Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /comphumbeh

Examining knowledge contribution from the perspective of an onlineidentity in blogging communities

Hee-Woong Kim a,⇑, Jun Raymond Zheng b,1, Sumeet Gupta c,2

a Yonsei University, Graduate School of Information, 134 Sinchon-dong, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Koreab Ernst & Young, 8 Exhibition Street Melbourne VIC 3000, Australiac Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Technology and Management, Junwani, Bhilai, (C.G.) 490 020, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 2 April 2011

Keywords:Knowledge contributionVirtual communityOnline identitySocial identity theory

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.003

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 10 2123 4195; faE-mail addresses: kimhw@yonsei.ac.kr (H.-W. Kim

(J.R. Zheng), sumeetguptadr@gmail.com (S. Gupta).URL: http://melab.yonsei.ac.kr/kimhw.htm (H.-W.

1 Tel.: +65 9769 8795.2 Tel.: +91 788 2291605 243.

a b s t r a c t

Knowledge contribution is one of the essential factors behind the success of blogging communities (BCs).This research studies knowledge contribution behavior in a BC from the perspective of knowledge con-tributors and their characteristics using the lens of social identity theory. Social identity theory assertsthat individuals are fundamentally motivated to present or communicate their identities in everydaysocial life through behavior. A similar line of reasoning can be used to argue that members of a BC wouldalso be motivated to communicate their online identities through their behavior, that is, through knowl-edge contribution in the BC. Specifically, this study conceptualized the online identity and examined theeffects of its personal (online kindness, online social skills, and online creativity) and social aspects (BCinvolvement) on knowledge contribution. The data was collected using an online survey from the mem-bers of Cyworld, a popular BC in South Korea and a few other countries (members from South Korea wereincluded in this study). The results indicate that both the personal and social aspects of online identityand their interactions significantly influenced knowledge contribution. Based on the findings, this studyoffers suggestions to organizers of BCs to enhance the knowledge contribution from their members.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Blogging communities (BCs) are virtual communities (VCs)which allow members to post blogs on their websites. Blogs arean online version of people’s daily dairy, which allow anyone toshare his or her thoughts and experiences. Although similar inmany aspects to a VC, there are a few essential differences betweena BC and a VC. BCs, unlike VCs, have no shared spare, clear bound-ary, or clear membership (Efimova, Hendrick, & Anjewierden,2005; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), and theyare driven by the personalities behind them (Efimova et al.,2005). Specifically, blogs assist in the formation of online identitiesrather than share interests and discussion topics. BCs encourage aone-to-many form of communication with little public interactioncompared to other forms of computer-mediated communication(Blanchard, 2003). However, BCs often incorporate interactive fea-tures, similar to VCs, such as links to other blogs, forums areas fordiscussions, and spaces for comments regarding the blogger. More-

ll rights reserved.

x: +82 2 2123 8654.), raymond.zheng@au.ey.com

Kim).

over, in a VC, the level of interaction is much more intense andmembers develop a sense of community, whereas the level ofinteraction in a BC is not so intense (Efimova et al., 2005).

There are various types of BCs which are similar in their keytechnological features but differ in other aspects (Boyd & Ellison,2008). Some sites (e.g., Facebook) support the maintenance ofpre-existing social networks, whereas others help strangers to con-nect based on shared interests, political views, or activities (e.g.,Cyworld, Rediffmail) (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). Similarly, some sitescater to diverse audiences (e.g., Facebook), while others attractpeople based on common language or shared racial-, sexual-, reli-gious-, or nationality-based identities (e.g., Rediffmail) (Boyd &Ellison, 2008). Sites also vary in the extent to which they incorpo-rate new information and communication tools, such as mobileconnectivity, blogging, and photo or video sharing. For example,Cyworld allows members to purchase and use avatars in theirblogs, but Facebook does not have such features. Although theremay be diverse BCs, the key to all these BCs is either sharing amongthe members of pre-existing social networks or among the mem-bers of interest based social networks. BCs where members devel-op communities based on shared interests and views were thefocus of the present study.

The key activity that takes place in a BC is knowledge contribu-tion, which means ‘‘transferring and sharing of knowledge fromone party to another’’ (Doring, 2002; Kumar & Thondikulam,

H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770 1761

2006). Members contribute knowledge in a variety of ways such asposting recipes, providing new technology information, sharinginvestment information, and writing reviews of books and moviesto name a few. The amount of knowledge and information ex-change that takes place in a BC can be estimated from the size ofthe blogosphere, which according to Kubal (2006) doubles in sizeroughly every 6 months and is more than 60 times larger todaythan it was 3 years ago. Everyday more than 75,000 new blogsare created in BCs.

The accumulated knowledge in a BC can be used for gainingstrategic advantages. Dell Inc. and Tripadvisor (although not BCs)have been successful in using the knowledge accumulated in theironline forums. Dell Inc. uses the knowledge accumulated in its cus-tomer forum for identifying market trends and improving its re-search and development (R&D) and marketing activities.Similarly, Tripadvisor, the largest global travel information and ad-vice destination on the Web, capitalizes on its traveler forum,which has more than 5 million reviews and opinions accumulatedover the years. While these reviews and opinions are useful fortravelers, the exchange of information is a source of revenue forTripadvisor, which earns revenues through advertisements. How-ever, not all websites are as successful as Tripadvisor in facilitatingknowledge exchange. Chiu, Hsu, and Wang (2006) assert that facil-itating knowledge exchange among the members of a BC is one of thebiggest challenges in fostering a BC (von Krogh, 2003).

Previous research has examined knowledge contributionmainly from a cost-benefit perspective (Hew & Hara, 2007;Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2005; McLure & Faraz, 2000; Wang & Fes-enmaier, 2004; Wasko & Faraj, 2005), an organizational citizenshipbehavior perspective (Yu & Chu, 2007), a social capital perspective(Chiu et al., 2006; Kim & Han, 2009; Wasko & Faraj, 2005), a self-interest, and a public-good perspective (Ardichvili, Page, & Wen-tling, 2003; Jie, Jiang, & Chan, 2007). These studies focused mainlyupon identifying the motivation behind the knowledge contribu-tion such as altruism (Hew & Hara, 2007), reputation (Wasko &Faraj, 2005), future reciprocation (Ackerman, 1998), expectancy(Wang & Fesenmaier, 2004), and trust (Kim & Han, 2009).

Another stream of research on online knowledge contribution(e.g., Donath, 1998; Doring, 2002; Leary, 1995; Ma & Agarwal,2007) asserts that individuals contribute knowledge as a meansof communicating their identities. Social identity theory (Tajfel &Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987) also asserts that individuals arefundamentally motivated to present or communicate their identi-ties in everyday life through behavior. By contributing knowledgein a BC, one reveals several of his or her characteristics such as thelevel of participation, knowledge, communication style, and prefer-ences. In other words, knowledge contribution is a means of com-municating one’s identity (Ma & Agarwal, 2007). Turkle (1997) alsoholds that an online space presents people with a different arenawhere they can explore and communicate their identities. How-ever previous studies (Calvert, 1999; Schau & Gilly, 2003) arguethat online identities and offline identities are not necessarily cor-related. People are free to create their identities online according totheir whims and fantasies. Therefore, it becomes more importantto examine the online identities and knowledge contributionthereof by members.

