4.6 Article

Knowledge sharing in online health communities: A social exchange theory perspective

Journal

INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT
Volume 53, Issue 5, Pages 643-653

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2016.02.001

Keywords

Online health community; Knowledge sharing; Social exchange; Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71272057, 71572013]
  2. National Social Science Fund of China [14AZD045]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Online health communities (OHC) are becoming valuable platforms for patients to communicate and find support. These communities are different from general online communities. The knowledge shared in an OHC can be categorized as either general (public) or specific (private), and each category is shared in vastly different ways. Using the social exchange theory, we propose a benefit vs. cost knowledge sharing model for OHCs. The benefits are mainly based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and the cost includes cognitive and executional costs. We use this benefit vs. cost model to examine how OHC members share general and specific knowledge. Data were collected from 323 users of two well-known OHCs in China and were analyzed using the structural equation model. The results demonstrate that three factors positively impact the sharing of both general and specific knowledge: a sense of self-worth, members' perceived social support, and reputation enhancement. Another factor, face concern, has a negative influence on specific knowledge sharing and a positive influence on general knowledge sharing. Executional cost only negatively impacts general knowledge sharing, and cognitive cost only negatively impacts specific knowledge sharing. This study of OHCs reveals that personal benefits promote knowledge sharing and costs prohibit it. These impacts vary between general knowledge and specific knowledge sharing. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available