UGC Sharing Motives and Their Effects on UGC Sharing Intention from Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives: Focusing on Content Creators in South Korea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Motives of Online Community, Knowledge Community, Electronic Word-of-Mouth
2.2. UGC Sharing Motives
3. UGC Sharing Motives Identification and Its Effect on UGC Sharing Intentions
3.1. Structure of UGC Sharing Motives
3.2. UGC Sharing Motives Identification
3.3. Influence of UGC Sharing Motives on UGC Sharing Intentions
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Susarla, A.; Oh, J.-H.; Tan, Y. Social networks and the diffusion of user-generated content: Evidence from YouTube. Inf. Syst. Res. 2012, 23, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shao, G. Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: A uses and gratification perspective. Internet Res. 2009, 19, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gogan, I.; Zhang, Z.; Matemba, E. Impacts of gratifications on consumers’ emotions and continuance use intention: An empirical study of Weibo in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vickery, G.; Wunsch-Vincent, S. Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0 Wikis and Social Networking; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Paul, A.K.; Hogan, S.K. On the Couch: Understanding Consumer Shopping Behavior; Deloitte University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- US Smartphone Use in 2015. Available online: https://apo.org.au/node/59004 (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Marine-Roig, E.; Clavé, S.A. Tourism analytics with massive user-generated content: A case study of Barcelona. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2015, 4, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marine-Roig, E. Destination image analytics through traveller-generated content. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marine-Roig, E. Measuring destination image through travel reviews in search engines. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, M.-P.; Marine-Roig, E.; Llonch-Molina, N. Gastronomic experience (co) creation: Evidence from Taiwan and Catalonia. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Wang, J.; Fang, S.; Jin, P. Towards Sustainable Development of Online Communities in the Big Data Era: A Study of the Causes and Possible Consequence of Voting on User Reviews. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dholakia, U.M.; Bagozzi, R.P. Motivational antecedents, constituents, and consequents of virtual community identity. In Virtual and Collaborative Teams; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2004; pp. 253–268. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander Hars, S.O. Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2002, 6, 25–39. [Google Scholar]
- McKenna, K.Y.; Bargh, J.A. Causes and consequences of social interaction on the Internet: A conceptual framework. Media Psychol. 1999, 1, 249–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumeister, R.F. The Self. Adv. Soc. Psychol. State Sci. 2010, 139–175. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-11906-005 (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Sridhar Balasubramanian, V.M. The economic leverage of the virtual community. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 5, 103–138. [Google Scholar]
- Chiu, C.-M.; Hsu, M.-H.; Wang, E.T. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1872–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snowden, D. A framework for creating a sustainable programme. In Knowledge Management: A Real Business Guide; Rock, S., Ed.; Caspian Publishing: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Hsu, M.-H.; Chiu, C.-M. Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decis. Support Syst. 2004, 38, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ridings, C.M.; Gefen, D.; Arinze, B. Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 271–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Macmillan: Tokyo, Japan, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Liao, S.; Chou, E.-y. Intention to adopt knowledge through virtual communities: Posters vs. lurkers. Online Inf. Rev. 2012, 36, 442–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wasko, M.M.; Faraj, S. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huysman, M.; De Wit, D. Practices of managing knowledge sharing: Towards a second wave of knowledge management. Knowl. Process. Manag. 2004, 11, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bock, G.-W.; Zmud, R.W.; Kim, Y.-G.; Lee, J.-N. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological factors, and organizational climate. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 87–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negative and Positive Peer Influence: Relations to Positive and Negative Behaviors for African American, European American, and Hispanic Adolescents. Available online: https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/8208/volumes/v25/N (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Kaiser, C.; Bodendorf, F. Mining patient experiences on web 2.0-A case study in the pharmaceutical industry. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual SRII Global Conference, San Jose, CA, USA, 24–27 July 2012; pp. 139–145. [Google Scholar]
- Dichter, E. How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1966, 44, 147–160. [Google Scholar]
