU1 PCPU2 PCPU3 PCPU4 10.38 10.51 10.48 10.74 Scale Variance Item-Total if Item Deleted Correlation 23.269 23.258 22.448 23.103 .851 .862 .859 .825 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted .916 .913 .914 .925

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .936 N of Items 4