Cultivating Trust in Virtual Communities PDF

Cultivating Trust and Harvesting Value in Virtual Communities
Author(s): Constance Elise Porter and Naveen Donthu

Source: Management Science, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2008), pp. 113-128
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20122364
Accessed: 02-04-2019 17:10 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Management
Science
This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Tue, 02 Apr 2019 17:10:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE MUE
Vol. 54, No. 1, January 2008, pp. 113-128 DOI I0.1287/mnsc.l070.0765
issn 0025-19091 EissN 1526-55011081540110113 ? 2008 INFORMS
Cultivating Trust and Harvesting Value in

Virtual Communities
Constance Elise Porter
Department of Marketing, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, cporter3@nd.edu
Naveen Donthu
Department of Marketing, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303, ndonthu@gsu.edu
Although previous
we investigate scholars
the role of a firm's have
efforts examined theandvalue
in cultivating trust of virtual
harvesting communities
value for themselves via to customers, in this study
the virtual communities that they sponsor. We hypothesize that the perceptions of a firm's efforts to provide
quality content, to foster member embeddedness, and to encourage interaction foster favorable customer beliefs
about and trust in a virtual community sponsor. Further, we hypothesize that trust motivates customers to
behave relationally toward the sponsoring firm by sharing information with, coproducing new products with,
and granting loyalty to, the sponsoring firm. Data from 663 customers are analyzed using structural equation
modeling techniques. We find that efforts to provide quality content and foster member embeddedness have
positive effects on customer beliefs about the sponsor. In fact, fostering member embeddedness has a stronger
explanatory effect on customer beliefs than does providing quality content. However, despite the fact that
previous studies show that customers value interaction in virtual communities, our findings suggest that firms
must do more than encourage interaction among their community members if they hope to create value from
their virtual communities.
Key words: virtual communities; online communities; trust; embeddedness; relationship marketing
History: Accepted by Ramayya Krishnan, information systems; received March 29, 2007. This paper was with
the authors 3 weeks for 1 revision.
Introduction (e.g., Armstrong and Hagel 1995). Finally, among the

Many firms have launched virtual communities for few studies that do present empirical findings, most
their customers but have failed to create value for rely on descriptive or qualitative data that do not
their respective firms (Balasubramanian and Mahajan yield generalizable results (e.g., Brown et al. 2002,
2001). Virtual communities were supposed to lead to Kozinets 2002).
increased sales, positive word of mouth, increased We conduct a broad-based empirical study aimed at
information sharing, and richer marketing research helping managers understand how their efforts as vir
data (e.g., Brown et al. 2002, Kozinets 2002). However, tual community sponsors could create value for their
lackluster results suggest that managers need a better firms. Indeed, fostering trust with customers is an
understanding of how to create value from the virtual essential component of any successful Internet-based
communities that they sponsor (Balasubramanian and marketing strategy (Urban et al. 2000, Yakov et al.
Mahajan 2001, Dholakia et al. 2004, Kim 2000). 2005), and many suggest the need for more research to
The efforts of a community sponsor often deter help explain the complex nature of the trust-building
mine the success of a virtual community (Kim 2000), process (e.g., Balasubramanian et al. 2003). Thus, our
but little guidance exists regarding which efforts are central premise is that a virtual community's value
most effective. First, most scholars focus on explain to a sponsoring firm is dependent upon the spon
ing the value of virtual communities to customers sor's ability to cultivate trust with the community's
rather than on how firms might leverage such com members.
munities to create value for themselves (e.g., Dholakia In conducting this study, we seek to understand the
et al. 2004, Mu?iz and Schau 2005). Second, although nature of the trust-building process in firm-sponsored
some scholars provide insightful propositions about virtual communities by answering the following ques
virtual communities' value to sponsoring firms, few tion: "Which efforts are most significant for a com
provide empirical evidence that explains how the munity sponsor to make if they hope to cultivate
efforts of a community sponsor might create value trust with customers via their virtual community?"
113
Porter and Donthu: Cultivating Trust and Harvesting Value in Virtual Communities
114 Management Science 54(1), pp. 113-128, ?2008 INFORMS
Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Trust Formation and Value in Virtual Communities
( Benevolence ) Judgment
vHlOA H10B /H10C Willingness

to share
Belief about a personal
sponsor's sense information
of shared values
,H11A
Trust in a
community
sponsor
H11C
H3, H6, H9
Belief about
sponsor
Perceived effort
opportunism Loyalty
to encourage
interaction
We theoretically cast a community sponsor's efforts expect to achieve?" We hypothesize that trust will
as "Web interventions" that facilitate trust in online motivate customers to share information with com
environments (McKnight and Chervany 2002). Previ munity sponsors and to exhibit behaviors that are
ous researchers focus the trust-building effect of Web the result of trust-based relationships between firms
interventions such as using third-party seals and pri and customers (e.g., loyalty and willingness to coop
vacy policies (Kim and Benbasat 2006). In this study, erate in new product development). Therefore, the
however, we explore different Web interventions that results of our study help managers understand how
are likely to cultivate trust with customers who have to produce deeper forms of value from their invest
opportunities to observe a firm's behavior, over time, ments by cultivating trust with customers via virtual
as members of the firm's virtual community. communities.
Specifically, we explore the influence of a sponsor's
efforts to (a) provide access to quality content; (b) fos
ter member embeddedness; and (c) encourage mem What Is a Virtual Community?
ber interaction with regard to beliefs about, and trust Scholars generally agree on the characteristics that are
in, a community sponsor (see Figure 1). Others exam associated with a virtual community (Stockdale and
ine the value of content and interaction to members of Borovicka 2006). For example, a virtual community is
virtual communities (e.g., Dholakia et al. 2004). How comprised of members who share an interest, interact
ever, we take a different perspective. We focus on how repeatedly, generate shared resources, develop gov
a customer's perception of a sponsor's efforts to pro ernance policies, demonstrate reciprocity, and share
vide access to quality content and to encourage inter cultural norms (Preece 2000). However, the actual def
action influences customer trust and willingness to inition of the term "virtual community" often dif
create value for the sponsoring firm. Further, we explore fers based on the context in which individuals join
the influence of a third element of the virtual commu or visit a community (Lee et al. 2003, Preece 2000).
nity environment that is especially relevant for firm For example, whereas the earliest virtual communities
sponsored communities: a sponsor's effort to foster tended to focus on members' social interests, many
member embeddedness. Through this exploration, we more recent virtual communities focus on members'
develop a new measurement scale that will be useful commercial interests (Kannan et al. 2000).
to both researchers and practitioners. Furthermore, regarding commercially oriented vir
A second question that motivates our study is tual communities, researchers and practitioners are
"If trust mediates valuable outcomes for a commu showing increasing interest in the role of the firms in
nity sponsor, which outcomes can a sponsoring firm driving valuable outcomes from the sponsorship of
Management Science 54(1), pp. 113-128, ?2008 INFORMS 115
such communities (e.g., Brown et al. 2002). For this In conceptualizing benevolence, integrity, and judg
study, we conceptualize a virtual community as an ment, as well as the outcomes of trust, we inte
aggregation of individuals or business partners who grate the social and rational perspectives of trust
interact based on a shared interest, where the interac (Jarvenpaa et al. 1998). The social perspective suggests
tion is at least partially supported and/or mediated that a firm's benevolent acts toward a customer foster
by technology and guided by certain protocols and a sense of moral obligation in the customer such that
norms (Porter 2004). Furthermore, in this study we benevolence-based trust motivates that customer to
focus on commercially oriented virtual communities. perform acts of reciprocity in order to restore equity
Among the three types of commercially oriented in his or her relationship with the firm (De Wulf et al.
virtual communities put forth by Kannan et al. (2000), 2001, Jarvenpaa et al. 1998, Morales 2005). Thus, we
we focus solely on firm-sponsored virtual communi posit that benevolence-based trust motivates a cus
ties that are organized and controlled by a commercial tomer to cooperate in new product development and
firm. Two dimensions characterize the firm-sponsored to behave in a loyal manner, reflecting his or her
virtual community. First, firm-sponsored virtual com moral obligation to support the sponsor via acts of
munities could be hosted internally (i.e., embedded reciprocity.
on a firm's website) or externally (i.e., via a link to a The rational perspective of trust suggests that trust
separate website), but regardless of whether the firm reduces a customer's need to act in a self-protective
sponsored virtual community is hosted internally or manner with firms and facilitates risk-taking behav
externally, the sponsoring firm identifies itself as a ior (Jarvenpaa et al. 1998, Mayer et al. 1995). Because
sponsor by using its name and/or logos on the com the commercial context of the firm-sponsored virtual
munity's homepage. Second, in firm-sponsored vir community could create a barrier to the formation
tual communities, the firm that organizes and controls of trust, in such contexts, perceptions of the firm's
the community also pursues commercially oriented integrity and judgment could convey trust (Jarvenpaa
goals within that community (Kannan et al. 2000). et al. 1998). Thus, via our conceptual model, we sug
(See Online Appendix 1 for additional background gest that trust based on a sponsor's integrity and
information about virtual communities; all online good judgment motivates customers to take risks by
appendices are available in the e-companion.)1 sharing personal information with the firm.
The Role of a Sponsor's Efforts in Cultivating

