Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Harnessing collective intelligence of Web 2.0: group adoption and use of Internet-based collaboration technologies

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

Along with the advent of Web 2.0, mass collaboration is of paramount importance in knowledge exploration and diffusion. However, the extent to which Internet-based collaboration technologies can be used to develop new knowledge and to leverage the wisdom of crowds heavily depends on the collective willingness to adopt such tools together. In this study, the adoption and use of instant messaging has been conceptualized as a group-referent intentional social action. The concept of ‘we-intention’, which refers to one's perception of the group acting as a unit, is the focus of our interest. The cognitive, affective and social dimensions that contribute to ‘we-intention’ to adopt and use instant messaging were investigated. A survey was conducted and the findings provided empirical evidence supporting the idea that cognitive, affective and social factors jointly lead to the development of we-intention. This study is expected to provide some useful insights to both researchers and practitioners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP (2007) The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8 (4), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP, Baumgartner H and Pieters R (1998) Goal-directed emotions. Cognition & Emotion 12 (1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP and Dholakia UM (2002) Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing 16 (2), 2–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP and Dholakia UM (2006) Open source software user communities: a study of participation in Linux user groups. Management Science 52 (7), 1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP and Lee KH (2002) Multiple routes for social influence: the role of compliance, internalization, and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly 65 (3), 226–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzer W and Tuomela R (2003) Collective intentions and the maintenance of social practices. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems 6 (1), 7–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumler JG and Katz E (1974) The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman ME (1997) I intend that we J. In Contemporary Action Theory (Holmstrom-Hintikka G and Tuomela R, Eds), pp 49–63, Kluwer, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung CMK and Lee MKO (2009) Understanding the sustainability of a virtual community: model development and empirical test. Journal of Information Science 35 (3), 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow WS and Chan LS (2008) Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management 45 (7), 458–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35 (8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dholakia UM, Bagozzi RP and Pearo LK (2004) A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21 (3), 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers N, Kortekaas P and Ouwerkerk JW (1999) Self categorisation, commitment to the group and group self‐esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology 29 (2, 3), 371–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin AJ (2005) IM online: instant messaging use among college students. Communication Research Reports 22 (3), 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C (1987) A second generation of multivariate analysis: classification of methods and implications for marketing research. In Review of Marketing (Houston MJ, Ed), pp 407–450. American Marketing Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • French DP et al (2005) The importance of affective beliefs and attitudes in the theory of planned behavior: predicting intention to increase physical activity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35 (9), 1824–1848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE and Tatham RL (2005) Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg MA and Abrams D (1988) Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu CL and Lin JCC (2008) Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management 45 (1), 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahanna E, Straub DW and Chervany NL (1999) Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly 23 (2), 183–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko H (2000) Internet uses and gratifications: understanding motivations for using the internet. In The 83rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Phoenix, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung L (2001) College student motives for chatting on ICQ. New Media & Society 3 (4), 483–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung L (2009) User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media & Society 11 (8), 1327–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li D, Chau PYK and Lou H (2005) Understanding individual adoption of instant messaging: an empirical investigation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 6 (4), 102–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li D, Chau PYK and Van Slyke C (2010) A comparative study of individual acceptance of instant messaging in the US and China: a structural equation modeling approach. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 26 (1), Article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin AM (1986) Uses, gratifications, and media effects research. In Perspectives on Media Effects (Bryant J and Zillmann D, Eds), pp 281–301, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz DG (2007) Integrating knowledge transfer and computer-mediated communication: categorizing barriers and possible responses. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 5 (4), 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen AXL, Lee MKO, Cheung CMK and Chen HP (2010) Gender differences in intentional social action: we-intention to engage in social network-facilitated team collaboration. Journal of Information Technology 25, 152–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford TF, Stafford MR and Schkade LL (2004) Determining uses and gratifications for the internet. Decision Sciences 35 (2), 259–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel H (1978) Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Tajfel H, Ed), pp 61–76, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel H and Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Austin W and Worchel S, Eds), pp 33–47, Monterey, Austin, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomela R (1995) The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomela R (2000) Collective and joint intention. Mind & Society 1 (2), 39–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner JC (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. Oxford, Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Slyke C, Ilie V, Lou H and Stafford T (2007) Perceived critical mass and the adoption of a communication technology. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (3), 270–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB and Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace DW, Giese JL and Johnson JL (2004) Customer retailer loyalty in the context of multiple channel strategies. Journal of Retailing 80 (4), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was partially supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Project No. 121055).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wuhan University, China

    Xiao-Liang Shen

  2. City University of Hong Kong, China

    Matthew K O Lee

  3. Hong Kong Baptist University, China

    Christy M K Cheung

Authors
  1. Xiao-Liang Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew K O Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christy M K Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-Liang Shen.

