| Literature DB >> 35783704 |
Abstract
Although research has begun to explore the influence patterns of sense of virtual community, there is limited research on how sense of virtual community affects educational virtual community user engagement. Based on the educational virtual community context, this study constructs a theoretical model with moderation and mediation to explore the mediation mechanism of sense of virtual community affecting user engagement and its boundary conditions. In this study, the data collected from 377 users are analyzed by structural equation modeling. The research findings found that not only effective commitment has a mediating role between sense of virtual community and user engagement, but also perceived support has a moderating role in the process of effective commitment's influence on user engagement. This study examines the practical effects of sense of virtual community in the context of educational virtual community use and reveals the mechanism of the effect of sense of virtual community on user engagement.Entities:
Keywords: affective commitment; educational virtual community; perceived support; sense of virtual community; user engagement
Year: 2022 PMID: 35783704 PMCID: PMC9240649 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.907606
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Theoretical model.
Descriptive statistical analysis.
| Variables | Item | Frequency | % | Cumulative% |
| Gender | Male | 186 | 49.3 | 49.0 |
| Female | 191 | 50.7 | 100.0 | |
| Age (year) | 19 or less | 11 | 2.9 | 2.9 |
| 20∼29 | 165 | 43.8 | 46.7 | |
| 30∼39 | 147 | 39.0 | 85.7 | |
| 40∼49 | 41 | 10.9 | 96.6 | |
| 50 or above | 13 | 3.4 | 100.0 | |
| Marriage | Married | 227 | 60.2 | 60.2 |
| Unmarried | 147 | 39.0 | 99.2 | |
| Divorce | 3 | 0.8 | 100.0 | |
| Professions | Student | 60 | 15.9 | 15.9 |
| Freelance | 25 | 6.6 | 22.5 | |
| Executive in private enterprise | 115 | 30.5 | 53.1 | |
| Civil servant | 155 | 41.1 | 94.2 | |
| Clerk in state owned enterprise | 18 | 4.8 | 98.9 | |
| Executive in private enterprise | 4 | 1.1 | 100.0 | |
| Education | College and blow | 53 | 14.1 | 14.1 |
| Undergraduate | 288 | 76.4 | 90.5 | |
| Master’s degree and above | 36 | 9.5 | 100.0 | |
| Consumption (RMB) | Below 2,000 | 36 | 9.5 | 9.5 |
| 2,000∼3,999 | 65 | 17.2 | 26.8 | |
| 4,000∼5,999 | 91 | 24.1 | 50.9 | |
| 6,000 or more | 185 | 49.1 | 100.0 | |
| Continuous use time (year) | Less than 1 | 62 | 16.4 | 16.4 |
| 1∼2 | 162 | 43.0 | 59.4 | |
| Over 3 | 153 | 40.6 | 100.0 |
Variables and measurement item.
| Variables | Items | References |
| Membership | MEM1. I feel as if I belong to the LiZhi Microclass. | |
| MEM2. I sense my membership in the LiZhi Microclass. | ||
| MEM3. I feel as if the LiZhi Microclass members are my close friends. | ||
| MEM4. I like the members in the LiZhi Microclass. | ||
| Influence | INF1. I am well-known as a member of the LiZhi Microclass. | |
| INF2. I feel that I control other members in the LiZhi Microclass. | ||
| INF3. My postings in the LiZhi Microclass are often reviewed by other members. | ||
| INF4. Replies to my postings appear in the LiZhi Microclass frequently. | ||
| Immersion | IMM1. I spend much time online in the LiZhi Microclass. | |
| IMM2. I spend more time than I expected navigating the LiZhi Microclass. | ||
| IMM3. I feel as if I am addicted to the LiZhi Microclass. | ||
| IMM4. I have missed classes or work because of the LiZhi Microclass activities. | ||
| Affective commitment | AC1. When I use LiZhi Microclass, I immerse myself unconsciously. |
|
| AC2. I have a deep affection for the LiZhi Microclass. | ||
| AC3. LiZhi Microclass gives me a strong sense of belonging. | ||
| AC4. The LiZhi Microclass is very attractive to me. | ||
| Perceived support | PS1. The LiZhi Microclass strongly considers my needs and wants. |
|
| PS2. Help is available from LiZhi Microclass when I have a problem. | ||
| PS3. The LiZhi Microclass tries to provide the best service possible. | ||
| PS4. The LiZhi Microclass is willing to help me when I have a special request. | ||
| User engagement | CE1. Whenever I have to use educational virtual community, I usually use LiZhi Microclass. | |
| CE2. I am passionate about the LiZhi Microclass. | ||
| CE3. I love the LiZhi Microclass. | ||
| CE4. I am excited when using the LiZhi Microclass. |
Confirmatory factor analysis.
