Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

What drives a genuine sense of community in online spaces? This study examines the role of governance, autonomy, and control in fostering a sense of community online. Findings show that participatory governance and peer-enforced social norms are crucial for creating a strong sense of community, even after controlling for active, frequent community engagement. In contrast, merely enforcing rules through formal control mechanisms does not significantly enhance community strength. Inclusive governance also helps mitigate challenges posed by larger community sizes, supporting a strong sense of community at scale. However, the interaction between participatory governance and social control reveals a complex tension, where high member involvement may dilute the positive effects of peer-enforced norms. These insights underscore the necessity of a balanced, configurational governance approach, integrating both participatory processes and social control to bolster community cohesion. This study offers a more nuanced understanding of how online governance shapes community belonging and provides practical guidelines for designing more inclusive and cohesive digital spaces.

Keywords

Online Communities online engagement online governance participatory governance sense of virtual community social control social media

Introduction

A sense of community is essential in distinguishing true communities from mere groups of individuals, encompassing influence, relatedness, need fulfillment, and emotional connection (McMillan and Chavis, 1986). The Internet has expanded this notion, giving rise to online communities that unite individuals around shared interests, goals, values, or needs. Previous work has provided evidence for the sense of community experienced in online contexts, demonstrating its essential role in fostering engaged, cohesive, and sustainable collectives (Blanchard and Markus, 2004). This importance is heightened by the alarming levels of decline in social connections (Bruce et al., 2019), and in traditional community engagement (Putnam, 2000), as online spaces compensate for the erosion of physical communities (Mitchell, 1995; van Dijck and Poell, 2015) and offer new modalities for social interaction and engagement (Bulat et al., 2024).

Research across various online platforms highlighted the factors fostering a sense of community online (Blanchard and Markus, 2004; Chen et al., 2013; Kairam et al., 2022; Naranjo-Zolotov et al., 2019; Trinkenreich et al., 2023). However, this body of work predominantly focuses on social interactions, assuming a horizontal social organization within communities, neglecting the role of governance-level engagement. Consequently, it remains unclear how different governance processes, such as participatory rule-making, formal or social control, interact to foster a sense of virtual community (SoVC). But, engagement in governance is important for online community experience (Kiesler et al., 2011; Kollock and Smith, 1996), and substantial involvement in governance can significantly impact the sense of community experienced online.

Foundational work on SoVC suggested that influence, one of the four core dimensions of sense of community, was minimal or non-existent in virtual settings (Blanchard, 2008; Blanchard and Markus, 2004). However, in the original theoretical framework, McMillan and Chavis (1986) conceptualized influence within physical communities as a bidirectional process, where “the influence of a member on the community and the influence of the community on a member occur concurrently” (p. 12), and sometimes indirectly, through power dynamics. From this perspective, community governance can be seen as a source of influence within online communities, where established rules, norms, and the processes through which they are formed and enforced shape member behavior. In return, members can also affect the community, by participating in its governance.

Over the last decade, the literature on online governance has made substantial strides in examining the role of moderation and governance practices across diverse platforms (Frey et al., 2022; Ivaturi and Chua, 2019; Kiesler et al., 2011; Matias, 2019; Seering et al., 2019). Though, significant limitations remain regarding how these elements interact to foster or undermine community cohesion. The diversity across platforms complicates efforts to define and measure governance (Weld, 2024), while the tendency to focus on a single dimension of governance, be it formal rules, informal norms, or moderation practices, fails to capture their interconnected nature. Additionally, previous work on online governance often measures community success in terms of audience size, engagement levels, or activity metrics (Cunha et al., 2019), overlooking nuanced psychological outcomes. Such metrics are important but do not provide a full picture of community well-being. Therefore, research has yet to adequately and systematically explore how governance structures affect the psychological well-being of community members.

To address these gaps, the current study bridges the literature on online governance and the sense of virtual community, by exploring how different governance mechanisms affect SoVC. Drawing on broader theories of commons governance (Janssen and Ostrom, 2006; Ostrom, 1990), collective action (Olson, 1971), self-determination (Deci and Ryan, 2000), and organizational control (Eisenhardt, 1985; Ouchi and Price, 1978), while integrating perspectives from Human Computer Interaction, Information Systems Management and Computer Supported Cooperative Work, this study argues that the way a community is managed and the degree and types of control exercised can impact the overall community experience, from the enforcement of rules and norms to the participation of members in regulatory processes.

Results show that social control, characterized by horizontal, peer-based norm enforcement, is the strongest predictor of SoVC, while hierarchical formal control exerts no significant influence. Findings also reveal that participatory governance positively affects SoVC, suggesting that democratic participation in decision-making enhance community cohesion in online spaces. In addition, there is a complex interplay between participatory governance and social control, where high levels of member involvement in governance diminish the effectiveness of peer-based normative control. Furthermore, community size and governance styles interact, with participatory governance mitigating the challenges of scaling community engagement in large groups.

By unraveling the relationship between participatory governance, formal and social forms of control, and the SoVC, findings challenge long-existing assumptions and offer new perspectives into online engagement. As such, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of online community dynamics, providing researchers, policymakers, community managers, and platform designers with evidence-based strategies for building vibrant, inclusive communities.

Literature review

A sense of community refers to the feelings of connectedness and belonging that individuals experience within a group (McMillan, 2011; McMillan and Chavis, 1986; Sarason, 1974). It includes dimensions of membership, influence, need fulfillment, and shared emotional bonds (McMillan and Chavis, 1986) involving meaningful connections, a perception of being valued, and a willingness to contribute to the collective well-being. In the literature, a sense of community is viewed as a sign of a healthy community (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; Talò et al., 2014) and essential for successful cooperation (DeCaro et al., 2021). It enhances individuals’ satisfaction and commitment to their communities (Burroughs and Eby, 1998) and increases their motivation to continue participating (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). Evidence suggests that a sense of community can also exist online (Blanchard and Markus, 2004; Koh et al., 2003). Just like their offline counterparts, not all virtual groups can instill this feeling among their members (Blanchard and Markus, 2004), but when they do, it seems to make a difference.

Online communities

Before the Internet, a community referred to territorial or relational social structures (Gusfield, 1975; McMillan and Chavis, 1986), bounded mostly by geographic limitations. Though there were a few notable exceptions such as fandom communities, which, as Jenkins (1988) and Obst et al. (2002) observed, often transcended physical boundaries through fanzines, or conventions. The advent of digital technologies democratized community formation, allowing anyone from any location to connect online and participate in a community. Today, the virtual space contains a multitude of online communities hosting millions of users on a daily basis, bound not by proximity, but by shared interests, goals, or values (Blanchard and Markus, 2004; Lazar and Preece, 2002). Online communities can be “slippery to define and tricky to measure” (Lazar and Preece, 2002: 3). But they can be described as collectives of individuals, who interact over digital means, around a common goal, interest, or need (Preece, 2000). Despite varying definitions, most online communities rely on continuous member engagement and contributions (Butler, 2001; Kollock and Smith, 1996), and the sense of community is essential for their sustainability (Preece, 2001).