Cultivating Trust in Virtual Trust in Virtual Communities
Communities Firms need to manage purpose, policies, and/or peo
There is no consensus regarding the concept of trust ple to achieve successful relationship outcomes, such
(Gefen et al. 2003), but most agree that certain beliefs, as trust, with members of their virtual communities
such as benevolence, integrity, competency, and/or (Preece 2000). For example, a sponsor can reinforce
judgment, reflect another's trustworthiness (Doney the purpose of a community by effectively managing
and Cannon 1997, Leimeister et al. 2005, Smith and content because the opportunity to exchange infor
Barclay 1997). In a firm-sponsored community, cus mation motivates customers to participate in virtual
tomers interact with a sponsor, and direct experi communities (Ridings et al. 2002). Thus, providing
ence has a greater influence on their trusting beliefs access to quality content?particularly content that is
than information provided via others such as commu unbiased and controllable by customers?could lead
nity members (Doney and Cannon 1997, Mayer et al. to successful virtual communities (Brown et al. 2002).
1995). Embeddedness is the "process by which social rela
We conceptualize trust as a belief that is based on tionships shape economic action" (see Uzzi 1996,
another's behavioral demonstration of benevolence, p. 674) and helps customers perceive themselves as
integrity, and judgment. Benevolence is the willing organizational insiders (Bhattacharaya and Sen 2003).
ness of a party, beyond profit-seeking motivations, to Sponsors can manage the policy element by making
efforts to foster member embeddedness. These efforts
benefit another. Integrity is a party's perception that
another consistently relies on acceptable principles of include granting members access to sponsor represen
behavior (Jarvenpaa et al. 1998, Mayer et al. 1995). tatives, facilitating contact between the sponsor and
Finally, judgment is a party's perception that another members, providing customers with legitimate roles,
is able to make decisions that further the interests and allowing members to influence community poli
of both parties in a relationship (Smith and Barclay cies (Bhattacharaya et al. 1995, Bhattacharaya and Sen
1997). 2003, McAlexander et al. 2002, Preece 2000).
Finally, interaction is essential for communities
1 An electronic companion to this paper is available as part of the and is a key motivator for customer participation
online version that can be found at http://mansci.journal.informs. (Dholakia et al. 2004). By effectively facilitating inter
org/ action among community members (e.g., hosting
moderated discussions), sponsors can manage the efforts to provide access to quality content as a sign
"people" element of communities (Preece 2000). In that the sponsor has a sense of shared values with
sum, by making efforts to provide access to qual community members.
ity content, to foster member embeddedness, and
Hypothesis 1 (HI). The stronger a member's percep
to encourage interaction, sponsoring firms can sup
tion that a sponsor makes efforts to provide quality content,
port relationship development and drive favorable
outcomes from virtual communities. For this reason, the stronger is that member's belief about the sponsor's
sense of shared values with community members.
customer perceptions regarding these management
efforts, or Web interventions, are the key exogenous Access to new information motivates participation
variables in our model (see Figure 1). in virtual communities (Ridings et al. 2002). Indeed,
the uses and gratifications paradigm suggests that
individuals use Internet-based media, such as virtual
Model Development communities, to meet informational needs (Dholakia
In our model, three constructs conceptualize cus
tomers' perceptions of a sponsor's efforts aimed et al. 2004, Ko et al. 2005). Because respect is shown
at cultivating trust with customers: perceived effort when one party pays attention to the needs of another
to provide quality content; perceived effort to fos (Dillon 1992), when a sponsor makes efforts to pro
ter member embeddedness; and perceived effort to vide access to quality content, it is acting in a way
encourage interaction. Because attribution theory sug that shows respect for members.
gests that customer beliefs are based on causal infer Hypothesis 2 (H2). The stronger a member's percep
ences about the behavior of others (Jones and Davis tion that a sponsor makes efforts to provide quality content,
1965), we posit that a sponsor's efforts serve as the stronger is that member's belief about the sponsor's
perceptual cues that evoke customer beliefs about sense of respect for community members.
their sponsor's trustworthiness. Further, our model
is consistent with other theories of trust formation. Opportunistic behavior is behavior that reflects
For example, interaction with customers is an exam seeking self-interest with guile (Williamson 1975).
ple of a Web intervention that could cultivate trust A classic example of opportunistic behavior is when
(McKnight and Chervany 2002). Also, relationship a partner attempts to control or distort valuable infor
investments trigger customers' trusting beliefs about mation (Mohr and Sohi 1995). However, in virtual
a firm and motivate customers to behave relationally markets, signaling credibility by providing access to
toward a trusted firm (Jarvenpaa et al. 2004, De Wulf quality content would tend to reduce opportunism
et al. 2001). (Ba and Pavlou 2002). For example, Web interventions
that create trusting beliefs include providing links to
The Influence of a Sponsor's Efforts on reputable sites (Kim and Benbasat 2006). Thus, we
Customer Beliefs posit that individuals who perceive that a sponsor
Perceived effort to provide quality content is con makes efforts to provide members with access to qual
ceptualized as a customer's belief that their sponsor ity information?particularly when such information
is making efforts to provide community members is neither controlled by nor potentially harmful to the
with access to quality information. Content qual sponsoring firm?will believe that the sponsor will
ity is consistent with Wang and Strong's (1996) per act less opportunistically in relation to members.
spective on data quality, where quality dimensions
Hypothesis 3 (H3). The stronger a member's percep
include believability, accessibility, relevancy, and level
tion that a sponsor makes efforts to provide quality con
of value added. However, because virtual commu
tent, the weaker is that member's belief about the sponsor's
nities revolve around interaction, and hence around
propensity to act opportunistically in its relationships with
communication, we draw on the concept of commu
community members.
nication quality in the marketing literature by sug
gesting that content quality refers to the credibility, Because virtual communities are socially embedded
accessibility, relevancy, and importance of the infor business environments in which customers perceive
mation provided by the sponsor (see Mohr and Sohi themselves as organizational insiders, we conceptual
1995). ize perceived effort to foster member embeddedness
Customers respond favorably to quality content as a customer's belief that their sponsor makes efforts
provided by an online firm, and these perceptions to make customers feel a part of the sponsor's orga
lead to positive attitudes toward the firm (Chen and nization via the virtual community (Balasubramanian
Wells 1999, Urban et al. 2000). Indeed, quality content and Mahajan 2001, Bhattacharaya and Sen 2003).
reinforces the members' shared values and interests Efforts that foster embeddedness include providing
(Balasubramanian and Mahajan 2001, Ridings et al. customers with specialized roles and allowing them
2002). Thus, customers are likely to view a sponsor's to develop community policies (McAlexander et al.
2002, Preece 2000). These efforts align a sponsor's val Hypothesis 9 (H9). The stronger a member's percep
ues with customer values and signal respect for cus tion that a sponsor makes efforts to encourage interac
tomers (Landry et al. 2005). tion, the weaker is that member's belief about the sponsor's
propensity to act opportunistically in its relationships with
community members.
tion that a sponsor makes efforts to foster member embed
dedness, the stronger is that member's belief about the The Influence of Customer Beliefs on Trust
sponsor's sense of shared values with community members.
As suggested earlier, most scholars would agree that
Hypothesis 5 (H5). The stronger a member's percep certain beliefs about the potential target of trust,
known as trusting beliefs, are essential to under
dedness, the stronger is that member's belief about the
standing how trust emerges (see McKnight and
sponsor's sense of respect for community members. Chervany 2002). Thus, we conceptualize trust as a
Because virtual communities are socially embedded multidimensional belief (see Butler 1999), based on
business environments, they also have been conceptu another party's behavioral demonstration of benev
alized as social networks (Wellman et al. 1996). Social olence, integrity, and judgment (Doney and Cannon
networks give rise to embeddedness and suppress 1997, Smith and Barclay 1997).
opportunism because embedded parties can moni Hypothesis 10 (H10). A member's trust in the spon
tor and sanction each other's behaviors (Granovetter sor is reflected by that member's belief in the sponsor's
1985). Thus, if a sponsoring firm makes efforts to fos (a) benevolence, (b) integrity, and (c) judgment.
ter embeddedness within the community network, we
would expect that community members would view Because trust is based on expectations of another
such efforts as a signal that the sponsor would not party's future behavior (Jarvenpaa et al. 1998,
act in ways that are opportunistic toward community Sirdeshmukh et al. 2002), we embrace the notion
members. of trust as a behavioral intention that involves risk,
where risk is associated with future behavior (Mayer
et al. 1995). Accordingly, in firm-sponsored virtual
communities, trust in a sponsor reflects expectations
dedness, the weaker is that member's belief about the
regarding the sponsor's future behavior (Schubert
sponsor's propensity to act opportunistically in its relation
and Ginsberg 2000), and we posit that the future
ships with community members.
actions of a community sponsor could be reflective
Facilitating interaction among members is essen of a sponsor's shared values with, respect for, or
tial to community building (Balasubramanian and opportunism toward customers. Empirically, beliefs
Mahajan 2001). In a virtual community, when a spon about another's shared values, respect, and oppor
sor facilitates interaction it motivates customers to
tunism are antecedent to trust in marketing relation
participate, enhances customers' sense of connection ships (Brashear et al. 2003, Morgan and Hunt 1994).
with others, and enables customers to gain status
with others (Dholakia et al. 2004, Yoo et al. 2002). Hypothesis HA (H11A). The stronger a member's
In this study, perceived effort to encourage interac belief about a sponsor's sense of shared values with commu
tion is conceptualized as a customer's belief that his nity members, the higher is the community member's trust
or her sponsor promotes interaction among members in the sponsor.
of the virtual community. These efforts demonstrate Hypothesis 11B (HUB). The stronger a member's
a sense of shared values with members and signal belief about the sponsor's sense of respect for community
respect for members by taking seriously their desire to members, the higher is the community member's trust in
interact. Further, encouraging interaction signals that the sponsor.
a sponsor is less likely to act opportunistically toward
community members due to the monitoring and sanc Hypothesis 11C (H11C). The weaker the member's