- Sundaram, D.S.; Mitra, K.; Webster, C. Word-of-mouth communications: A motivational analysis. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1998, 25, 527–531. [Google Scholar]
- Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Walsh, G.; Gremler, D.D. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reza Jalilvand, M.; Samiei, N. The effect of electronic word of mouth on brand image and purchase intention: An empirical study in the automobile industry in Iran. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2012, 30, 460–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Park, D.-H.; Han, I. The different effects of online consumer reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls: An advertising perspective. Internet Res. 2011, 21, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, D.-H.; Kim, S. The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2008, 7, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, D.-H.; Lee, J. eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2008, 7, 386–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, D.-H.; Lee, J.; Han, I. The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2007, 11, 125–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.B.; Park, D.H. The effect of low-versus high-variance in product reviews on product evaluation. Psychol. Mark. 2013, 30, 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, J.G.; Smith, N.C.; John, A. Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/77183c3400bf0e0e280f0011e578807c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=48297 (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- To Be Adored or to Be Known? The Interplay of Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-98254-012 (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Gollwitzer, P.M. Striving for specific identities: The social reality of self-symbolizing. In Public Self and Private Self; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986; pp. 143–159. [Google Scholar]
- Schaedel, U.; Clement, M. Managing the online crowd: Motivations for engagement in user-generated content. J. Media Bus. Stud. 2010, 7, 17–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leung, L. User-generated content on the internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media Soc. 2009, 11, 1327–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowston, K.; Fagnot, I. Stages of motivation for contributing user-generated content: A theory and empirical test. Int. J. Hum. -Comput. Stud. 2018, 109, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- August, K.; Kern, T.; Moran, E. The State of Media Democracy: Are You Ready for the Future of Media. Diakses Melalui. Available online: www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_media_Media (accessed on 7 May 2018).
- Rheingold, H. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Group Dynamics in an E-Mail Forum. Available online: https://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=ko&lr=&id=m8PzbUOIFswC&oi=fnd&pg=PA225&dq=Group+dynamics+in+an+e-mail+forum&ots=vERJi7E1CS&sig=xuUeeT9HBSvcM1sFAWLzuPddlXs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Group%20dynamics%20in%20an%20e-mail%20forum&f=false (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Lindlof, T.R.; Shatzer, M.J. Media ethnography in virtual space: Strategies, limits, and possibilities. J. Broadcasting Electron. Media 1998, 42, 170–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMillan, D.W.; Chavis, D.M. Sense of community: A definition and theory. J. Community Psychol. 1986, 14, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wellman, B. Community: From neighborhood to network. Commun. ACM 2005, 48, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cyberville: Clicks. Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Cyberville-Clicks-Culture-Creation-Online/dp/044651909X (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Naegele, K.D.; Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1956, 21, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dominick, J.R. Who do you think you are? Personal home pages and self-presentation on the World Wide Web. Journal. Mass Commun. Q. 1999, 76, 646–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bukvova, H. A holistic approach to the analysis of online profiles. Internet Res. 2012, 22, 340–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joyce, E.; Kraut, R.E. Predicting continued participation in newsgroups. J. Comput. -Mediat. Commun. 2006, 11, 723–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, J.; Park, D.-H. Are you a Machine or Human?: The Effects of Human-likeness on Consumer Anthropomorphism Depending on Construal Level. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 2021, 27, 129–149. [Google Scholar]
- Seo, B.-G.; Park, D.-H. Effective Strategies for Contents Recommendation Based on Psychological Ownership of over the Top Services in Cyberspace. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, B.-G.; Park, D.-H. The Effective Type of Information Categorization in Online Curation Service Depending on Psychological Ownership. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seo, B.-G.; Park, D.-H. Did You Invest Less Than Me? The Effect of Other’s Share of Investment on Psychological Ownership of Crowdfunding Projects. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, D.-H. Consumer Adoption of Consumer-Created vs. Expert-Created Information: Moderating Role of Prior Product Attitude. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.-Y.; Park, D.-H. UX Methodology Study by Data Analysis Focusing on deriving persona through customer segment classification. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 2021, 27, 151–176. [Google Scholar]
