Competition and Collaboration in Crowdsourcing Communities: What Happens When Peers Evaluate Each Other?

References

• Aadland E, Cattani G, Ferriani S (2019) Friends, gifts, and cliques: Social proximity and recognition in peer-based tournament rituals. Acad. Management J. 62(3):883–917.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abeler J, Nosenzo D, Raymond C (2019) Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica 87(4):1115–1153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adler PS, Chen CX (2011) Combining creativity and control: Understanding individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity. Accounting Organ. Soc. 36(2):63–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Afuah A, Tucci CL (2023) Reflections on the 2022 AMR decade award: Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Acad. Management Rev. 48(4):597–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD (2001) Estimation of limited dependent variable models with dummy endogenous regressors. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 19(1):2–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Archak N (2010) Money, glory and cheap talk: Analyzing strategic behavior of contestants in simultaneous crowdsourcing contests on TopCoder.com. Proc. 19th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 21–30.Google Scholar
• Archak N, Sundararajan A (2009) Optimal design of crowdsourcing contests. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, GA), 200.Google Scholar
• Ashforth BE, Johnson SA (2001) Which hat to wear. Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts (Psychology Press, New York), 31–48.Google Scholar
• Balietti S, Riedl C (2021) Incentives, competition, and inequality in markets for creative production. Res. Policy 50(4):104212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauer J, Franke N, Tuertscher P (2016) Intellectual property norms in online communities: How user-organized intellectual property regulation supports innovation. Inform. Systems Res. 27(4):724–750.Link, Google Scholar
• Belenzon S, Schankerman M (2015) Motivation and sorting of human capital in open innovation. Strategic Management J. 36(6):795–820.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benabou R, Tirole J (2002) Self-confidence and personal motivation. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):871–915.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg JM (2016) Balancing on the creative highwire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(3):433–468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blanken I, Van De Ven N, Zeelenberg M (2015) A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 41(4):540–558.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blohm I, Riedl C, Füller J, Leimeister JM (2016) Rate or trade? Identifying winning ideas in open idea sourcing. Inform. Systems Res. 27(1):27–48.Link, Google Scholar
• Bockstedt J, Druehl C, Mishra A (2016) Heterogeneous submission behavior and its implications for success in innovation contests with public submissions. Production Oper. Management 25(7):1157–1176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G (2009) Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323(5916):892–895.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Lakhani KR (2015) “Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Res. Policy 44(1):4–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Lakhani KR, Menietti M (2016) Performance responses to competition across skill levels in rank-order tournaments: Field evidence and implications for tournament design. RAND J. Econom. 47(1):140–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brabham DC (2010) Moving the crowd at threadless. Inform. Comm. Soc. 13(8):1122–1145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bullinger AC, Neyer AK, Rass M, Moeslein KM (2010) Community-based innovation contests: Where competition meets cooperation. Creative Innovation Management 19(3):290–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C, Lovallo D (1999) Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(1):306–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chambers CR, Baker WE (2020) Robust systems of cooperation in the presence of rankings: How displaying prosocial contributions can offset the disruptive effects of performance rankings. Organ. Sci. 31(2):287–307.Link, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Masclet D, Villeval MC (2014) The dark side of competition for status. Management Sci. 60(1):38–55.Link, Google Scholar
• Chen KP (2003) Sabotage in promotion tournaments. J. Law Econom. Organ. 19(1):119–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen P, Sun H, Fang Y, Liu X (2020) Conan: A framework for detecting and handling collusion in crowdsourcing. Inform. Sci. 515(April):44–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiu CM, Huang HY, Cheng HL, Sun PC (2015) Understanding online community citizenship behaviors through social support and social identity. Internat. J. Inform. Management 35(4):504–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cropanzano R, Goldman B, Folger R (2005) Self-interest: Defining and understanding a human motive. J. Organ. Behav. 26(8):985–991.Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (Harper & Row, New York).Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, O’Mahony S (2011) Progressing to the center: Coordinating project work. Organ. Sci. 22(4):961–979.Link, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, Jeppesen LB, Piezunka H (2019) How organizations manage crowds: Define, broadcast, attract, and select. Sydow J, Berends H, eds. Managing Inter-Organizational Collaborations: Process Views, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 64 (Emerald, Leeds, UK), 239–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, O’Mahony S, Gann DM (2016) One foot in, one foot out: How does individuals’ external search breadth affect innovation outcomes? Strategic Management J. 37(2):280–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deodhar SJ, Babar Y, Burtch G (2022) The influence of status on evaluations: Evidence from online coding contests. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 46(4):2085–2110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deutsch M (1949) A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations 2(2):129–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edelman B, Larkin I (2015) Social comparisons and deception across workplace hierarchies: Field and experimental evidence. Organ. Sci. 26(1):78–98.Link, Google Scholar
