How perceived social support encourages citizen coproduction: Evidence from government social media

Abstract

Governments increasingly rely on digital channels to support public service delivery and facilitate citizen participation. This study examines how perceived social support, defined as citizens’ subjective experience of receiving informational and emotional assistance from peers, shapes citizen coproduction in social media-based e-government contexts. Drawing on survey data from 768 users of Chongqing Release, a municipal government Weibo account in China, the study applies structural equation modelling to analyse the motivational mechanisms underlying peer-to-peer interaction and voluntary contribution. The findings show that perceived social support has a significant direct effect on coproduction. In addition, it operates through psychological mechanisms associated with the satisfaction of basic needs, particularly relatedness and autonomy. These results indicate that citizen participation in digital governance is driven both by reciprocal responses to received support and by internally experienced social connection and autonomy. They further suggest that digital government platforms can support coproduction through formal service design as well as by facilitating low-cost, peer-to-peer interactions. Such participation appears to rely less on competence or expertise and more on relational and affective factors. This study shifts the focus of coproduction research from institutional arrangements toward everyday digital interactions and highlights the importance of socially embedded, lightweight forms of citizen contribution.

Points to practitioners

• Government social media should be managed not only as a channel for information delivery, but also as an interactional space in which citizens can generate public value through mutual support and peer-to-peer exchange.

• Public agencies should pay greater attention to emotional support, not only informational usefulness. In this study, emotional support showed the stronger overall effect on coproduction intention, suggesting that encouragement, recognition and responsive interaction may be especially important for sustaining citizen participation.

• Effective digital participation depends less on citizens’ expertise than on whether they feel socially connected and able to participate on their own terms. This implies that governments may achieve more by lowering psychological barriers and offering flexible, low-threshold participation formats than by relying on highly skilled users alone.

• The role of government in digital governance should extend beyond service provision to the facilitation of citizen-to-citizen interaction. Designing platforms that support visibility, acknowledgement and open engagement can help create the relational conditions under which coproduction emerges and persists.

Keywords

Citizen coproduction perceived social support digital public services public governance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alam

(2021) Many hands make light work: towards a framework of digital co-production to co-creation on social platforms. Information Technology & People 34(3): 1087–1118.

Bekkers

Edwards

Moody

, et al. (2011) Caught by surprise? Micro-mobilization, new media and the management of strategic surprises. Public Management Review 13(7): 1003–1021.

Bertot

Jaeger

Grimes

(2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly 27(3): 264–271.

Bonsón

Torres

Royo

, et al. (2012) Local e-government 2.0: social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly 29(2): 123–132.

Bovaird

(2007) Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review 67(5): 846–860.

Bovaird

Loeffler

(2012) From engagement to co-production: the contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23(4): 1119–1138.

Carr

Wohn

Hayes

(2016) As social support: relational closeness, automaticity, and interpreting social support from paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Computers in Human Behavior 62: 385–393.

Chen

C-A

Bozeman

(2013) Understanding public and nonprofit managers’ motivation through the lens of self-determination theory. Public Management Review 15(4): 584–607.

Clark

Brudney

Jang

(2013) Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review 73(5): 687–701.

10.

Davis

(1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–340.

11.

Deci

Ryan

(1985) The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality 19(2): 109–134.

12.

Denhardt

(2000) The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review 60(6): 549–559.

13.

Falk

Fischbacher

(2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54(2): 293–315.

14.

Feeney

Welch

(2016) Technology–task coupling: exploring social media use and managerial perceptions of e-government. The American Review of Public Administration 46(2): 162–179.

15.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

16.

Fung

(2015) Putting the public back into governance: the challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review 75(4): 513–522.

17.

Gouldner

(1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25(2): 161–178.

18.

Grönlund

Horan

(2005) Introducing e-gov: history, definitions, and issues. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 15(1): 39.

19.

Hair

(2009) Multivariate Data Analysis: a Global Perspective, 7th ed. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliff.

20.

Halbesleben

Wheeler

(2015) To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management 41(6): 1628–1650.