SoVC

The sense of community experienced online has been explored in a number of studies across different settings. Foundational work by Blanchard and Markus (Blanchard, 2008, 2011; Blanchard and Markus, 2004) suggested that participants’ experiences mirrored those in physical communities but with limited individual influence. Emphasizing the roles of support exchange, identity development, and trust, the authors suggested an alternative process, where the exchange of support and identity creation both contribute to norm establishment, which influences the strength of SoVC (Blanchard, 2008; Welbourne et al., 2009), ultimately leading to trust (Blanchard et al., 2011; Ellonen et al., 2007). However, previous work primarily focused on social/individual influence and overlooked potential institutional influences, that is, participation in governance. Moreover, there was a lack of distinction between implicit norms and explicit, established rules, and the different types of control that can be exerted through these mechanisms were not fully explored.

Highlighting the importance of SoVC for community success, others have explored system-level factors, and how they influenced behaviors such as usage and involvement. For instance, Zhang (2009) found that information quality predicted SoVC on social networking platforms, which affected continued usage through user satisfaction. Similarly, Chen and Lin (2014) found that both system quality and information quality were positively linked with SoVC. Mamonov et al. (2016) reported that SoVC significantly influenced information consumption and contribution on Facebook, negatively affecting exit intentions. Others further explored how different engagement patterns affect SoVC. Tonteri et al. (2011) found that both active and passive participation positively impacted SoVC. Li and Chen (2022) observed that public and private interactions positively influenced SoVC in a Chinese interest-based community. In live-streaming communities like Twitch, Kairam et al. (2022) identified chat volume, tenure, and peripheral participation as significant predictors of SoVC. He et al. (2023) found that viewer interactions with broadcasters and other viewers on Twitch enhanced SoVC, increasing engagement.

While highlighting SoVC as a crucial ingredient for community success, previous work on the sense of community heavily emphasizes social interactions as the primary source of community influence, neglecting governance-level factors. Part of this lack of attention could be attributed to the long-standing view of online groups as horizontal collectives of individuals with rather fluid or leaderless structures (Castells, 2010; Shirky, 2008). This was indeed the case for the early days of the Internet (Chesebro, 1985; Hiltz and Turoff, 1978; Kerr, 1986). But as a growing number of recent work on online governance and moderation work shows, the Internet evolved, and so too did the nature and scale of online communities. Previous work has also often been constrained by limited sample sizes, typically focusing on a single community or a small number of participants, restricting their generalizability (Gallagher and Savage, 2013). These methodological limitations can lead to biased results, preventing comparisons of different governance practices across communities, which is important to understand the relationship between online governance and SoVC.

Online governance, autonomy, and control

Online communities thrive on quality interactions and continuous engagement, which necessitates some form of governance (Grimmelmann, 2015; Kiesler et al., 2011). Governance and control are fundamental concepts in the functioning of any organization (Sitkin et al., 2010), as they regulate behaviors and ensure collective goals are achieved. Rooted in organizational theory, control can be conceptualized as a dyadic relationship between a source and a target, where the former shapes the behaviors of the latter to align with the identified goals and needs (Ellickson, 1987; Jaworski, 1988; Ouchi and Price, 1978). Control can be broadly categorized as formal or informal, each playing an important role in organizational stability (Kirsch, 1997). Formal control refers to explicit rules, policies, and guidelines enforced by individuals with authority, while informal control involves unwritten norms and peer influence that govern behaviors horizontally (Ouchi, 1979). Traditional perspectives highlight that control mechanisms rarely operate in isolation; instead, it is the combination of control strategies that influence individual commitment levels (Ouchi, 1979). More recent work provides evidence for this configurational approach to control (Cardinal et al., 2010), showing that formal and informal control modes often complement each other, evolving based on organizational goals and needs (Jaworski et al., 1993; Kirsch, 1997; Kreutzer et al., 2016).

This configurational approach to governance and the distinction between formal and informal control aligns with governance mechanisms explored by Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom (1990, 1999) in her research on resource management and commons governance. Ostrom also highlighted that successful governance systems rely on a configuration of elements depending on their unique goals and local needs (Janssen and Ostrom, 2006). These elements include clearly defined boundaries, locally adapted rules, monitoring systems, sanctions, and participatory decision-making (Ostrom, 1990). Importantly, Ostrom and colleagues emphasized that rules do not need to be formalized; both written formal rules and unwritten informal norms can shape behavior, and configurations of these governance elements should be dynamic to meet the evolving needs of the community (Janssen and Ostrom, 2006).

While Ostrom’s principles of commons governance were originally developed in the context of managing natural resources, the core insights have proven relevant far beyond physical settings (Frey et al., 2019; Kollock and Smith, 1996). In many ways, online communities increasingly mirror the dynamics of traditional commons, where shared digital spaces are collectively managed by community members. Early work on online communities suggested that rules, roles, norms, and participatory decision-making are essential for managing shared resources as these communities grow in complexity (Kiesler et al., 2011; Ren et al., 2012). Today, platforms like Facebook Groups, Reddit, Wikipedia, Twitch, and Discord increasingly depend on self-governance facilitated by volunteer moderators (Seering, 2020; Seering et al., 2022). Across different platforms, governance involves a combination of community management (establishing rules and processes, facilitating discussions), content moderation (removing posts that violate rules), and user moderation (sanctioning, banning, or silencing disruptive users) (Matias, 2019; Seering et al., 2019; Srinivasan et al., 2019).

The diversity of governance structures in online communities reflects the varied needs and purposes of these digital spaces. Their governance configurations vary significantly depending on the platform and the community’s specific objectives (Weld, 2024). Recent work has focused on two dominant aspects of online governance: the practices of moderators and the role of rules or norms in shaping behaviors. However, most of the work focuses on only one of these elements, leaving a gap in understanding how formal, informal, and participatory governance mechanisms interact and impact the sense of community. Moreover, many studies use rules and norms interchangeably when discussing governance online (Chandrasekharan et al., 2018; Fiesler and Bruckman, 2019; Frey et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2019; Kiene et al., 2016). Though these are distinct means of control, with different sources, processes, and implications. Overall, more work is needed that takes an integrated approach to online governance and its relationship to the sense of community experienced online.

This study addresses these gaps by examining three key governance mechanisms: participatory governance, formal control, and social control within online communities. It explores how these institutional features relate to SoVC, using a representative sample of US Internet users who identify as members of online communities. Employing a measurement tool validated in both online and offline contexts across cultures, this study bridges the gap between the sense of community and online governance literature, to demonstrate that active involvement in community governance is important for fostering a sense of community online.

Current study

Despite the emphasis on leadership, governance, and participation in traditional perspectives (Kollock and Smith, 1996; Lazar and Preece, 2002; McMillan and Chavis, 1986; Ostrom, 1998), early work on SoVC had suggested that virtual groups differ from their offline counterparts in terms of influence, which was found to be weaker or non-existent (Blanchard, 2008; Blanchard and Markus, 2004). However, much of the literature at the time was focused on early online communities that did in fact lack formal governance (i.e. usenet and listserv). Today, online governance structures are diverse and vary across platforms (Frey and Schneider, 2023). And this study argues that the way a community is governed and the degree of control exercised can profoundly influence the quality of interactions, thereby affecting the SoVC experienced.

