Understanding Continuous Use of Virtual Communities: A Comparison of Four Theoretical Perspectives Juyeon Ham Korea University Business School parangdol@korea.ac.kr Jihun Park Korea Institute for Defense Analyses jihunprk@korea.ac.kr Jae-Nam Lee Korea University Business School isjnlee@korea.ac.kr Jae Yun Moon Korea University Business School jymoon@korea.ac.kr Abstract The value of virtual communities can be attained only when the members are willing to stay and actively exchange their knowledge or information with other members. Therefore, the aim of this study was to find the model that best explains members’ continued use intention in virtual communities. Eight major variables were identified and four alternative models were formulated: 1) Information Systems (IS) continuance model as a base model, 2) IS continuance model with Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the first competing model, 3) IS continuance model with social capital theory as the second competing model, and 4) IS continuance model with TAM and social capital theory as the third competing model. The four models were compared with LISREL 8.7 using survey data collected from virtual community users in Korea. The findings indicated that the second competing model built on the IS continuance model with social capital theory best explained the members’ continued use intention in virtual communities. 1. Introduction Advances in Internet technology have stimulated the rise of virtual communities [8]. A virtual community can be seen as an online group in which individuals come together around a shared purpose, interest, or goal [41; 43]. The myriad definitions of virtual communities share three elements in common: cyberspace, the use of computer-based Information Technology (IT), and a focus on communication and interaction around content and topics driven by the participants [27]. We thus define a virtual community as “a cyberspace supported by computer-based IT and centered upon communication interaction of participants to generate member-driven contents, resulting in a relationship being built up [27].” In recent years, virtual communities have become increasingly pervasive, ranging from volunteer, self- organized to company-sponsored [44]. A large number of people voluntarily exchange information and discuss experiences in virtual communities based on shared interests or needs. Companies increasingly attempt to cultivate such virtual communities in order to maintain long-term relationships with their customers [5]. Companies can extract value from such initiatives only when a significant number of community members are willing to stay and exchange information with others [9]. More often than not however, virtual communities fail to retain their members and become “cyber ghost towns” [9; 39]. Much research has examined what motivates members to continue engaging in virtual communities. Most of this work has addressed the question from one of three perspectives: social, technical, and socio-technical. In the social perspective, the focus is on users’ collective behaviors within virtual communities, such as trust or relationships between members [5; 11; 46; 48]. In the technical perspective, the focus is on virtual communities’ technology characteristics (e.g., system quality, information quality) and benefits from using virtual communities (e.g., perceived usefulness) [30; 44]. More recent studies have adopted a socio-technical perspective, combining technical and social elements [9; 25; 31; 33]. However, few studies examine ongoing active participation by members, which is one of the most important factors for virtual community sustainability. The objective of this study is to find the key factors that influence members’ continued use intention in virtual communities by empirically comparing different theoretical models. To do so, we identify eight key factors related to continued use in virtual communities and formulate four different models including one base model and three competing models: 1) The base model is based on the Information Systems (IS) continuance model [6] from the technical perspective; 2) The first competing model integrates the IS continuance model with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM); 3) The second competing model integrates the IS continuance model with social capital theory that has been examined in studies 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 978-0-7695-4525-7/12 $26.00 © 2012 IEEE DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2012.612 753