Users’ voluntary contribution of codes is crucial to the success of open source software (OSS) communities. However, users often lack the contribution motivation. The purpose of this research is to examine users’ contribution in OSS communities from a perceived justice perspective. We adopted a mixed method of structural equation modeling (SEM) and artificial neural network (ANN) to conduct data analysis. The results indicated that perceived justice, which includes distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice, has significant effects on trust and satisfaction, both of which further determine contribution intention. The results imply that OSS communities need to improve users’ perceived justice in order to facilitate their contribution behavior.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
2.
ArpaciIKaratasKKusciI, et al. (2022) Understanding the social sustainability of the metaverse by integrating UTAUT2 and big five personality traits: A hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Technology in Society71: 102120.
3.
BehfarSKTurkinaEBurger-HelmchenT (2018) Knowledge management in OSS communities: Relationship between dense and sparse network structures. International Journal of Information Management38(1): 167–174.
4.
BhattacherjeeA (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly25(3): 351–370.
5.
BlauPM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
6.
CaiYZhuD (2016) Reputation in an open source software community: Antecedents and impacts. Decision Support Systems91(Supplement C): 103–112.
7.
CarilloKHuffSChawnerB (2017) What makes a good contributor? Understanding contributor behavior within large free/open source software projects – A socialization perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems26(4): 322–359.
8.
ChenJShenX-L (2015) Consumers’ decisions in social commerce context: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems79: 55–64.
9.
ChiuCMWangETGShihFJ, et al. (2011) Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of expectancy disconfirmation and justice theories. Online Information Review35(1): 134–153.
10.
ChoiNChengalur-SmithI (2015) Characteristics of open source software projects for the general population: Reciprocity and network effects. Journal of Computer Information Systems56(1): 22–30.
11.
ChoiNPruettJA (2015) The characteristics and motivations of library open source software developers: An empirical study. Library & Information Science Research37(2): 109–117.
12.
ColquittJAConlonDEWessonMJ, et al. (2001) Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology86(3): 425–445.
13.
DanielSStewartK (2016) Open source project success: Resource access, flow, and integration. Journal of Strategic Information Systems25(3): 159–176.
14.
DanielSLMarupingLMCataldoM, et al. (2018) The impact of ideology misfit on open source software communities and companies. MIS Quarterly42(4): 1069–1096.
15.
DennehyDConboyKFerreiraJ, et al. (2023) Sustaining open source communities by understanding the influence of discursive manifestations on sentiment. Information Systems Frontiers25: 241–257.
16.
DongJQGotzSJ (2021) Project leaders as boundary spanners in open source software development: A resource dependence perspective. Information Systems Journal31(5): 672–694.
17.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
19.
GefenDStraubDWBoudreauMC (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems4(7): 1–70.
20.
HaykinSS (2001) Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University Press.
21.
HoSYRaiA (2017) Continued voluntary participation intention in firm-participating open source software projects. Information Systems Research28(3): 603–625.
22.
JinX-LYinMZhouZ, et al. (2021) The differential effects of trusting beliefs on social media users’ willingness to adopt and share health knowledge. Information Processing & Management58(1): 102413.
23.
KendallKEKendallJEGermonprezM, et al. (2020) The third design space: A postcolonial perspective on corporate engagement with open source software communities. Information Systems Journal30(2): 369–402.
24.
KimMKimJ (2018) The effects of perceived online justice on relational bonds and engagement intention: Evidence from an online game community. Computers in Human Behavior84: 410–419.
25.
LeongL-YHewT-SOoiK-B, et al. (2019) A hybrid SEM-neural network analysis of social media addiction. Expert Systems with Applications133: 296–316.
26.
LiangT-PHoY-TLiY-W, et al. (2011) What drives social commerce: The role of social support and relationship quality. International Journal of Electronic Commerce16(2): 69–90.
27.
Liébana-CabanillasFMarinkovićVKalinićZ (2017) A SEM-neural network approach for predicting antecedents of m-commerce acceptance. International Journal of Information Management37(2): 14–24.