Governance processes

Control mechanisms such as rules and norms are needed in every community to ensure stability, and the substance of these rules, along with their creation and enforcement are critical in shaping the community experience (Butler et al., 2008; Kiesler et al., 2011; Ren et al., 2012; Shen and Khalifa, 2013). The extent to which community members participate in rule-making processes should carry a lot of weight for building cohesion, but the role of governance in shaping the SoVC can be rather multifaceted and complex. McMillan and Chavis (1986) highlight how power, control, and influence are crucial for community cohesion in physical settings, noting that member influence is key to any community’s appeal. However, this influence need not be limited to social interactions; member influence can also occur at the governance level. For instance, communities with a participatory governance structure are more adept at empowering their members and meeting their needs (Dosono and Semaan, 2019; Seering et al., 2017; Shen and Khalifa, 2013; Thach et al., 2022). Prior studies highlight the importance of policies and leadership that incorporate member input for successful communities (Frey et al., 2019; Kollock and Smith, 1996; Ostrom, 1998; Schneider et al., 2021; Seering et al., 2019; Strimling and Frey, 2020). Though, pluralist approaches to governance may also have their downsides in the online context.

Emotional safety is traditionally considered an important aspect of sense of community (McMillan and Chavis, 1986), but it can be threatened by online anonymity. Participatory governance promotes open debate in decision-making, which could also lead to a large number of competing viewpoints and disruptive behaviors, causing challenges (Gilbert, 2020; Juneja et al., 2020; Schöpke-Gonzalez et al., 2022; Squirrell, 2019). The openness in discussion may inadvertently facilitate the spread of harmful content (Massanari, 2017; Topinka, 2018), which may explain why some community leaders avoid democratic governance (Bulat et al., 2024; Weld et al., 2022). Previous work shows that participatory governance can reduce feelings of belonging and institutional acceptance among community moderators (Bulat et al., 2024). Such dynamics underscore the challenges of managing pluralistic online spaces effectively (Chakraborti et al., 2022; Frey et al., 2022; Frey and Schneider, 2023), where centralized governance may offer distinct advantages (Ho and Huang, 2009; McEwan and Gutwin, 2017).

The literature presents conflicting viewpoints on how community governance might affect members’ SoVC. Previous work explored factors such as perceptions of group norms (Blanchard, 2008), being sanctioned or sanctioning others (Blanchard et al., 2011), leader involvement in community activities (Ho and Huang, 2009) and leader withdrawal (McEwan and Gutwin, 2017). But it is still not clear how different forms of community governance, such as participatory governance or centralized governance, might affect members’ SoVC. Therefore, the question:

Research Question 1 (RQ1). How does participatory governance relate to SoVC?

Formal control

Whether participatory or centralized, any type of governance structure rests on a foundation of authority, granted by rules that limit and regulate behaviors (Gilliland and Manning, 2002). The traditional view in organizational control theory makes a distinction about how behaviors are regulated through different mechanisms (Kirsch, 1997; Ouchi, 1979). In this view, formal control refers to official tools that objectively guide behavior (i.e. written rules, procedures, and policies), and involves monitoring the extent to which individuals follow these practices (Eisenhardt, 1985; Kreutzer et al., 2016; Ouchi, 1979). Social control, on the other hand, refers to unofficial, unwritten, unobjective standards that arise from social interactions and guide behavior through socialization (Eisenhardt, 1985; Kreutzer et al., 2016; Ouchi, 1979).

Traditionally, rigid enforcement mechanisms are believed to negatively impact group cohesion (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Harrison and St. John, 1996; Markus et al., 2000; Thompson, 2005; Zuckerman et al., 1978). Previous work shows that sanctions or other disciplinary actions can lead to conflicts online, increasing feelings of frustration and burnout among moderators (Dosono and Semaan, 2019; Schöpke-Gonzalez et al., 2022; Squirrell, 2019). In a bulletin board for parents, Blanchard (2011) found that being sanctioned, or sanctioning others might decrease SoVC and called for additional research. But authors used a measuring tool that was not established in prior research, and neither specified the source of sanction (i.e. formal rules or informal norms) or the role of the sanctioning agent (i.e. moderator or peer) in their measuring items, which could affect the outcome.

The key difference between formal and informal control lies in their source; formal control is rule-based and hierarchically enforced by a legitimate authority, with immediate consequences for deviations (Gilliland and Manning, 2002). Community control measures like user bans or post removals often fall under formal control (Gilbert, 2020; Jhaver et al., 2019). Recent work on formal control shows that it can play an important role in managing tensions (Skousen et al., 2019), and positively influence performance (Ahlfänger et al., 2022). Clear and consistent rule enforcement from community leaders can also increase an individual’s perceived procedural fairness, which enhances rule compliance (Kiesler et al., 2011; Walters and Bolger, 2019), and cooperation (Tyler and Degoey, 1995). Therefore, it is predicted:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a). There is a positive significant relationship between formal control and SoVC.

One factor that could impact this relationship is the extent to which community members participate in rule-making processes. Aside from being inclusive, actively participating in shaping the direction and policies of the community could lead individuals to perceive the procedure as legitimate, which enhances compliance and cooperation with the group (DeCaro et al., 2021; Ryan and Deci, 2006). Transparency in governance promotes greater internalization, while the lack of it can cause skepticism or hostility (Kiesler et al., 2011; Lazar and Preece, 2002). A pluralist approach would also ensure that rules are reflective of collective interests (Weibel, 2007), further solidifying cohesion. Effectiveness of formal control in enhancing SoVC might therefore be contingent upon the involvement of community members in rule-making processes that lays the foundation for that control to be exercised. Therefore it is predicted:

Hypothesis 1b (H1b). The interaction between formal control and participatory governance will be significant and positive.

Social control

Different scholars refer to informal, horizontal control by various terms (Cardinal et al., 2010), including social control (Markus et al., 2000; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1996), clan control (Eisenhardt, 1985; Ouchi, 1979), community control (Gossett and Tompkins, 2000), peer control (De Jong et al., 2014), and concertive control (Barker, 1993; Tompkins and Cheney, 1985). The common theme in this framework is horizontal processes observed in organizational settings (Barker, 1993). The emphasis is on social connections and implicit normative standards (Tompkins and Cheney, 1985). While early work on SoVC suggests that peer influence is weaker in online settings compared to physical communities (Blanchard et al., 2011), recent work shows that horizontal enforcement of behavioral standards among peers can enhance SoVC (Gibbs et al., 2019). Though this study examined a single community that is characterized by its homogeneity, longevity, and tight relationships between members (Gibbs et al., 2019), while their model did not include other governance mechanisms (i.e. formal control, or participatory governance), which might affect findings. To build on this work and test the generalizability of authors’ findings across different settings, it is predicted:

Hypothesis 2a (H2a). There is a positive significant relationship between social control and SoVC.

The effectiveness of peer-based control on SoVC may also depend on the extent of member participation in governance processes. Traditional perspectives highlight the importance of mutually developed values and norms for effective control in groups with high autonomy (Barker, 1993; Ouchi and Price, 1978; Tompkins and Cheney, 1985). Participation in governance can also enhance the legitimacy and internalization of norms (Ryan and Deci, 2006), leading to greater compliance and positively impacting SoVC. This strengthens the alignment of individual and collective values, fostering a sense of collective identity, which is crucial for peer-based control. Therefore, it is predicted:

Hypothesis 2b (H2b). The interaction between social control and participatory governance will be significant and positive.

