Antecedents of Trust in Online Communities

2011 ◽  
pp. 160-163
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Ridings ◽  
David Gefen
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Work Group ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Bulletin Board ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Common Location ◽  
Bulletin Boards ◽  
E Mail

Online virtual communities have existed on the Internet since the early 1980s as Usenet newsgroups. With the advent of the World Wide Web and emphasis on Web site interactivity, these communities and accompanying research have grown rapidly (Horrigan, Rainie, & Fox, 2001; Lee, Vogel, & Limayem, 2003; Petersen, 1999). Virtual communities arise as a natural consequence of people coming together to discuss a common hobby, medical affliction, or other similar interest, such as coin collecting, a devotion to a rock group, or living with a disease such as lupus. Virtual communities can be defined as groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or site (Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze, 2002). The location is the “place” where the community meets, and it can be supported technologically by e-mail listservs, newsgroups, bulletin boards, or chat rooms, for example. The technology helps to organize the community’s conversation, which is the essence of the community. For example, messages in a community supported by a listserv are organized in e-mails, sometimes even grouping together several messages into an e-mail digest. In bulletin board communities, the conversation is organized into message threads consisting of questions or comments posted by members and associated replies to the messages. Virtual community members form personal relationships with strong norms and expectations (Sproull & Faraj, 1997; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991), sometimes developing deep attachments to the communities (Hiltz, 1984; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). These developments are interesting, because the members of virtual communities are typically strangers to one another and may never meet face to face. Additionally, the nature of computer-mediated communication is such that nonverbal cues that aid in the interpretation of communication, such as inflections in the voice, gestures, dress, tone, physical personal attributes, and posture, are missing (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991), making the communication open to multiple interpretations (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996). Yet, despite these limitations, many virtual communities flourish by exchanging messages and building their conversation base. A key ingredient in sustaining the conversation in the community is the existence of trust between the members. Trust has a downstream effect on the members’ intentions to give and get information through the virtual community (Ridings et al., 2002). This chapter examines emergent virtual communities, that is, those arising without direction or mandate from an organization, government, or other entity for an expressed economic or academic purpose. For example, a discussion board for a strategic partnership work group between two companies or a chat room for a class taking a college course would not be considered emergent virtual communities. However, an online forum established by the Breast Cancer Young Survivors Coalition so that women could discuss their battles with the disease would be considered an emergent virtual community.

Antecedents of Trust in Online Communities

2005 ◽  
pp. 127-130
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Ridings ◽  
David Gefen
Keyword(s):  
World Wide ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Bulletin Board ◽  
Natural Consequence ◽  
Chat Rooms ◽  
Common Location ◽  
Bulletin Boards ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
E Mail

Online virtual communities have existed on the Internet since the early 1980s as Usenet newsgroups. With the advent of the World Wide Web and emphasis on Web site interactivity, these communities and accompanying research have grown rapidly (Horrigan, Rainie, & Fox, 2001; Lee, Vogel, & Limayem, 2003; Petersen, 1999). Virtual communities arise as a natural consequence of people coming together to discuss a common hobby, medical affliction, or other similar interest, such as coin collecting, a devotion to a rock group, or living with a disease such as lupus. Virtual communities can be defined as groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or site (Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze, 2002). The location is the “place” where the community meets, and it can be supported technologically by e-mail listservs, newsgroups, bulletin boards, or chat rooms, for example. The technology helps to organize the community’s conversation, which is the essence of the community. For example, messages in a community supported by a listserv are organized in e-mails, sometimes even grouping together several messages into an e-mail digest. In bulletin board communities, the conversation is organized into message threads consisting of questions or comments posted by members and associated replies to the messages.