28.
LinH-F (2007) Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science33(2): 135–149.
29.
LiuYChengPOuyangZ (2021) How trust mediate the effects of perceived justice on loyalty: A study in the context of automotive recall in China. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services58: 102322.
30.
LoP-SDwivediYKWei-Han TanG, et al. (2022) Why do consumers buy impulsively during live streaming? A deep learning-based dual-stage SEM-ANN analysis. Journal of Business Research147: 325–337.
31.
MalhotraNKKimSSPatilA (2006) Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science52(12): 1865–1883.
32.
MarupingLMDanielSLCataldoM (2019) Developer centrality and the impact of value congruence and incongruence on commitment and code contribution activity in open source software communities. MIS Quarterly43(3): 951–976.
33.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review20(3): 709–734.
34.
MirzaeiTEsmaeilzadehP (2021) Engagement in online health communities: Channel expansion and social exchanges. Information & Management58(1): 103404.
35.
MoqriMMeiXWQiuLF, et al. (2018) Effect of “following” on contributions to open source communities. Journal of Management Information Systems35(4): 1188–1217.
36.
OliveiraTAlhinhoMRitaP, et al. (2017) Modelling and testing consumer trust dimensions in e-commerce. Computers in Human Behavior71(6): 153–164.
37.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
38.
RashidMClarkePMO'ConnorRV (2019) A systematic examination of knowledge loss in open source software projects. International Journal of Information Management46: 104–123.
39.
SetiaPBayusBLRajagopalanB (2020) The takeoff of open source software: A signaling perspective based on community activities. MIS Quarterly44(3): 1439–1458.
40.
SpaethSvon KroghGHeF (2015) Perceived firm attributes and intrinsic motivation in sponsored open source software projects. Information Systems Research26(1): 224–237.
41.
StraubDBoudreauM-CGefenD (2004) Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems13(1): 380–427.
42.
SutantoJKankanhalliATanBCY (2014) Uncovering the relationship between OSS user support networks and OSS popularity. Decision Support Systems64(Supplement C): 142–151.
43.
TajvidiMWangYHajliN, et al. (2021) Brand value co-creation in social commerce: The role of interactivity, social support, and relationship quality. Computers in Human Behavior115: 105238.
44.
TurelOYuanYFConnellyCE (2008) In justice we trust: Predicting user acceptance of e-customer services. Journal of Management Information Systems24(4): 123–151.
45.
WangLHuangMLiuM (2018) How founders’ social capital affects the success of open-source projects: A resource-based view of project teams. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications30: 51–61.
46.
WangYHerrandoC (2019) Does privacy assurance on social commerce sites matter to millennials?International Journal of Information Management44: 164–177.
47.
WongkitrungruengAAssarutN (2020) The role of live streaming in building consumer trust and engagement with social commerce sellers. Journal of Business Research117: 543–556.
48.
XuJCenfetelliRTAquinoK (2016) Do different kinds of trust matter? An examination of the three trusting beliefs on satisfaction and purchase behavior in the buyer–seller context. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems25(1): 15–31.
49.
ZhangCBLiYNWuB, et al. (2017) How WeChat can retain users: Roles of network externalities, social interaction ties, and perceived values in building continuance intention. Computers in Human Behavior69: 284–293.
50.
ZhangKZKBenyoucefMZhaoSJ (2016) Building brand loyalty in social commerce: The case of brand microblogs. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications15: 14–25.
51.
ZhouSLiTYangS, et al. (2022) What drives consumers’ purchase intention of online paid knowledge? A stimulus-organism-response perspective. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications52: 101126.
52.
ZhouT (2019) The effect of social interaction on users’ social commerce intention. International Journal of Mobile Communications17(4): 391–408.
53.
ZongWYangJBaoZS (2019) Social network fatigue affecting continuance intention of social networking services the case of WeChat users in China's universities. Data Technologies and Applications53(1): 123–139.