tioning opportunities made available via interaction belief about a sponsor's propensity to act opportunistically
in social networks (Granovetter 1985). in its relationships with community members, the higher is
the community member's trust in the sponsor.
tion that a sponsor makes efforts to encourage interaction, Outcomes of Trust: Relational Customer Behaviors
the stronger is that member's belief about the sponsor's A trustor is willing to rely on a trustee and, as trust
sense of shared values with community members. increases, an individual exhibits risk-taking behavior
Hypothesis 8 (H8). The stronger a member's percep in relationships (Mayer et al. 1995, Morgan and Hunt
tion that a sponsor makes efforts to encourage interaction, 1994). In this study, willingness to share personal
the stronger is that member's belief about the sponsor's information is conceptualized as a customer's propen
sense of respect for community members. sity for revealing personal information to a sponsor.
Because revealing information is a risky action, trust expect that a member would be willing to grant loy
increases the willingness of an individual to reveal alty to a trusted sponsor in an attempt to reciprocate
accurate information to a trusted party. Indeed, trust the sponsor's efforts to support members of the vir
motivates a member's desire to exchange information tual community.
in virtual communities, and there is a positive rela
Hypothesis 14 (H14). In a virtual community, a mem
tionship between trust and a customer's willingness
ber's trust in the sponsor is positively associated with a
to provide information to a firm (Ridings et al. 2002,
member's loyalty.
Schoenbachler and Gordon 2002).
ber's trust in the sponsor is positively associated with a Research Design and Methodology
Members of an online consumer panel served as res
member's willingness to share personal information.
pondents to our online survey for both Pretest 1 and
the main study. Respondents were real consumers
In this study, willingness to cooperate in new prod
uct development is conceptualized as a customer's that self-identified as either members, exmembers,
propensity for joint participation with a sponsor or recently inactive members of real virtual com
in new product development activities. Firms can munities that are sponsored by consumer marketers
use virtual communities to grant customers "quasi (e.g., Ford Motor Company and Samsung, as well as
membership" roles in the organization, where cus smaller firms that sell consumer products). They were
tomers can act as coproducers in the new product sourced from a general panel of consumers that is
development process (Nambisan 2002, Stump et al. managed by a professional marketing research firm.
2002). We posit that members perceive the supportive (See Online Appendix 2 for additional information
efforts that a community sponsor makes (i.e., efforts about the research firm and its panel.)
related to content, embeddedness, and interaction) as At the beginning of the online survey, we pro
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) on the part vided both a description and the following examples
of the sponsor. OCB is behavior that is supportive and of real virtual communities to respondents: Dell Com
not directly rewarded (McAllister 1995). munity Forum, PalmOne Inc., Customer Community,
individuals who develop trust based on OCB HP /Compaq Customer Community, and REI Online
by another often express reciprocal OCB toward Community. Next, respondents were asked to (1) self
the trusted party (McAllister 1995). Reciprocal OCB identify as current or past members of virtual com
reflects a customer's individual initiative to engage munities, and (2) voluntarily provide the actual name
in "voluntary acts of creativity and innovation" of the virtual community that they would reference
(Podsakoff et al. 2000 citing George and Jones 1997, during the survey. If a respondent indicated that they
p. 523). Thus, we conceptualize a customer's will were both a current and a past (or recently inactive)
ingness to cooperate in new product development member of two different communities, the survey was
as reciprocal OCB toward a sponsor. Empirically, programmed to randomly distribute questions based
trust encourages cooperation, and firms have engaged on either the community to which the respondent
members of virtual communities in new product was currently a member or the community in which
development activities (Flavian and Guinaliu 2005, the respondent terminated membership (or recently
Morgan and Hunt 1994). became inactive).
We anticipated that members of virtual communi
ties could be positively biased toward having high
ber's trust in the sponsor is positively associated with a
levels of trust in their sponsor, and designed our
member's willingness to cooperate in new product develop
study so as to minimize this potential effect. First, we
ment efforts.
designed our sampling process, as described above,
In this study, loyalty is conceptualized as a cus to ensure that our respondent pool included both
tomer's current actions and future intentions regard active members and terminated (or recently inactive)
ing doing business with and engaging in positive members of virtual communities, because we antic
word of mouth about the sponsor. There is empirical ipated that recently terminated or inactive members
evidence of a positive relationship between customer would have lower levels of trust than do active mem
trust and loyalty (Sirdeshmukh et al. 2002). Indeed, bers. Second, because respondents were asked to vol
trust reduces a customer's perceived risk of negative untarily provide the specific name of their reference
outcomes associated with loyalty to a firm (Mayer sponsor, we were able to verify that a particular firm
et al. 1995, Morgan and Hunt 1994). Further, the social sponsored a community and could be classified as
norm of reciprocity creates a sense of obligation to "firm sponsored" and consumer oriented?making
return the gift of supportive acts to a firm in the form the virtual community appropriate for inclusion in
of loyal behavior (De Wulf et al. 2001). Therefore, we our study. Indeed, we visited each virtual community
that was named specifically by a respondent to val to "correct for the tendency of the chi-square statistic
idate its existence and to verify that the commu to reject any specified model with a sufficiently large
nity should be included in our final sample. Finally, sample" (Hair et al. 1992, p. 656). Excellent-fitting
although trust motivates risk-taking behavior such as models have RMSEA of approximately 0.06 or less
information sharing, only 50% of our final sample of and CFI of approximately 0.95 or better (Hu and
respondents were willing to voluntarily provide per Bentler 1999).
sonal information to their community sponsor. This Reliability of the measures is confirmed using sev
finding reduces our concern about potential bias of eral criteria (e.g., Fornell and Larcker 1981, Nunnally
respondents toward trusting their community spon and Bernstein 1994). Cronbach's alpha values for the
sors. (See Online Appendix 2 for additional informa scales indicate uniformly high reliabilities ranging
tion about the sampling procedures and data quality.) between 0.90 and 0.96. Composite reliability ranges
between 0.83 and 0.93. Finally, the average vari
Measures ance extracted for the constructs in the measurement
Multi-item, seven-point, Likert-type scale items (see model ranges between 0.52 and 0.76, exceeding the
Nunnally and Bernstein 1994) are used to measure recommended level of 0.50 (see Table 1 for measure
the constructs in the proposed model. Although pre ment properties).
existing scales and items are used where appropriate, The measures also show strong evidence of validity.
some items were changed or added to suit the con The high composite reliabilities (Fornell and Larcker
text of the study. However, perceived effort to fos 1981) and standardized loadings (ranging from 0.82 to
ter member embeddedness is a new measure that 0.95) (see Anderson and Gerbing 1988) suggest con
was developed by means consistent with prescribed vergent validity. Discriminant validity is assessed and
methods offered in the literature (e.g., Churchill 1979). confirmed using several criteria. First, the EFA shows
For example, to validate the conceptualization and clean factors, and a scree test indicates that the first
operationalization of the construct, we (a) conducted 10 factors extracted are meaningful. Second, the con
informal interviews with experts in online commu fidence interval (two times standard error) for con
nity design; (b) reviewed the literature on consumer struct correlations does not include 1.0 (see Table 2
embeddedness and related literature (e.g., Rao et al. for construct correlations). Finally, the Anderson and
2000); (c) observed the behavior of sponsoring firms Gerbing (1988) test of chi-square differences when
in actual virtual communities to further validate the
every pair of construct correlations are constrained to
content validity of the items; and (d) pretested the 1.0 is performed for all pairs of constructs, one at a
scale twice before using it in the main study (see time, and the results provide strong evidence for dis
Table 1 for a list of constructs and sources). criminant validity among all constructs in the hypoth
Initially, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was esized model. The results of the tests of measures
used to purify the original measures (total of 64 described above (i.e., EFA, CFA) reflect the fact that
items), and the measures showed evidence of valid benevolence, integrity, and judgment are reliable first
ity and reliability once items with low loadings order constructs, and in the structural equation model
and high cross loadings were eliminated. This pro (SEM) discussed below, a second-order factor for the
cess resulted in the retention of 46 of the origi trust construct also is supported.
nal 64 items (see Table 1). A confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) by means of LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog Data Collection and Analysis
and Sorbom 1996) was also conducted to further Pretest 1. Pretest 1 was conducted using an online
validate the measures. All 46 items from the EFA survey distributed to a panel of 103 customers. With
remain in the final measurement model, which the exception of the belief about sponsor opportunism
demonstrates good fit (x2 = 2,494.44, degrees of free construct, the measure for each construct showed
dom (d.f.) = 923, p < 0.001; comparative fit index evidence of validity and reliability, after two items
(CFI) = 0.99; root mean square error of approxima were eliminated: one from each of two different
tion (RMSEA) = 0.053; standardized root mean square scales. An EFA showed clean loadings and low cross
residual (SRMR) = 0.034). Squared-multiple correla loadings. The Cronbach's alpha for these measures
tions (SMCs) for all items range from 0.67 to 0.89. exceeded the minimum standard of 0.70 (see Hair
Although a chi-square/df ratio of less than 2.0 et al. 1992, Nunnally and Bernstein 1994), with a
is a commonly used criterion metric to evaluate majority of scales having alphas exceeding 0.90. Some
a good-fitting model, a statistically significant chi items were edited or reworded to improve reliabilities
square goodness-of-fit measure of greater than 2.0 (e.g., removed reverse-coded items, made grammati
is not unusual with large sample sizes (see Rigdon cal changes). Because the scale for belief about spon
1998). Thus, researchers are encouraged to provide sor opportunism had an alpha of 0.52, we conducted
other measures, such as the RMSEA, which tends a second pretest.
Table 1 Main Study Measurement Item Properties
Construct/Items3 (source of scale items) Loading5 f-value SMC