Community size and participatory governance

All communities rely on continuous user engagement, and the size of a community is important for their survival (Kraut and Resnick, 2012). It is therefore considered as an indicator of community success and employed as a success metric (Cunha et al., 2019; Kairam et al., 2012; Tan, 2018). But previous work presents a nuanced view on the impact of community size. While increased size leads to more resources and higher benefits for individuals, it can also make it more difficult for members to receive them (Butler, 2001; Kollock and Smith, 1996; Ren et al., 2012). Previous work highlights the challenges larger communities face, such as reduced personal interaction, unequal participation, and informational overload, which leads to low retention and high turnover (Butler, 2001; Cunha et al., 2019; Kollock and Smith, 1996; Panek et al., 2018; Ren et al., 2012). These findings suggest that as communities grow, the intensity of individual connections and sense of belonging diminish. In this light, it is predicted:

Hypothesis 3a (H3a). There is a significant negative relationship between community size and SoVC.

It could also be the case that the extent to which members participate in rule-making processes mitigates the negative impact of increasing size on SoVC. Specifically, while larger communities might experience challenges, effective governance can potentially counteract these issues. The question is, which approach would constitute an effective form of governance? On one hand, in large communities where governance encourages member participation, the dilution of SoVC could potentially be lessened (Kollock and Smith, 1996; Lazar and Preece, 2002), making members feel more connected and engaged despite the increase in size. On the other hand, a centralized governance approach could be especially beneficial for larger communities, balancing the need for member input with community harmony and stability.

Previous work indicates that larger community size can harm cohesion (Graddy and Wang, 2009), though its impact on the sense of community remains uncertain (Anderson, 2010). In contrast to their physical counterparts, online communities lower participation barriers, making engagement less costly (Boulianne, 2015), which can enhance participation. Furthermore, online communities can leverage technology to implement participatory governance at scale, using modern tools such as polls, forums, and real-time feedback systems (Auray, 2012; Goldberg and Schär, 2023; Zhang et al., 2020). These features can help maintain a sense of belonging by ensuring members feel heard and valued, regardless of the community size. Thus, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3b (H3b). The interaction between community size and participatory governance will be significant and positive.

Methods

To investigate the proposed relationships we administered an online survey via Qualtrics to a demographically representative sample of US Internet users, totaling 4800 participants. Participants were recruited through Qualtrics survey panels, and were informed that the study aimed to explore Internet user’s online experiences. All participants were required to provide their consent before taking the survey. After excluding responses due to attention check failures, rapid completion, or lack of community membership, our refined sample consisted of 1080 individuals who identified themselves as members of an online community.

The average participant age was 40, with 52% aged between 18 and 44 (n = 561). Majority identified as female (70%, n = 753), with some or more college education (81.3%, n = 878). Most participants reported membership of either an interest-based community (24.8%, n = 267), a local neighborhood community (21.8%, n = 235), a professional community (20.5%, n = 221), or a support community that focus on health or individual well-being (19.4%, n = 209), and almost half of these communities were reported to have more than 500 participants (45%, n = 485). Most participants visited their communities a few times a week (22.2%, n = 240), spent an hour or less per visit (83.4%, n = 901) and had been members for over 2 years (47.9%, n = 517).

Measures

Construct items were measured with 7-point Likert-type scales that ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” unless otherwise indicated. All measures were taken from prior literature, with slight adaptations as needed to emphasize the online community context (Appendix 1).

Our dependent variable, SoVC is defined as the extent to which users identify with an online community and feel a sense of belonging and togetherness (González-Anta et al., 2021). We measured this construct with eight items from the “Brief Sense of Community Scale” developed by Peterson et al. (2008) and validated in a number of community contexts (Cocco et al., 2024; Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Mamonov et al., 2016; Peñarroja et al., 2019; Poor, 2014) (⍺ = 0.894, M = 4.64, SD = 1.14).

To identify the governance process, the respondents were asked to choose the option that best describes the procedure used to make community rules (Seering et al., 2019). Items ranged from most hierarchical, to most democratic (e.g. “Moderators work with the entire group of community members to enact new rules,” M = 2.93, SD = 1.42).

Formal control can be defined as the extent to which an online community has established mechanisms for monitoring rule compliance and for addressing rule violations, which may involve warnings, sanctions, or bans, based on explicit guidelines (Jaworski, 1988; Ouchi, 1979). Three items were used to measure formal control, slightly adapted to emphasize the online context (e.g. “Moderators actively monitor the extent to which other members follow the established rules and policies,” ⍺ = 0.852, M = 4.94, SD = 1.38).

Social control refers to the extent of horizontal peer regulation within a group, based on shared values and informal norms among members (Barker, 1993; Ellickson, 1987). We adopted four items from previous work to measure this construct (Lindblad et al., 2013; Wright and Barker, 2000) (e.g. “If a member uses abusive language or makes offensive comments, other members typically intervene,” ⍺ = 0.811, M = 4.14, SD = 1.04).

We also controlled for several constructs shown to be associated with SoVC in previous work, such as community participation, active engagement, social connectedness of the community and the number of strong ties. To address the previous gaps in the literature in terms of measuring participation (Malinen, 2015), and to capture community participation as accurately as possible, we measured the intensity, length and frequency of use separately. To measure frequency we asked participants how often they visited the community, answers ranging from “less than once a month” (1) to “more than 3 times a day” (7) (M = 4.52, SD = 1.87). To measure intensity, we asked participants how much time they spent in their community on average per visit, answers ranged from “less than 15 minutes” (1) to “more than 5 hours” (7) (M = 2.44, SD = 1.25). And to measure the length of use, we asked participants how long they have been members, with answers ranging from “less than six months” (1) to “more than five years” (5) (M = 3.09, SD = 1.65).

When measuring engagement, we made a distinction between active and passive forms of engagement to control for both (Tonteri et al., 2011). Active engagement was measured with two items: “I often post and share content in this community” and “I often like or comment on other’s posts and shares” (M = 4.36, SD = 1.45). Passive engagement was measured with three items (e.g. “I rarely interact with others in the community,” “I often browse the shared content but don’t share anything myself”) (M = 3.17, SD = 1.30). To measure community connectedness, we asked participants to select all the mediums through which they socialize with other members (i.e. in-person, sms/phone calls, social media, instant messaging applications, gaming platforms, or other). The responses were then combined into an index (M = 1.55, SD = 0.98). Finally, we controlled for the number of strong ties, by asking the number of people participants consider friends (M = 3.51, SD = 1.61).

Results

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between participatory governance, formal and social control, community size and SoVC. All predictors were mean-centered before the analysis. We checked for multicollinearity between variables by examining their zero-order correlations and VIF statistics (Appendix 2). The accompanying statistics were all found to be acceptable (VIF < 5), indicating limited collinearity (Akinwande et al., 2015).