The aim of the present study is to examine online knowledgecontribution in BCs from the perspective of online identities.According to Tajfel and Turner (1986), an individual’s identity con-sists of both personal identity (identity derived from one’s person-ality traits such as helpfulness, kindness, and tenderness) andsocial identity (identity derived from belonging to a particulargroup such as Christians, congressmen, and amateur artists). Spe-cifically, this paper seeks answers to research questions: (1) howdoes the members’ online identity relate to their knowledge contri-

bution? And (2) how do the personal identity and social identityinteract each other in affecting online knowledge contribution?

This main contribution of the present study for online knowl-edge contribution is that it developed a framework for conceptual-izing online identities and explained members’ online knowledgecontributions. The present study also empirically tested and vali-dated online knowledge contribution. Finally, it offers practical in-sights to the organizers of BCs by identifying the factors thatinfluence online knowledge contribution behavior.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section,the concept of identity and social identity theory, which is the the-oretical background for the present study, is discussed. Then, thehypotheses examined in the present study are discussed. This isfollowed by the research methodology and data analysis section.The results of the present study and their implications are pre-sented in the discussion and implications sections followed bythe conclusion of the present study.

2. Conceptual background

2.1. Concept of identity

Various definitions of identity that have emerged in the litera-ture reveal that an identity has distinguishing characteristics. Forexample, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English(2003) defines identity as ‘‘qualities and attitudes you have thatmake you feel you have your own character and that you are differentfrom other people.’’ The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Ad-vanced Learners (2003) defines identity as ‘‘who you are; the iden-tity of a person or place is the characteristics they have thatdistinguishes them from others.’’ This notion of distinguishing char-acteristics has also been clearly brought out in academic literature.For example, Ruyter and Conroy (2002) proposed that identity isthe dynamic configuration of the defining characteristics of a person.The term ‘‘defining’’ in this definition indicates that identity com-prises only those aspects that one (or others) regards as the mostrepresentative of his or her character (Flanagan, 1991). Examplesof such aspects may include tenderness, knowledge, humility,and kindness.

The second notion regarding identity is that a person exhibitsdifferent identities in different situations (Harter, 1998; Mead,1934). For example, a person may behave very kindly with his fam-ily or friends, but behave arrogantly with others. Here, the person’sidentity is reflected as being kind in one situation and arrogant inanother situation.

The third notion regarding identity is that it is developedthrough social interactions (Harter, 1998). These interactions helpone to reflect about oneself based on what others perceive. Forexample, one may think of oneself as a very good person but thefeedback he or she receives from others may tell about his or herweaknesses such as being arrogant or proud. Furthermore, throughsocial interactions, one may adopt the attitudes of the other person(Mead, 1934). It is a common observation that people tend to adoptthe attitudes and behaviors of celebrities such as actors, politicians,and social reformers.

2.2. Online identity

Online identity is defined as the configuration of the definingcharacteristics of a person in online space (Ruyter & Conroy,2002) which makes the person feel he or she has his or her owncharacter and is different from other people. Without identity, peo-ple have no way of explaining who they are and how they differfrom others. In the physical world, an identity corresponds to aphysical self (Donath, 1998). Satchell, Shanks, Howard, and Mur-

1762 H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770

phy (2006) assert that online identity is the key to how people areable to communicate and interact with others electronically.Extending this notion of situation-dependent identities to an on-line context, several researchers (e.g., Calvert, 1999; Turkle,1997) assert that one’s identity in an online context would be dif-ferent from (and not necessarily linked with) his or her identity inan offline context (Calvert, 1999; Jacobson, 1999). In the onlinecontext, previous studies have used terms such as Internet identity,digital identity (Turkle, 1997), and online identity (Vasalou, Join-son, & Pitt, 2007a) synonymously. Following Ruyter and Conroy(2002)’s definition of identity, the present study defines onlineidentity as a configuration of the defining characteristics of a personin the online space.

Offline (i.e., real) identity differs from online identity in severalaspects (Table 1). According to Turkle (1997), the identity estab-lished online may not be a true representation of one’s real iden-tity. In the physical world, one’s identity inherently correspondsto one’s physical body (Donath, 1998). First, without identity,one cannot explain how he or she differs from other human beings(MacLeod, 1999). On the other hand, people can portray them-selves differently from what they are in an online context. Forexample, an individual who is shy offline could exhibit aggressivebehavior online. Similarly, an individual who is actually an extro-vert may prefer being an introvert in online space.

Second, formation of an offline identity is tedious and requirestime and effort (Bailenson & Beall, 2005; Huffaker & Calvert,2005) since one has to build relationships that portray one’s iden-tity. However, forming an online identity is relatively easier be-cause it is not constrained by the limitations of a physical space.

Third, factors beyond one’s control (e.g., race, age, and gender)affect offline self-definition and self-presentation. In contrast, onecan use a number of digital means (e.g., avatars) to express an on-line identity and can easily select the image(s) he or she wants toportray. Fourth, certain aspects of offline identities are difficult tohide. On the other hand, one can selectively choose to portray hisor her identity in the digital environment. Lastly, the images peopleuse to portray themselves in their offline identities are constrainedby physical situations and practical conditions (Bargh, McKenna, &Fitzsimons, 2002; Schau & Gilly, 2003; Schaubroeck & Merritt,1997), whereas images used for online portrayal are constrainedby the online system. An identity established online is thus notnecessarily tied to the identity of the person offline (Calvert,1999). Therefore, it is important to study the role of online identityfor knowledge contribution.

2.3. Previous research on online identity

A number of studies (see Table 2) discuss the development ofonline identity and its influence on one’s behavior (e.g., Boyd,Chang, & Goodman, 2004; Millen & Patterson, 2003; Turkle,1997; Vasalou, Joinson, & Pitt, 2007b; Walker, 2000). Boyd et al.(2004), for example, noted that in computer-mediated communi-

Table 1Comparison between OFFLINE identity and online identity.

Dimension Offline identity

Context Face-to-faceDevelopment The development of an offline identity requires considerable time an

person has to build relationships and friendships that portray his orControl One cannot control how others perceive oneself. One cannot hide his

other personally identifiable informationPresentation It is difficult to hide one’s identity and one’s identity is revealed in d

interactions with othersConstraints One’s physical situation plays a strong role in defining one’s identity

poor person may not be able to form an identity amongst rich peopl

cations, identity was established through software-enabled visualor textual representations. Such establishment of identity is lim-ited by the availability of such visual or textual representations.For example, emoticons are used for expressing one’s emotions.However, the number of emoticons available is finite and onemay not find the emoticon that truly represents one’s emotions.Customizing one’s avatars is another way of establishing one’sidentity (Vasalou et al., 2007b). These avatars portray individuatingproperties back to their owners and outwards to the community.