Belief About A Sponsor's Sense of Shared Values [SV] (0.94, 0.90,0.76)
(Maxham and Netemeyer 2003)
... Hold very similar values to my own 0.94 31.84 0.88
... Has values that are a good fit with my personal values 0.95 32.34 0.89
... Promotes the shared values of this community 0.87 28.07 0.76
Belief About A Sponsor's Sense of Respect [RESP] (0.90, 0.83, 0.62)

(Tyler 1994)
... Treats members with respect 0.87 27.83 0.76
... Takes time to acknowledge community members 0.85 27.07 0.73
... Is concerned with the rights of community members 0.88 28.27 0.77
Belief About Sponsor Opportunism [OPP] (0.95,0.86, 0.60)

(John 1984, Morgan and Hunt 1994, Rokkan et al. 2003)
... Holds back information that is important to members 0.91 30.06 0.82
... Breaches formal or informal agreements for its own benefit 0.92 30.56 0.84
... Uses unexpected events to gain unfair advantages 0.91 30.11 0.82
... Alters the facts slightly to get what it wants 0.91 30.42 0.83
Benevolence [BEN] (0.93, 0.88, 0.71)

(Ganesan and Hess 1997, Doney and Cannon 1997)
... Considers the welfare of members, as well as its own, when making important decisions 0.90 29.76 0.81
... Keeps the members' best interests in mind 0.91 30.08 0.82
... Considers members' interests when problems arise 0.90 29.61 0.81
Integrity [INTEG] (0.94, 0.89, 0.72)

(Morgan and Hunt 1994, Doney and Cannon 1997)
... Keep promises it makes to its members 0.90 29.86 0.81
... Is perfectly honest and truthful 0.90 29.91 0.82
... Can be counted on to do what is right 0.92 31.03 0.85
Judgment [JUDGE] (0.93, 0.88, 0.71)

(Smith and Barclay 1997)
... Makes appropriate decisions 0.94 32.18 0.89
... Seldom makes judgments that are way off 0.88 28.39 0.77
... Makes business judgments that I rarely question 0.90 29.43 0.80
Willingness to Share Personal Information [INFO] (0.92, 0.86, 0.60)
(Schoenbachler and Gordon 2002)
... Willing to provide information 0.85 26.80 0.72
... Willing to provide information if the company assures me it will not share the information 0.85 26.79 0.72
... Happy to provide information about my product needs 0.90 29.32 0.81
... Willing to complete a survey 0.83 26.05 0.70
Willingness to Cooperate in New Product Development [NPD] (0.96,0.91, 0.73)

(Stump et al. 2002)
... Willing to work with this sponsor to design new products 0.94 32.08 0.88
... Willing to co-develop products/services with this sponsor 0.93 31.36 0.86
... Willing to co-design products/services with this sponsor 0.91 30.59 0.84
Overall,... willing to cooperate with this sponsor in developing new products/services 0.90 29.62 0.81
Loyalty Intentions [LOYAL] (0.95, 0.90,0.70)

(Zeithaml et al. 1996)
... Willing to say positive things about this sponsor to others 0.94 31.87 0.88
... Willing to encourage close others to do business with this sponsor 0.93 31.71 0.87
... Plan to do more business with this sponsor in the next few years 0.87 28.27 0.76
... Would consider this sponsor as my first choice to buy particular products or services 0.90 29.49 0.80
Perceived Effort to Provide Quality Content [CONTENT] (0.95,0.93, 0.69)
(Mohr and Sohi 1995, Mishra et al. 1993)
. Makes frequents updates to community content 0.82 25.42 0.67
. Provides content that is relevant 0.91 30.47 0.83
... Provides important information 0.90 29.85 0.81
. Provides credible information 0.86 27.73 0.74
. Provides access to valuable information 0.90 29.84 0.81
. Provides content that is useful 0.90 29.92 0.81
Table 1 (Continued)
Construct/Items3 (source of scale items) Loading13 f-value SMC