Results showed that, after controlling for use frequency, length, and intensity, together with active use, passive use, community connectedness and number of friends, SoVC is significantly associated with participatory governance, social control and community size, F(14, 827) = 93.01, p < 0.001, R²= 0.605. Compared to the baseline model that only includes control variables, the full model explained an additional 10.2% of the variance resulting in a total of 60% explained variance in SoVC (Table 1).

Table 1.

Hierarchical regression results with SoVC as the dependent variable.

	Model 1		Model 2
	β	SE	β	SE
(intercept)	0.046	0.026	0.039	0.025
Use Length	0.008	0.028	0.001	0.027
Use Frequency	0.043**	0.015	0.023	0.014
Use Intensity	0.127***	0.023	0.083***	0.021
Connectedness	0.068*	0.029	0.051*	0.026
Number of Friends	0.144***	0.019	0.127***	0.018
Passive Use	0.066**	0.022	0.024	0.021
Active Use	0.043***	0.024	0.306***	0.024
Community Size (CS)			–0.040**	0.012
Participatory Governance (PG)			0.052**	0.018
Social Control (SC)			0.357***	0.030
Formal Control (FC)			0.005	0.022
CS * PG			0.028***	0.007
SC * PG			–0.037*	0.019
FC * PG			0.007	0.014
F	123.7***		93.01***
df	834		827
SE	0.773		0.691
Adjusted R²	0.503		0.605
∆R²			0.102

p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Results show that both the level of participatory governance (β = 0.052, p = 0.0049) and social control (β = 0.357, p < 0.001) have significant positive correlations with SoVC, independently. This suggests that communities that employ participatory governance can enhance the sense of community among their members. In addition, communities that employ social control, where actions are horizontally regulated through peer-interactions, can significantly enhance the sense of community among their members, supporting H2a. The negative interaction between participatory governance and social control (β = −0.037, p = 0.005) is an intriguing finding, rejecting H2b. This suggests that while both factors may independently strengthen SoVC, their combined influence may not be so straightforward and decrease cohesion among members.

Results also show a significantly negative relationship between community size and SoVC (β = −0.044, p < 0.001), suggesting that as communities grow in size, it becomes more challenging to maintain SoVC. H3a is therefore supported. In addition, we found the interaction between participatory governance and community size to be significantly positive (β = 0.026, p < 0.001), suggesting that inclusive approaches can mitigate some of the negative impacts of larger populations on the sense of community experienced online. H3b is supported.

Among the control variables, self-reported time spent in the community (β = 0.088, p < 0.001), community connectedness (β = 0.052, p = 0.048), number of friends (β = 0.126, p < 0.001), and active use (β = 0.306, p < 0.001) all positively predicted SoVC. The more time individuals spent with the community, the more they actively engaged and the stronger the relationships they form within it, the stronger was their sense of community. We found no significant associations between formal control and SoVC. Similarly, the remaining control variables, such as the length of membership, frequency of participation, or passive use did not exert a significant influence on SoVC.

Discussion

This study explored the complex interplay between different community governance modes and their relationship to sense of community experienced online. Findings reveal a nuanced landscape where governance can significantly shape perceptions of community cohesion. Participatory governance, social control and community size emerged as significant variables influencing SoVC, highlighting their important roles in shaping online community dynamics and member engagement. Moreover, the interaction effects between community size and participatory governance, as well as between participatory governance and social control, provided further insight into the complex governance dynamics at play in online communities.

Participatory processes, characterized by member involvement in shared decision-making, exhibited a significantly positive relationship with SoVC. The statistical effect size indicates that participation adds about 16% of the effect of active community involvement to participants’ sense of community. This finding not only supports the foundational framework of a sense of community as theorized by McMillan and Chavis (1986) but also expands earlier applications of this framework to online settings (Blanchard and Markus, 2004).

Notably, social control emerged as the most robust predictor of SoVC, underscoring the critical role of peer-enforced behavioral standards in fostering community unity. This supports and extends earlier findings from Gibbs et al. (2019), emphasizing the significant influence of horizontally enforced behavioral standards among members. The result highlights the primacy of shared values and peer enforcement in shaping community cohesion (Ryan and Deci, 2006), overshadowing more formal, structured forms of governance.

A surprising finding was the negative interaction between participatory governance and social control on SoVC, indicating that in communities with high participatory governance, the influence of peer-based control may be diminished. This finding contradicts earlier theories (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Gossett and Tompkins, 2000; Olson, 1971; Ostrom, 1990; Ouchi, 1979), implying a potential conflict between democratic engagement and peer enforced social norms. In physical organizations, social control emerges among self-managing groups where individuals have significant autonomy, facilitating the development of shared norms and values (Barker, 1993; Ostrom, 1990; Ouchi, 1979; Ryan and Deci, 2006). Study findings add nuance to this perspective, suggesting that too much emphasis on participatory processes might dilute the impact of peer-enforced social norms in online contexts, which is traditionally viewed as fundamental to maintaining community standards and cohesion.

Another interesting insight was that formal control mechanisms did not have any influence on SoVC, even when members participated in establishing the rules themselves, indicating that mere rule enforcement may not automatically translate into a stronger sense of community. This contrasts with previous work on SoVC that considered the role of sanctions and found negative associations (Blanchard et al., 2011). The finding also challenges prevalent assumptions in online governance literature (Frey and Sumner, 2019; Hwang and Shaw, 2022; Schweik, 2005), which often emphasizes the importance of formal rules and structured governance for community success. Moreover, it contradicts earlier theorizing on governance and autonomy (Ostrom, 1990; Ryan and Deci, 2006), which suggests that individuals’ engagement in rule-making processes may lead to higher motivation and satisfaction. Results suggest that this may not be the case for hierarchically enforced formal control in online contexts.

The study further uncovered that while community size and SoVC negatively correlate, which aligns with earlier research on online communities (Butler, 2001; Panek et al., 2018), the interaction between community size and participatory governance positively influences SoVC, suggesting that democratic governance can mitigate some of the challenges posed by larger audiences. This insight extends earlier work, by providing evidence that through strategic, inclusive governance practices, the negative impacts of scaling size on community ties can potentially be addressed, providing a practical approach for sustaining community cohesion as online platforms grow.

This study also controlled for the length, frequency, and intensity of engagement, revealing that only the intensity of community engagement significantly predicted SoVC, suggesting that the quality of interactions within the community is more crucial than the frequency or duration of participation. We also examined the effects of active and passive use separately. The significant positive effect of active use on SoVC highlights the critical role of active participation in fostering a sense of belonging and engagement, contrasting some earlier findings (Gibbs et al., 2019). In addition, the fact that passive use did not show a significant effect suggests that, in contrast to previous work (Edelmann, 2013; Gibbs et al., 2019; Tonteri et al., 2011), merely consuming content without active contribution may not be sufficient to enhance individuals’ sense of community.

Overall, findings highlight the complex nature of governance in online communities and underscore the importance of balancing different governance approaches based on local needs. By emphasizing the importance of a balanced, configurational approach to governance, findings suggest that the strategic design of governance structures and peer enforcement of norms can significantly shape the sense of belonging online, irrespective of community size. The nuanced interplay revealed by the findings offers valuable insights for all stakeholders seeking to enhance community cohesion and member satisfaction online.

