Intrinsic vs. Image-Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter?

References

• Allenby GM, Rossi PE. Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econometrics (1998) 89(1–2):57–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allenby GM, Arora N, Ginter JL. Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. J. Marketing Res. (1995) 32(2):152–162Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Bracha A, Meier S. Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2009) 99(1):544–555Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bajari P, Benkard CL, Levin J. Estimating dynamic models of imperfect competition. Econometrica (2007) 75(5):1331–1370Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bakshy E, Hofman JM, Mason WA, Watts DJ. Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. Proc. Fourth ACM Internat. Conf. Web Search Data Mining (2011) (ACM, New York) 65–74Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barabási A, Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science (1999) 286(5439):509–512Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psych. Bull. (1995) 117(3):497–529Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beck H. New way to gauge popularity. New York Times (2009) October 21). http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E6DF1F31F932A15753C1A96F9C8B63Google Scholar
• Bennett S. Twitter: 250 million tweets per day and $8 billion value confirmed (but no IPO…yet). (2011) . All Twitter (blog), October 18, http://www.mediabistra.com/alltwitter/costolo-future-of-twitter-b14936Google Scholar
• Bénabou R, Tirole J. Incentives and prosocial behavior. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2006) 96(5):1652–1678Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bitzer J, Schrettl W, Schröder P. Intrinsic motivation in open source software development. J. Comparative Econom. (2007) 35(1):160–169Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bughin JR. How companies can make the most of user-generated content. McKinsey Quart. (2007) August):1–4Google Scholar
• Cha M, Haddadi H, Benevenuto F, Gummadi KP. Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. Proc. Fourth Internat. AAAI Conf. Weblogs Soc. Media (2010) (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA) 10–17Google Scholar
• de Solla Price DJ. Networks of scientific papers. Science (1965) 149(3683):510–515Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Vohs KD. Satiated with belongingness: Effects of acceptance, rejection, and task framing on self-regulatory performance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2008) 95(6):1367–1382Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Falk A. Psychological foundations of incentives. Eur. Econom. Rev. (2002) 46(4–5):687–724Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fershtman C, Gandal N. Open source software: Motivation and restrictive licensing. Internat. Econom. Econom. Policy (2007) 4(2):209–225Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Meng X-L, Stern H. Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies. Statistica Sinica (1996) 6:733–807Google Scholar
• Ghose A, Goldfarb A, Han S-P. How is the mobile Internet different? Search costs and local activities. Inform. Systems Res. (2013) . ForthcomingLink, Google Scholar
• Ghosh RA, Glott R, Krieger B, Robles G. Free/libre and open source software: Survey and study—Floss final report. (2002) . Working paper, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
• Glazer A, Konrad KA. A signaling explanation for charity. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1996) 86(4):1019–1028Google Scholar
• Godes D, Mayzlin D. Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Sci. (2004) 23(4):545–560Link, Google Scholar
• Goel S, Watts DJ, Goldstein DG. The structure of online diffusion networks. Proc. 13th ACM Conf. Electronic Commerce (2012) (ACM, New York) 623–638Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldenberg J, Han S, Lehmann DR, Hong JW. The role of hubs in the adoption process. J. Marketing (2009) 73(March):1–13Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hagan J. Tweet science. New York Magazine (2011) October 2). http://nymag.com/news/media/twitter-2011-10/Google Scholar
• Harbaugh WT. The prestige motive for making charitable transfers. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1998a) 88(2):277–282Google Scholar
• Harbaugh WT. What do donations buy? A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow. J. Public Econom. (1998b) 67(2):269–284Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hars A, Ou S. Working for free? Motivations of participating in open source projects. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce (2002) 6(3):25–39Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartmann W, Manchanda P, Bothner M, Dodds P, Godes D, Hosanagar K, Tucker C. Modeling social interactions: Identification, empirical methods and policy implications. Marketing Lett. (2008) 19(3):287–304Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hennig-Thurau T, Gwinner KP, Walsh G, Gremler DD. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? J. Interactive Marketing (2004) 18(1):38–52Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imai S, Jain N, Ching A. Bayesian estimation of dynamic discrete choice models. Econometrica (2009) 77(6):1865–1899Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kankanhalli A, Tan BCY, Wei K-K. Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quart. (2005) 29(1):113–143Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katona Z, Zubcsek PP, Sarvary M. Network effects and personal influences: Diffusion of an online social network. J. Marketing Res. (2011) 48(3):425–443Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar V. Why do consumers contribute to connected goods? A dynamic game of competition and cooperation in social networks. (2009) . Working paper, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