Perceived Effort to Foster Member Embeddedness [EMBED] (0.92, 0.84, 0.52)
... Seeks the opinion of members regarding community policies 0.86 27.53 0.74
... Encourages members to take leadership roles in the community 0.82 25.42 0.67
.. .Allows members to have direct contact with their representatives 0.82 25.32 0.67
... Asks members for help in establishing community policies 0.84 26.54 0.71
... Makes an effort to make members feel a part of the community 0.84 26.51 0.71
Perceived Effort to Encourage Interaction [INTER] (0.94, 0.90, 0.68)
(Fisher et al. 1997)
... Encourages interaction among members 0.91 30.22 0.83
... Strongly encourages information sharing among members 0.90 29.66 0.81
... Encourages different members to share information 0.90 29.85 0.82
Overall,.. .facilitates a lot of interaction among members 0.87 28.17 0.76
aScale items were based on seven-point Likert-type scales. The scale ranged from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 7 = "strongly agree."
Numbers in parentheses represent the following list of reliability measures, respectively: Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and
average variance extracted.
bAII loadings are standardized and significant at p < 0.001 levels.
Pretest 2. Pretest 2 was conducted to develop a valid sor opportunism and perceived effort to foster mem
measure of the belief about sponsor opportunism con ber embeddedness have Cronbach's alphas of 0.82
struct, but it also provided an opportunity to retest and 0.85, respectively. Also, item-to-total correlations
the reliability for the perceived effort to foster mem for both scales were above acceptable threshold levels.
ber embeddedness construct. The paper-based survey, Main Study. A total of 663 cases are analyzed for
which allowed us to validate the reliability of the the main study, representing a 27% response rate.
measures using a traditional method rather than an Based on a test of early versus late responders, we
online method, was distributed to 42 business stu
find no evidence of nonresponse bias (Armstrong and
dents of two different graduate classes at a large Overton 1977). A limited number of surveys were
state university. The respondents were self-identified distributed daily until we collected 1,000 completed
members of university-based nonprofit alumni associ surveys. Although the final measurement model
ations. Using the nonprofit context solely for Pretest 2 and structural model fit the data obtained from all
was acceptable given that our primary objective was 1,000 cases, the total number of cases used in the analy
to develop a measure related to opportunism. Indeed, sis of data was reduced such that the final usable sam
alumni organizations are affinity marketing groups ple includes only responses from members of virtual
that are associated with relationship marketing efforts communities that are sponsored by consumer marketers.
(see Macchiette and Abhijit 1992), and nonprofits are The demographics of the sample are similar to
subject to perceptions of opportunism (Herzlinger existing Internet users in that most were white (80%)
1996). The results showed that belief about spon and more educated (89% with at least some college
Table 2 Main Study Construct Correlations and Variance Statistics
Standard
Construct Mean deviation Skewness3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112
1. SV 5.10 1.24 -0.28 1.00
2. RESP 5.16 1.23 -0.43 0.81** 1.00
3. OPP 3.67 1.69 0.15 -0.01 -0.09* 1.00
4. BEN 4.92 1.26 -0.20 0.79** 0.82** -0.03 1.00
5. INTEG 4.96 1.27 -0.17 0.79** 0.78** -0.07 0.86** 1.00
6. JUDGE 5.01 1.26 -0.21 0.76** 0.76** -0.04 0.81** 0.85** 1.00
7. INFO 5.62 1.22 -0.96 0.55** 0.56** -0.13** 0.50** 0.54** 0.56** 1.00
8. NPD 5.51 1.35 -0.84 0.46** 0.46** -0.03 0.40** 0.41** 0.42** 0.69** 1.00
9. LOYAL 5.40 1.34 -0.70 0.64** 0.62** -0.10** 0.61** 0.65** 0.67** 0.76** 0.66** 1.00
10. CONTENT 5.57 1.14 -0.65 0.68** 0.70** -0.14** 0.65** 0.68** 0.66** 0.62** 0.48** 0.65** 1.00
11. EMBED 4.95 1.29 -0.31 0.75** 0.79** -0.07 0.77** 0.73** 0.72** 0.47** 0.41** 0.56** 0.70** 1.00
12. INTER 5.27 1.29 -0.52 0.66** 0.70** 0.00 0.65** 0.61** 0.63** 0.46** 0.36** 0.36** 0.70** 0.74** 1.00
Note. Pearson correlations statistics are 2-tailed and based on summated scales of average scores on seven-point Likert-type items,
statistically normal data have a skewness statistic with an absolute value of less than one.
*p< 0.05; **/?< 0.01.
Table 3 Parameter Estimates and Hypotheses Tests
Standardized
Path Hypothesis Estimate f-value Result
Perceived effort to provide quality content -> Shared values H1 0.26 6.19 Significant
Perceived effort to provide quality content -> Respect H2 0.23 5.97 Significant
Perceived effort to provide quality content -> Opportunism H3 -0.45 -6.64 Significant
Perceived effort to foster member embeddedness -? Shared values H4 0.63 11.96 Significant
Perceived effort to foster member embeddedness -> Respect H5 0.69 13.74 Significant
Perceived effort to foster member embeddedness -* Opportunism H6 0.32 4.02 Significant
Perceived effort to encourage interaction -* Shared values H7 -0.00 -0.03 Not significant
Perceived effort to encourage interaction -? Respect H8 0.05 1.12 Not significant
Perceived effort to encourage interaction -> Opportunism H9 0.08 1.00 Not significant
Trust -> Benevolence H10A 0.94 18.78 Significant
Trust -> Integrity H10B 0.96 19.01 Significant
Trust -* Judgment H10C 0.93 19.25 Significant
Belief about a sponsor's sense of shared values -> Trust H11A 0.42 11
Belief about a sponsor's sense of respect -> Trust H11B 0.57 12.07 Significa
Belief about sponsor opportunism -* Trust H11C -0.03 -1.65 N
Trust -> Willingness to share personal information H12 0.66 14.20 Significant
Trust-> Willingness to cooperate in NPD H13 0.52 11.97 Significant
Trust-> Loyalty intentions H14 0.75 16.30 Significant
explainsper
years), wealthier (54% earn at least $60,000 87%,year),
44%, 27%, and 57% of the variance
and younger (89% are 50 years old or in younger)
trust, willingness to share personal information,
than
willingness to
the general population (see Online Appendix 3).cooperate
Most in new product develop
respondents had used the Internet forment, at
and least five
loyalty intentions, respectively.
years, and over half considered virtual Thecommunities
majority of hypotheses are supported, with
their primary use of the Internet. Thesome notable is
sample exceptions
com (see Table 3). Hypotheses 7-9
are not supported,
prised of real consumers who in the survey reference suggesting no significant relation
ship between that
their membership in a real virtual community perceived
is effort to encourage interac
sponsored by a consumer marketer. tion and any of the three belief variables. Further,
Most respondents had been members using
ofregression
their com analyses, we find that perceived
effort to foster
munity for more than six months. However, member embeddedness explains a
approx
imately 39% of respondents had been greater amount offor
members variance in consumer beliefs
six months or less and 15% reported membership
regarding the sponsor's sense of shared values with
for less than three months. Of the 663 cases,
and sense almost
of respect for, consumers, than does per
two-thirds of respondents identify themselves
ceived effort toas cur quality content.
provide
rent members, whereas the remainder We identify
conduct anthem
empirical test for assessing factor
selves as recently inactive or terminated members.
structure In
to test Hypothesis 10 and find that our
response to the question, "How active second-order
are you factor
in structure
the for the trust construct
online community?" approximately is12% oftorespon
superior the following alternative structures:
dents consider themselves "very active" and
(a) a one-factor 14%
model and (b) a group-factor model
consider themselves "inactive." Indeed, 74% consider
(Rindkopf and Rose 1988). Based on this test, our
themselves "somewhat active" or "not very second-order
hypothesized active"? factor structure is supe
the two middle categories of the scale. rior to(See Online
the alternative models, based on both statisti
Appendix 1 for additional information cal about the sam
and substantive grounds (Anderson and Gerbing
ple and data quality.) 1988). Thus, we achieve a measure of trust that is
valid and empirically parsimonious, reflective of the
Results abundance of literature that suggests that trust is
Overall, the data support the theoretical framework of multidimensional.
the model, as estimated using LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog Unexpectedly, we find no significant relationship
and Sorbom 1996). The results show a good fit between belief about sponsor opportunism and trust
between the model and the observed data (x2 = in a sponsor (Hypothesis 11C). We also find a posi
3,500.80, d.f. = 968, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = tive rather than a negative relationship between per
0.069; SRMR = 0.079). Also, the SMCs for the struc ceived effort to foster member embeddedness and
tural equations indicate that the modified model belief about sponsor opportunism (Hypothesis 6).
Management Science 54(1), pp. 113-128, ?2008 INFORMS
123
Figure 2
(a) No mediation effects (b) No mediation by belief variables
(c) Test of direct and indirect effects
Tests of Mediation model fits the data better than does the theoretical
We test for mediating effects in two ways. First, using model. Based on relative parsimony, the theoretical
the method suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) model should be accepted over the unconstrained
we find that trust is a significant partial mediator alternative model shown in Figure 2(c) because it has
and that both belief about sense of shared values and equally good fit with the data. Indeed, both the the
belief about sense of respect have significant mediat oretical model and the unconstrained model have a
ing effects. Also, we use LISREL 8.54 to empirically normed fit index (NFI) of 0.98 and a CFI of 0.99. Also,
compare our theoretical model to alternative mod the parsimony-adjusted NFI (PNFI) of the theoretical
els that challenge the implied mediation and find model (PNFI = 0.92) is superior to that of the uncon
that the implied mediation effects are substantial and strained model (PNFI = 0.91). In sum, both sets of
significant. tests (i.e., Baron and Kenny 1986 and LISREL) pro
In the tests using LISREL, the theoretical model vide ample supporting evidence that the mediation
is compared to the constrained models shown in implied in our model is substantial, both statistically
Figures 2(a) and 2(b). The results suggest that the and theoretically.
theoretical model is more consistent with the data
than these two alternative models, based on chi
square difference tests (see Anderson and Gerbing Discussion
1988). The theoretical model is also tested against an In conducting this study, we wanted to understand
unconstrained alternative model shown in Figure 2(c), which efforts would be most significant for a commu
which is the result of adding additional paths to the nity sponsor to make if they hope to cultivate trust
theoretical model: paths from the three belief con with customers via their virtual communities. We
structs directly to the three ultimate outcome vari find that efforts to foster member embeddedness and
ables, and paths from the three exogenous constructs to provide access to quality content have significant
to trust. We find that the unconstrained alternative trust-building effects with customers. Although we
also find that efforts to encourage interaction have no The insignificant relationship between opportunism
significant effect in our model, our results should not and trust might be due to the fact that trust is related
dissuade sponsors from encouraging member interac to both the target and the context (Leimeister et al.
tion. Indeed, prior research suggests that interaction 2005). As stated above, customers attribute mixed
helps to attract and retain virtual community mem motives to a firm's behaviors, such that they expect
bers. More importantly, however, our findings suggest firms to have self-serving motivations when dealing
that firms must do more than simply encourage inter with customers (Webb and Mohr 1998). Thus, con
action if they seek to create their own source of value sumers might accept a certain degree of opportunism
from virtual communities: they also need to make on the part of firms because when untrustworthy
efforts to provide access to quality content and foster behavior is limited to a specific context (e.g., a com
member embeddedness. mercial context), a party often can avoid the destruc
Interestingly, although many recognize the impor tion of trust (Jarvenpaa et al. 2004, Sitkin and Roth
tance of managing content online, our findings reveal 1993). We posit that customers are aware of the com