Limitations and future work

This study’s cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported data limit its ability to infer causality. Longitudinal studies could help determine causality and assess the stability of community outcomes over time. Furthermore, self-reports may introduce biases like social desirability, while using objective trace data could validate these insights and uncover additional patterns. In addition, this study did not account for the influence of platform affordances or individual motivations, which can significantly shape user experiences and therefore perceptions of the community. Future work could consider replicating this study in other contexts, across different platforms, which could help determine how context-specific factors, such as community type or topic, influence the effectiveness and outcomes of governance mechanisms. Future research should also consider the implications of emerging technologies, such as AI-driven bot moderation, which actively shape interaction dynamics and could significantly influence governance outcomes and SoVC. These technologies introduce new variables into the equation as online communities continue to grow and evolve, and they will likely play a critical role in shaping online governance dynamics.

Conclusion

This study highlights the significant impact of governance on the sense of virtual community experienced online. Findings reveal that member-driven decision-making and peer-enforced social control significantly enhance SoVC, above and beyond the effects of continued, active participation. However, a notable complexity arises with high levels of member involvement in decision-making potentially diminishing the effectiveness of peer-enforced control. In contrast, formal rule enforcement appears insufficient on its own to foster strong community bonds. Moreover, inclusive governance practices show promise in overcoming the challenges of larger community sizes, promoting cohesion, even in expansive online networks. These findings emphasize the need for a localized, configurational approach to governance in online communities, leveraging participatory processes and social control to enhance community cohesion and user engagement. Results offer important guidance for researchers, policymakers, community managers, and platform designers in developing effective online spaces. Future research should continue to explore these dynamics across different contexts to advance our understanding of effective governance approaches in online communities.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 2.

Zero-order correlations among study variables with VIF statistics.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	VIF
SoVC	1.00
Participatory Governance	0.17	1.00											1.22
Formal Control	0.30	0.29	1.00										1.83
Social Control	0.49	−0.14	0.54	1.00									1.77
Community Size	−0.19	−0.05	0.16	0.07	1.00								1.25
Use Frequency	0.13	0.11	0.22	0.11	0.20	1.00							1.21
Use Length	0.08	0.06	0.02	0.01	0.18	0.12	1.00						1.16
Use Intensity	0.41	0.03	0.15	0.27	0.08	0.17	0.16	1.00					1.31
Active Use	0.59	0.00	0.31	0.48	−0.14	0.29	0.03	0.45	1.00				1.63
Passive Use	−0.28	−0.13	0.04	−0.08	0.16	−0.13	−0.12	−0.28	−0.32	1.00			1.22
Connectedness	0.29	0.08	0.02	0.17	0.06	0.12	0.11	0.18	0.28	−0.16	1.00		1.21
Number of friends	0.41	0.17	0.02	0.20	0.04	0.14	0.27	0.22	0.35	−0.31	0.38	1.00	1.41

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Beril Bulat

Author biography

Beril Bulat holds a PhD in Communication from the University of California, Davis, and a master’s degree in Communication from the University of Vienna, Austria, with a background in Political Science and Sociology. Her work spans topics ranging from online misinformation and propaganda to the psychological impacts of governance and moderation in online communities.

References

Ahlfänger

Gemünden

Leker

(2022) Balancing knowledge sharing with protecting: the efficacy of formal control in open innovation projects. International Journal of Project Management 40(2): 105–119.

Akinwande

Dikko

Samson

(2015) Variance inflation factor: as a condition for the inclusion of suppressor variable(s) in regression analysis. Open Journal of Statistics 05(07): 754–767.

Anderson

(2010) Community psychology, political efficacy, and trust. Political Psychology 31(1): 59–84.

Auray

(2012) Online communities and governance mechanisms. In: Brousseau

Marzouki

Méadel

(eds) Governance, Regulation and Powers on the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 211–231.

Barker

(1993) Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(2): 408–437. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ475769 (accessed 16 January 2024).

Blanchard

(2011) Sense of virtual community. In: Information Resources Management Association (ed.) Virtual Communities: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 101–115.

Blanchard

(2008) Testing a model of sense of virtual community. Computers in Human Behavior 24(5): 2107–2123.

Blanchard

Markus

(2004) The experienced “sense” of a virtual community: characteristics and processes. SIGMIS Database 35(1): 64–79.

Blanchard

Welbourne

Boughton

(2011) A model of online trust. Information, Communication and Society 14(1): 76–106.

10.

Boulianne

(2015) Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication and Society 18(5): 524–538.

11.

Bruce

Lustig

, et al (2019) Loneliness in the United States: a 2018 national panel survey of demographic, structural, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics. American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP 33(8): 1123–1133.

12.

Bulat

Wang

Fujimoto

, et al (2024) The psychology of volunteer moderators: tradeoffs between participation, belonging, and norms in online community governance. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 29 July. DOI: 10.1177/14614448241259028.

13.

Burroughs

Eby

(1998) Psychological sense of community at work: A measurement system and explanatory framework. Journal of Community Psychology 26(6): 509–532.

14.

Butler

(2001) Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: a resource-based model of online social structures. Information Systems Research 12(4): 346–362.

15.

Butler

Joyce

Pike

(2008) Don’t look now, but we’ve created a bureaucracy: the nature and roles of policies and rules in Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, 5–10 April, pp. 1101–1110. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

16.

Cardinal

Sitkin

Long

(2010) A configurational theory of control. In: Sitkin

Cardinal

Katinka

(eds) Organizational Control (Vol. 51), pp. 85–100. Available at: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=iFPZ0CwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra

17.

Castells

(2010) The culture of real virtuality: the integration of electronic communication, the end of the mass audience, and the rise of interactive networks. In: Castells

(ed.) The Rise of the Network Society, Volume 1. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 355–406.

18.

Chakraborti

Bulat

Zhong

, et al (2022) Deconstructing written rules and hierarchy in peer produced software communities. arXiv [cs.CY]. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07992

19.

Chandrasekharan

Samory

Jhaver

, et al (2018) The internet’s hidden rules: an empirical study of Reddit norm violations at micro, meso, and macro scales. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2(CSCW): 1–25.

20.

Chavis

Wandersman

(1990) Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology 18(1): 55–81.

21.

Chen

Lin

(2014) Building a sense of virtual community: The role of the features of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 17(7): 460–465.

22.

Chen

G-L

Yang

S-C

Tang

S-M

(2013) Sense of virtual community and knowledge contribution in a P3 virtual community: motivation and experience. Internet Research 23(1): 4–26.

23.

Chesebro

(1985) Computer-mediated interpersonal communication. Information and Behavior 1: 202–222.

24.

Cocco

Lucarini

White

, et al. (2024) Virtually meeting “The Intouchables”: Online contact, sense of community, and prejudice toward people with a disability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 54(6): 332–343.

25.

Cunha

Jurgens

Tan

, et al (2019) Are all successful communities alike? characterizing and predicting the success of online communities. In: The world wide web conference, San Francisco, CA, 13–17 May, pp. 318–328. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

26.

De Jong

Bijlsma-Frankema

Cardinal

(2014) Stronger than the sum of its parts? the performance implications of peer control combinations in teams. Organization Science 25(6): 1703–1721.

27.