• Kwak H, Lee C, Park H, Moon S. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proc. 19th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (2010) (ACM, New York) 591–600Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lakhani KR, Wolf R, Feller J, Fitzgerald B, Hissam S, Lakhani K. Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software (2005) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 3–22Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lampel J, Bhalla A. The role of status seeking in online communities: Giving the gift of experience. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. (2007) 12(2):434–455Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonhardt D. A better way to measure Twitter influence. (2011) . The 6th Floor (blog), March 24, http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/a-better-way-to-measure-twitter-influenceGoogle Scholar
• Lerner J, Tirole J. Some simple economics of open source. J. Indust. Econom. (2002) 50(2):197–234Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Tirole J. The economics of technology sharing: Open source and beyond. J. Econom. Perspect. (2005) 19(2):99–120Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manski CF. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1993) 60(3):531–542Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moffitt RA, Durlauf S, Young P. Policy interventions, low-level equilibria, and social interactions. Social Dynamics (2001) (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC) 45–82Google Scholar
• Norets A. Inference in dynamic discrete choice models with serially correlated unobserved state variables. Econometrica (2009a) 77(5):1665–1682Crossref, Google Scholar
• Norets A. Implementation of bayesian inference in dynamic discrete choice models. (2009b) . Working paper, Princeton University, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
• Nov O. What motivates Wikipedians? Comm. ACM (2007) 50(11):60–64Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poletti T. What if your friends won't follow you on Twitter? Market Watch (2009) November 12). http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-11-12/commentary/30701246-1-twitter-1-twitter-account-twitter-followers-tweetGoogle Scholar
• Roberts JA, Hann I-H, Slaughter SA. Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management Sci (2006) 52(7):984–999Link, Google Scholar
• Romero DM, Galuba W, Asur S, Huberman BA. Influence and passivity in social media. Proc. 20th Internat. Conf. Companion World Wide Web (2011) (ACM, New York) 113–114Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rust J. Optimal replacement of GMC bus engines: An empirical model of Harold Zucker. Econometrica (1987) 55(5):999–1033Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Ed. Psych. (2000) 25(1):54–67Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shriver SK, Nair HS, Hofstetter R. Social ties and user-generated content: Evidence from an online social network. Management Sci. (2013) . ePub ahead of print February 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1648Link, Google Scholar
• Sorensen D, Gianola D. Likelihood, Bayesian, and MCMC Methods in Quantitative Genetics (2002) (Springer, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephen AT, Galak J. The effects of traditional and social earned media on sales: A study of a microlending marketplace. J. Marketing Res. (2012) 49(5):624–639Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephen AT, Toubia O. Explaining the power-law degree distribution in a social commerce network. Soc. Networks (2009) 31(4):262–270Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephen AT, Dover Y, Muchnik L, Goldenberg J. The effect of transmitter activity on information diffusion over online social networks. (2012) . Working paper, University of Pittsburgh, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
• Sun M, Zhu F. Ad revenue and content commercialization: Evidence from blogs. Management Sci. (2013) . ForthcomingLink, Google Scholar
• Teitell B. Ascent of the social-media climbers. Boston Globe (2011) February 18). http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/02/18/ascent_of_the_social_media_climbers/Google Scholar
• Trusov M, Bucklin R, Pauwels K. Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. J. Marketing (2009) 73(September):90–102Crossref, Google Scholar
• Twitter Twitter turns six. (2012) . Twitter Blog (blog), March 21, http://blog.twitter.com/2012/03/twitter-turns-six.htmlGoogle Scholar
• von Hippel E, von Krogh G. Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(2):209–223Link, Google Scholar
• von Krogh G, von Hippel E. The promise of research on open source software. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):975–983Link, Google Scholar
• Wasko MM, Faraj S. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quart. (2005) 29(1):35–57Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weng J, Lim E-P, Jiang J. TwitterRank: Finding topic-sensitive influential Twitterers. Proc. Third ACM Internat. Conf. Web Search Data Mining (2010) (ACM, New York) 261–270Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu S, Hofman JM, Mason WA, Watts DJ. Who says what to whom on Twitter. Proc. 20th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (2011) (ACM, New York) 705–714Crossref, Google Scholar