| Variables | Items | Factor loadings | Cronbach’s alpha | CR | AVE |
| Membership | MEM1 | 0.677 | 0.866 | 0.865 | 0.618 |
| MEM2 | 0.784 | ||||
| MEM3 | 0.841 | ||||
| MEM4 | 0.832 | ||||
| Influence | INF1 | 0.872 | 0.852 | 0.860 | 0.608 |
| INF2 | 0.741 | ||||
| INF3 | 0.807 | ||||
| INF4 | 0.686 | ||||
| Immersion | IMM1 | 0.697 | 0.814 | 0.818 | 0.531 |
| IMM2 | 0.616 | ||||
| IMM3 | 0.790 | ||||
| IMM4 | 0.797 | ||||
| Affective commitment | AC1 | 0.651 | 0.852 | 0.853 | 0.596 |
| AC2 | 0.716 | ||||
| AC3 | 0.843 | ||||
| AV4 | 0.858 | ||||
| user engagement | UE1 | 0.614 | 0.858 | 0.865 | 0.625 |
| UE2 | 0.633 | ||||
| UE3 | 0.926 | ||||
| UE4 | 0.931 | ||||
| Perceived support | PS1 | 0.812 | 0.854 | 0.854 | 0.596 |
| PS2 | 0.841 | ||||
| PS3 | 0.751 | ||||
| PS4 | 0.674 |
Discriminant validity for the measurement model.
| Variables | Mean | SD | AVE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 1. Membership | 4.607 | 1.197 | 0.618 | 0.786 | |||||
| 2. Influence | 3.889 | 1.210 | 0.608 | 0.437 | 0.780 | ||||
| 3. Immersion | 4.221 | 1.073 | 0.531 | 0.523 | 0.538 | 0.729 | |||
| 4. Affective commitment | 4.932 | 1.126 | 0.596 | 0.533 | 0.526 | 0.585 | 0.772 | ||
| 5. User engagement | 5.529 | 0.871 | 0.625 | 0.307 | 0.226 | 0.261 | 0.446 | 0.791 | |
| 6. Perceived support | 4.405 | 1.181 | 0.596 | 0.357 | 0.271 | 0.516 | 0.471 | 0.219 | 0.772 |
The diagonal value is the square root of AVE.
Model fit criteria and the test results.
| Model fit | Criteria | Model fit of research model |
| χ2 | The small the better | 201.793 |
| DF | The large the better | 163 |
| Normed Chi-square(χ2/DF) | 1 < χ2/DF < 3 | 1.248 |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.025 |
| SRMR | <0.08 | 0.023 |
| TLI (NNFI) | >0.9 | 0.989 |
| CFI | >0.9 | 0.991 |
| GFI | >0.9 | 0.955 |
| AGFI | >0.9 | 0.937 |
Regression coefficient.
| Hypothesis | Unstd. coefficient | S.E. | Std. coefficient |
| |
| Hypothesis 1a: MEM->AC | 0.247 | 0.058 | 4.232 | 0.269 |
|
| Hypothesis 1b: INF->AC | 0.206 | 0.055 | 3.750 | 0.237 |
|
| Hypothesis 1c: IMM->AC | 0.299 | 0.068 | 4.386 | 0.314 |
|
| Hypothesis 2: AC->UE | 0.339 | 0.050 | 6.768 | 0.449 |
|
***P-value < 0.001; MEM, membership; INF, influence; IMM, immersion; AC, affective commitment; UE, user engagement.
The analysis of indirect effect.
| Indirect effect | Path coefficient | Bootstrap 1,000 times | |||
| Bias-corrected 95% | Percentile 95% | ||||
| Lower bound | Upper bound | Lower bound | Upper bound | ||
| MEM→AC→UE | 0.084 | 0.032 | 0.175 | 0.032 | 0.174 |
| INF→AC→UE | 0.070 | 0.026 | 0.122 | 0.025 | 0.119 |
| IMM→AC→UE | 0.101 | 0.046 | 0.167 | 0.041 | 0.158 |
MEM, membership; INF, influence; IMM, immersion, AC, affective commitment; UE, user engagement.
The analysis of moderating effect.
| Dependent variable (DV) | Independent variable (IV) | Path coefficient (β) | S.E. |
| |
| UE | AC | 0.345 | 0.052 | 6.605 |
|
| PS | 0.054 | 0.040 | 1.362 | ns | |
| AC × PC | 0.083 | 0.023 | 3.524 |
|
UE, user engagement; AC, affective commitment; PS, perceived support. ***P-value < 0.001; ns, non-significant.