DeCaro

Janssen

Lee

(2021) Motivational foundations of communication, voluntary cooperation, and self-governance in a common-pool resource dilemma. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 2: 100016.

28.

Deci

Ryan

(1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York: Springer.

29.

Deci

Ryan

(2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11(4): 227–268.

30.

Dosono

Semaan

(2019) Moderation practices as emotional labor in sustaining online communities: the case of AAPI identity work on Reddit. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Glasgow, 4–9 May, pp. 1–13. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

31.

Edelmann

(2013) Reviewing the definitions of “lurkers” and some implications for online research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 16(9): 645–649.

32.

Eisenhardt

(1985) Control: organizational and economic approaches. Management Science 31(2): 134–149. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631511

33.

Ellickson

(1987) A critique of economic and sociological theories of social control. The Journal of Legal Studies 16(1): 67–99.

34.

Ellonen

H-K

Kosonen

Henttonen

(2007) The development of a sense of virtual community. International Journal of Web Based Communities 3(1): 114–130.

35.

Fiesler

Bruckman

(2019) Creativity, copyright, and close-knit communities: a case study of social norm formation and enforcement. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(GROUP): 1–24.

36.

Frey

Schneider

(2023) Effective voice: beyond exit and affect in online communities. New Media & Society 25(9): 2381–2398.

37.

Frey

Sumner

(2019) Emergence of integrated institutions in a large population of self-governing communities. PLoS ONE 14(7): e0216335.

38.

Frey

Krafft

Keegan

(2019) ‘This place does what it was built for’: designing digital institutions for participatory change. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW): 1–31.

39.

Frey

Zhong

Bulat

, et al (2022) Governing online goods: maturity and formalization in Minecraft, Reddit, and world of warcraft communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW2): 1–23.

40.

Gallagher

Savage

(2013) Cross-cultural analysis in online community research: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior 29(3): 1028–1038.

41.

Gibbs

Kim

(2019) Investigating the role of control and support mechanisms in members’ sense of virtual community. Communication Research 46(1): 117–145.

42.

Gilbert

(2020) ‘I run the world’s largest historical outreach project and it’s on a cesspool of a website.’ Moderating a public scholarship site on Reddit: a case study of r/AskHistorians. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4(CSCW1): 1–27.

43.

Gilliland

Manning

(2002) When do firms conform to regulatory control? the effect of control processes on compliance and opportunism. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 21(2): 319–331.

44.

Goldberg

Schär

(2023) Metaverse governance: an empirical analysis of voting within Decentralized Autonomous Organizations. Journal of Business Research 160: 113764.

45.

González-Anta

Orengo

Zornoza

, et al (2021) Understanding the sense of community and continuance intention in virtual communities: the role of commitment and type of community. Social Science Computer Review 39(3): 335–352.

46.

Gossett

Tompkins

(2000) Community as a means of organizational control. In: Shepher

Rothenbuhler

(eds) Communication and Community. London: Routledge, pp. 111–113.

47.

Graddy

Wang

(2009) Community foundation development and social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38(3): 392–412.

48.

Grimmelmann

(2015) The virtues of moderation. Yale Journal of Law & Technology 17: 42. Available at: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/yjolt17&section=3

49.

Gusfield

(1975) Community: A Critical Response. New York: Harper & Row Books. Available at: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282269586529536

50.

Harrison

St. John

(1996) Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Perspectives 10(2): 46–60.

51.

Yao

Tang

, et al. (2023) Impacts of different interactions on viewers’ sense of virtual community: An empirical study of live streaming platform. Behaviour & Information Technology 42(7): 940–960.

52.

Hiltz

Turoff

(1978) The Network Nation: Human Communication Via Computer. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Available at: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=VEOhWGs26X0C

53.

Hilvert-Bruce

Neill

Sjöblom

, et al. (2018) Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior 84: 58–67.

54.

S-H

Huang

C-H

(2009) Exploring success factors of video game communities in hierarchical linear modeling: the perspectives of members and leaders. Computers in Human Behavior 25(3): 761–769.

55.

Hwang

Shaw

(2022) Rules and rule-making in the five largest Wikipedias. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 16: 347–357.

56.

Ivaturi

Chua

(2019) Framing norms in online communities. Information & Management 56(1): 15–27.

57.

Janssen

Ostrom

(2006) Governing social-ecological systems. In: Tesfatsion

Judd

(eds) Handbook of Computational Economics (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1465–1509.

58.

Jaworski

(1988) Toward a theory of marketing control: environmental context, control types, and consequences. Journal of Marketing 52(3): 23.

59.

Jaworski

MacInnis

(1989) Marketing jobs and management controls: toward a framework. Journal of Marketing Research 26(4): 406–419.

60.

Jaworski

Stathakopoulos

Krishnan

(1993) Control combinations in marketing: conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing 57(1): 57.

61.

Jenkins

III (1988) Star Trek rerun, reread, rewritten: Fan writing as textual poaching. Critical Studies in Media Communication 5(2): 85–107.

62.

Jiang

Kiene

Middler

, et al (2019) Moderation challenges in voice-based online communities on discord. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3: 55.

63.

Jhaver

Bruckman

Gilbert

(2019) Does transparency in moderation really matter? User behavior after content removal explanations on reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW): 1–27.

64.

Juneja

Rama Subramanian

Mitra

(2020) Through the looking glass: study of transparency in Reddit’s moderation practices. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4(GROUP): 1–35.

65.

Kairam

Mercado

Sumner

(2022) A social-ecological approach to modeling Sense of Virtual Community (SOVC) in livestreaming communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW2): 356.

66.

Kairam

Wang

Leskovec

(2012) The life and death of online groups: predicting group growth and longevity. In: Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, Seattle, WA, 8–12 February, pp. 673–682. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

67.

Kerr

(1986) IEEE transactions on professional communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 29(1): 12–18.

68.

Kiene

Monroy-Hernández

Hill

(2016) Surviving an ‘eternal September’: how an online community managed a surge of newcomers. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, 7–12 May. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

69.

Kiesler

Kraut

Resnick

, et al (2011) Regulating behavior in online communities. In: Kraut

Resnick

(eds) Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 125–177.

70.

Kirsch

(1997) Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Information Systems Research 8(3): 215–239.

71.

Koh

Kim

Y-G

Kim

Y-G

(2003) Sense of virtual community: a conceptual framework and empirical validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8(2): 75–94.

72.

Kollock

Smith

(1996) Managing the virtual commons: cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In: Herring

(ed.) Computer-mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-cultural Perspectives. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 109–128.

73.

Kraut

Resnick

(2012) Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design. London: MIT Press.

74.

Kreutzer

Cardinal

Walter

, et al (2016) Formal and informal control as complement or substitute? the role of the task environment. Strategy Science 1(4): 235–255.

75.

Lazar

Preece

(2002) Social considerations in online communities: usability, sociability, and success factors. In: Van Oostendorp

(ed.) Cognition in the Digital World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, pp. 1–46.

76.

Chen

(2022) How online social interactions predict the sense of virtual community via social capital: Testing a dual-process model with an interest–based SNS. Computers in Human Behavior 135: 107347.

77.