that efforts to foster member embeddedness have a mercial context of firm-sponsored virtual communi
greater impact on customer beliefs than do efforts ties and do not reduce trust in a sponsor based solely
to provide quality content. However, efforts to foster on signs of opportunistic behavior.
member embeddedness are a double-edged sword for In conducting this study, we also wanted to under
sponsors. We find that such efforts facilitate stronger stand which outcomes a sponsoring firm can expect
member beliefs regarding the sponsor's sense of to achieve if they successfully cultivate trust with cus
shared values and respect for community members, tomers. First, we find that trust results in customers'
but also result in stronger member beliefs about spon willingness to share personal information. Although
sor opportunism. many believe that members of firm-sponsored virtual
Findings from recent studies might explain the communities are predisposed to trusting their com
two-sided effect of fostering member embeddedness. munity sponsor, we find that only 50% percent are
First, "attribution-oriented" customers often ascribe willing to share nonrequired information with their
so-called mixed motives to a firm's behaviors (Webb sponsor upon joining the community. However, we
and Mohr 1998, p. 234). Based on mixed attribu find that trust is significantly associated with a cus
tions, therefore, our finding suggests that members tomer's willingness to share information with their
attribute a firm's efforts to foster member embed community sponsor. Thus, even in firm-sponsored
dedness not only to the firm's altruistic motivations virtual communities, where members voluntarily join
(i.e., sense of shared values and respect), but also to the community, firms must be vigilant about culti
the firm's selfish motivations (i.e., opportunism). Sec vating trust if they hope to gain access to valuable
customer information.
ond, a moderately high level of relationship close
ness often increases opportunism in a relationship We also find that trust also motivates deeper forms
due to decreased monitoring of partners (Wuyts and of relational behaviors among members of firm
Gey kens 2005). Thus, we posit that relationship close sponsored virtual communities: willingness to coop
ness serves as a nomological proxy for perceived erate in new product development, and loyalty. These
effort to foster member embeddedness in that both behaviors demonstrate greater forms of reciprocity on
constructs should correlate similarly with constructs the part of customers. Overall, our findings suggest
that measure opportunism. Because the mean rat that firms have an opportunity to achieve valuable
ing for perceived effort to foster member embedded outcomes from virtual communities by cultivating
ness among our respondents is moderately high (see trust-based relationships with customers.
Table 2), we feel that only moderately high relation
ship closeness between members and sponsors helps Contributions, Limitations, and
to explain our findings.
Future Research Directions
Regarding the direct antecedents of trust, we find
an unexpected result. Despite the fact that a cus Theoretical Contributions
tomer's trust is based on his or her belief about a Theoretically, we cast a virtual community sponsor's
sponsor's sense of shared values with and respect for efforts as trust-building Web interventions that trig
community members, we find in our model that belief ger customer attributions about a sponsoring firm's
about a sponsor's opportunism has no effect on trust. trustworthiness. Although interaction with customers
Whereas Brashear et al. (2003) find a similar result, has been conceptualized as a trust-building Web inter
our finding contrasts with the results from numerous vention, few researchers have explored these types
studies that show a significant negative relationship of Web interventions and even fewer have done so
between these constructs. in the context of firm-sponsored virtual communities.
Indeed, previous models of trust in online environ model are inspired by practical needs, in that our
ments focus on Web interventions such as privacy model explores variables that are meaningful to busi
policy and third-party seals. In this study, we focus ness practitioners. Whereas previous studies focus on
on how a sponsor's efforts represent Web interven understanding why individuals join virtual commu
tions that help to cultivate trust with members of nities, we show why commercial organizations might
firm-sponsored virtual communities. Attribution the want to sponsor such communities.
ory enables us to generate new insights regarding the
process of trust formation. Contributions to Management Practice
For example, whereas previous research focuses on First, our model reflects actionable Web interventions
the positive effects of interaction among virtual com that could cultivate trust with customers. For exam
munity members, we find that the mere facilitation ple, managers can select or approve the type of con
of interaction does not produce favorable consumer tent offered within their community (e.g., links to
beliefs about a sponsor. Indeed, we find that a spon third-party websites) and be proactive in fostering
sor's efforts related to content and embeddedness are member embeddedness by engaging members to sup
more significant in facilitating a customer's trust than port management of the community. It is possible that
are a sponsor's efforts related to interaction. This is customers might view a firm's efforts as attempts to
an important theoretical and practical issue because manipulate them, and our results suggest that this
theory guides us to measure customer perceptions strategy would be unwise for managers to pursue.
regarding a sponsor's efforts, rather than to focus on Indeed, if a sponsoring firm were to link customers
previously measured elements of the virtual commu only to favorable information about the firm, we
nity environment, such as thread length or thread would expect that skeptical consumers would have
interrelatedness, as measures of interactivity. lower trust. Thus, our findings guide managers to be
Also, regarding perceived effort to foster member forthright in providing access to credible content as a
embeddedness, we make three additional contribu part of their trust-building efforts.
tions toward understanding the complex nature of Interestingly, we find that beliefs about sponsor
the trust-building process. First, the measure is newly opportunism do not have a significant effect on trust.
developed, reliable, and valid, and is shown to have a This finding should alleviate the concerns of man
significant role in cultivating trust with customers in agers who hesitate to sponsor virtual communities
firm-sponsored virtual communities. We do find that due to their fear of destroying trust with customers by
efforts to foster member embeddedness have a more appearing to be manipulative. We find that consumers
significant effect on customer beliefs than do efforts might tolerate a certain degree of opportunism in
to provide access to quality content. commercial relationships.
Our finding regarding the role of fostering member Second, our results inform managers about the
embeddedness and perceptions of opportunism also value of fostering member embeddedness. Indeed,
reinforces the complexity of the trust formation pro these efforts have a greater effect on customer beliefs
cess. On one hand, relying on the theory of mixed than do perceptions about a sponsor's efforts to pro
attributional processing, we explain how fostering vide access to quality content. Although the phrase
embeddedness is a double-edged sword, with both "content is king" fueled Internet strategy in the 1990s,
favorable and unfavorable effects on a customer's our findings suggest that the phrase "embeddedness
beliefs about a community sponsor. However, the is emperor" could become the new guiding mantra
negative effect of fostering embeddedness on oppor for developing interactive marketing strategies in the
tunism is muted in that, in our model, opportunism future.
has no significant effect on trust. These results speak Third, our findings underscore the importance of
to the theoretical importance of understanding how using technology to build relationships with cus
mixed attributions can have unexpected effects on tomers, rather than simply to generate transactions.
customer beliefs and should encourage researchers Indeed, many customers use the Internet for activi
who rely upon attribution theory to design studies ties other than shopping. In an era where customers
that test for such an effect. increasingly demonstrate willingness to engage with
Finally, our findings inform researchers about the social media (e.g., social networking websites, blogs,
associations between trust and three relevant but less virtual communities) to build online relationships,
studied measures of relational customer behavior: more research about the value of using technology to
willingness to share personal information, willingness facilitate customer relationships is warranted.
to cooperate in new product development, and loy Despite our contributions, the limitations of our
alty. Previous researchers use broad-based outcomes study provide a platform for future research. For
of trust such as cooperation and commitment. In example, our results do not directly address the
this study, the outcome variables of our theoretical potential for trust production or destruction via
other influential elements, such as member-generated and paper were substantially improved by the guidance
information (i.e., word-of-mouth information) shared provided by Danny Bellenger, Kenneth Bernhardt, Jerome
among community members or the effect of preexist Williams, and members of the review team, as well as semi
ing perceptions of brand value. It is unclear which of nar participants at Duke University, University of Paris Sor
these variables would have a greater effect on a cus bonne, and University of Notre Dame.
tomer's trust in a sponsoring firm: favorable member
generated information about a sponsor or a firm's
References
efforts to manage content and embeddedness? Also, if
member-generated content were to be of low quality, Anderson, J. C, D. W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural equation modeling
in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
would this impact a member's trust in other mem Psych. Bull. 103(3) 411-423.
bers or would it influence trust in the community Armstrong, A., J. Hagel, III. 1995. Real profits from virtual commu
sponsor (Geng et al. 2005)? The influence of member nities. McKinsey Quart. 3. Accessed June 4, 2007, http://www.
generated information, and other trust-building vari McKinseyquarterly.com.
ables, relative to the influence of a sponsor's efforts Armstrong, J. S., T. S. Overton. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias
in firm-sponsored virtual communities should be the in mail surveys. /. Marketing Res. 14(3) 396-402.
subject of future investigations. The findings of such Ba, S. 2001. Establishing online trust through a community respon
sibility system. Decision Support Systems 31(3) 323-336.
studies could help managers to integrate efforts to
Ba, S., P. A. Pavlou. 2002. Evidence of the effect of trust building
manage virtual communities with other marketing technology in electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer
strategies, such word-of-mouth/viral-marketing cam behavior. MIS Quart. 26(3) 243-268.
paigns, brand building, etc. Balasubramanian, S., V. Mahajan. 2001. The economic leverage
Finally, we collect cross-sectional data, and our of the virtual community. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce 5(3)
103-138.
sample is limited to respondents that are members
Balasubramanian, S., P. Konana, N. M. Menon. 2003. Customer sat
of firm-sponsored virtual communities in the United
isfaction in virtual environments: A study of online investing.
States. Future research should include longitudinal Management Sei. 49(7) 871-889.
studies not only to validate the causality hypothe Baron, R. M., D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator distinc
sized in our model, but also to reveal how trust devel tion in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
ops and changes over time in virtual communities statistical considerations. /. Personality Soc. Psych. 511173-1182.
(Ba 2001). Also, testing for cross-national and cross Bhattacharaya, C. B., S. Sen. 2003. Consumer-company identifica
cultural effects, and testing across different types of tion: A framework for understanding customers' relationships
with companies. /. Marketing 67(2) 76-88.
firm-sponsored virtual communities, would enhance
Bhattacharaya, C. B., R. Hayagreeva, M. A. Glynn. 1995. Under