Appendix

Appendix

Constructs and Measures (The numbers in the brackets are the loadings for each item) Social Entertainment (SE) How often do you use QQ Group to gratify the following needs? (seven-point ‘never-frequently’ scales)

SE1::

To communicate easily (0.883)

SE2::

To stay in touch (0.836)

SE3::

To provide information (0.791)

Task Accomplishment (TA) How often do you use QQ Group to gratify the following needs? (seven-point ‘never-frequently’ scales)

TA1::

To solve problems (0.817)

TA2::

To generate ideas (0.831)

TA3::

To negotiate or bargain (0.839)

TA4::

To make decisions (0.818)

Social Attention (SA) How often do you use QQ Group to gratify the following needs? (seven-point ‘never-frequently’ scales)

SA1::

To feel less lonely (0.914)

SA2::

To feel important (0.896)

Meet New People (MNP) How often do you use QQ Group to gratify the following needs? (seven-point ‘never-frequently’ scales)

MNP1::

To talk to people I do not know before (0.916)

MNP2::

To meet new people (0.892)

Attitude (ATT) Using QQ Group in team collaboration would be: (seven-point semantic scales)

ATT1::

foolish/wise (0.861)

ATT2::

harmful/beneficial (0.847)

ATT3::

bad/good (0.878)

ATT4::

punishing/rewarding (0.693)

Positive Anticipated Emotions (PAE) If I am able to use QQ Group in team collaboration, I will feel: (seven-point ‘not at all-very much’ scale)

PAE1::

not at all excited/ excited very much (0.862)

PAE2::

not at all delighted/delighted very much (0.874)

PAE3::

not at all happy/happy very much (0.841)

PAE4::

not at all glad/glad very much (0.825)

PAE5::

not at all satisfied/satisfied very much (0.803)

PAE6::

not at all proud/proud very much (0.738)

PAE7::

not at all self-assured/self-assured very much (0.739)

Negative Anticipated Emotions (NAE) If I am unable to use QQ Group in team collaboration, I will feel: (seven-point ‘not at all-very much’ scale)

NAE1::

not at all angry/angry very much (0.804)

NAE2::

not at all frustrated/frustrated very much (0.866)

NAE3::

not at all guilty/guilty very much (0.810)

NAE4::

not at all ashamed/ashamed very much (0.802)

NAE5::

not at all sad/sad very much (0.881)

NAE6::

not at all disappointed/disappointed very much (0.834)

NAE7::

not at all depressed/depressed very much (0.887)

NAE8::

not at all worried/worried very much (0.873)

NAE9::

not at all uncomfortable/uncomfortable very much (0.866)

NAE10::

not at all anxious/anxious very much (0.854)

Social Identity (SI)

SI1::

How would you express the degree of overlapping between your own personal identity and the identity of the group that you collaborate with through QQ Group when you are actually part of the group and engaging in group activities? (seven-point ‘far apart-complete overlap’ scale) (0.655)

SI2::

Please indicate to what degree your self-image overlaps with the identity of the group as you perceive it. (seven-point ‘not at all-very much’ scale) (0.779)

SI3::

How attached are you to the group that you collaborate with through QQ Group? (seven-point ‘not at all-very much’ scale) (0.830)

SI4::

How strong would you say your feelings of belongingness are toward the collaborative group? (seven-point ‘not at all-very much’ scale) (0.833)

SI5::

I am a valuable member of the group. (seven-point ‘does not describe me at all-describes me very well’ scale) (0.806)

SI6::

I am an important member of the group. (seven-point ‘does not describe me at all-describes me very well’ scale) (0.819)

We-Intention (WE)

WE1::

I intend that our group use QQ Group in team collaboration together. (seven-point ‘strongly disagree-strongly agree’ scale) (0.914)

WE2::

We intend to use QQ Group in team collaboration together. (seven-point ‘strongly disagree-strongly agree’ scale) (0.905)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shen, XL., Lee, M. & Cheung, C. Harnessing collective intelligence of Web 2.0: group adoption and use of Internet-based collaboration technologies. Knowl Manage Res Pract 10, 301–311 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.30

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.30

Keywords

Search

Navigation