Lindblad

Manturuk

Quercia

(2013) Sense of community and informal social control among lower income households: the role of homeownership and collective efficacy in reducing subjective neighborhood crime and disorder. American Journal of Community Psychology 51(1–2): 123–139.

78.

McEwan

Gutwin

(2017) A case study of how a reduction in explicit leadership changed an online game community. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal 26(4): 873–925.

79.

McMillan

(2011) Sense of community, a theory not a value: a response to Nowell and Boyd. Journal of Community Psychology 39(5): 507–519.

80.

McMillan

Chavis

(1986) Sense of community: a definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14(1): 6–23.

81.

Malinen

(2015) Understanding user participation in online communities: a systematic literature review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior 46: 228–238.

82.

Mamonov

Koufaris

Benbunan-Fich

(2016) The role of the sense of community in the sustainability of social network sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 20(4): 470-498.

83.

Markus

Manville

Agres

(2000) What Makes a Virtual Organization Work? MIT Sloan Management Review 42(1): 13–26.

84.

Massanari

(2017) #Gamergate and The Fappening: how Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society 19(3): 329–346.

85.

Matias

(2019) The civic labor of volunteer moderators online. Social Media + Society 5(2): 2056305119836778.

86.

Mitchell

(1995) The end of public space? People’s Park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the association of american geographers 85(1): 108–133.

87.

Naranjo-Zolotov

Oliveira

Casteleyn

, et al (2019) Continuous usage of e-participation: the role of the sense of virtual community. Government Information Quarterly 36(3): 536–545.

88.

Obst

Zinkiewicz

Smith

(2002) Sense of community in science fiction fandom, part 1: understanding sense of community in an international community of interest. Journal of Community Psychology 30(1): 87–103.

89.

Olson

Jr. (1971) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, with a New Preface and Appendix. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Available at: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=bH_fN60W85UC

90.

O’Reilly

Chatman

(1996) Culture as social control: corporations, cults, and commitment. In: Staw

(ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews (Vol. 18), pp. 157–200. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1996-98665-004.pdf

91.

Ostrom

(1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

92.

Ostrom

(1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. The American Political Science Review 92(1): 1–22.

93.

Ostrom

(1999) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In: Sabatier

(ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, pp. 21–64.

94.

Ouchi

(1979) A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science 25(9): 833–848.

95.

Ouchi

Price

(1978) Hierarchies, clans, and theory Z: a new perspective on organization development. Organizational Dynamics 7(2): 25–44.

96.

Panek

Hollenbach

Yang

, et al (2018) The effects of group size and time on the formation of online communities: evidence from Reddit. Social Media + Society 4(4): 2056305118815908.

97.

Peñarroja

Sánchez

Gamero

, et al. (2019) The influence of organisational facilitating conditions and technology acceptance factors on the effectiveness of virtual communities of practice. Behaviour & Information Technology 38(8): 845–857.

98.

Peterson

Speer

McMillan

(2008) Validation of a brief sense of community scale: confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology 36(1): 61–73.

99.

Poor

(2014) Computer game modders’ motivations and sense of community: A mixed-methods approach. New Media & Society 16(8): 1249–1267.

100.

Preece

(2000) Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Sociability. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

101.

Preece

(2001) Online communities: usability, sociability, theory and methods. In: Earnshaw

Guedj

van Dam

, et al (eds) Frontiers of Human-Centered Computing, Online Communities and Virtual Environments. London: Springer, pp. 263–277.

102.

Putnam

(2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon Schuster.

103.

Ren

Kraut

Kiesler

, et al (2012) Encouraging commitment in online communities. In: Kraut

Resnick

(eds) Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 77–124.

104.

Ryan

Deci

(2006) Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality 74(6): 1557–1585.

105.

Sarason

(1974) The psychological sense of community: prospects for a community psychology, 290. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1975-01813-000.pdf

106.

Schneider

De Filippi

Frey

, et al (2021) Modular politics: toward a governance layer for online communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW1): 1–26.

107.

Schöpke-Gonzalez

Atreja

Shin

, et al (2022) Why do volunteer content moderators quit? burnout, conflict, and harmful behaviors. New Media & Society 26: 5677–5701.

108.

Schweik

(2005) An institutional analysis approach to studying libre software “commons.” The European Journal for the Informatics Professional 6(3): 17–28. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=4f1a199ba3660431112f193f5f36b85175e7e12b#page=19

109.

Seering

(2020) Reconsidering Self-moderation: the role of research in supporting community-based models for online content moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4(CSCW2): 1–28.

110.

Seering

Kaufman

Chancellor

(2022) Metaphors in moderation. New Media & Society 24(3): 621–640.

111.

Seering

Kraut

Dabbish

(2017) Shaping pro and anti-social behavior on twitch through moderation and example-setting. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland, OR, 25 February–1 March, pp. 111–125. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

112.

Seering

Wang

Yoon

, et al (2019) Moderator engagement and community development in the age of algorithms. New Media & Society 21(7): 1417–1443.

113.

Shen

Khalifa

(2013) Effects of technical and social design on virtual community identification: a comparison approach. Behaviour & Information Technology 32(10): 986–997.

114.

Shirky

(2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin.

115.

Sitkin

Cardinal

Bijlsma-Frankema

(2010) Organizational Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://books.google.com/books/about/Organizational_Control.html?id=dJWlVjJDDTEC (accessed 15 November 2024).

116.

Skousen

Safadi

Karahanna

, et al (2019) Tension resolution and sustaining knowledge flows in online communities. In: 40th international conference on information systems, ICIS 2019. Association for Information Systems. Available at: https://mayoclinic.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/tension-resolution-and-sustaining-knowledge-flows-in-online-commu-2 (accessed 30 May 2024).

117.

Squirrell

(2019) Platform dialectics: the relationships between volunteer moderators and end users on Reddit. New Media & Society 21(9): 1910–1927.

118.

Srinivasan

Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

Lee

, et al (2019) Content removal as a moderation strategy: compliance and other outcomes in the ChangeMyView community. Proceedings of the ACM on Human Computer Interaction 3(CSCW): 1–21.

119.

Strimling

Frey

(2020) Emergent cultural differences in online communities’ norms of fairness. Games and Culture 15(4): 394–410.

120.

Talò

Mannarini

Rochira

(2014) Sense of community and community participation: A meta-analytic review. Social Indicators Research 117: 1–28.

121.

Tan

(2018) Tracing community genealogy: how new communities emerge from the old. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 12(1): 395–404.

122.

Thach

Mayworm

Delmonaco

, et al (2022) (In)visible moderation: a digital ethnography of marginalized users and content moderation on Twitch and Reddit. New Media & Society 26: 4034–4055.

123.

Thompson

(2005) Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice. Organization Science 16(2): 151–164.

124.

Tompkins

Cheney

(1985) Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In: McPhee

Tompkins

(eds) Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp: 179–210.

125.

Tonteri

Kosonen

Ellonen

H-K

, et al (2011) Antecedents of an experienced sense of virtual community. Computers in Human Behavior 27(6): 2215–2223.

126.

Topinka

(2018) Politically incorrect participatory media: racist nationalism on r/ImGoingToHellForThis. New Media & Society 20(5): 2050–2069.

127.

Trinkenreich

Stol

K-J

Sarma

, et al (2023) