ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Continuous idea contribution in open innovation communities: The role of verbal persuasion from peers.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivating continuous idea contributions from members is especially challenging for open innovation communities (OIC). Scholars have thus explored a range of incentives, among which peer feedback has received much attention. However, existing research on peer feedback tends to focus on the structural features, ignoring the richness of the text. To fill this research gap, this study investigates the influence of feedback language use from peers, including emotional support and constructive feedback, on individuals' continuous idea contributions, based on the creative self-efficacy theory. The results show that emotional support, especially emotional approval, positively affects members' continuous contributions, and that the effect is stronger when the provider is of a higher status. However, individualized consideration does not seem to work. In addition, in terms of the effect of constructive feedback, we also find support from cognitive stimulation, while intellectual stimulation exerts an effect only when the provider's status is high. Overall, these findings extend the current research on peer feedback and offer practical guidelines to the open innovation community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.