• Elster J (1989) Social norms and economic theory. J. Econom. Perspective 3(4):99–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erat S, Gneezy U (2012) White lies. Management Sci. 58(4):723–733.Link, Google Scholar
• Faraj S, Johnson SL (2011) Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1464–1480.Link, Google Scholar
• Faraj S, Jarvenpaa SL, Majchrzak A (2011) Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1224–1239.Link, Google Scholar
• Faullant R, Füller J, Hutter K (2017) Fair play: Perceived fairness in crowdsourcing competitions and the customer relationship-related consequences. Management Decisions 55(9):1924–1941.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Lakhani KR, Tushman ML (2017) Firms, crowds, and innovation. Strategic Organ. 15(2):119–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske AP (1992) The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psych. Rev. 99(4):689–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fjeldstad ØD, Snow CC, Miles RE, Lettl C (2012) The architecture of collaboration. Strategic Management J. 33(6):734–750.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foley M, Smead R, Forber P, Riedl C (2021) Avoiding the bullies: The resilience of cooperation among unequals. PLOS Comput. Biol. 17(4):e1008847.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Franke N, Shah S (2003) How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Res. Policy 32(1):157–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Franke N, Keinz P, Klausberger K (2013) “Does this sound like a fair deal?”: Antecedents and consequences of fairness expectations in the individual’s decision to participate in firm innovation. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1495–1516.Link, Google Scholar
• Franke N, Schreier M, Kaiser U (2010) The “i designed it myself” effect in mass customization. Management Sci. 56(1):125–140.Link, Google Scholar
• Franken RE, Brown DJ (1995) Why do people like competition? The motivation for winning, putting forth effort, improving one’s performance, performing well, being instrumental, and expressing forceful/aggressive behavior. Personality Individual Differences 19(2):175–184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fulker Z, Forber P, Smead R, Riedl C (2021) Spite is contagious in dynamic networks. Nature Comm. 12(1):1–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gallus J, Reiff J, Kamenica E, Fiske AP (2022) Relational incentives theory. Psych. Rev. 129(3):586–602.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaure S (2013) lfe: Linear group fixed effects. R J. 5(2):104–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gebauer J, Füller J, Pezzei R (2013) The dark and the bright side of co-creation: Triggers of member behavior in online innovation communities. J. Bus. Res. 66(9):1516–1527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Kajackaite A, Sobel J (2018) Lying aversion and the size of the lie. Amer. Econom. Rev. 108(2):419–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomez-Mejia LR, Balkin DB (1992) Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Acad. Management J. 35(5):921–955.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grad T, Riedl C, Kilduff GJ (2023) When rivalry backfires: How individual skill and risk of status loss moderate the effects of rivalry on performance. Working paper, Northeastern University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Greene WWH (2012) Econometric Analysis, 6th ed. (Pearson, New York).Google Scholar
• Harbring C, Irlenbusch B (2011) Sabotage in tournaments: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Management Sci. 57(4):611–627.Link, Google Scholar
• Harbring C, Irlenbusch B, Kräkel M, Selten R (2007) Sabotage in corporate contests–An experimental analysis. Internat. J. Econom. Bus. 14(3):367–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Henkel J, Von Hippel E (2003) Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Res. Policy 32(10):1753–1769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hippel Ev, Krogh Gv (2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. 14(2):209–223.Link, Google Scholar
• Hofstetter R, Aryobsei S, Herrmann A (2018a) Should you really produce what consumers like online? Empirical evidence for reciprocal voting in open innovation contests. J. Production Innovation Management 35(2):209–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofstetter R, Zhang JZ, Herrmann A (2018b) Successive open innovation contests and incentives: Winner-take-all or multiple prizes? J. Production Innovation Management 35(4):492–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang Y, Vir Singh P, Srinivasan K (2014) Crowdsourcing new product ideas under consumer learning. Management Sci. 60(9):2138–2159.Link, Google Scholar
• Hutter K, Hautz J, Füller J, Mueller J, Matzler K (2011) Communitition: The tension between competition and collaboration in community-based design contests. Creative Innovative Management 20(1):3–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ivaturi K, Chua C (2019) Framing norms in online communities. Inform. Management 56(1):15–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeppesen LB, Lakhani KR (2010) Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ. Sci. 21(5):1016–1033.Link, Google Scholar
• Kilduff GJ, Elfenbein HA, Staw BM (2010) The psychology of rivalry: A relationally dependent analysis of competition. Acad. Management J. 53(5):943–969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim Y, Jarvenpaa SL, Gu B (2018) External bridging and internal bonding: Unlocking the generative resources of member time and attention spent in online communities. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 42(1):265–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klapper H, Piezunka H, Dahlander L (2024) Peer evaluations: Evaluating and being evaluated. Organ. Sci. Forthcoming.Link, Google Scholar
• Knudsen T, Levinthal AD, Puranam P (2019) Editorial: A model is a model. Strategy Sci. 4(1):1–3.Link, Google Scholar
