Castiga Sau Nu Pierde, Efectele Recompensarii Monetare Asupra Motivatiei Si Contributia Cunostintelor

Journal of Knowledge Management
To gain or not to lose? The effect of monetary reward on motivation and knowledge contribution
Haixin Liu, Guiquan Li,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Haixin Liu, Guiquan Li, (2017) "To gain or not to lose? The effect of monetary reward on motivation and knowledge
contribution", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 Issue: 2,pp. -, doi: 10.1108/JKM-03-2016-0100
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2016-0100
Downloaded on: 30 March 2017, At: 06:44 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 80 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza At 06:44 30 March 2017 (PT)
(2017),"Empowering group leaders encourages knowledge sharing: integrating the social exchange theory and positive
organizational behavior perspective", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. -
(2017),"Employees online knowledge sharing: the effects of person-environment fit", Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. -
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:526495 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

To gain or not to lose? The effect of monetary reward on motivation and knowledge
contribution
1. Introduction
The question why should I share? asked by Wasko and Faraj (2005) a decade ago,
when people generally accepted the idea that the efficiency of knowledge workers determines
the fate of organizations to a large extent (Grant, 1996), has received an extensive amount of
attention from both scholars and practitioners (e.g., Hwang et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2014).
Hitherto, organizations are even more committed to exploring and exploiting
knowledge-based resources. One crucial aspect of such attempts is encouraging employees to
contribute their knowledge through various means, including face-to-face communication,
email, online chat, and online discussion. This is because business leaders and managers
realize the pivotal role of individual knowledge in improving organizational performance,
ranging from avoiding mistakes (i.e., avoiding a serious medical error, Blatt et al., 2006) to
triggering organizational progress (i.e., providing innovative ideas, Liu et al., 2014). However,
individual knowledge is typically considered highly private, a source of individual prestige
over others (Ipe, 2003; Lin and Huang, 2010). That is, knowledge contribution benefits the
organization at the cost of individual advantage (Yu and Chu, 2007).
In most circumstances, a reward is used as a compensation for such cost, according to
the social exchange theory (Lin and Huang, 2010), where an individual is willing to
contribute when he/she believes the contribution behavior brings more benefits than costs.
This argument is ostensibly correct but, surprisingly, empirical studies show inconsistent
findings, implying that the relationship between reward and knowledge contribution behavior
is more complicated (Wang and Noe, 2010; Chiu et al., 2006; Siemsen et al., 2007). For
example, some scholars find a positive impact of reward on knowledge contribution (Yao et
al., 2007; Kim and Lee, 2006; Cabrera et al., 2006; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Zhao et al.,
2012), while others deem the relationship insignificant (Kwok and Gao, 2005; He and Wei,
2009; Zheng et al., 2011) or even negative (Bock et al., 2005; Hau et al., 2013; Fahey et al.,
2007). Despite reward being an effective management technique widely used by managers,
the reward puzzle remains unsolved.
One explanation for such inconsistencies might be the disparity between reward type
and knowledge contribution measures. Prior studies demonstrate that different reward types
have distinct influences on knowledge contribution (Taylor, 2006; Quigley et al., 2007),
while different knowledge contribution measures (self-perceived knowledge
contribution/contribution quality/contribution quantity) have different antecedents (Chang
and Chuang, 2011; Chen et al., 2012; Chiu et al., 2006; Ma and Agarwal, 2007; Wasko and
Faraj, 2005). Consequently, this paper investigates how monetary reward, the most
controversial topic in the reward puzzle, impacts knowledge contribution from a motivational
perspective as suggested by knowledge management scholars (e.g., Wang and Noe, 2010;
Wang et al., 2015; Xu and Li, 2015). Regulatory focus theory specifies that individuals have
different self-regulation systems, namely promotion and prevention focus (Higgins, 1997).
Those with promotion focus tend to take an approaching behavioral strategy, such as taking
risks, goal pursuing, and being an active player. Conversely, prevention focus leads to an
avoidance behavioral strategy, such as avoiding risks, error omission, and being a cautious
player. Based on the regulatory focus theory, this study shows how different monetary
rewards prime different individual regulatory focus, and, consequently, have both positive
and negative impacts on knowledge contribution simultaneously.
One prominent potential contribution of this study, is that it extends extant literature by
providing a motivational and integrative explanation of the inconsistent findings regarding
the reward-knowledge contribution relationship. Specifically, it theorizes and tests that
different monetary reward types arouse different self-regulatory individual foci, which, in
turn, lead to distinct consequential effects on different aspects of knowledge contribution.
These findings support our assertion that monetary rewards have other motivational functions
than simply compensating for individual knowledge losses. More importantly, the current
study adds to the knowledge management literature by introducing a new motivation theory
(i.e., regulatory focus theory) into the field, highlighting the complex motivational process
and opening a new area for future research on knowledge worker motivation and behaviors.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. The next section reviews relevant
literature on reward and knowledge contribution, as well as some motivational discussions
toward them and then develops the research hypotheses based on the regulatory focus theory.
Given the nature of the research question, a laboratory experiment is used to test the
hypothesized model. Finally, results and their implications are discussed.
2. Theoretical Development
2.1 Reward and knowledge contributions
Due to the emergence of the knowledge economy, knowledge is valued as a source of
competitive advantage for businesses (Grant, 1996; Spender and Grant, 1996). In order to
facilitate the exploitation, storage, and flow of knowledge-based resources, organizations

spend millions of dollars for implementing knowledge management systems and building
firm-sponsored virtual communities (e.g., Luo and Bu, 2016). Given all their efforts,
knowledge contribution fundamentally determines the effectiveness of the above information
systems (Wasko and Faraj, 2005; He and Wei, 2009; Durcikova and Gray, 2009; Chai and
Kim, 2012; Gressgrd, 2014; Pee and Chua, 2015).
Knowledge contribution, also known as knowledge donation in the knowledge sharing

process, refers to individuals contributing their knowledge (Wang and Noe, 2010). It occurs
in organizations, as well as virtual communities, through various mediums, such as
face-to-face communication, email, online chat, online discussion, etc. (Liu et al., 2014; Ma
and Agarwal, 2007; Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Ray et al., 2014). As Ipe (2003) states,
knowledge is often considered highly private, or even the source of individual prestige over
others. As such, individuals do not contribute without strong motivation (Lin and Huang,
2010). Consequently, knowledge contribution can never be forced, but only motivated.
Not surprisingly, scholars and practitioners pay considerable attention to how to
encourage individuals to share their knowledge. One commonly used technique is providing
rewards to those who contribute (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). The reason why rewards can
stimulate knowledge contribution roots in the social exchange theory, which depicts the
process of deciding whether to maintain or terminate a relationship based on the cost-benefit
analysis. When one believes the expected benefit exceeds the cost, he/she chooses to maintain
the relationship (Emerson, 1976; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). In this regard, knowledge
contribution is seen as part of an exchange relationship between the contributor and the
recipient (Hsu and Lin, 2008). Reward, as a form of compensation for the potential cost of
the knowledge contribution, fits perfectly with the calculation. As long as the reward
compensates expected cost, knowledge contribution is likely to happen (Murphy et al., 2003;
Kankanhalli et al., 2005).
Empirical results, however, are not all supportive to the theoretical discussion. Although
some scholars find positive relationships between reward and knowledge contribution
(Cabrera et al., 2006; Kim and Lee, 2006; Yao et al., 2007; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; He and
Wei, 2009), more studies claim failure in replicating these results (Bock et al., 2005; Kwok
and Gao, 2005; Lin, 2007). For example, Bock et al. (2005) theorize the positive impact of
reward on knowledge sharing, but their survey data shows reward negatively influences
knowledge sharing. They argue that their sample might account for this unexpected result.
More convincingly, they predict that the effect of reward might have motivational
explanations, one of which is the disparity between extrinsic reward and expected behavior.
Numerous recent follow up studies show similar results (e.g., Liu et al., 2014).
As a result, it cannot be concluded that the application of the social exchange theory in
identifying the role of reward in promoting knowledge contribution is wrong. Conversely, it
can be inferred that the exchange relationship between knowledge contributor and knowledge
recipient is more complicated than simply positive or negative. As several studies have
implied, whether the way in which reward and knowledge contribution were operationalized
in prior studies is appropriate remains to be verified (Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Chiu et al.,
2006; Chang and Chuang, 2011; Hung et al., 2011; Fller et al., 2011; Wiertz and de Ruyter,
2007; Chen et al., 2012; De Gieter and Hofmans, 2015).

2.2 Reward type and regulatory focus
Although empirical results are controversial, little accusation is made toward the
theoretical assumption that knowledge contribution depends on the benefit-cost calculation.
As previously discussed, the problem could be the disparity between extrinsic reward and
expected behavior. Wang and Noe (2010) state that although motivation has been recognized
and emphasized in the knowledge sharing literature, it is somewhat surprising that

traditional motivation theories have not been used as often. This is especially the case in
exploring the motivational effect of reward on knowledge contribution. That is, a further
investigation is needed to see whether the motivational effect of reward matches expected
knowledge contribution behavior. Hereinafter, the mechanism by which reward affects
knowledge contribution in a motivational perspective (i.e., regulatory focus perspective) is
specified. Figure 1 depicts the research model and hypotheses.

-------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
-------------------------------
Higgins (1997, 1998) developed the regulatory focus theory, which describes two
different self-regulation systems, namely promotion and prevention focus. Individuals with a
promotion focus seek an ideal self, which includes hopes, wishes, and aspirations, while
those with a prevention focus follow the ought self, which includes duties, obligations, and
responsibilities.
Both promotion and prevention focus have different antecedents. Nurturing needs,
strong ideals, and gain-non-gain situations may trigger promotion focus, whereas security
needs, strong oughts, and non-loss-loss situations may prime prevention focus (Higgins,
1997). Brockner and Higgins (2001) demonstrate that regulatory focus is in part a
dispositional characteristic, but could also be induced by situational factors, such as leaders
behaviors and the use of language and symbols. Moreover, contextual factors, including the
perceived nature of the reward system may also elicit followers regulatory focus (Crowe and
Higgins, 1997). Specifically, promotion focus may be induced by a reward system centered
on recognizing individuals for a job well done, but prevention focus may be primed by a
reward system focusing on sanctioning them for a job that is not well done (Brockner and
Higgins, 2001; Shah et al., 1998). However, their predictions of such associations are not
tested in prior studies. This study, however, examines this issue.
Reward is typically interpreted as a form of compensation for the cost of knowledge
contribution (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). Therefore, relevant studies tend to focus on
situations such as the presence/absence of reward or its quantity, overlooking the way how
reward is administrated. Accordingly, Taylor (2006) finds in an experiment study that group
financial incentives inspire more knowledge sharing than either tournament or piece-rate,
subsequently suggesting careful use of different incentive structures. Quigley et al. (2007)
draw similar conclusion in that the group-based reward is more effective in facilitating
knowledge sharing. Since knowledge contribution functions as the knowledge donation stage
of the knowledge sharing process (donation and collection), it is reasonable to infer that
different reward types could have different influences on knowledge contribution.
Rather than comparing the effectiveness of different levels of reward, this paper focuses
on reward targeting individuals. This is because individual-based reward is used most often,
especially in the information technology mediated environment (e.g., Liu et al., 2014).
Moreover, the same amount of reward could be given to individuals in different ways, namely
incremental reward and decremental reward. An incremental reward refers to the way that the
full amount of reward is administrated into two parts. When participating in a task, an
individual receives a portion of the total amount, and the rest is given when the individuals
task performance exceeds a certain standard. Conversely, a decremental reward pertains to
the way an individual is rewarded in full amount when participating in a task, but a punitive
amount will be deducted when the individuals task performance is below a certain standard.
The above two reward types are widely used both in workplaces and in virtual communities.
Assume a student who is about to take a knowledge competition. He/she was promised a
100 dollar reward for his participation. However, when reaching a correction rate of 80% or
more, he/she receives another 50 dollars. Subsequently, the student may focus on increasing
his/her correction rate as much as possible to win the extra money. Now, assume that the
student is promised a 150 dollar reward for his/her participation For an error rate of 20% or
more, he/she will lose 50 dollars. As such, the student may focus on avoiding as many errors
as possible to avoid any monetary loss.. The expected mount of reward for the knowledge
completion remains the same, but the motivational consequences of the two reward styles
differ greatly. This is also the case in workplaces, as well as online communities.
As such, different reward type may prime different regulatory focus. An incremental
reward aims at encouraging individuals better performance. When ones performance
exceeds a certain standard, an incentive amount will be added to the original amount. In fact,
the incremental reward focuses on gaining the new-high of a preset standard, and one will
not obtain the incremental part when failing, which shapes a typical gain-non-gain situation.
Individuals in this situation focus on achieving more to win the incremental amount. As
Higgins (1997, 1998) illustrates, the gain-non-gain situation is likely to prime a promotion
focus for individuals.
Conversely, a decremental reward directs individuals to avoid bad performance to the
best of their abilities. When ones performance is below a certain standard, a punitive amount
is deducted from the full amount of reward. The decremental reward focuses on preventing
the new-low of a preset standard, and one will lose the punitive part when failing, which
shapes a typical non-loss-loss situation. Individuals in this situation focus on insuring the
error omission to avoid the loss of the decremental amount. Similarly, the non-loss-loss
situation is likely to induce a prevention focus for individuals (Higgins, 1997, 1998).
Therefore, we suggest the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Incremental reward positively relates to individual promotion focus.

Hypothesis 2: Decremental reward positively relates to individual prevention focus.
2.3 Regulatory focus and different facets of knowledge contribution
Both promotion focus and prevention focus have different consequences (Higgins 1997;
Crowe and Higgins, 1997). Individuals with promotion foci are sensitive to the presence and
absence of positive outcomes (Idson et al., 2000), experiencing cheerfulness or dejection
(Brockner and Higgins, 2001), respectively. Especially people operating primarily in
promotion focus choose approach as goal attainment strategy (Crowe and Higgins, 1997;
Freitas et al., 2002). On the contrary, individuals with prevention foci are sensitive to the
absence or presence of negative outcomes (Idson and Higgins, 2000), experiencing
quiescence or agitation (Brockner and Higgins, 2001), respectively. Individuals operating
primarily in prevention focus use avoidance as goal attainment strategy (Crowe and Higgins,
1997; Freitas et al., 2002).
Several studies investigate the various consequences of the two foci. People with
promotion foci are concerned by hopes, wishes, and aspirations, thus being more likely to
exhibit high creative performance (Kark and Van Dijk, 2007), prosocial behavior (Neubert et
al., 2008), and risk taking (Hmieleski and Baron, 2008; Gino and Margolis, 2011). People
with prevention foci are concerned by duties, obligations, and responsibilities, thus being
more likely to behave carefully (Pennington and Roese, 2003), showing high in-role
performance (Neubert et al., 2008), and obeying rules and regulations (Brockner et al., 2004).
Despite the fact that promotion and prevention foci have distinct behavioral
consequences, they are two different ways of pursuing desired goals (Higgins, 1997). When
taking part in a task, individuals with promotion foci may achieve the task in a proactive way,
such as initiatively communicating with others (Li et al., 2014) and trying creative
problem-solving solutions (Li et al., 2015), while individual with prevention foci may fulfill
the task in a cautious way, such as identifying possible mistakes (Brockner et al., 2004) and
correctly rejecting attempts that might lead to failure (Frster et al., 1998).
As for knowledge contribution, evidence shows that situationally primed promotion
focus motivates individual to involve in high level knowledge sharing (Li et al., 2014).
Although the relationship between situationally primed prevention focus and knowledge
sharing is still unclear, prevention focused individuals are found to have better sense of task
fulfillment and low level deviance behavior in the workplace (Kark and Van Dijk, 2007;
Neubert et al., 2008).
On the other hand, knowledge contribution is measured differently in prior studies. The
most popular is self-reporting, because knowledge contribution is always difficult to capture.
Knowledge is the intangible asset of individuals, making it difficult to estimate the level of
the contribution. Ever since the wide use of information technology, scholars tend to use
self-rating scales to assess how frequently the respondent engaged in knowledge contribution
(Ma and Agarwal, 2007; Porter and Donthu, 2008; Hsu and Lin, 2008).
Information technology transformed communication style. Because of the wide use of

information technology and the internet, knowledge contribution occurred, to a large extent,
in intra-firm information systems and virtual communities of a variety of types (Wasko and
Faraj, 2005; Zhao et al., 2012; Fahey et al., 2007; Zheng et al., 2011). Therefore, knowledge
contribution is more appropriately measured in an objective manner. Scholars attempt to
obtain weblog data to code the quantity and quality of knowledge contributed by each web
user. This is meaningful not only because a more appropriate measurement for knowledge
contribution is developed, but also because it reminds scholars of two different facets of
knowledge contribution, which have been evidenced to have different antecedents (Wasko
and Faraj, 2005; Chiu et al., 2006; Chang and Chuang, 2011; Chen et al., 2012).
In different research settings, each measurement has its own advantages and
disadvantages. This study integrates these previous measurements of knowledge contribution
as different facets of knowledge contribution and argues that they each have different
motivational antecedents related to different types of reward. Individuals, no matter whether
in a state of promotion dominance or in a state of prevention dominance, engage in
contribution behavior in order to fulfill their tasks, but in different ways. Promotion focused
individuals actively contribute their knowledge in exchange for new ideas or new solutions,
whereas prevention focused individuals contribute when their knowledge could help others
avoid mistakes or negative outcomes, as well as for themselves. Therefore, both promotion
and prevention focused individuals evaluate themselves as knowledge contributors. However,
promotion focused individuals are engaging more actively, regardless of the quality of the
knowledge they contribute. Prevention focused individuals are more cautious in their
interactions, thus leading to a decrease in knowledge contribution quantity. The knowledge

they contribute, however, is perceived as more reliable because of their mistake-omission
orientation. These arguments yield the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Individual promotion focus positively relates to self-perceived

knowledge contribution.
Hypothesis 3b: Individual promotion focus negatively relates to knowledge contribution
quality.
Hypothesis 3c: Individual promotion focus positively relates to knowledge contribution
quantity.
Hypothesis 4a: Individual prevention focus positively relates to self-perceived

knowledge contribution.
Hypothesis 4b: Individual prevention focus positively relates to knowledge contribution
quality.
Hypothesis 4c: Individual prevention focus negatively relates to knowledge contribution
quantity.
2.4 The mediating role of regulatory focus
As a result of these approaches, this study proposes that regulatory focus mediates the
relationship between reward and knowledge contribution. Incremental and decremental
reward elicits individuals promotion and prevention focus, respectively, which, in turn, leads
to different impacts on self-perceived knowledge contribution, knowledge contribution
quality, and knowledge contribution quantity. There are direct effects from reward on the
three knowledge contribution facets based on the social exchange theory. Particularly,
negative relationships of incremental reward with knowledge contribution quality and
decremental reward with knowledge contribution quantity are expected. By providing the
incentive amount in the incremental reward, individuals concentrate on improving their
performance, thus communicating frequently on work related issues. In this case, the
knowledge they contribute may be perceived as less useful. In the other situation, when
stating the possibility of deducting a punitive amount in the decremental reward, individuals
are attentive to eliminate any mistakes that may hamper their performance. As a result, the
knowledge they contribute would be perceived as useful but, at the same time, they are more
cautious in providing suggestions unless the knowledge is helpful in avoiding mistakes.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 5a: Individual promotion focus mediates the positive relationship between
incremental reward and self-perceived knowledge contribution.
Hypothesis 5b: Individual promotion focus mediates the negative relationship between
incremental reward and knowledge contribution quality.
Hypothesis 5c: Individual promotion focus mediates the positive relationship between
incremental reward and knowledge contribution quantity.
Hypothesis 6a: Individual prevention focus mediates the positive relationship between
decremental reward and self-perceived knowledge contribution.
Hypothesis 6b: Individual prevention focus mediates the positive relationship between
decremental reward and knowledge contribution quality.
Hypothesis 6c: Individual prevention focus mediates the negative relationship between
decremental reward and knowledge contribution quantity.
3. Methods
3.1 Participants and design
One hundred and forty-five undergraduate students at a university in northwestern China
participated in this study, among which 50.7% are male and 49.3% are female. All
participants were randomly separated into 29 groups (i.e., 5 participants per group).
Participants were given a compensation of RMB 35 for participating.
In the first stage, participants were recruited by posting recruitment advertisements. Two
hundred and twenty undergraduate students registered for the study in the one-week long
recruitment period. During registration, each participant was required to fill in a questionnaire
on chronic regulatory focus (RFQ, Higgins et al., 2001) as well as their contact information.
Each participant received a 5 RMB compensation for participating in this starting survey and
was invited to attend the experiment to be hold in the subsequent week.
In the following week, all participants were contacted on their availability to take part in
the experiment. Finally, one hundred and forty-five students agreed and their available time
slots in the following month were obtained. One participant missed one item when
completing the questionnaire during the experiment and was removed from the sample.
Therefore, the final sample consisted of 144 participants.
Based on the hypothesis that different monetary reward types lead to different levels of
knowledge contribution ratings in terms of self-perception, quantity, and quality, a
between-group design with three experimental conditions (incremental reward versus
decremental reward versus non-reward) was adopted.
3.2 Task
The classic Desert Survival task (Lafferty and Eady, 1974) was adapted for this study. In
this task, participants are told that their aircraft crashed in a desert and only the five passenger
in their group are alive. Fifteen items that may help them survive are salvaged before the
plane caught fire. Their task is to rank the items based on their importance for survival. The
participants were also told it was not necessary to reach a group agreement as the final
answers were obtained individually. To help them fulfill the task, each participant received a
secret note describing three items about why they were importan for surviving. The
participants were required to keep the existence of the note from the other members. They
could choose to share, not share, or even mislead their group members. Because the rank of
each item was not mentioned, they were still unable to determine the correct answer. For
example, although one member told the other members that the cosmetic mirror was very
important because it could generate 57 million candle power in sunlight to enhance their
possibility of surviving, most participants questioned the argument and considered it hard to
believe. This small change could enhance the intensity of discussion among participants
during the experiment and, consequently, postulated a better context for knowledge
contribution.
The reasons for choosing this task are as follows. First, this classic task has been widely
used both in experimental studies on reward and individual behavior in work teams (e.g.,
Littlepage et al., 1995), and in practices such as recruitment and team work training, which
provides evidence for its rationality and consistency in investigating the effect of reward on
knowledge contribution in the current study. Second, the task requires a variety of knowledge
from various disciplines, such as geography, biology, physics, thus offering an ideal context
for knowledge related activities. Third, according to past experiences, this kind of task is high
in experimental realism and more likely to generate externally valid findings (Ferrin and
Dirks, 2003). Participants may show a high level of engagement in the task, for instance, by
arguing with members and showing strong emotional reactions.

3.3 Procedures
A week prior to the experiment, all participants chronic regulatory foci were assessed
when registering for the experiment. This was to insure that personality effects could be
controlled for on the dependent measures of the experiment. To ensure experimental realism,
one group at a time was scheduled and participants interacted with other participants instead
of confederates. After entering the lab, participants were randomly assigned to the five preset
sits around a meeting table. The organizer gave a brief introduction on the background
information and experimental procedure to the group, and handed out the experiment
materials, including an experimental procedure description, a task description, a secret note,
an answer sheet, a pencil, and a blank scratch paper. After reading through all the materials,
the group had 15 minutes for the group discussion on possible solutions. The time needed for
the group discussion was established through a pilot study with three groups in three
experimental situations, allowing them to have group discussion for as long as needed. All the
three groups reported that 15 minutes was sufficient for a thorough discussion, which is
identical to the organizers observation. When time was up, their discussion was terminated
by the organizer and they were given five minutes to write down their final answers. Then,
the organizer asked them to fulfill a questionnaire. Before leaving the lab, the organizer
provided a 30 RMB compensation and explained the purpose of the study. All participants
were asked to keep the experimental information confidential.
3.4 Measures
Different monetary reward types were achieved by experimental manipulation, and
knowledge contribution quantity was rated by independent raters. The rest of the variables
were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree
strongly). The translation-back translation procedure (Brislin, 1980) was used to create a
Chinese version of the scale. Given the experimental setting, the scale context was also
modified from organization to group work.
Monetary reward type. Different reward types are achieved by experimental
manipulations according to prior study (Shah et al., 1998). The instructions in the incremental
reward manipulation read: You will receive 20 RMB for participating. However, you will win
an extra 10 RMB if your correct rate exceeds 80% (12 or more correct answers). Conversely,
the instructions in the decremental reward manipulation state: You will receive 30 RMB for
participating. However, you will lose 10 RMB if your wrong answer rate exceeds 20% (3 or
more wrong answers). There is no such instruction in the non-reward condition.
Situational regulatory focus. Regulatory focus scale (Neubert et al., 2008) was adapted
to measure this variable. Participants was asked to rate how well each item describes his/her
own behavior in the group task. Of all 18 items, nine items measured promotion regulatory
focus and the other nine items assessed prevention regulatory focus. Sample items are I tend
to take risks during group work in order to achieve success, (promotion), and I focus my
attention on avoiding failure during the group task,(prevention). ( = .78 for promotion
and .75 for prevention)
Self-perceived knowledge contribution. Ma and Agarwal's (2007) four-item scale was
used to assess this variable. Participants rated how well each item describes his/her own
behavior during the group task. The four items are I take an active part in this task, I have
contributed knowledge to this group, I have contributed knowledge to other members that
resulted in their development of new insights, and I help other member in this group who
need help/information from other members ( = .80).
Knowledge contribution quality. Knowledge quality was assessed by six items adapted
from Chiu et al. (2006). Each participant rated the knowledge quality of the group member
on his/her right side according to his/her perception during the discussion. The six items are
the knowledge shared by this member is relevant to the task, the knowledge shared by this
member is accurate, the knowledge shared by this member is easy to understand, the
knowledge shared by this member is complete, the knowledge shared by this member is
reliable, and the knowledge shared by this member is timely ( = .86).
Knowledge contribution quantity. Knowledge contribution quantity was rated by three
experiment observers trained to align their rating standards before the experiment. The three
raters observed each groups performance and gave every group member a quantity score
based on his/her speaking frequency after the group finished discussions. For the same
participant, the consistent rating was used as the final score. In case of inconsistency between
ratings, the final score was achieved through a discussion.
Control variables. Beside demographic variables, the effects of two important variables
that could create noise were controlled for as well. One is participants chronic regulatory
focus, measured a week before the experiment began. The RFQ (Higgins et al., 2001) was
used to control for specific chronic regulatory focus so that the effects in this study were
associated with situational regulatory focus primed by different reward types. Six items (three
reversed items) capture promotion focus, with a sample item being Do you often do well at
different things that you try? Five items (four reversed items) assess prevention focus, with a
sample item being Did you get on your parents nerves often when you were growing up?
( = .74 for promotion and .76 for prevention). The other one is participants affects. The two
10-item mood scales (PANAS) developed by Watson et al. (1988) was used to measure
participants positive and negative affects, which could contribute to priming the promotion
and prevention situational regulatory focus, respectively ( = .78 for positive affect and .85
for negative affect).

3.5 Common method variance
Because some of the study variables were measured by self-reporting, the common
method variance (CMV) bias is addressed by calculating the variance inflation factor (VIF)
index for each regression equation. The results of the study were independent from CMV bias
according to VIF statistics. Two strategies are also aplied in addressing CMV bias. First,
variables were measured in two different time points: RFQ was first completed and, a week
later, the rest of the variables were measured after the experiment. Second, knowledge
contribution behavior was measured by different respondents, including self-report, team
member, and independent observer. The multi-source data collection design has been verified
to be effective in addressing the CMV problem, making it a minor issue in this study.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables in this study.
As expected, incremental reward relates positively with promotion situational regulatory
focus (SRF), which has significant relationships with self-perceived knowledge contribution
(SPKC) and knowledge contribution (KC) quantity, whereas decremental reward relates
positively with prevention SRF, which has significant relationships with SPKC and KC
quality. Overall, the correlations between variables support the stated hypotheses.
--------------------------------------
Insert Table 1, 2, 3 about here
--------------------------------------
To further capture the differences between experimental scenarios, we compared the
means and standard deviations as per Tables 2 and 3. ANOVA results revealed that the effect
of reward type on regulatory focus is significant (F (2, 144) = 13.11, p < .001), while the
influence from reward type on SPKC does not reach significance (F (2, 144) = 1.77, ns).
Specifically, incremental reward effectively primes promotion SRF (M = 5.17, SD = .60),
which is significantly higher than the scores of other two conditions (negative reward: M =
4.47, SD =.06; non-reward: M = 4.69, SD = .90). A similar pattern is found for prevention
SRF scores, to which decremental reward contributed most. Although the main effect is not
significant, the SPKC scores in the two reward conditions (incremental reward: M = 5.23, SD
= .80; decremental reward: M = 5.19, SD = 1.08) are significantly higher than the score in the
non-reward condition (M = 4.89, SD = .89).
For the relationships of reward type with KC quality and KC quantity, the effects are
significant (F (2, 144) = 6.87, p < .01; F (2,144) = 3.14, p < .05). Interestingly, the highest
scores for KC quality (M = 4.98, SD = .83) and KC quantity (M = 5.28, SD = 1.63) are
observed in the decremental and incremental reward conditions, respectively.
The above analysis implies that incremental reward effectively primes participants
promotion SRF, while decremental reward strongly stimulates participants prevention SRF.
Participants in the incremental reward condition favor KC quantity, whereas participants in

the decremental reward condition exhibit higher KC quality.
4.2 Hypothesis testing
Given that the hypotheses propose mediation effects, Baron and Kenny's (1986)
four-step regression approach is used. Tables 4 and 5 provide the multiple regression results.
----------------------------------
Insert Table 4, 5 about here
----------------------------------
Hypotheses 1 and 2 suggest the positive relationships of incremental reward with
promotion SRF and decremental reward with prevention SRF. Significant and positive effects
are found in Model 1 in Tables 4 and 5, showing that incremental reward ( = .30, p < .01)
and decremental reward ( = .23, p < .05) prime participants promotion and prevention SRF,
respectively. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported.
Hypothesis 3, proposing the effects of promotion SRF on the three knowledge
contribution variables, is also supported. Results (Models 5, 6, and 7 in Table 4) show that
promotion SRF has a significant and positive relationships with SPKC (H3a: = .29, p < .001)
and KC quantity (H3c: = .22, p < .05), but a significant and negative relationship with KC
quality (H3b: = -.21, p < .05). Similarly, Hypothesis 4 demonstrates the effects of
prevention SRF on the three variables. Results (Models 5, 6, and 7 in Table 5) support our
argument that prevention SRF significantly facilitates SPKC (H4a: = .28, p < .001) and KC
quality (H4b: = .24, p < .01), but undermines KC quantity (H4c: = -.22, p < .05).
Therefore, Hypotheses 3 and 4 are both supported.
Hypotheses 5 and 6 represent the mediation effects of promotion and prevention SRF in
the reward type and KC relationships. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a mediation
effect is confirmed if the following four conditions are met: (1) the independent variable is
related to the mediator, (2) the independent variable is related to dependent variable, (3) the
mediator is related to the dependent variable, and (4) the strength of the relationship between
independent variable and the dependent variable is reduced (partial mediation) or eliminated
(full mediation) when the mediator is added.
Models 1, 2, 5, and 8 in Table 4, which represent the above four steps, test the mediation
effect of promotion SRF in the incremental reward-SPKC relationship. Results show that
(1) incremental reward is positively related to promotion SRF ( = .30, p < .01), (2)
incremental reward is positively related to SPKC ( = .21, p < .01), (3) promotion SRF is
positively related to SPKC ( = .29, p < .001), and the impact of incremental reward on
SPKC is eliminated after adding promotion SRF into the second equation ( = .12, ns),
suggesting that the effect of incremental reward on SPKC is fully mediated by promotion
SRF. A four-step regression analysis for each of the hypothesized mediation effects of
prevention focus was performed. Results are listed in Table 5. Except for Hypotheses 5a and
6b, the rest of the hypotheses regarding the mediation effects are not supported.
5. Discussion
Drawing on regulatory focus theory, this study investigated how two different types of
reward, namely incremental reward and decremental reward, influenced self-perceived
knowledge contribution, knowledge contribution quality, and knowledge contribution
quantity. Results from a laboratory experiment showed that incremental reward could elicit
individual promotion foci, which, in turn, facilitated self-perceived knowledge contribution
and knowledge contribution quantity, but negatively affected knowledge contribution quality.
In contrast, decremental reward could prime individual prevention foci, which, in turn,
facilitated self-perceived knowledge contribution and knowledge contribution quality, but
negatively impacted knowledge contribution quantity.
5.1 Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the extant literature in at least three ways. First, this study
presented a novel perspective of reward on knowledge contribution behavior. Although

scholars believe that reward as a form of compensation of individual knowledge loss
enhances knowledge contribution (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2006; Kim and Lee, 2006; Lin, 2007),
inconsistent findings do exist (e.g., Chiu et al., 2006; Kwok and Gao, 2005). One explanation
for such inconsistencies is different effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It has been
theoretically and empirically tested that reward facilitates ones extrinsic motivation to
stimulate knowledge contribution behavior, but undermines focal intrinsic motivation, which
leads to antisocial behaviors (Lin and Lo, 2015). However, due to its inadequate power in
uncovering hidden mechanisms, scholars called for a more specific examination (Wang and
Noe, 2010). This study conducted such an investigation, by pointing out that reward is not
just a compensation in the social exchange theory perspective, but also a motivational
stimulus in the regulatory focus theory perspective. Moreover, different reward types prime
different regulatory foci, thus leading to distinct knowledge contribution consequences in
terms of self-perception, quantity, and quality.
Second, this study revealed that inconsistency in prior research regarding the effect of
reward on knowledge contribution behavior is possibly a result of neglecting reward types
and knowledge contribution measures. As such, it conceptualized reward into two different
types and integrated different knowledge contribution facets from prior studies into a model,
finding that the mismatch between reward type and the knowledge contribution measure may
account for such inconsistency. For example, when a virtual community provides incremental
reward to its members, its members focus on donating more ideas, suggestions, and
comments, regardless of the quality of knowledge they contributed. Once knowledge
contribution is measured quantitatively, the relationship is probably positive, as opposed to

when assessing knowledge contribution through a qualitative perspective, such as archival
data analysis and weblog analysis. Our study sheds light on the reward puzzle by providing
a more convincing explanation.
Third, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to introduce regulatory focus
theory in investigating issues on knowledge contribution. Liang et al. (2013) first applied
regulatory focus theory in studying the determinants of IT compliance behavior. This paper
extends their approach into another important field of information system research. For many
centuries, the hedonic principle continues to be the dominant motivation theory used to depict
individual psychological motivations. Higgins (1997) argued, the problem with the hedonic
principle is not that it is wrong but that psychologists have relied on it too heavily as an
explanation for motivation. The situation Higgins described did not improve in the
knowledge contribution research field, despite knowledge contribution being more important
for both academic research and practice in information management over the past decade.
Regulatory focus theory is one of the most significant breakthroughs on motivation theories
after the hedonic principle, and it has been widely applied in research of various disciplines
such as marketing (e.g., Wang and Lee, 2006; Zhao and Pechmann, 2007), organizational
behavior (Stam et al., 2010; Wu et al. 2008), strategy (Wallace et al., 2010). Introducing
regulatory focus theory into knowledge contribution research not only advances existing
research, but also provides a promising research direction for future studies.
5.2 Managerial implications
Our study provided important practical implications. As most businesses have
established various information systems, such as knowledge management systems and

firm-hosted virtual communities, to exploit knowledge resources within its scope, knowledge
contribution determines the fate of these information systems to a large extent. However,
managers should remain cautious when using reward to motivate contribution behavior. Our
results demonstrated that reward does not simply work in a more is better manner. Instead,
for different purposes, different reward type needs to be properly designed. When
participating in tasks such as brainstorming and creative idea generating, an incremental
reward undoubtedly functions better. Likewise, when fulfilling a task such as error
investigation or quality inspection, decremental reward is obviously superior.
According to the regulatory focus theory, both promotion and prevention focus have
situational inducers. Prior research uncovered important contextual factors, such as leadership
(Neubert et al., 2008; Kark and Van Dijk, 2007), feedback (Li et al., 2014), and task type
(Van Dijk and Kluger, 2011). Reward is another antecedent of regulatory focus in the current
study. As a reward system is a crucial part in almost all knowledge management virtual
communities, it is important how firms design their virtual communities. Different reward
policies, as well as other community management disciplines, might prime different
regulatory foci and, consequently, lead to diverse member behaviors. Thus, community
managers need to be aware of committing the disparity mistake. This study suggests
community managers apply promotion- and prevention-focused policies in different
community tasks, and even combine them to obtain the best results.
5.3 Limitations and future research
The present study has several limitations. First, an experimental design, although
enhances internal validity, always leads to low external validity. Moreover, this study
recruited one sample of university students at one location instead of business workers to
eliminate potential noise from the workplace, thus questioning result generalizability. Future
research can adopt a field study design with sample from business firms to better answer the
research question.
Second, this study separated participants into groups, which might raise the possibility
of group level influence. However, knowledge contribution behavior is most effectively
operationalized in this way, because it always goes along with interpersonal interactions.
Moreover, similar operations have been used extensively in prior studies (Taylor, 2006;
Quigley et al., 2007). To assess the potential cross-level effect on the results, hypotheses were
retested using multilevel regression analysis and the results were robust. Still, future study
can further investigate focal relationships using a better experiment design or a field study
approach.
Third, although the experimental procedure was carefully designed, unconsidered or
even uncontrollable factors may still exist. For example, as all of the participants were
Chinese, cultural influences could not be excluded from the current study. In this regard,
future research in other cultures is still called for to help validate the application of our
findings.
REFERENCES
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol.
9, No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Blatt, R., Christianson, M.K., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Rosenthal, M.M. (2006), A sensemaking
lens on reliability, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 897-917.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), Behavioral intention formation
in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), Translation and content analysis of oral and written material, in
Triandis, H.C. and Berry, J.W. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 2,
Allyn & Bacon, Boston, pp. 349-444.
Brockner, J. and Higgins, E.T. (2001), Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study
of emotions at work, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86,
No. 1, pp. 35-66.
Brockner, J., Higgins, E.T. and Low, M.B. (2004), Regulatory focus theory and the
entrepreneurial process, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Cabrera, ., Collins, W.C. and Salgado, J.F. (2006), Determinants of individual engagement
in knowledge sharing, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17,
No. 2, pp. 245-264.
Chai, S. and Kim, M. (2012), A socio-technical approach to knowledge contribution
behavior: an empirical investigation of social networking sites users, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 118-126.
Chang, H.H. and Chuang, S.S. (2011), Social capital and individual motivations on
knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator, Information Management,
Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 9-18.
Chen, L., Marsden, J.R. and Zhang, Z. (2012), Theory and analysis of company-sponsored
value co-creation, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.
141-172.
Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006), Understanding knowledge sharing in
virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 1872-1888.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review, Journal of Management, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Crowe, E. and Higgins, E.T. (1997), Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion
and prevention in decision-making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 117-132.
Van Dijk, D. and Kluger, A.N. (2011), Task type as a moderator of positive/negative
feedback effects on motivation and performance: A regulatory focus perspective,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1084-1105.
Durcikova, A. and Gray, P. (2009), How knowledge validation processes affect knowledge
contribution, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 81-108.
Emerson, R.M. (1976), Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology. 2, pp.
335-362.
Fahey, R., Vasconcelos, A.C. and Ellis, D. (2007), The impact of rewards within
communities of practice: A study of the SAP online global community, Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 186-198.
Ferrin, D.L. and Dirks, K.T. (2003), The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust:
Mediating processes and differential effects, Organization Science, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.
18-31.
Frster, J., Higgins, E.T. and Idson, L.C. (1998), Approach and avoidance strength during
goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the goal looms larger effect, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 5, pp. 1115-1131.
Freitas, A.L., Liberman, N., Salovey, P. and Higgins, E.T. (2002), When to begin?
Regulatory focus and initiating goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 121-130.
Fller, J., Hutter, K. and Faullant, R. (2011) Why co-creation experience matters? Creative
experience and its impact on the quantity and quality of creative contributions, R&D
Management, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 259-273.
De Gieter, S. and Hofmans, J. (2015), How reward satisfaction affects employees turnover
intentions and performance: An individual differences approach, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 200-216.
Gino, F. and Margolis, J.D. (2011), Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and
risk preferences influence (un) ethical behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 145-156.
Grant, R.M. (1996), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 109-122.
Gressgrd, L.J. (2014), Knowledge exchange systems usage: The importance of content
contribution and application in distributed environments, Journal of Knowledge
Hau, Y.S., Kim, B., Lee, H. and Kim, Y.G. (2013), The effects of individual motivations
and social capital on employees tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 356-366.
He, W. and Wei, K.K. (2009), What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation
of knowledge-contribution and-seeking beliefs, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 46, No.
4, pp. 826-838.
Higgins, E.T. (1997), Beyond pleasure and pain, American Psychologist, Vol. 52, No. 12,
pp. 1280-1300.
Higgins, E.T., Friedman, R.S., Harlow, R.E., Idson, L.C., Ayduk, O.N. and Taylor, A. (2001),
Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus
prevention pride, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Hmieleski, K.M. and Baron, R.A. (2008), Regulatory focus and new venture performance:
A study of entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus
uncertainty, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 285-299.
Hsu, C.L. and Lin, J.C.C. (2008), Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology
acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation, Information
Hung, S.Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H.M. and Lin, W.M. (2011), The influence of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation on individuals knowledge sharing behavior, International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 69, No. 6, pp. 415-427.
Hwang, E.H., Singh, P.V. and Argote, L. (2015), Knowledge sharing in online communities:
Learning to cross geographic and hierarchical boundaries, Organization Science, Vol.
26, No. 6, pp. 1593-1611.
Idson, L.C. and Higgins, E.T. (2000), How current feedback and chronic effectiveness
influence motivation: Everything to gain versus everything to lose, European Journal

of Social Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 583-592.
Idson, L.C., Liberman, N. and Higgins, E.T. (2000), Distinguishing gains from nonlosses
and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity, Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 252-274.
Ipe, M. (2003), Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework, Human
Resources Development Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 337-359.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. and Wei, K. (2005), Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.
113-143.
Kark, R. and Van, Dijk D. (2007), Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the
self-regulatory focus in leadership processes, American Management Review, Vol. 32,
No. 2, pp. 500-528.
Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2006), The impact of organizational context and information
technology on employee knowledgesharing capabilities, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 370-385.
Kwok, S.H. and Gao, S. (2005), Attitude towards knowledge sharing behavior, Journal of
Computer Information Systems, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 45-51.
Lafferty, J. and Eady, P. (1974), The desert survival problem, Experimental Learning
Methods, Plymouth MI.
Li, G., Liu, H., Shang, Y. and Xi, Y. (2014), Leader feedback and knowledge sharing: A
regulatory focus theory perspective, Journal of Management Organization, Vol. 20, No.
06, pp. 749-763.
Li, L., Li, G., Shang, Y. and Xi, Y. (2015), When does perceived leader regulatory-focused
modeling lead to subordinate creativity? The moderating role of job complexity,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 26, No. 22, pp. 2872-2887.
Liang, H., Xue, Y. and Wu, L. (2013), Ensuring employees IT compliance: Carrot or
stick?, Information Systems Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 279-294.
Lin, H.F. (2007), Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge
sharing intentions, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 135-149.
Lin, S.W. and Lo, L.Y.S. (2015), Mechanisms to motivate knowledge sharing: integrating
the reward systems and social network perspectives, Journal of Knowledge
Lin, T. and Huang, C.C. (2010), Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of
social exchange and social cognitive on project teams, Information Management, Vol.
47, No. 3, pp. 188-196.
Littlepage, G.E., Schmidt, G.W., Whisler, E.W. and Frost, A.G. (1995), An
input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 877-889.
Liu, H., Zhang, J., Liu, R. and Li, G. (2014), A model for consumer knowledge contribution
behavior: The roles of host firm management practices, technology effectiveness, and
social capital, Information Technology Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 255-270.
Luo, Y. and Bu, J. (2016), How valuable is information and communication technology? A
study of emerging economy enterprises, Journal of World Business, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.
200-211.
Ma, M. and Agarwal, R. (2007), Through a glass darkly: Information technology design,
identity verification, and knowledge contribution in online communities, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 42-67.
Murphy, S.M., Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C. and Erdogan, B. (2003), Understanding social
loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships, Human Relations,
Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 61-84.
Neubert, M.J., Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., Chonko, L.B. and Roberts, J.A. (2008),
Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant
leadership on employee behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, No. 6, p.
1220.
Pee, L.G. and Chua, A.Y.K. (2015), Duration, frequency, and diversity of knowledge
Contribution: Differential effects of job characteristics, Information Management, in
press.
Pennington, G.L. and Roese, N.J. (2003), Regulatory focus and temporal distance, Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 563-576.
Porter, C.E. and Donthu, N. (2008), Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtual
communities, Management Science, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 113-128.
Quigley, N.R., Tesluk, P.E., Locke, E.A. and Bartol, K.M. (2007), A multilevel
investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and
performance, Organization Science, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Ray, S., Kim, S.S. and Morris, J.G. (2014), The central role of engagement in online
communities, Information Systems Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 528-546.
Shah, J., Higgins, T. and Friedman, R.S. (1998), Performance incentives and means: how
regulatory focus influences goal attainment, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 285-293.
Siemsen, E., Balasubramanian, S. and Roth, A.V. (2007), Incentives that induce task-related
effort, helping, and knowledge sharing in workgroups, Management Science, Vol. 53,
No. 10, pp. 1533-1550.
Spender, J. and Grant, R.M. (1996), Knowledge and the firm: Overview, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. S2, pp. 5-9.
Stam, D.A., Van Knippenberg, D. and Wisse, B. (2010), The role of regulatory fit in
visionary leadership, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 499-518.
Taylor, E.Z. (2006), The effect of incentives on knowledge sharing in computer-mediated
communication: An experimental investigation, Journal of Inform Systems, Vol. 20, No.
1, pp. 103-116.
Wallace, J.C., Little, L.M., Hill, A.D. and Ridge, J.W. (2010), CEO regulatory foci,
environmental dynamism, and small firm performance, Journal of Small Business
Wang, J. and Lee, A.Y. (2006), The role of regulatory focus in preference construction,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 28-38.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010), Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
research, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Wang, S., Noe, R.A. and Wang, Z.M. (2014), Motivating knowledge sharing in knowledge
management systems: A quasi-field experiment, Journal of Management, Vol. 40, No.

4, pp. 978-1009.
Wang, X., Clay, P.F. and Forsgren, N. (2015), Encouraging knowledge contribution in IT
support: Social context and the differential effects of motivation type, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 315-333.
Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2005), Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No.
1, pp. 35-57.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988), Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 1063-1070.
Wiertz, C. and De Ruyter, K. (2007), Beyond the call of duty: Why customers contribute to
firm-hosted commercial online communities, Organization Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.
347-376.
Wu, C., McMullen, J.S., Neubert, M.J. and Yi, X. (2008), The influence of leader regulatory
focus on employee creativity, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.
587-602.
Xu, B. and Li, D. (2015), An empirical study of the motivations for content contribution and
community participation in Wikipedia, Information Management, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.
275-286.
Yao, L.J., Kam, T.H.Y. and Chan, S.H. (2007), Knowledge sharing in Asian public
administration sector: the case of Hong Kong, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 20. No. 1, pp. 51-69.
Yu, C.P. and Chu, T.H. (2007), Exploring knowledge contribution from an OCB
perspective, Information Management, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 321-331.
Zhao, G. and Pechmann, C. (2007), The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents response
to antismoking advertising campaigns, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44, No. 4,
pp. 671-687.
Zhao, L., Lu, Y. and Gupta, S. (2012), Disclosure intention of location-related information
in location-based social network services, International Journal of Electronic
Communication, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 53-90.
Zheng, H., Li, D. and Hou, W. (2011), Task design, motivation, and participation in
crowdsourcing contests, International Journal of Electronic Communication, Vol. 15,
No. 4, pp. 57-88.
Author biographies
Haixin Liu is an Assistant Professor in the School of Economics and Management at Beijing
Jiaotong University. She received her PhD in Management Science from Xian Jiaotong
University. Her research interests include individual motivation, knowledge
management, and social commerce.
Guiquan Li is an Assistant Professor in the Business School at Nankai University. He

received his PhD in Management from Xian Jiaotong University. His research interests
include leadership, motivation, and knowledge management.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Gender 1.49 .50 1
2. PA 4.85 .75 .29** 1
3. NA 2.67 .90 .01 -.01 1
4. RFQ promotion 4.50 .90 .04 .21* -.20* 1
5. RFQ prevention 4.53 1.08 .00 .10 -.20* .24** 1
6. Incremental reward .35 .48 -.31** -.04 -.07 -.03 .00 1
7. Decremental reward .35 .48 .21** .04 .22** .02 .01 -.53** 1
8. Promotion SRF 4.78 .76 -.05 .39** -.09 .11 .08 .38** -.30** 1
9. Prevention SRF 4.47 .78 .20* .33** -.03 .04 .08 -.24** .29** .14 1
10. SPKC 5.11 .94 .20* .61** -.17* .32** .16 .09 .06 .48** .33** 1
11. KC quality 4.64 .84 .10 .26** .03 -.01 -.14 -.11 .29** -.07 .23** .24** 1
12. KC quantity 4.75 1.88 .04 .30** -.04 .19* -.03 .21* -.12 .30** -.21* .28** -.11 1
* **
p < .05, p < .01
Table 2 Comparison of Regulatory Focus between Experimental Scenarios

Promotion SRF Prevention SRF
Incremental Decremental Decremental reward
Non-reward Incremental reward Non-reward
reward reward
M 5.17 4.47 4.69 4.22 4.78 4.41
SD .60 .60 .90 .63 .78 .84
Notes. SRF stands for situational regulatory focus.
Table 3 Comparison of Knowledge Contribution Behavior between Experimental Scenarios

SPKC KC Quality KC Quantity
Incremental Decremental Non- Incremental Decremental Non- Incremental Decremental Non-
reward reward reward reward reward reward reward reward reward
M 5.23 5.19 4.89 4.51 4.98 4.41 5.28 4.44 4.50
SD .80 1.08 .89 .67 .83 .92 1.63 2.06 1.85
Notes. SPKC stands for self-perceived knowledge contribution; KC stands for knowledge contribution
Table 4 Regression Results for Mediation (Promotion Focus)
Step 1: IV
Step 2: IV DV Step 3: Med DV Step 4: IV/Med DV
Med
Variables SRF KC KC KC KC KC KC
SPKC SPKC SPKC
Promotion Quality Quantity Quality Quantity Quality Quantity
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10
Controls
Gender -.05 .07 -.03 .04 .09 -.01 -.00 .09 -.03 .04
*** *** ** ** *** *** * *** ***
PA .41 .55 .28 .26 .43 .36 .18 .43 .34 .21*
RFQ
.03 .20** -.07 .14 .19** -.06 .13 .19** -.07 .14
Promotion
Decremental
-.15 .13 .32** -.03 .18* .30** -.01
reward
Independent Variable
Incremental
.30** .21** .06 .22* .12 .10 .18
reward
Mediator
SRF
.29*** -.21* .22* .30*** -.15 .14
Promotion
F 13.34*** 22.11*** 5.17*** 5.07*** 32.66*** 4.30** 5.90*** 23.48*** 4.76*** 4.64***
R2 .33 .45 .16 .16 .49 .11 .15 .51 .17 .17
Adjusted R2 .30 .43 .13 .13 .47 .09 .12 .49 .14 .13
1.05- 1.05- 1.05- 1.05- 1.05- 1.05-
VIF Range 1.05-1.48 1.05-1.48 1.05-1.37 1.05-1.62
1.48 1.48 1.37 1.37 1.62 1.62
Notes. SRF stands for situational regulatory focus; SPKC stands for self-perceived knowledge contribution; KC stands for knowledge
contribution.
*
p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
Table 5 Regression Results for Mediation (Prevention Focus)
Step 1: IV
Step 2: IV DV Step 3: Med DV Step 4: IV/Med DV
Med
SRF KC KC KC KC KC KC
Variables SPKC SPKC SPKC
Prevention Quality Quantity Quality Quantity Quality Quantity
Model
Model 1 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10
2
Controls
Gender .12 .24** .05 .12 .15 .05 .09 .20* .03 .13
NA -.07 -.16 -.07 -.03 -.14 .01 -.05 -.14 -.06 -.04
RFQ
.06 .13 -.15 -.03 .11 -.16 -.02 .11 -.17* -.02
Prevention
Incremental
-.08 .25* .08 .23* .27** .09 .22*
reward
Independent Variable
Decremental
.23* .18 .34** -.02 .10 .30** .03
reward
Mediator
SRF
.28*** .24** -.22** .31*** .18* -.19*
Prevention
F 3.66** 4.12** 3.59** 1.66 6.78*** 3.11* 1.92 6.17*** 3.78** 2.23*
R2 .12 .13 .12 .06 .16 .08 .05 .21 .14 .09
Adjusted R2 .09 .10 .08 .02 .14 .06 .03 .18 .11 .05
1.05- 1.05- 1.04- 1.04- 1.05- 1.05-
VIF Range 1.05-1.48 1.05-1.48 1.04-1.05 1.05-1.53
1.48 1.48 1.05 1.05 1.53 1.53
Notes. SRF stands for situational regulatory focus; SPKC stands for self-perceived knowledge contribution; KC stands for knowledge
contribution.
*
p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p< .001
256x159mm (300 x 300 DPI)

Castiga Sau Nu Pierde, Efectele Recompensarii Monetare Asupra Motivatiei Si Contributia Cunostintelor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Castiga Sau Nu Pierde, Efectele Recompensarii Monetare Asupra Motivatiei Si Contributia Cunostintelor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Knowledge Management

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Hitherto, organizations are even more committed to exploring and exploiting

knowledge-based resources. One crucial aspect of such attempts is encouraging employees to

contribute their knowledge through various means, including face-to-face communication,

realize the pivotal role of individual knowledge in improving organizational performance,

individual knowledge is typically considered highly private, a source of individual prestige

organization at the cost of individual advantage (Yu and Chu, 2007).

In most circumstances, a reward is used as a compensation for such cost, according to

the reward puzzle remains unsolved.

while different knowledge contribution measures (self-perceived knowledge

contribution/contribution quality/contribution quantity) have different antecedents (Chang

and negative impacts on knowledge contribution simultaneously.

providing a motivational and integrative explanation of the inconsistent findings regarding

the reward-knowledge contribution relationship. Specifically, it theorizes and tests that

turn, lead to distinct consequential effects on different aspects of knowledge contribution.

literature on reward and knowledge contribution, as well as some motivational discussions

hypothesized model. Finally, results and their implications are discussed.

2.1 Reward and knowledge contributions

Due to the emergence of the knowledge economy, knowledge is valued as a source of

facilitate the exploitation, storage, and flow of knowledge-based resources, organizations

knowledge contribution fundamentally determines the effectiveness of the above information

Kim, 2012; Gressgrd, 2014; Pee and Chua, 2015).

Knowledge contribution, also known as knowledge donation in the knowledge sharing

in organizations, as well as virtual communities, through various mediums, such as

Not surprisingly, scholars and practitioners pay considerable attention to how to

process of deciding whether to maintain or terminate a relationship based on the cost-benefit

Kankanhalli et al., 2005).

identifying the role of reward in promoting knowledge contribution is wrong. Conversely, it

2007; Chen et al., 2012; De Gieter and Hofmans, 2015).

theoretical assumption that knowledge contribution depends on the benefit-cost calculation.

and emphasized in the knowledge sharing literature, it is somewhat surprising that

knowledge contribution behavior. Hereinafter, the mechanism by which reward affects

knowledge contribution in a motivational perspective (i.e., regulatory focus perspective) is

specified. Figure 1 depicts the research model and hypotheses.

tested in prior studies. This study, however, examines this issue.

Reward is typically interpreted as a form of compensation for the cost of knowledge

different reward types could have different influences on knowledge contribution.

task performance exceeds a certain standard. Conversely, a decremental reward pertains to

reward aims at encouraging individuals better performance. When ones performance

focus for individuals.

Conversely, a decremental reward directs individuals to avoid bad performance to the

Therefore, we suggest the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Incremental reward positively relates to individual promotion focus.

2.3 Regulatory focus and different facets of knowledge contribution

absence of positive outcomes (Idson et al., 2000), experiencing cheerfulness or dejection

(Brockner and Higgins, 2001), respectively. Especially people operating primarily in

absence or presence of negative outcomes (Idson and Higgins, 2000), experiencing

quiescence or agitation (Brockner and Higgins, 2001), respectively. Individuals operating

As for knowledge contribution, evidence shows that situationally primed promotion

Neubert et al., 2008).

Information technology transformed communication style. Because of the wide use of

contribution is more appropriately measured in an objective manner. Scholars attempt to

disadvantages. This study integrates these previous measurements of knowledge contribution

motivational antecedents related to different types of reward. Individuals, no matter whether

in a state of promotion dominance or in a state of prevention dominance, engage in

and prevention focused individuals evaluate themselves as knowledge contributors. However,

interactions, thus leading to a decrease in knowledge contribution quantity. The knowledge

they contribute, however, is perceived as more reliable because of their mistake-omission

orientation. These arguments yield the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: Individual promotion focus positively relates to self-perceived

Hypothesis 4a: Individual prevention focus positively relates to self-perceived

2.4 The mediating role of regulatory focus

relationship between reward and knowledge contribution. Incremental and decremental