21.

Jacob

Fudzee

MFM

Salamat

, et al. (2019) A review of the generic end-user adoption of e-government services. International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(4): 799–818.

22.

Johnston

Hansen

(2015) Design lessons for smart governance infrastructure. In: Transforming American Governance: rebooting the Public Square. New York, NY: Routledge, 197–212.

23.

Karahanna

, et al. (2018) The needs–affordances–features perspective for the use of social media. MIS Quarterly 42(3): 737–A723.

24.

Khan

Krishnan

(2021) Citizen engagement in co-creation of e-government services: a process theory view from a meta-synthesis approach. Internet Research 31(4): 1318–1375.

25.

Kim

Drumwright

(2016) Engaging consumers and building relationships in social media: how social relatedness influences intrinsic vs. extrinsic consumer motivation. Computers in Human Behavior 63: 970–979.

26.

La Guardia

Ryan

Couchman

, et al. (2000) Within-person variation in security of attachment: a self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(3): 367.

27.

Langford

CPH

Bowsher

Maloney

, et al. (1997) Social support: a conceptual analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 25(1): 95–100.

28.

Larsson

Skjølsvik

(2021) Making sense of the digital co-production of welfare services: using digital technology to simplify or tailor the co-production of services. Public Management Review 25(3): 1–18.

29.

Lember

(2018) The increasing role of digital technologies in co-production and co-creation. In: Co-Production and Co-Creation. New York, NY: Routledge, 115–127.

30.

Lember

Brandsen

Tõnurist

(2019) The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review 21(11): 1665–1686.

31.

Leong

CML

Pan

Ractham

, et al. (2015) ICT-enabled community empowerment in crisis response: social media in Thailand flooding 2011. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 16(3): 1.

32.

Linders

(2012) From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly 29(4): 446–454.

33.

Meijer

(2011) Networked coproduction of public services in virtual communities: from a government-centric to a community approach to public service support. Public Administration Review 71(4): 598–607.

34.

Nabatchi

Sancino

Sicilia

(2017) Varieties of participation in public services: the who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review 77(5): 766–776.

35.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Mcgraw hill book company.

36.

O’Brien

Offenhuber

Baldwin-Philippi

, et al. (2017) Uncharted territoriality in coproduction: the motivations for 311 reporting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27(2): 320–335.

37.

Ozkaya

LaRose

(2014) How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior 30(1): 69–78.

38.

Ostrom

(1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development 24(6): 1073–1087.

39.

Scupola

Mergel

(2022) Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: the case of Denmark. Government Information Quarterly 39(1): 101650.

40.

Seidman

(2013) Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: how personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences 54(3): 402–407.

41.

Sharp

(1980) Toward a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: the coproduction concept. Midwest Review of Public Administration 14(2): 105–118.

42.

Twizeyimana

Andersson

(2019) The public value of E-government—A literature review. Government Information Quarterly 36(2): 167–178.

43.

Wills

(1991) Social support and interpersonal relationships. In: Clark

(ed.) Prosocial Behavior. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 265–289.

44.

J-J

Khan

Chien

S-H

, et al. (2019) Impact of emotional support, informational support, and norms of reciprocity on trust toward the medical aesthetic community: the moderating effect of core self-evaluations. Interactive Journal of Medical Research 8(1): e11750.

45.

Yan

(2020) The kindness of commenters: an empirical study of the effectiveness of perceived and received support for weight-loss outcomes. Production and Operations Management 29(6): 1448–1466.

46.

Yang

Pandey

(2011) Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: when does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review 71(6): 880–892.

47.

Zhu

(2023) The public needs more: the informational and emotional support of public communication amidst the COVID-19 in China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 84: 103469.

48.

Zimet

Dahlem

Zimet

, et al. (1988) The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment 52(1): 30–41.

49.

Zou

Zhao

(2021) Neighbourhood governance during the COVID-19 lockdown in Hangzhou: coproduction based on digital technologies. Public Management Review 24(12): 1–19.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.02 MB

0.00 MB