- Park, D.-H. Virtuality changes consumer preference: The effect of transaction virtuality as psychological distance on consumer purchase behavior. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ha, S.; Lee, J.; Yoo, I.-J.; Park, D.-H. Different Look, Different Feel: Social Robot Design Evaluation Model Based on ABOT Attributes and Consumer Emotions. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 2021, 27, 55–78. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Measurement | Related Studies | |
---|---|---|---|
UGC motives | Self-achievement 1 | My UGC is an achievement that I created by myself | Self-expression [38]; Recognition needs [42]; Peer influence [26] |
Self-achievement 2 | I completed my UGC by doing my best | ||
Self-achievement 3 | I share my content to show my creativity to other members | ||
Self-enjoyment 1 | I enjoy myself while creating my UGC | Entertainment needs [42] | |
Self-enjoyment 2 | I am satisfied with the time it takes to create my UGC | ||
Community identity 1 | I become attached to the site when I share my UGC | Social needs [42]; Shared language [22] | |
Community identity 2 | I feel I am a member of the site when I share my UGC | ||
Community communication 1 | I exchange opinions with other members through my UGC | Social needs [42]; Norm of reciprocity [12,20] | |
Community communication 2 | I deliver the information to this site by sharing my UGC | ||
Community communication 3 | My UGC is a tool for communication with other members | ||
Familiarity 1 | I want other members to become familiar with me through my UGC | Social interaction ties [18,19]; Social capital [23,24,25] | |
Familiarity 2 | I share my UGC to give pleasure to other members on this site | ||
Familiarity 3 | I share my UGC to get along with other members on this site | ||
Feedback 1 | I’m disappointed if other members do not give me feedback on my UGC | Recognition needs [42]; Social capital [23,24,25], | |
Feedback 2 | I want to get other members’ feedback on my UGC | ||
Economic reward 1 | I want to get some monetary reward through my UGC | eWOM [29] | |
Economic reward 2 | I expect to earn money with my UGC | ||
Social reward 1 | I want to be famous through my UGC | Social needs [42]; eWOM [29] | |
Social reward 2 | I expect to be popular with my UGC | ||
Self-enhancement 1 | I can improve my skills by creating UGC | Cognitive need [42] | |
Self-enhancement 2 | I can better myself by creating my UGC | ||
Uniqueness 1 | I want to express my unique self with my UGC | Self-presentation [37] | |
Uniqueness 2 | I want to show my true self by sharing my UGC | ||
Control variables | Community activeness 1 | The site has many members | Virtual Community [12,17,18,19,20,21]; Social Capital [23,24,25,26], Knowledge management [22,27] |
Community activeness 2 | There is a lot of content on the site | ||
Community activeness 3 | The site members continuously upload content | ||
Community activeness 4 | The site members actively share their content | ||
Community trust 1 | The quality level of content on the site is high | ||
Community trust 2 | I can trust the site members | ||
Community trust 3 | The site is trustworthy | ||
Community trust 4 | The site has many experts | ||
Ease of share 1 | It is easy to upload my content to the site | ||
Ease of share 2 | The site provides convenient sharing tools | ||
Community mood 1 | The site often gives negative feedback | ||
Community mood 2 | The mood of the site is negative and critical | ||
UGC skill 1 | I am familiar with computer skills | ||
UGC skill 2 | I have sufficient skills to use UGC tools |
Factor | Cronbach’s Alpha | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
Eigen Value | 5.00 | 4.17 | 3.24 | 3.23 | 2.83 | 3.25 | 2.65 | 2.38 | 2.17 | 1.94 | |
Self−achivement1 | 0.82 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.03 | −0.04 | −0.04 | 0.09 | 0.92 |
Self−enjoyment1 | 0.82 | 0.16 | 0.13 | −0.04 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.07 | |
Self−enjoyment2 | 0.80 | 0.10 | 0.20 | −0.01 | 0.26 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.09 | |
Self−achivement2 | 0.78 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.08 | 0.18 | |
Self−achivement3 | 0.76 | 0.26 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.12 | |
Community identity1 | 0.15 | 0.78 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.26 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.08 | −0.11 | 0.18 | 0.92 |
Community identity2 | 0.23 | 0.78 | 0.24 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.19 | 0.09 | −0.04 | 0.12 | |
Community communication1 | 0.36 | 0.69 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.21 | −0.02 | 0.04 | 0.29 | −0.02 | 0.16 | |
Community communication2 | 0.26 | 0.62 | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.20 | −0.03 | 0.13 | 0.35 | −0.02 | 0.27 | |
Community communication3 | 0.20 | 0.55 | 0.48 | 0.06 | 0.18 | −0.06 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 0.28 | −0.04 | |
Familiarity1 | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.73 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.27 | 0.90 |
Familiarity2 | 0.15 | 0.41 | 0.65 | 0.16 | 0.30 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.11 | |