the external validity of our results. In sum, our study standing the bond of identification: An investigation of its cor
shows that firms can extract value from their virtual relates among art museum members. /. Marketing 59(4) 46-57.
communities by cultivating trust. Managers should Brashear, T. G., J. Boles, D. Bellenger, C. M. Brooks. 2003. An
be encouraged to take an active role in community empirical test of trust-building processes and outcomes in sales
sponsorship by providing access to quality content manager-salesperson relationships. /. Acad. Marketing Sei. 31(2)
189-200.
and fostering member embeddedness. We show that Brown, S. L., A. Tilton, D. M. Woodside. 2002. The case for
such efforts help to cultivate trust with members and on-line communities. McKinsey Quart. 1. Accessed June 4, 2007,
lead to valuable outcomes. In this way, if virtual com http://www.McKinseyquarterly.com.
munities "are like cultivated fields" (Matei 2005), our Butler, J. K, Jr. 1999. Toward understanding and measuring condi
research shows that by cultivating trust, firms can tions of trust: Evolution of a conditions trust inventory. /. Man
agement 17(3) 643-663.
harvest significant value.
Chen, Q., W. D. Wells. 1999. Attitude toward the site. /. Advertising
Res. 39(5) 27-37.
Electronic Companion Churchill, G. A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures
An electronic companion to this paper is available as of marketing constructs. J. Marketing Res. 16(1) 64-73.
part of the online version that can be found at http:// De Wulf, K., G. Odekerken-Schr?der, D. Iacobucci. 2001. Invest
mansci.journal.informs.org/. ments in consumer relationships: A cross-country and cross
industry exploration. /. Marketing 65(4) 33-50.
Dholakia, U. M., R. Bagozzi, L. K. Pearo. 2004. A social influ
Acknowledgments ence model of consumer participation in network- and small
The authors gratefully acknowledge that this research was group-based virtual communities. Internat. ]. Res. Marketing
supported, in part, by a research grant from the Robinson 21(3) 241-263.
College of Business of Georgia State University, a Doctoral Dillon, R. S. 1992. Respect and care: Toward moral integration.
Support Award sponsored by the eBusiness Research Cen Canadian }. Philos. 22(1) 105-132.
ter of Perm State University, the Kellogg Center for Research Doney, P. M., J. P. Cannon. 1997. An examination of the nature of
in Technology and Innovation at Northwestern University, trust in buyer-seller relationships. /. Marketing 61(2) 35-51.
and the Funk Scholars program. The authors thank Socratic Fisher, R. J., E. Maltz, B. J. Jaworski. 1997. Enhancing communica
Technologies, Inc. for providing support for data collec tion between marketing and engineering: The moderating role
tion. The authors also acknowledge that the research effort of relative functional identification. /. Marketing 61(3) 54-70.
Flavian, C, M. Guinal?u. 2005. The influence of virtual communi Macchiette, B., R. Abhijit. 1992. Affinity marketing: What is it and
ties on distribution strategies in the Internet. Internat. J. Retail how does it work? J. Services Marketing 6(3) 47-57.
Distribution Management 33(6) 405-425. Matei, S. A. 2005. From counterculture to cyberculture: Virtual com
Fornell, C, D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation mod munity discourse and the dilemma of modernity. J. Comput.
els with unobservable variables and measurement error. /. Mar Mediated Comm. 10(3). Accessed June 4, 2007, http://jcmc.
keting Res. 18(1) 39-50. indiana.edu/voll0/issue3/matei.html.
Ganesan, S., R. Hess. 1997. Dimensions and levels of trust: Impli Maxham, III, J. G., R. G. Netemeyer. 2003. Firms reap what they
cations for commitment to a relationship. Marketing Lett. 8(4) sow: The effects of shared values and perceived organiza
439-448. tional justice on customers' evaluations of complaint handling.
Gefen, D., E. Karahanna, D. W. Straub. 2003. Trust and TAM in /. Marketing 67(1) 46-62.
online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quart. 27(1) 51-90. Mayer, R. C, J. H. Davis, F. D. Schoorman. 1995. An integra
Geng, X., A. B. Whinston, H. Zhang. 2005. Health of electronic tive model of organizational trust. Acad. Management Rev. 20(3)
communities: An evolutionary game approach. J. Management 709-734.
Inform. Systems 21(3) 83-110. McAlexander, J. H., J. W. Schouten, H. F. Koenig. 2002. Building
George, J. M., G. R. Jones. 1997. Organizational spontaneity in con brand community. J. Marketing 66(1) 38-54.
text. Human Performance 10(2) 153-170.
McAllister, D. J. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foun
Granovetter, M. S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The dations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad.
problem of embeddedness. Amer. ]. Soc. 91(3) 481-510. Management J. 38(1) 24-59.
Hair, J. E, Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, W. C. Black. 1992.
McKnight, D. H., N. L. Chervany. 2002. What trust means in
Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary con
River, NJ.
ceptual typology. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce 6(2) 35-59.
Herzlinger, R. E. 1996. Can public trust in nonprofits and govern Mishra, S., U. N. Umesh, D. E. Stem Jr. 1993. Antecedents of the
ments be restored. Harvard Bus. Rev. 74(2) 97-107.
attraction effect: An information-processing approach. J. Mar
Hu, L., P. M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari keting Res. 30(3) 331-349.
ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alter
Mohr, J. J., R. S. Sohi. 1995. Communication flows in distribution
natives. Structural Equation Model. 6(1) 1-55.
channels: Impacts on assessments of communication quality
Jarvenpaa, S. L., K. Knoll, D. E. Leidner. 1998. Is anybody out there? and satisfaction. /. Retail. 71(4) 393-416.
Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J. Management
Morales, A. C. 2005. Giving firms an "e" for effort: Consumer
Inform. Systems 14(4) 29-64.
responses to high-effort firms. /. Consumer Res. 31(4) 806-812.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., T. R. Shaw, S. D. Staples. 2004. Toward contextual
ized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Morgan, R. M., S. D. Hunt. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of
Inform. Systems Res. 15(3) 250-267. relationship marketing. /. Marketing 58(3) 20-38.
John, G. 1984. An empirical investigation of some antecedents of Mu?iz, A. M., Jr., H. J. Schau. 2005. Religiosity in the abandoned
opportunism in a marketing channel. /. Marketing Res. 21(3) Apple Newton brand community. /. Consumer Res. 31 737-747.
278-289. Nambisan, S. 2002. Designing virtual customer environments for
Jones, E. E., K. Davis. 1965. From acts to dispositions: The attribu new product development: Toward a theory. Acad. Management
tion process in person perception. L. Berkowitz, ed. Advvances Rev. 27(3) 392-413.
in Experiment Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Academic Press, New Nunnally, J. C, I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGraw
York, 219-266. Hill, New York.
Joreskog, K. G., D. S?rbom. 1996. LISREL8 Users Reference Guide. Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. B. Paine, D. G. Bachrach. 2000.
Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the
Kannan, P. K, A. Chang, A. B. Whinston. 2000. Electronic com theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
munities in e-business: Their role and issues. Inform. Systems research. /. Management 26(3) 513-563.
Frontiers 1(4) 415-426.
Porter, C. E. 2004. A typology of virtual communities: A multi
Kim, A. 2000. Community Building on the Web. Peachpit Press, disciplinary foundation for future research. J. Comput.-Mediated
Berkeley, CA. Comm. 10(1). Accessed June 4, 2007, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/
Kim, D., I. Benbasat. 2006. The effects of trust-assuring arguments vollO/issuel /porter.html.
on consumer trust in Internet stores: Application of Toulmin's Preece, J. 2000. Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting
model of argumentation. Inform. Systems Res. 17(3) 286-300.
Sociability. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Ko, H., C. Cho, M. S. Roberts. 2005. Internet uses and gratifica
Rao, H., G. E Davis, A. Ward. 2000. Embeddedness, social identity
tions: A structural equation model of interactive advertising.
and mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New
J. Advertising 34(2) 57-70.
York stock exchange. Admin. Sei. Quart. 45(2) 268-292.
Kozinets, R. V. 2002. The field behind the screen: Using netnogra
Ridings, C. M., D. Gefen, B. Arinze. 2002. Some antecedents and
phy for marketing research in online communities. /. Marketing
effects of trust in virtual communities. /. Strategic Inform. Sys
Res. 39(1) 61-72.
tems 11(3-4) 271-295.
Landry, T. D., T. J. Arnould, J. B. Stark. 2005. Retailer community
embeddedness and consumer patronage. J. Retailing Consumer Rigdon, E. 1998. Structural equation modeling. G. A. Marcoulides,
Services 12(1) 65-72. ed. Modern Methods for Business Research. LEA, Mahwah, NJ,
251-294.
Lee, F. S., D. Vogel, L. Moez. 2003. Virtual community informatics:
A review and research agenda. J. Inform. Tech. Theory Appl. 5(1) Rindskopf, D., T. Rose. 1988. Some theory and applications of con
47-61. firmatory second-order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral
Res. 23(1) 51-67.
Leimeister, J. M., W. Ebner, H. Krcmar. 2005. Design, implementa
tion, and evaluation of trust-supporting components in virtual Rokkan, A. I., J. B. Heide, K. H. Wathne. 2003. Specific investments
communities for patients. J. Management Inform. Systems 21(4) in marketing relationships: Expropriation and bonding effects.
101-135. /. Marketing Res. 40(2) 210-224.
Schoenbachler, D. D., G. L. Gordon. 2002. Trust and customer will Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness
ingness to provide information in database driven relationship for the economic performance of organizations: The network
marketing. /. Interactive Marketing 16(3) 2-16. effect. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 61(4) 674-698.
Schubert, P., M. Ginsburg. 2000. Virtual communities of transaction: Wang, R. Y, D. M. Strong. 1996. Beyond accuracy: What data qual
The role of personalization in electronic commerce. Electronic ity means to data consumers. /. Management Inform. Systems
Markets 10(1) 45-55. 12(4) 5-34.
Sirdeshmukh, D., J. Singh, B. Sabol. 2002. Consumer trust, value, Webb, D. J., L. A. Mohr. 1998. A typology of consumer responses to
and loyalty in relational exchanges. J. Marketing 66(1) 15-37. cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned.
Sitkin, S. B., N. L. Roth. 1993. Explaining the limited effective /. Public Policy Marketing 17(2) 226-238.
ness of legalistic "remedies" for trust/distrust. Organ. Sei. 4(3) Wellman, B., J. Salaff, D. Dimitrova, L. Garton, M. Guila,
367-392. C. Haythornthwaite. 1996. Computer networks as social net
Smith, J. B., D. W. Barclay. 1997. The effects of organizational dif works: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community.
ferences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner rela Annual Rev. Soc. 22(1) 213-238.
tionships. /. Marketing 61(1) 3-21. Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti
Stockdale, R., M. Borovicka. 2006. Developing an online business Trust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organiza
community: A travel industry case study. Proc. 39th Hawaii tion. Free Press, New York.
Internat. Conf. System Sei. Accessed June 4, 2007, http:// Wuyts, S., I. Gey kens. 2005. The formation of buyer-supplier rela
csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2006/2507/06/ tionships: Detailed contract drafting and close partner selec
250760134c.pdf. tion. /. Marketing 69(4) 103-117.
Stump, R. L., G. A. Athaide, A. W Joshi. 2002. Managing seller Yakov, B., V. Shankar, F. Sultan, G. L. Urban. 2005. Are the drivers
buyer new product development relationships for customized and role of online trust the same for all websites and con
products: A contingency model based on transaction cost anal sumers? A large-cale exploratory empirical study. /. Marketing
ysis and empirical test. J. Product Innovation Management 19(6) 69(4) 133-152.
439-454.
Yoo, W., K. Suh, M. Lee. 2002. Exploring the factors enhancing
Tyler, T. R. 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: member participation in virtual communities. /. Global Inform.
Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. /. Personal Management 10(3) 55-71.
ity Soc. Psych. 67(5) 850-863. Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry, A. Parasuraraman. 1996. The
Urban, G. L., F. Sultan, W. J. Quails. 2000. Placing trust at the center behavioral consequences of service quality. J. Marketing 60(2)
of your Internet strategy. Sloan Management Rev. 42(1) 39^18. 31-16.