Virtually Finding Community in the Third Space

2011 ◽  
pp. 574-577
Author(s):  
Samantha Bax
Keyword(s):  
Electronic Mail ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Specific Interaction ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Physical World ◽  
Bulletin Board ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Social Contracts ◽  
Communication Space

The Internet has enabled individuals to communicate across continents and also through temporal spaces, making both place and time irrelevant to these communications. The specific interaction systems utilized for these purposes are referred to as computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies and encompass electronic mail (e-mail), bulletin board systems and Internet Relay Chat (IRC), to name the most well-known of these technologies. Each of these technologies allows for the gathering of individuals within cyberspace to converse and to exchange information with each other. It is interesting to note that the terms communication and community stem from a Latin word meaning “common,” and thus it can be inferred that communication is a process through which community can be developed (Fernback & Thompson, 1995). Licklider and Taylor (1968), predicted three decades ago that computer networks would become communities, and “in most fields they will consist of geographically separated members …” (online) gathering within a common communication space. Earlier technologies such as the telephone have inspired scholars to state that we now live in a boundless “global village” (McLuhan, 1964). Current CMC technologies have brought about the possibility of numerous people meeting online and conversing with and between each other, allowing for a meeting “space” that consists of abrogated time and place (Fernback & Thompson, 1995), with no boundaries of race, gender or creed. It is from these utopian ideals that the idea of virtual communities has stemmed. The concept of the “virtual community” refers to groupings of individuals utilizing CMC technologies in such a way that they can be likened to communities in the physical world. Rheingold (1993c) states that “virtual communities might be real communities, they might be pseudocommunities or they might be something entirely new in the realm of social contracts” (p. 62). Thus, the question still remains as to whether “virtual communities” can replicate communities that exist in the physical world.

User Trust in BBS Comunities

2011 ◽  
pp. 474-477
Author(s):  
Hung Chim
Keyword(s):  
Information Dissemination ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Bulletin Board ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
The World ◽  
User Trust

The Bulletin Board System (BBS), when it first appeared in the middle 1970s, was essentially “a personal computer, not necessarily an expensive one, running inexpensive BBS software, plugged into an ordinary telephone line via a small electronic device called modem” (Rheingold, 1993). The networked computers used to create these parallel worlds and facilitate communication between human beings constitute the technical foundations of computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Nancy, 1998). CMC systems link people around the world into public discussions. While CMC can exist solely between two people or between one person and an anonymous group, increasingly, virtual communities of many people are being formed. With advent of the Internet, the World Wide Web (WWW) brought more new technologies to the BBS. Thousands of BBSs sprang up across the world. Many turned out tremendously successful and evolved into lively virtual communities. These communities provided forums with increasing importance for individuals and groups that share a professional interest or share common activities. Online BBS communities now play an important role in information dissemination and knowledge collaboration on the Internet. On one hand, online forums enable people to disseminate information in an extremely efficient way without geographical restriction. On the other hand, the freedom also comes with uncertainty. Any information can be released and the content is almost beyond control, or even unreliable. To understand the content and quality of the information in BBSs, we would split the task into two subjects: one is to assess the information sources; another is to assess the information providers, people themselves in the virtual communities. Most BBSs are anonymous, because people usually use a pseudonym rather than their real name when registering. A user does not need to provide real personal information to the system, either. Thus, how to assess the trust of the users in a BBS community and attract more trustful and worthy users to participate in the activities of the community have become crucial topics to establish a successful community. Two subjects are important for establishing user trust in a BBS community: First, a BBS system must be able to identify a user and provide efficient security protection for each user and his/her privacy. Second, the value and the trustworthiness of a user should be assessed according to that user’s behavior and contribution to the community in comparison to peers.

Information Navigation and Knowledge Discovery in Virtual Communities

2011 ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Wenyuan Li ◽  
Kok-Leong Ong
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Discovery ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Online Community ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Media Technology ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Information Navigation

Over the past decade, advances in the Internet and media technology have literally brought people closer than ever before. It is interesting to note that traditional sociological definitions of a community have been outmoded, for community has extended far beyond the geographical boundaries that were held by traditional definitions (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Virtual or online community was defined in such a context to describe various forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Although virtual communities do not necessarily arise from the Internet, the overwhelming popularity of the Internet is one of the main reasons that virtual communities receive so much attention (Rheingold, 1999). The beginning of virtual communities is attributed to scientists who exchanged information and cooperatively conduct research during the 1970s. There are four needs of participants in a virtual community: member interest, social interaction, imagination, and transaction (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997). The first two focus more on the information exchange and knowledge discovery; the imagination is for entertainment; and the transaction is for commerce strategy. In this article, we investigate the function of information exchange and knowledge discovery in virtual communities. There are two important inherent properties embedded in virtual communities (Wellman, 2001):