Familiarity3 | 0.23 | 0.44 | 0.59 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.37 | 0.18 | 0.02 | |
Feedback1 | 0.56 | 0.01 | 0.59 | 0.17 | −0.05 | 0.25 | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.04 | 0.12 | |
Feedback2 | 0.53 | 0.15 | 0.58 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.14 | −0.05 | −0.12 | 0.10 | |
Economic reward1 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.90 | 0.02 | −0.05 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.90 |
Economic reward2 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.03 | 0.86 | 0.14 | −0.18 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.01 | |
Social reward1 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.32 | 0.74 | 0.34 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.08 | |
Social reward2 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.59 | 0.44 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.12 | −0.02 | −0.07 | |
Self−enhancement1 | 0.33 | 0.30 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.74 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.90 |
Self−enhancement2 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.12 | 0.22 | 0.69 | 0.07 | 0.08 | −0.04 | −0.02 | 0.02 | |
Uniqueness1 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.60 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.05 | |
Uniqueness2 | 0.30 | 0.18 | 0.37 | 0.28 | 0.59 | 0.02 | 0.16 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.22 | |
Community activeness1 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.17 | −0.15 | 0.05 | 0.88 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.89 |
Community activeness2 | 0.23 | 0.02 | 0.24 | −0.07 | −0.02 | 0.85 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.04 | |
Community activeness3 | 0.12 | 0.09 | −0.01 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.81 | 0.14 | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.00 | |
Community activeness4 | 0.07 | 0.04 | −0.08 | −0.10 | 0.29 | 0.64 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.29 | 0.40 | |
Community trust1 | −0.02 | 0.19 | −0.01 | 0.09 | −0.04 | 0.10 | 0.87 | 0.14 | −0.01 | −0.02 | 0.85 |
Community trust2 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.78 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.24 | |
Community trust3 | 0.20 | −0.06 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.66 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 0.37 | |
Community trust4 | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.26 | 0.66 | −0.13 | −0.03 | −0.05 | |
Ease of share1 | 0.01 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.13 | 0.87 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.93 |
Ease of share2 | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.85 | 0.07 | 0.06 | |
Community mood1 | 0.07 | −0.04 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.93 | −0.04 | 0.97 |
Community mood2 | 0.03 | −0.04 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.93 | 0.00 | |
UGC skill1 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.19 | 0.12 | −0.02 | 0.83 | 0.91 |
UGC skill2 | 0.28 | 0.43 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.07 | −0.08 | 0.68 |
Variables | UGC Sharing Intention (Quantity) | UGC Sharing Intention (Quality) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | t-Value | p-Value | β | t-Value | p-Value | |
Self-creation | 0.46 | 13.63 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 2.02 | 0.04 |
Community commitment | 0.34 | 9.88 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 7.77 | 0.01 |
Social relationship | 0.35 | 10.18 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 3.20 | 0.01 |
Reward | 0.16 | 4.82 | 0.01 | 0.35 | 7.93 | 0.01 |
Self-expression | 0.32 | 9.29 | 0.01 | 0.25 | 5.73 | 0.01 |
Community activeness | 0.08 | 2.22 | 0.03 | −0.05 | −1.08 | 0.28 |
Community trust | 0.10 | 2.98 | 0.01 | 0.29 | 6.51 | 0.01 |
Ease of share | 0.06 | 1.72 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 2.20 | 0.03 |
Community mood | −0.08 | −2.45 | 0.01 | −0.04 | −0.88 | 0.38 |
UGC skill | 0.25 | 7.43 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 1.83 | 0.07 |
ANOVA | F(10,289) = 57.47, p < 0.01 | F(10,289) = 22.29, p < 0.01 | ||||
R2 (Adjusted R2) | 0.67 (0.65) | 0.44 (0.42) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Park, D.-H.; Lee, S. UGC Sharing Motives and Their Effects on UGC Sharing Intention from Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives: Focusing on Content Creators in South Korea. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179644
Park D-H, Lee S. UGC Sharing Motives and Their Effects on UGC Sharing Intention from Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives: Focusing on Content Creators in South Korea. Sustainability. 2021; 13(17):9644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179644
Chicago/Turabian StylePark, Do-Hyung, and Sungwook Lee. 2021. "UGC Sharing Motives and Their Effects on UGC Sharing Intention from Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives: Focusing on Content Creators in South Korea" Sustainability 13, no. 17: 9644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179644
APA StylePark, D. -H., & Lee, S. (2021). UGC Sharing Motives and Their Effects on UGC Sharing Intention from Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives: Focusing on Content Creators in South Korea. Sustainability, 13(17), 9644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179644