Cultivating Trust in Virtual Communities PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cultivating Trust in Virtual Communities PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cultivating Trust and Harvesting Value in Virtual Communities

Author(s): Constance Elise Porter and Naveen Donthu

Cultivating Trust and Harvesting Value in

Introduction (e.g., Armstrong and Hagel 1995). Finally, among the

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Trust Formation and Value in Virtual Communities

vHlOA H10B /H10C Willingness

The Role of a Sponsor's Efforts in Cultivating

Table 1 Main Study Measurement Item Properties

Construct/Items3 (source of scale items) Loading5 f-value SMC

Belief About A Sponsor's Sense of Respect [RESP] (0.90, 0.83, 0.62)

Belief About Sponsor Opportunism [OPP] (0.95,0.86, 0.60)

Benevolence [BEN] (0.93, 0.88, 0.71)

Integrity [INTEG] (0.94, 0.89, 0.72)

Judgment [JUDGE] (0.93, 0.88, 0.71)

Willingness to Cooperate in New Product Development [NPD] (0.96,0.91, 0.73)

Loyalty Intentions [LOYAL] (0.95, 0.90,0.70)

Construct/Items3 (source of scale items) Loading13 f-value SMC

Table 2 Main Study Construct Correlations and Variance Statistics

Table 3 Parameter Estimates and Hypotheses Tests

Path Hypothesis Estimate f-value Result

(c) Test of direct and indirect effects

Вам также может понравиться