Exploring the impact of innovation guidance on user participation in online communities: A mixed methods investigation of cognitive and affective perspectives.

Yang Li, Xiaona Gou, Haiqing Hu, Hongying Zhang
Author Information
  1. Yang Li: Business School, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.
  2. Xiaona Gou: Business School, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.
  3. Haiqing Hu: Business School, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.
  4. Hongying Zhang: Business School, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.

Abstract

In recent years, many online communities have launched opinion-gathering activities to promote user participation in innovation and improve the quality of new products. The current methods for online innovation activities can be divided into two categories: cognitive guidance and affective guidance. However, the studies on online communities have mainly focused on user engagement motivations, and little attention has been paid to investigating the impact and underlying mechanism of innovation guidance on user participation at the linguistic level. This study first collected secondary data from NetEase.com and conducted an econometric model to explore the impact of cognitive guidance and affective guidance on users' participation in online innovation activities. Subsequently, we investigated the impact mechanism of different innovation guidance methods on user participation through two experiments, here by drawing on mental simulation theory. The experimental results showed that outcome simulation and process simulation imposed a dual mediating effect of innovation guidance on user participation. In addition, we also found that product types moderate the dual mediating effect of outcome simulation and process simulation. The findings can deepen and expand the research on user participation while providing practical implications for companies and platforms as they attempt to promote user participation in innovation activities.

Keywords

References

  1. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008 Jun;34(6):769-78 [PMID: 18344496]
  2. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:547-77 [PMID: 12185209]
  3. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2006 Oct;9(5):540-7 [PMID: 17034320]
  4. Front Psychol. 2020 May 27;11:927 [PMID: 32536889]
  5. Psychol Rev. 1995 Apr;102(2):246-68 [PMID: 7740090]
  6. Am Psychol. 1998 Apr;53(4):429-39 [PMID: 9572006]
  7. Front Psychol. 2021 Nov 16;12:589622 [PMID: 34867568]
  8. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Dec;11(6):1055-61 [PMID: 15875975]
  9. Front Psychol. 2016 May 26;7:793 [PMID: 27303349]
  10. Front Psychol. 2017 Aug 14;8:1349 [PMID: 28855879]
  11. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2010 Aug;13(4):357-64 [PMID: 20712493]
  12. Child Dev. 2000 Jan-Feb;71(1):107-18 [PMID: 10836564]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0userparticipationinnovationguidanceonlinesimulationactivitiesimpactcommunitiesmethodscognitiveaffectivepromotecantwomechanismmentaloutcomeprocessdualmediatingeffectproductrecentyearsmanylaunchedopinion-gatheringimprovequalitynewproductscurrentdividedcategories:HoweverstudiesmainlyfocusedengagementmotivationslittleattentionpaidinvestigatingunderlyinglinguisticlevelstudyfirstcollectedsecondarydataNetEasecomconductedeconometricmodelexploreusers'SubsequentlyinvestigateddifferentexperimentsdrawingtheoryexperimentalresultsshowedimposedadditionalsofoundtypesmoderatefindingsdeepenexpandresearchprovidingpracticalimplicationscompaniesplatformsattemptExploringcommunities:mixedinvestigationperspectivestype

Similar Articles

Cited By