The online identity, thus, establishes influences one’s behavior.Walker (2000) explored how online identity influenced one’s pre-sentation of one’s homepage through design and content. Similarly,Millen and Patterson (2003) described the influence of online iden-tity on policy decisions (e.g., use of real-world identity) for a com-munity network and the impact of this network on creating socialcapital.

Table 2 reveals that the characteristics of online identity (orInternet identity) have not been ascertained clearly. Moreover,the role of online identity on knowledge contribution is also notcompletely clear. Similar to an offline context, one’s online identitywould presumably influence one’s online behavior. Understandingthe characteristics of online identity and its role in influencingbehavior (e.g., online knowledge contribution) would thereforecontribute to the existing body of literature. Social identity theoryallows for the use a theoretical lens to explain the influence ofidentity on behavior; therefore, it was used in the present studyfor understanding the role of online identity in knowledgecontribution.

2.4. Social identity theory

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) contends that anindividual’s identity consists of personal identity and social iden-tity. Personal identity is derived from individual personality traits.It categorizes the self as a unique entity (Baumeister, 1998) and in-volves attributes specific to the individual such as skills and beliefs.Personal identity, thus, is derived from self-knowledge of an indi-vidual’s personality traits and from a belief in the uniqueness ofthe self.

Social identity is derived from belonging to a particular group.Social identity is an individual-based perception of what definesthe ‘‘us’’ associated with any internalized group membership; itis a person’s knowledge that he or she belongs to a social categoryor group (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Social identity, thus, serves to dis-tinguish the self and members of one group from the members ofall other groups.

This theory holds that personal identity influences people’sbehavior via the process of identification (i.e., the process by whichone, being a unique entity, associates with certain groups to bolsterhis or her self-esteem), and social identity influences people’sbehavior via the process of categorization (i.e., the process bywhich one put himself or herself and others into categories such

Online identity

World wide webd effort since aher identity

The development of an online identity is relatively fastbecause a person exhibits the identity he or she wishes

or her name and The portrayal of one’s identity is under one’s control. Onecan hide his or her personally identifiable information

ue course through One can portray his or her identity selectively anddifferently to different groups of people

. For example, ae

One’s identity is dependent on the characteristics of thesystem one is using

Table 2Previous research on identity in an online context.

Research Term Context Research output

Boyd et al. (2004) Digitalidentity

Internetenvironment

Discussed representations of digital identity

Millen and Patterson(2003)

Onlineidentity

Online community Discussed online identity policy and its impact on creating social capital

Turkle (1995) Digitalidentity

Internetenvironment

Digital identity breaks from constraints of everyday life, allowing users to transcend the limits of thereal world

Vasalou et al. (2007b) Onlineidentity

Internetenvironment

Found that users tend to customize their avatars to portray their own characteristics

Walker (2000) Internetidentity

Homepage Discussed the presentation of self on Internet home pages

Doring (2002) OnlineIdentity

PersonalHomepage

Review of research work on the application of online identity to personal home pages

Huffaker and Calvert(2005)

OnlineIdentity

Teenage Blogs Teenagers tend to reveal true information about their real identity

H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770 1763

as students, professionals, and housewives to show identity) andcomparison (i.e., the process by which one compares his or hergroup(s) with other group(s) seeing a favorable bias towards thegroup to which (s)he belongs).

When personal identity is prominent, an individual’s needs,standards, beliefs, and motives primarily determine behavior (Stets& Burke, 2000). When social identity is prominent, one sees him-self or herself as an exemplar of a social category through self-cat-egorization and comparison (Turner et al., 1987). Under theseconditions, collective needs, goals, and standards of one’s commu-nity primarily determine behavior (Verkuyten & Hagendoorn,1998). However, both personal identity and social identity can beprominent at the same time with no dominant identity, and yet,the individual can function in a coherent manner. Adhering toHogg and Abram’s (1988) definition of personal identity, the pres-ent study defined online personal identity as a set of idiosyncratictraits and personality characteristics that the person has in onlinespace. Similarly, adhering to the definition of social identity pro-posed by Tajfel and Turner (1986), the present study defined onlinesocial identity as that part of the individual’s identity which is derivedfrom knowledge of his or her membership in an online social group (orgroups) together with the value and emotional significance attached tothat membership.

The conceptual framework for the present study is shown inFig. 1. Consistent with social identity theory, Fig. 1 shows that on-line identity influences one’s online behavior. Online behavior canbe ascertained through various means such as the postings made

Fig. 1. Conceptua

by the members on the BCs, the various avatars and accessoriesused by members, and the design of the home page. The presentstudy focused on the blogs posted by the members on the BCs,which demonstrate the knowledge contributed by the member.

One’s personal identity is formed based on one’s values (Hitlin,2003). Values serve as guiding principles in the life of a person orany other social entity (Hitlin, 2003, p. 119). Based on the literature(Andreoni, 1995; Hirschman, 1980; MacDonald, Jackson, Hayes,Baglioni, & Madden, 1998; Scott, 1965), five values (kindness, so-cial skills, intellectualism, status leadership, and creativity) canbe correlated with knowledge contribution behavior. Chamberlain(1985) reported that of these five, three values (intellectualism,status leadership, and creativity) explain a single construct (Cham-berlain, 1985) since these three values share the same underlyingmeaning. The present study termed this common factor as onlinecreativity. Based on the preceding discussion and in view of prom-inent online knowledge contribution behavior, the present studyproposed online kindness, online social skills, and online creativityto be the three constructs that represent the online personalidentity.

When individuals relate to a particular group, they share anemotional involvement and achieve some degree of social consen-sus about the evaluation of their group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).Group involvement implies a state of motivation, arousal, or inter-est towards the focal group and has been used as an indicator of anindividual’s attachment and sense of belonging to that particularoffline group (Havitz & Dimanche, 1999). Therefore, the present

l framework.

1764 H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770

study proposed that BC involvement represent the online socialidentity.

In a BC, people communicate their personal identity and socialidentity in numerous ways such as joining some online groups,decorating their blogs with avatars, posting their knowledge onblogs and online forums, and managing relationships with othersto name a few. In the next section, the present study developed aresearch model and hypotheses as a way to discuss the influenceof online personal and social identities on online knowledgecontribution.