• Konrad K (2000) Sabotage in rent-seeking contests. J. Law Econom. Organ. 16(1):155–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konrad KA (2009) Strategy and Dynamics in Contests (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Labianca G, Brass DJ (2006) Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):596–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lado AA, Boyd NG, Hanlon SC (1997) Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Acad. Management Rev. 22(1):110–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lakhani KR, Kanji Z (2008) Threadless: The Business of Community (Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Lakhani KR, Wolf RG (2003) Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Technical report, Open Source Software Projects.Google Scholar
• Lazear EP (1989) Pay equality and industrial politics. J. Political Econom. 97(3):561.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP, Rosen S (1981) Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. J. Political Econom. 89(5):841–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis MW (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad. Management Rev. 25(4):760–776.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li H, Bingham JB, Umphress EE (2007) Fairness from the top: Perceived procedural justice and collaborative problem solving in new product development. Organ. Sci. 18(2):200–216.Link, Google Scholar
• Liu TX, Yang J, Adamic LA, Chen Y (2014) Crowdsourcing with all-pay auctions: A field experiment on taskcn. Management Sci. 60(8):2020–2037.Link, Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):351–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Malhotra A (2013) Toward an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 22(4):257–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Malhotra A (2016) Effect of knowledge-sharing trajectories on innovative outcomes in temporary online crowds. Inform. Systems Res. 27(4):685–703.Link, Google Scholar
• Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Soc. Personality Psych. Compass 4(5):344–357.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moffitt R (2001) Policy interventions, low-level equilibria, and social interactions. Durlauf S, Young P, eds. Social Dynamics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Münster J (2007) Selection tournaments, sabotage, and participation. J. Econom. Management Strategy 16(4):943–970.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nambisan S, Baron RA (2010) Different roles, different strokes: Organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organ. Sci. 21(2):554–572.Link, Google Scholar
• Nickell J (2010) Threadless: Ten Years of T-Shirts from the World’s Most Inspiring Online Design Community (Abrams Image, New York).Google Scholar
• Perry-Smith JE (2006) Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad. Management J. 49(1):85–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Dahlander L (2019) Idea rejected, tie formed: Organizations’ feedback on crowdsourced ideas. Acad. Management J. 62(2):503–530.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ransbotham S, Kane GC (2011) Membership turnover and collaboration success in online communities: Explaining rises and falls from grace in Wikipedia. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 35(3):613–627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ren Y, Harper FM, Drenner S, Terveen L, Kiesler S, Riedl J, Kraut RE (2012) Building member attachment in online communities: Applying theories of group identity and interpersonal bonds. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 36(3):841–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2015) Taste for competition and the gender gap among young business professionals. Technical report 21695, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Riedl C, Seidel VP (2018) Learning from mixed signals in online innovation communities. Organ. Sci. 29(6):1010–1032.Link, Google Scholar
• Riedl C, Hutter K, Füller J, Tellis G (2024) Cash or non-cash? Unveiling ideators’ incentive preferences in crowdsourcing contest. J. Management Inform. Systems Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts JA, Hann IH, Slaughter SA (2006) Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management Sci. 52(7):984–999.Link, Google Scholar
• Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Amer. Psych. 55(1):68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Safadi H, Johnson SL, Faraj S (2021) Who contributes knowledge? Core-periphery tension in online innovation communities. Organ. Sci. 32(3):752–775.Link, Google Scholar
• Smirnova I, Reitzig M, Sorenson O (2022) Building status in an online community. Organ. Sci. 33(6):2519–2540.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith A (2010) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Penguin, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soda G, Mannucci PV, Burt RS (2021) Networks, creativity, and time: Staying creative through brokerage and network rejuvenation. Acad. Management J. 64(4):1164–1190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Therneau TM, Grambsch PM (2000) Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• To C, Kilduff GJ, Rosikiewicz BL (2020) When interpersonal competition helps and when it harms: An integration via challenge and threat. Acad. Management Ann. 14(2):908–934.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsai W (2002) Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organ. Sci. 13(2):179–190.Link, Google Scholar
• Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent seeking. Buchanan J, Tollison R, Tullock G, eds. Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society (Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX).Google Scholar
• Waldman DA, Putnam LL, Miron-Spektor E, Siegel D (2019) The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 155(November):1–6.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasko MM, Faraj S (2000) “It is what one does”: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 9(2–3):155–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasko MM, Faraj S (2005) Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 29(1):35–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaggl MA, Malhotra A, Alexy O, Majchrzak A (2023) Governing crowdsourcing for unconstrained innovation problems. Strategic Management J. 44(11):2783–2817.Crossref, Google Scholar