Search results

We build on the transactional model of stress and coping and the appraisal theory of emotions to theorize how users cognitively and emotionally cope with IT addiction-induced stress, distinguish between the roles of guilt and shame in shaping the coping responses and their effects on one’s psychological well-being.

We test our theory via two complementary empirical studies in the context of social networking sites (SNS). Study 1 (n = 462) adopts a variable-centered approach using structural equation modeling to validate the research model. Study 2 (n = 409) uses Latent Profile Analysis to identify a typology of SNS users based on Study 1’s findings.

This paper provides a model of guilt-vs shame-driven cognitive-emotional coping with IT addiction and its effects on users’ psychological well-being. It also offers a typology of SNS users on this basis.

This paper sheds light on guilt-vs shame-driven coping with IT addiction and its consequences on users’ psychological well-being and identifies distinct classes of users based on their coping choices and their consequences.

The research study intends to gain a better understanding of members' behaviors in the context of crowdsourcing contests. The authors examined the key factors that can motivate or discourage contributing to a team and within the community.

The authors conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with Kaggle.com members and analyzed the data to capture individual members' contributions and emerging determinants that play a role during this process. The authors adopted a qualitative approach and used standard thematic coding techniques to analyze the data.

The analysis revealed two processes underlying contribution to the team and community and the decision-making involved in each. Accordingly, a set of key factors affecting each process were identified. Using Holbrook's (2006) typology of value creation, these factors were classified into four types, namely extrinsic and self-oriented (economic value), extrinsic and other-oriented (social value), intrinsic and self-oriented (hedonic value), and intrinsic and other-oriented (altruistic value). Three propositions were developed, which can be tested in future research.

The study has a few limitations, which point to areas for future research on this topic. First, the authors only assessed the behaviors of individuals who use the Kaggle platform. Second, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to other crowdsourcing platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, where there is no competition, and participants cannot meaningfully contribute to the community. Third, the authors collected data from a limited (yet knowledgeable) number of interviewees. It would be useful to use bigger sample sizes to assess other possible factors that did not emerge from our analysis. Finally, the authors presented a set of propositions for individuals' contributory behavior in crowdsourcing contest platforms but did not empirically test them. Future research is necessary to validate these hypotheses, for instance, by using quantitative methods (e.g. surveys or experiments).

The authors offer recommendations for implementing appropriate mechanisms for contribution to crowdsourcing contests and platforms. Practitioners should design architectures to minimize the effect of factors that reduce the likelihood of contributions and maximize the factors that increase contribution in order to manage the tension of simultaneously encouraging contribution and competition.

The research study makes key theoretical contributions to research. First, the results of this study help explain the individuals' contributory behavior in crowdsourcing contests from two aspects: joining and selecting a team and content contribution to the community. Second, the findings of this study suggest a revised and extended model of value co-creation, one that integrates this study’s findings with those of Nov et al. (2009), Lakhani and Wolf (2005), Wasko and Faraj (2000), Chen et al. (2018), Hahn et al. (2008), Dholakia et al. (2004) and Teichmann et al. (2015). Third, using direct accounts collected through first-hand interviews with crowdsourcing contest members, this study provides an in-depth understanding of individuals' contributory behavior. Methodologically, this authors’ approach was distinct from common approaches used in this research domain that used secondary datasets (e.g. the content of forum discussions, survey data) (e.g. see Lakhani and Wolf, 2005; Nov et al., 2009) and quantitative techniques for analyzing collaboration and contribution behavior.

The authors advance the broad field of crowdsourcing by extending the literature on value creation in the online community, particularly as it relates to the individual participants. The study advances the theoretical understanding of contribution in crowdsourcing contests by focusing on the members' point of view, which reveals both the determinants and the process for joining teams during crowdsourcing contests as well as the determinants of contribution to the content distributed in the community.

Business research has highlighted the importance of knowledge transfer and innovation in multinational firms for better performance outcomes. However, the existing body of literature is characterized by differentiated theories, antecedents and outcomes. This study aims to address this gap by adopting a systematic approach to analyze knowledge transfer and innovation literature from the perspective of multinational organizations.

This study follows “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” (PRISMA) guidelines for conducting a systematic literature review. The study adopts a systematic approach for analyzing the literature using School of thought (S), Contexts (C), Methodologies (M), Triggers (T), Barriers (B), Facilitators (F) and Outcomes (O) framework (SCM-TBFO framework) devised for holistic literature review. The study analyzes 75 articles from reputed journals from 2000 to 2022.

In general, knowledge transfer and innovation in multinationals is a relatively new area and is evolving rapidly. There are many opportunities to study the various perspectives that are included in the SCM-TBFO framework. The key schools of thought included the evolutionary theory of innovation, institutional theory and internationalization theory. The studies had differing settings or contexts, including China, Europe, the USA and Taiwan. Further, key methodologies that were used included regression, case studies, structural equation modeling (SEM) and theoretical studies. Knowledge transfer and innovation triggers included competitive advantage, competitive pressure, constant requirements for better products and services, foreign direct investment (FDI) and globalization. Knowledge transfer and innovation facilitators were categorized into strategy-related facilitators, organization culture and orientation-related facilitators, and resource-related facilitators. Knowledge transfer and innovation barriers included autonomy, international knowledge dispersion, risk of knowledge leakage, search breadth, ambiguity and institutional voids. Key outcomes of knowledge transfer and innovation in multinationals included financial performance, innovation performance, knowledge flow, transfer effectiveness, patents and new product development.

By synthesizing the literature, the study aims to provide an overview of the current state of research on knowledge transfer and innovation in multinationals. The study develops a holistic model for fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in multinationals. The proposed novel framework can also be applied to perform a holistic assessment of the current literature in various research domains. Further, the study suggests future theory development and research agendas. The study also provides implications for practitioners using the framework to achieve more desirable outcomes.