3. Research model and hypotheses

Based on the preceding theoretical background and conceptualdiscussion, the proposed research model for the present study isshown in Fig 2. In accordance with the concept of group involve-ment (Havitz & Dimanche, 1999), the present study defined BCinvolvement as a state of motivation, arousal, or interest towardsthe focal BC. Involvement in the BC indicates the level of an individ-ual’s attachment and sense of belonging to a particular BC (Havitz& Dimanche, 1999). The higher the involvement in a BC, the stron-ger one is attached to it. When a member is highly attached to agroup, (s)he tends to perceive participation and other online activ-ities as essential and develops patronizing behavior (Kyle, Graefe,Manning, & Bacon, 2003) In addition, when a member’s level ofinvolvement in a BC is high (i.e., a feeling that (s)he is part of theBC), the member tends to value the social interactions with theother members of the BC. Furthermore, a member with a high levelof involvement in the BC would be characterized as citizenshipbehavior (same as organizational citizenship behavior) (Yu &Chu, 2007), whereby the member actively shares knowledge tohelp other members. As a member’s involvement in the BC in-creases, the member expends more effort in the BC and activelycontributes knowledge to benefit the BC. This relationship is sup-ported by social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turneret al., 1987), according to which, social aspect of one’s self-identitywill influence his or her behavior in a group setting.

Hypothesis 1. BC involvement has a positive effect on onlineknowledge contribution.

In accordance with the definition of kindness (Scott, 1965), thepresent study defined online kindness as the degree to which one isconcerned about the happiness of other members in the BC. Kindnessis one of the dimensions of personal identity and is regarded as atraditional virtue in many cultures and in religious traditions. Itis not uncommon that some people help others for their own ben-efit (Andreoni, 1995). However, in many cases, people do not nec-essarily carry out the act of helping and other pro-social behavior(i.e., behavior considered socially good such as speaking kindlyand saying encouraging words) for any tangible benefits; instead,

Fig. 2. Research model.

they do so out of kindness. Kindness corresponds to a large bodyof evidence from privately provided public goods, like charitablegiving. A kind person is more likely to sacrifice some personal ben-efit for others’ interest because of altruism (Ma & Agarwal, 2007;Yu & Chu, 2007). Extending this idea to the context of the BC, anindividual with kindness may be more concerned about the happi-ness of other BC members. Similarly, a person who wishes to por-tray himself as a kind person online would do so by carrying outaltruistic activities in a BC. When other BC members need help, akind person may post replies (i.e., knowledge or ideas) in the com-munity. Previous research (Kurzban & Houser, 2001) also suggeststhat kind members actively contribute their knowledge to othersby replying to the posts and contribute a great deal more to thecommunity than those who are not kind.

Hypothesis 2. Online kindness has a positive effect on onlineknowledge contribution.

Following the definition of social skills (Scott, 1965), the pres-ent study defined online social skills as the degree to which a per-son is able to get along with all kinds of people in the BC. MacDonaldet al. (1998) proposed that social skills influence, to a large extent,the interaction and communication in the community. MacDonaldet al. (1998) found that a high level of social skills increased peo-ple’s ability to establish and maintain social relationships. A largesocial network implies that a person has many friends in the com-munity. When help is needed, a member with social skills is morewilling to contribute his or her knowledge to help others in thecommunity based on the social exchange between members (Yu& Chu, 2007). The difference between kindness and social skillsis that a kind person helps others because it is in their nature todo so and may not necessarily be due to the person who receivedthe help. A person with social skills, on the other hand, freelyforms relationships with others. MacDonald et al. (1998) alsofound that social skills increased the ease of getting a messageacross to other parties in an offline community. Thus, memberswith high social skills have less difficulty sharing knowledge withother people, and they feel at ease in contributing knowledge.Similarly, in the context of the BC, members with social skillsmay easily get along with others, attempt to form networks, andtake part in leading or moderating a group activity (such as moun-taineering or picnics), thus, contributing to knowledge contribu-tion in the BC.

Hypothesis 3. Online social skills have a positive effect on onlineknowledge contribution.

In keeping with the definition of creativity (Midgley & Dowling,1978; Scott, 1965), the present study defined online creativity asthe degree to which an individual is receptive to new ideas and makesinnovative decisions independently of others in the BC. Hirschman(1980) postulated that a person’s creativity is immediately relatedto his or her behavior. Those who are creative are more inclined to-wards the use of innovation in their domain (Agarwal & Prasad,1998). When other members need help, creative members readilyoffer solutions (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2004) and, thus, contributeknowledge to others in a BC. Agarwal and Prasad (1998) also men-tioned that creative people require lesser reinforcement for usinginnovations as compared to other. In product development com-munities, members’ creativity is particularly crucial because itbrings out ideas for newer and better products, thus, contributingto the increased level of knowledge in the BC (Holmstrom, 2001).Consequently, creative people may contribute more knowledge ina BC.

Hypothesis 4. Online creativity has a positive effect on onlineknowledge contribution.

H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770 1765

According to social identity theory, an online personal identitycan result in various online behaviors regardless of the online so-cial identity. That is, when the level of involvement in the BC islow, online behavior could be influenced separately by the onlinepersonal identity in the BC. On the other hand, involvement inthe BC initiates and manages the self-categorization (categoriza-tion into groups) process and helps to establish a person’s socialidentity (Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). Categorizing oneself as agroup member shifts the self-concept and unifies it with the focalgroup. People identify themselves with a specific group as theirlevel of involvement in the group increases (Terry et al., 1999). Pre-vious research also supports interaction between personality traitsand social identity (Frissbie, Fitzpatrick, Feng, & Crawford, 2000;Terry et al., 1999). As the level of involvement changes, the effectof personal identity on online behavior could change.

As discussed earlier, members with high levels of online kind-ness, online social skills, or online creativity would contributemore knowledge in the focal BC compared respectively to thosewith low levels of online kindness, online social skills, or onlinecreativity. However, as the member’s involvement (i.e., psycholog-ical identification) with the BC increases, the member’s onlineknowledge contribution also increases compared to the other BCmembers because of the pro-social behavior (Ellemers, Spears, &Doosje, 2002). Conversely, members whose involvement in theBC is low may be less motivated to contribute knowledge online,even though they may have high levels of online kindness, onlinesocial skills, or online creativity. Therefore, the effect of onlinekindness, online social skills, or online creativity on online knowl-edge contribution may become stronger for those who have highlevels of involvement in the BC than for those who have low levelsof involvement in the BC.

Hypothesis 5. BC involvement moderates the effect of onlinekindness on online knowledge contribution.

Hypothesis 6. BC involvement moderates the effect of onlinesocial skills on online knowledge contribution.

Hypothesis 7. BC involvement moderates the effect of online cre-ativity on online knowledge contribution.

4. Research methodology

The empirical data for the present study was collected using anonline survey posted at Cyworld,3 which is a virtual community ofrelationships, interests, and transactions. It provides facilities for itsmembers to create blogs over its website and, therefore, is a bloggingcommunity. Members can post their ideas and knowledge to theirblogs. Cyworld is a South Korean social network service operatedby SK Communications. At Cyworld, members cultivate relationshipsby forming friendships with each other through their minihompage.Members can decorate their mini-rooms with various virtual goods(such as background music, pixelated furniture, and virtual appli-ances) available at Cyworld. Cyworld also has operations in Chinaand Vietnam; however, in the present study, the focus was on itsSouth Korean operations.