Conception, Categorization, and Impact of HR-Relevant Virtual Communities

2009 ◽  
pp. 154-160
Author(s):  
Anke Diederichsen
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Bulletin Board ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Bulletin Boards ◽  
Potential Applications ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
E Mail

Virtual community (VC), in its most general sense, is an increasingly popular and apparently omnipresent tool to communicate and interact on the Web. People from diverse backgrounds meet in VCs for likewise diverse purposes: social gatherings, information sharing, entertainment, social, and professional support. The phenomenon of virtual—or online—communities dates back to the late 1960s, when ARPANET, a network for U.S.-military research purposes was established (Licklider & Taylor, 1968). The initially provided e-mail service was later supplemented by a chat functionality. In 1979, virtual social interaction was enabled by USENET use-groups. Here, asynchronous communication is enabled by e-mail and bulletin boards. In the same year, multi user dungeons (MUDs), a new form of text-based virtual reality games were created. In 1985, The WELL was started. This mainly bulletin board-based VC received public attention at least by the publication of the community experiences of one of its most active members, Howard Rheingold. His book also marks the starting point of the virtual community literature (Rheingold, 1993). In the late 1990s, the focus on VCs as Web-based enablers of social interaction (e.g., Wellman, Salaff, Dimitrova, Garton, Gulia, & Haythornthwaite, 1996) shifted to the perception of its potential economic value (e.g., Hagel & Armstrong, 1997). The aim of this article is to depict applications of VCs in human resources (HR)-relevant processes. Applications range from company internal employee communities to company external applicant communities. HR-relevant VCs reflect the increasing utilization of modern information and communication technology (ICT) in human resource management (HRM). The application of VCs in HRM might be beneficial but also may cause negative effects if current trends, are not observed or if the technology is not incorporated strategically. In the following, a definition, a framework, and a categorization of HR-relevant VCs is given. Examples outline potential applications and implications for HRM.

scholarly journals Conflict and Co-Operation in the Virtual Community: eMail and the Wars of the Yugoslav Succession

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 84-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Stubbs
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Cultural Change ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Bulletin Boards ◽  
The Relationship

This article focuses on the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) during the wars of the Yugoslav succession, through three case studies of particular eMail networks, discussion groups and bulletin boards: zamir; APC/Yugo/Antiwar; and the Soc/Culture/Croatia and Soc/Culture/Yugoslavia newsgroups. The text addresses the relationship between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ communities and looks, in particular, at the role of eMail as a tool for social, political and cultural change. Despite the rhetoric of CMC as an inherently liberating and democratising medium, the suggestion is that power relations remain crucial in understanding all of the case studies. eMail may be most effective when part of a local discourse and practice of social change. The article concludes with a consideration of the link between different kinds of trust, or social capital, within the eMail world.

Virtual Hate Communities in the 21st Century

2011 ◽  
pp. 34-53
Author(s):  
Glenn T. Tsunokai ◽  
Allison R. McGrath
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Interactive Media ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Using Data ◽  
And Function

Technological innovations in computer-mediated communication have helped hate groups to transform themselves into virtual communities. Likeminded individuals are now able to unite from all parts of the globe to promote hatred against visible minorities and other out-groups. Through their online interactions, a sense of place is often created. In this chapter, we explore the content and function of online hate communities. Since bigotry tends to be the cornerstone of virtual hate communities, we highlight the legal debate surrounding the regulation of Internet hate speech; in particular, we address the question: Does the First Amendment protect virtual community members who use the Internet to advocate hate? Next, using data collected from the largest hate website, Stormfront.org, we also investigate how Stormfront members utilize interactive media features to foster a sense of community. Finally, we direct our attention to the future of online hate communities by outlining the issues that need to be further investigated.

Defining "Virtual Community"

2008 ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Ridings
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Social Interaction ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
The Social ◽  
To Come

The rise of the Internet has spawned the prolific use of the adjective “virtual.” Both the popular press and scholarly researchers have written about virtual work, virtual teams, virtual organizations, and virtual groups. But perhaps one of the most interesting phenomena to come to the forefront has been that of virtual communities. Many definitions of this term have been proposed and the term has been used in many different ways. This article will examine some of the most popular definitions and guidelines to understand what truly constitutes a virtual community. To define a virtual community, one needs to first examine the two words separately, particularly the sociological definition of “community.” The German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies, in his 1887 book, made the distinction between two basic types of social groups: Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society). The former was often exemplified by the family or neighborhood (Tonnies, 1957). Sociology literature also often refers to the definition given by George Hillery, who reviewed 94 different definitions in academic studies. Three elements were common to the definitions, namely that community (1) was based on geographic areas, (2) included social interaction among people, and (3) had common ties such as social life, norms, means, or ends (Hillery, 1955). Thus the term community typically connotes a group of people within some geographic boundary, such as a neighborhood, or perhaps smaller subsection of a larger city. Further specification might have defined a community as a group of people within the geographic boundary with a common interest, such as the Jewish community of Brooklyn or the physician community of London. Therefore, members of the community were drawn together by both local proximity and common interest, even if the interest was in the geographic area itself. The term virtual, precipitated by the advent of information technology, and specifically, the Internet, means without a physical place as a home (Handy, 1995), or that which is electronic or enabled by technology (Lee, Vogel, & Limayem, 2003). Information technology therefore has expanded the means by which the social interaction in communities can be accomplished. While for most of human existence interaction was strictly limited to the face-to-face medium, social interaction can now be accomplished virtually, thus eliminating the necessity of being physically close enough to communicate. This type of communication is called computer-mediated communication (CMC). Combining the two terms together, thus, would mean eliminating the geographic requirements and allowing that the social interaction would occur virtually, that is, via information technology, among people with common ties. In fact, people have been coming together in virtual communities on the Internet for over 25 years. Usenet newsgroups, started in 1979, are widely regarded as the first virtual communities on the Internet (M. A. Smith, 1999), and The Well (www.well.com), started in 1985, is often referred to as an early exemplar of virtual community (Rheingold, 1993). Virtual communities may be part of a long-term shift away from geographic ties to common interest ties (Wellman & Gulia, 1999b). Formal definitions and understandings of the term virtual community still remain problematic, however (Lee et al., 2003). Perhaps the most cited definition is that of Howard Rheingold, a prominent author, consultant, and member of The Well: Social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace. (Rheingold, 1993, p. 5) Common to many of the definitions is the presence of shared interests or goals (Dennis, Pootheri, & Natarajan, 1998; Figallo, 1998; Kilsheimer, 1997). With the advent of information technology, locating/contacting others outside the local community has become relatively easy, especially when one seeks others who have a unique or uncommon interest. It may be that technology makes it easier for communities to form. For example, it may be difficult for someone interested in traditional bowhunting to locate others with the same inclinations by popping into the local tavern or socializing at a church function. However, a simple search in Google reveals a vibrant community centered around such an interest (www.bowsite.com/). There are virtual communities for nearly every interest that comes to mind, from medical afflictions (e.g., breast cancer, Parkinson’s, Down’s syndrome) to hobbies (e.g., coin collecting, wine, saltwater aquariums) to professions (e.g., nursing, law, finance). Implicit with the notion of community is some permanence among members and frequency of visits by members (A. D. Smith, 1999). Virtual communities must have a sense of long-term interaction (Erickson, 1997), not a place where people go only occasionally or where there are always different people. It is not uncommon for people to develop strong attachments to virtual communities, visiting them often enough to be described as “addicted” (Hiltz, 1984; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). The members often feel part of a larger social whole within a web of relationships with others (Figallo, 1998). Indeed, many researchers have considered virtual communities as social networks (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Wellman, 1996; Wellman & Gulia, 1999a). Ridings et al. (2002) offer a comprehensive definition that incorporates the afore-mentioned concepts: Groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or mechanism. (p. 273)

Defining "Virtual Community"

2011 ◽  
pp. 116-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Ridings
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Social Interaction ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
The Social ◽  
To Come