Cyworld was a good context for the present study for a numberof reasons. First, it has more than 20 million members all over theworld and, thus, provided a good experimental platform for thepresent study. Second, members express their identity through vir-tual goods, and therefore, Cyworld was a good platform for exam-

3 In 2006, Cyworld received the Wharton Infosys Business Transformation Awardfor its society wide transformation of interpersonal interaction.

ining online identities. Third, members develop communitiesbased on their shared interests and views; thus, there was a natu-ral development of BCs (and hence knowledge sharing) at Cyworld.

4.1. Data collection

The data for the present study was collected through an onlinesurvey conducted over a period of 4 weeks. Using Cyworld’s searchfunction, around 2000 members were selected and invited via e-mail to participate in the online survey. In addition, the respon-dents were assured that their responses would be kept confiden-tial. Furthermore, the respondents were informed that there wasno right or wrong answer so they could answer each questionhonestly.

One hundred and eighty-five complete and valid responseswere collected. Although the response rate was only 10%, it wasacceptable because there were no follow-up email reminders. Inan online survey, a large number of the respondents generally donot respond. The majority of respondents in the present studywere between 20 and 29 years of age (mean = 25 years, standarddeviation = 7.1). As for the respondents’ profession, some of themwere undergraduate students (26%) or high school students (20%)while others were professionals (21%). On average, the membershad 3.07 years (standard deviation = 1.67) of experience with Cy-world and 7.75 years (standard deviation = 2.39) of experiencewith using the Internet.

It was made clear that there were no right or wrong answers tothe questions, thereby, reducing the chances of non-response biascreeping into the solution. Additionally, the survey period was only1 month, which was not long enough for the respondents to re-spond in a biased manner. However, to properly substantiate thevalidity of the results, non-response bias was tested because it in-creased the validity of the analysis and results. According to Arm-strong and Overton (1977), non-response bias is assessed bytesting for the differences between early and late respondentssince late respondents are almost similar to non-respondents.The non-response bias was assessed by comparing early and laterespondents (i.e., those who replied during the first 2 weeks andduring the last 2 weeks). T-tests showed that the early respondentsand late respondents did not differ significantly (p < 0.01) in termsof age, Internet experience, or Cyworld experience. Mann–Whitneytests also did not reveal any significant differences (p < 0.01) in thegender ratio between the two respondent groups.

4.2. Instrument development

In developing the measurement instrument, existing validatedscales and empirical procedures were adapted to the context ofthe BC. Scales for BC involvement were adapted from Kyle, Graefe,Manning, and Bacon (2004). The scales for online kindness, onlinesocial skills, and online creativity were adapted from Scott (1965),and the scales for online knowledge contribution were adaptedfrom Igbaria, Parasuraman, and Baroudi (1996).

Two knowledge management (KM) researchers reviewed thesurvey instrument and checked its face validity. Given that theitems for measuring the constructs were adapted from varioussources, all the measurement items were subjected to a two-stageconceptual validation exercise. A sorting exercise was done withfour graduate students acting as judges. All of them placed theitems onto the intended constructs. Finally, the measurementinstrument was reviewed in a focus group of ten Cyworld membersto check for any ambiguity of wording or format. The measurementitems were anchored on the 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis-agree, 7 = strongly agree). The final survey instrument is shownin Appendix A.

Table 4Correlations between constructs.

Construct Mean (Std. Dev.) INV KIN SOC CRE KNO

INV 4.51 (1.58) 0.82KIN 4.43 (1.25) 0.59 0.74SOC 4.56 (1.43) 0.52 0.55 0.80CRE 4.32 (1.52) 0.58 0.62 0.58 0.80KNO 4.37 (1.56) 0.53 0.50 0.58 0.53 0.80

Note: Leading diagonal shows the squared root of average variance extracted (AVE)of each construct.

1766 H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770

5. Data analysis and results

5.1. Instrument validation

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using VARIMAX rotation wasconducted in SPSS 16.0 to validate the survey instrument. All theitems were loaded on distinct factors with Eigen values greaterthan 1.0, explaining 81.40% of the total variance. Next, confirma-tory factor analysis (CFA) using PLS was done. Convergent validitywas established by examining composite reliability (CR), Cron-bach’s a, and the average variance extracted (AVE) (Gefen, Straub,& Boudreau, 2000). As shown in Table 3, CR and Cronbach’s a for allthe constructs exceeded 0.7. The AVE for each construct was great-er than 0.5. Thus, the results established that the items demon-strated convergent validity.

The discriminant validity of the measurement model waschecked by comparing the squared root of AVE for each constructwith the correlations between that construct and other constructs.If the squared root of AVE was greater than the correlations be-tween the construct and other constructs, then it indicated dis-criminant validity. As shown in Table 4, the squared root of AVEfor each construct exceeded the correlations between that con-struct and the other constructs. Hence, the discriminant validityof the instrument was established.

5.2. Hypotheses testing

To test the moderating effect of the hypotheses as well as themain effect of the hypotheses, hierarchical moderated multipleregression (HMMR) (Saunders, 1956) was used. This method isthe preferred statistical method for examining moderator effectswhen either the predictor or the moderator variable is measuredon a continuous scale (Aguinis, 1995). The results are shown in Ta-ble 5. The first step in HMMR was to test the effects of control vari-ables on online knowledge contribution. The second step was totest the effects of main factors on online knowledge contribution.The present study found that three factors (online involvement,online social skills, and online creativity) had significant effectson online knowledge contribution, explaining 40.7% of the vari-ance. Therefore, H1 (BC involvement), H3 (online social skills),and H4 (online creativity) were supported, but H2 (online kind-ness) was not supported.

Table 3Principle component analysis and convergent validity testing.

Item Factor analysis

CRE1 0.82CRE2 0.83CRE3 0.83CRE4 0.71INV1 0.85INV2 0.86INV3 0.82INV4 0.75KIN1 0.65KIN2 0.84KIN3 0.77KIN4 0.69KNO1 0.7KNO2 0.8KNO3 0.8SOC1SOC2SOC3Eigen Value 1.52 9.51 1.44 1.1% explained 18.54 18.90 15.78 14.Total Variance 18.54 37.44 53.22 67.

The third step of HMMR analysis was to test the full model byadding interaction terms to the main model. Before fitting the datainto a regression model, the interaction terms were standardized.This procedure was intended to reduce problems associated withmulticollinearity among the variables in the regression equation.The present study saw a significant increase of R2 in the full modelcompared to the main model (DR2 = 0.14, F = 1.5, p < 0.05). The re-sults, thus, revealed that the BC involvement moderates the effectof online kindness on online knowledge contribution (b = 0.13) andthe effect of online creativity on online knowledge contribution(b = �0.15). These results support H5 (the moderating effect ofBC involvement on the relationship between online social skillsand online knowledge contribution) and H7 (the moderating effectof BC involvement on the relationship between online creativityand online knowledge contribution), but not H6 (the moderatingeffect of BC involvement on the relationship between online socialskills and online knowledge contribution).

In addition, the data was tested for common method varianceby using the Bentler and Bonnet test and Harman’s single-factortest as suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff(2003). The Bentler and Bonnet test involves the estimation ofthree models and the comparisons between them, i.e., the nullmodel (MM0) that has no underlying factor, a common-factormodel measurement model (MM1), and the measurement modelin the present study (MM2). A test of significance for the differencebetween the v2 values of MM1 and MM2 shows that the fit of MM2is statistically superior to the fit of MM1 (p < 0.001). It shows thatthe measurement model fits the data better than a single-factormodel, a result that supports the validity of the constructs in themeasurement model. Harman’s single-factor test involves anexploratory factor analysis (EFA) of all the items to determine

AVE CR Cronbach’s a

0.64 0.93 0.93

0.67 0.93 0.93

0.55 0.86 0.86

3 0.65 0.88 0.8853

0.79 0.64 0.89 0.890.810.78

7 1.0041 13.7763 81.40

Table 5HMMR analysis results.

Variable Control model Main model Full model

Control effects Age �0.10 0.03 0.02Gender 0.02 0.08 0.08Profession �0.09 0.03 0.05Internet Experience �0.14 �0.02 �0.03Cyworld Experience 0.10 0.02 0.02

Main effect BC involvement (INV) 0.20c 0.22c

Online kindness (KIN) 0.10 0.09Online social skills (SOC) 0.34d 0.33d

Online creativity (CRE) 0.16b 0.16b

Moderating effects INV � KIN 0.13a

INV � SOC �0.03INV � CRE �0.15a

R2 0.046 0.453 0.467DR2 0.407 0.014F Value 32.37d 1.50b

a p < 0.1.b p < 0.05.c p < 0.01.d p < 0.001.

H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770 1767

whether one general factor accounts for the majority of the vari-ance. The test showed that the first factor accounts for less than20% of the total variance. The present study further did principalcomponent analysis using Varimax rotation; this revealed thateach of the seven principal components explained — the rangewas from 13.78% to 18.54% — almost an equal amount of the81.40% of the total variance. The test results show that the data col-lected for the present study did not suffer from common methodvariance.

6. Discussion and implications

6.1. Discussion of findings

Some of the findings that could be of interest to academics andpractitioners are presented here. First, BC involvement represent-ing the social aspects of online identity has a significant effect ononline knowledge contribution in a BC. This is consistent with so-cial identity theory (Verkuyten & Hagendoorn, 1998), according towhich the social identity influences identity communicationbehavior (i.e., online knowledge contribution). Prior research alsoshowed that involvement likely translates into commitment tothe community and its members (Kyle et al., 2004). When thisinvolvement increases, commitment to the focal BC and to itsmembers becomes stronger. As a result, members participate inthe focal BC more actively and display pro-social behavior. Withmore pro-social behavior toward the online group, individuals in-crease their knowledge contribution to the community.

Second, online social skills and online creativity, which repre-sent personal aspects of online identity, have significant influenceon online knowledge contribution in a BC. This finding is also con-sistent with social identity theory (Stets & Burke, 2000), accordingto which the personal identity influences identity communicationbehavior (i.e., online knowledge contribution). Especially, the sig-nificant effect of online social skills on knowledge contribution isconsistent with the findings of Han, Zheng, and Xu (2007). Sociallyadept members find it easy to communicate with others online.Moreover, they happily contribute their views and help others. On-line creativity is also significantly related to online knowledge con-tribution. Chamberlain (1985) categorizes creativity as a self-actualizing factor that encourages members to generate and dis-seminate new ideas. Creative people are more likely to generateand share new ideas. Consistent with Chamberlain’s findings

(1985), creative members are motivated to contribute their ideasin the BC.

Third, BC involvement moderates the relationship between on-line kindness and online knowledge contribution although onlinekindness, which represents the personal aspect of online identity,does not significantly influence online knowledge contribution.One possible explanation for this insignificant direct effect is thatonline kindness itself is not enough to influence knowledge contri-bution behavior. This is because even those who are kind onlinemay feel shy and uncomfortable in talking to strangers. Peopleneed to be further motivated to perform a helping behavior likeknowledge contribution. For example, people in an unfamiliarenvironment might tend to have reservations about contributingtheir views. This explanation is supported by the results of themoderating effect of BC involvement on the relationship betweenonline kindness and online knowledge contribution behavior. Thepresent study found that individuals with online kindness contrib-uted more knowledge online in the BC when they had a higher le-vel of BC involvement. This is consistent with prior research(Frissbie et al., 2000) that found significant interaction effects be-tween personality traits and social identity.

Fourth, BC involvement moderates the relationship betweenonline creativity and online knowledge contribution. However,BC involvement has a negative moderating effect on the relation-ship; members with high online creativity contribute less knowl-edge in the BC as their level of BC involvement increases. Onepossible reason is that creative people are constantly looking fornew ideas (Hirschman, 1980). Creative people are more interestedin new and challenging environments that involve the opportunityto try out new things. When their BC involvement level is high in aparticular BC, these creative members may already be very familiarwith, and accustomed to, the environment. As a result, they maystart looking for a new environment. Consequently, their motiva-tion to contribute knowledge to the current community might les-sen. Therefore, when involvement in the BC is high, members withonline creativity might not want to contribute as much knowledgeas they did earlier.

The present study found no significant moderating effect of BCinvolvement on the relationship between online social skills andonline knowledge contribution. One possible explanation is thatthe effect of online social skills on online knowledge contributionis so strong that the moderating effect of BC involvement appearsinsignificant. MacDonald et al. (1998) proposed that social skillsare important in social interaction that may influence knowledge

1768 H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770

contribution behavior. However, the strength of social skills is sel-dom discussed. The present study reported that people with socialskills could easily communicate and get along with all kinds ofpeople. Therefore, it hardly matters whether they have a high orlow level of BC involvement. They could easily perform helpingbehaviors regardless of their level of BC involvement. BC involve-ment, therefore, does not significantly moderate the relationshipbetween social skills and knowledge contribution behavior.

6.2. Limitations and future research

The results of the present study must be interpreted against itslimitations. First, the data for the present study was collected frommembers of Cyworld, which essentially provides a platform forseveral BCs. It would be useful to replicate the present study acrossa variety of BCs and online groups for the generalizability. Futurestudies can also select a specific type of BC (e.g., a travel knowl-edge-sharing BC, investment knowledge-sharing BC, or medicalknowledge-sharing BC) to test our model. Second, the presentstudy identifies BC involvement as a factor representing the socialaspect of online identity and three other constructs representingthe personal aspects of online identity. Although the present studyselected three constructs from the subtypes of values regarding on-line personal identity, future studies can identify and test otherpersonal constructs. Fourth, other factors (e.g., BC characteristics)in addition to online identity may motivate online knowledge con-tribution. Third, the present study could only collect 185 responsesout of 2000 members, which may be low in terms of response rate.However, since this is normal in online studies, this may not criti-cally influence the results of the present study. Future researchneeds to test the combined effects of the motivators and onlineidentity on online knowledge contribution.