The rise of the Internet has spawned the prolific use of the adjective “virtual.” Both the popular press and scholarly researchers have written about virtual work, virtual teams, virtual organizations, and virtual groups. But perhaps one of the most interesting phenomena to come to the forefront has been that of virtual communities. Many definitions of this term have been proposed and the term has been used in many different ways. This article will examine some of the most popular definitions and guidelines to understand what truly constitutes a virtual community. To define a virtual community, one needs to first examine the two words separately, particularly the sociological definition of “community.” The German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies, in his 1887 book, made the distinction between two basic types of social groups: Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society). The former was often exemplified by the family or neighborhood (Tonnies, 1957). Sociology literature also often refers to the definition given by George Hillery, who reviewed 94 different definitions in academic studies. Three elements were common to the definitions, namely that community (1) was based on geographic areas, (2) included social interaction among people, and (3) had common ties such as social life, norms, means, or ends (Hillery, 1955). Thus the term community typically connotes a group of people within some geographic boundary, such as a neighborhood, or perhaps smaller subsection of a larger city. Further specification might have defined a community as a group of people within the geographic boundary with a common interest, such as the Jewish community of Brooklyn or the physician community of London. Therefore, members of the community were drawn together by both local proximity and common interest, even if the interest was in the geographic area itself. The term virtual, precipitated by the advent of information technology, and specifically, the Internet, means without a physical place as a home (Handy, 1995), or that which is electronic or enabled by technology (Lee, Vogel, & Limayem, 2003). Information technology therefore has expanded the means by which the social interaction in communities can be accomplished. While for most of human existence interaction was strictly limited to the face-to-face medium, social interaction can now be accomplished virtually, thus eliminating the necessity of being physically close enough to communicate. This type of communication is called computer-mediated communication (CMC). Combining the two terms together, thus, would mean eliminating the geographic requirements and allowing that the social interaction would occur virtually, that is, via information technology, among people with common ties. In fact, people have been coming together in virtual communities on the Internet for over 25 years. Usenet newsgroups, started in 1979, are widely regarded as the first virtual communities on the Internet (M. A. Smith, 1999), and The Well (www.well.com), started in 1985, is often referred to as an early exemplar of virtual community (Rheingold, 1993). Virtual communities may be part of a long-term shift away from geographic ties to common interest ties (Wellman & Gulia, 1999b). Formal definitions and understandings of the term virtual community still remain problematic, however (Lee et al., 2003). Perhaps the most cited definition is that of Howard Rheingold, a prominent author, consultant, and member of The Well: Social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace. (Rheingold, 1993, p. 5) Common to many of the definitions is the presence of shared interests or goals (Dennis, Pootheri, & Natarajan, 1998; Figallo, 1998; Kilsheimer, 1997). With the advent of information technology, locating/contacting others outside the local community has become relatively easy, especially when one seeks others who have a unique or uncommon interest. It may be that technology makes it easier for communities to form. For example, it may be difficult for someone interested in traditional bowhunting to locate others with the same inclinations by popping into the local tavern or socializing at a church function. However, a simple search in Google reveals a vibrant community centered around such an interest (www.bowsite.com/). There are virtual communities for nearly every interest that comes to mind, from medical afflictions (e.g., breast cancer, Parkinson’s, Down’s syndrome) to hobbies (e.g., coin collecting, wine, saltwater aquariums) to professions (e.g., nursing, law, finance). Implicit with the notion of community is some permanence among members and frequency of visits by members (A. D. Smith, 1999). Virtual communities must have a sense of long-term interaction (Erickson, 1997), not a place where people go only occasionally or where there are always different people. It is not uncommon for people to develop strong attachments to virtual communities, visiting them often enough to be described as “addicted” (Hiltz, 1984; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). The members often feel part of a larger social whole within a web of relationships with others (Figallo, 1998). Indeed, many researchers have considered virtual communities as social networks (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Wellman, 1996; Wellman & Gulia, 1999a). Ridings et al. (2002) offer a comprehensive definition that incorporates the afore-mentioned concepts: Groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or mechanism. (p. 273)

Networking Identities

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-42
Author(s):  
Lhoussain Simour
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Worlds ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
New Space ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Virtual Interactions

Electronic connections allow the individual to be at various global sites while sitting in front of his or her computer. By being electronically connected, one’s participation in virtual worlds raises important questions about the nature of our communities and problematizes our identities. This paper examines how experiences in virtual interactions affect people’s real lives and what impact computer mediated communication has on the formation of a virtual community and its relation to individuals’ identities. Virtual communities stimulate experiences that redefine the basic concepts and contexts that have characterized the essence of human societies. They offer new contexts for rethinking the concept of identity and provide a new space for exploring the extent to which participation in computer mediated interaction modifies the subject in terms of identity, leading to a reconstruction and a reconstitution of self.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document