6.3. Implications for research

The present study has several implications for theory. First,from a theoretical perspective, several studies have focused uponknowledge contribution in an online context. However, their mainfocus generally has been to identify the motivators of knowledgecontribution (Chiu et al., 2006; Hew & Hara, 2007; Kankanhalliet al., 2005; Kim & Han, 2009; Wang & Fesenmaier, 2004; Wasko& Faraj, 2005; Yu & Chu, 2007). Ma and Agarwal’s (2007) studywas an exception in its explanation of how perceived identity ver-ification affects online knowledge contribution. However, there isan overall lack of clarity in understanding the characteristics ofknowledge contributors and the effect of the personal and socialcharacteristics of those contributors on their knowledge contribu-tion behavior in an online context. Hence, the salient contributionof the present study was the development and testing of a theoret-ical model that explains knowledge contribution in a BC. Peoplebehave so as to communicate their identities (Leary, 1995). Thus,identity leads to human behavior. It is one of the first studies tosystematically examine identity exploration, identity formation,and identity communication in the context of BCs. Online identityhas provided further insights into understanding online behavior,especially online knowledge contribution.

The present study highlights another key theoretical implica-tion in terms of social identity theory. This theory was developedto explain the development of identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)and its subsequent behavior (Stets & Burke, 2000; Verkuyten &Hagendoorn, 1998). The present study contributes to previous re-search by demonstrating the application of social identity theoryin knowledge management. The present study developed a con-struct of online identity by classifying online identity into onlinesocial identity and online personal identity by identifying con-structs that represent the personal and social aspects of online

identity in a BC context. In addition, it has helped explain howthe identified constructs affect online knowledge contribution.

The findings of the present study highlight, from a social iden-tity perspective, the salient role of BC involvement in determiningmembers’ online knowledge contribution. Additionally, the pres-ent study highlights the salient roles of online creativity and onlinesocial skills as the determinants of online knowledge contributionfrom an online personal identity perspective. Furthermore, thepresent study finds a positive moderating effect of BC involvementon the relationship between online kindness and online knowledgecontribution and a negative moderating effect of BC involvementon the relationship between online creativity and online knowl-edge contribution. The study, thus, contributes towards a richunderstanding of knowledge contribution in a BC.

6.4. Implications for practice

From a practical perspective, the present study revealed that BCinvolvement is of vital importance to one’s online knowledge con-tribution. Therefore, organizers of BCs need to further increase thestickiness of the BCs so that members will have a higher level ofinvolvement and thus increase their knowledge contribution. Toenhance the level of BC involvement, providers of BCs need to im-prove the usefulness of the BC and to provide members with apleasurable user experience (Gupta & Kim, 2007). In addition, BCorganizers should actively organize and initiate interesting discus-sions among the members and by continuing their participation inthe BC are more easily integrated into the community. These tac-tics might improve members’ levels of involvement.

The present study also showed that a member’s online socialskills are crucial to encouraging online knowledge contribution ina BC. Organizers of BCs should pay special attention to memberswho are socially less skillful. Since online social skills are not nec-essarily the same as offline social skills, organizers of BCs shouldformulate innovative strategies to improve members’ online socialskills so that even less socially skillful members find a way to com-municate well with others in the online space. For example, orga-nizers of BCs can provide guidelines or online tutorials to educatemembers on how to decorate their blogs and display their interestsand hobbies to attract other members in the BC. BC providers canalso organize more online and offline meetings to encourage andfacilitate interaction among members. In this way, BC providerscan help members in improving their social skills and build theirself-esteem.

In addition, the present study revealed that creative memberscould become doubled-edged swords for a BC. If organizers ofBCs manage their creative members well, such members will con-tribute many new ideas to the community, and in turn, attract oth-ers and enlarge the knowledge pool. On the other hand, iforganizers of BCs do not manage them well, they may migrate tocompeting BCs. Therefore, organizers of BCs can attempt to providea lively experience to its members by organizing competitions like‘‘best blog design’’ competitions or ‘‘best Valentine’s Day greetings’’together with rewards to keep members’ – especially creativemembers’ – attention. For example, Cyworld publicizes the ratingsof each blog and, from time to time, it organizes competitions likebest blog design and best design of community photos. In this way,creative members remain interested and continue to participateactively. Their innovative ideas further attract members to the BC.

7. Conclusion

The present study was an attempt to examine knowledge con-tribution behavior in BCs from the perspective of an online iden-tity. Based on social identity theory, the present study

Appendix A. Measurement instrument

Construct Item Wording Reference

BC involvement INV1 I really like participating in this BC Kyle et al. (2004)INV2 Participating in this BC is one of the most enjoyable things I doINV3 Participating in this BC is pleasurable to meINV4 Participating in this BC is important to me

Online kindness KIN1 I am a person who is concerned about others in this BC Scott (1965)KIN2 I am a person who helps others to achieve their goals in this BCKIN3 I am a person who pays attention to the needs of other people in this BCKIN4 I am a person who helps others feel happy in this BC

Online social skills SOC1 I am a person who is sociable in this BC Scott (1965)SOC2 I am a person who is able to get along with all kinds of people in this BCSOC3 I am a person who is skillful in developing social relationships in this BC

Online creativity CRE1 I like to experiment with new ways of doing things in this BC Scott (1965)CRE2 I often try new things in this BCCRE3 I like to try different things in this BCCRE4 I am original in my thought and ways of looking at things in this BC

Online knowledgecontribution

KNO1 I contribute my knowledge often to others in this BC Igbaria et al.(1996)KNO2 I post my knowledge often in this BC

KNO3 I share my knowledge often in this BC

H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770 1769

conceptualized online identity from both personal and social as-pects of the online identity. The present study differentiated onlineidentity with offline identity and developed a conceptual frame-work of online identity that explains members’ online knowledgecontribution behavior in a BC. The examination of knowledge con-tribution from the perspective of online identity is a valuable addi-tion to existing literature. A few meaningful, interesting, andpractical insights for organizers of BCs were revealed through thepresent study by explaining the personal and social aspects of on-line identity that influence BC members’ online knowledge contri-bution behavior and the mechanisms of such influence.

References

Ackerman, M. S. (1998). Augmenting organizational memory: A field study ofanswer garden. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 16, 203–224.

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personalinnovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information SystemsResearch, 9, 204–215.

Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regressionin management research. Journal of Management, 21, 1141–1158.

Andreoni, J. (1995). Cooperation in public-goods experiments: Kindness orconfusion? American Economic Review, 85, 891–904.

Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers toparticipation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal ofKnowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77.

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.

Bailenson, J. N., & Beall, A. C. (2005). Transformed social interaction: Exploring thedigital plasticity of avatars. In R. Schroeder & A. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at workand play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 1–16).Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer-Verlag.

Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me?Activation and expression of the ‘true self’ on the Internet. Journal of SocialIssues, 58, 33–48.

Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology ((4th ed.), pp. 680–740). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Blanchard, A. (2003). Blogs as virtual communities: Identifying a sense ofcommunity in the Julie/Julia project. <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogs_as_virtual.html>.

Boyd, D., Chang, M., & Goodman, E. (2004). Representations of digital identity. InComputer supported cooperative work (CSCW). Chicago.

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, andscholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

Calvert, S. L. (1999). Identity on the Internet. In Annenberg public policy centerconference on the internet and the family. Washington DC.

Chamberlain, K. (1985). Value dimensions, cultural differences, and the predictionof perceived quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 17, 345–401.

Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing invirtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitivetheories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888.

Donath, J. S. (1998). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In P. Kollock &M. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29–59). Routledge.

Doring, N. (2002). Personal home pages on the web: A review of research. <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue3/doering.html>.

Efimova, L., Hendrick, S., & Anjewierden, A. (2005). Finding ‘‘the life betweenbuildings’’: An approach for defining a weblog community. In Internet research6.0. Chicago, USA.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review ofPsychology, 53, 161–186.

Flanagan, P. (1991). Variety of moral personality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press.

Frissbie, S. H., Fitzpatrick, J., Feng, D., & Crawford, D. (2000). Women’s personalitytraits, interpersonal competence and affection for dating partners: A test of thecontextual model. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 585–594.

Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modelingtechniques and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communicationsof AIS, 4(7), 2–76.

Gupta, S., & Kim, H. W. (2007). Developing the commitment to virtual community:The balanced effects of cognition and affect. Information Resource ManagementJournal, 20, 28–45.

Han, J. J., Zheng, R. J., & Xu, Y. (2007). The effect of individual needs, trust andidentification in explaining participation intentions in virtual communities. InHawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS ‘07). Big Island: AIS.

Harter, S. (1998). The construction of self. New York: Guilford.Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1999). Leisure involvement revisited: Conceptual

conundrums and measurement advances. Journal of Leisure Research, 31,122–150.

Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Knowledge sharing in online environments: Aqualitative case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science andTechnology, 58, 2310–2324.

Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity.Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 283–295.

Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between twotheories of self. Social psychology quarterly, 66, 118–137.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology ofintergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Holmstrom, H. O. (2001). Virtual communities as platform for productdevelopment: an interpretive case study of customer involvement in onlinegame development. In International conference on information systems (Vol. 22,pp. 299–306). New Orleans, LA, USA: AIS.

Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity and language use in teenageblogs. <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html>.

Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., & Baroudi, J. J. (1996). A motivational model ofmicrocomputer usage. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 127.

Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: Online expectations andoffline experiences in text-based virtual communities. <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue1/jacobson.html>.

1770 H.-W. Kim et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 1760–1770

Jie, Y., Jiang, Z., & Chan, H. C. (2007). Knowledge contribution in problem solvingvirtual communities: the mediating role of individual motivations. In ACMSIGMIS CPR conference on Computer personnel research: The global informationtechnology workforce (pp. 144–152). New York: ACM.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge toelectronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly,29(1), 113–143.

Kim, B., & Han, I. (2009). The role of trust belief and its antecedents in a community-driven knowledge environment. Journal of the American Society for InformationScience and Technology, 60, 1012–1026.

Kubal, L. (2006). Should you invest in web 2.0 innovations? Venture Capital Journal,46, 33–34.

Kumar, S., & Thondikulam, G. (2006). Knowledge management in a collaborativebusiness framework. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 5, 171–187.

Kurzban, R., & Houser, D. (2001). Individual differences in cooperation in a circularpublic goods game. European Journal of Personality, 15, S37–S52.

Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2003). An examination of therelationship between leisure activity involvement and place attachment amonghikers along the Appalachian trail. Journal of Leisure Research, 35, 249–273.

Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2004). Predictors of behavioral loyaltyamong hikers along the Appalachian trail. Leisure Science, 26(1), 99–118.

Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression Management and InterpersonalBehavior. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Ma, M., & Agarwal, R. (2007). Through a glass darkly: Information technologydesign, identity verification, and knowledge contribution in onlinecommunities. Information Systems Research, 18(1), 42–67.

MacDonald, E. M., Jackson, H. J., Hayes, R. L., Baglioni, A. J., & Madden, C. (1998).Social skill as a determinant of social networks and perceived social support inschizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 29, 275–286.

MacLeod, K. (1999). The online identity: How MUDs shape fantasy into reality.<http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/stpp4C03/ClassEssay/>.

McLure, M., & Faraz, S. (2000). Understanding member motivation for contributingto different types of virtual communities: A proposed framework. Journal ofStrategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, Illinois: University of ChicagoPress.

Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and itsmeasurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229–242.

Millen, D. R., & Patterson, J. F. (2003). Identity disclosure and the creation of socialcapital. In International Conference on Computer/Human Interaction (CHI ‘03) (pp.720–721). Florida: Fort Lauderdale.

Podsakoff, M. P., MacKenzie, B. S., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature andrecommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–890.

Ruyter, D. D., & Conroy, J. (2002). The formation of identity: The importance ofideals. Oxford Review of Education, 28, 509–522.

Satchell, C., Shanks, G., Howard, S., & Murphy, J. (2006). Knowing me, knowing you:End user perceptions of identity management systems. In European Conferenceon Information Systems. Göteborg, Sweden.

Saunders, D. R. (1956). Moderator variables in prediction. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 16, 209–222.

Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation inpersonal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385–404.

Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping withwork stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40,738–754.

Scott, W. (1965). Values and organizations: A study of fraternities and sororities.Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Socialpsychology quarterly, 63, 224–237.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. InS. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations ((2nd ed.),pp. 7–24). Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall.

Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behavior: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38,225–244.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. In. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: BasilBackWell.

Vasalou, A., Joinson, A.N., & Pitt, J. (2007a). Constructing my online self: Avatars thatincrease self-focused attention. In Computer/human interaction (CHI) proceedings(pp. 445–448). San Jose, US.

Vasalou, A., Joinson, A. N., & Pitt, J. (2007b). Constructing my online self: Avatarsthat increase self-focused attention. In International Conference on computer/human interaction (CHI ’07) (pp. 445–448). San Jose, US.

Verkuyten, M., & Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categorization: Thevariable role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 24, 99–110.

von Krogh, G. (2003). Knowledge sharing and the communal resource. In M.Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of organizationallearning & knowledge management (pp. 379–392). Malden, Massachusetts:Blackwell Publishing.

Walker, K. (2000). It’s difficult to hide: The presentation of self on Internet homepage. Qualitative Sociology, 23, 99–120.

Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2004). Modeling participation in an online travelcommunity. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 261–270.

Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital andknowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1),35–57.

Yu, C., & Chu, T. (2007). Exploring knowledge contribution from an OCB perspective.Information & Management, 44, 321–334.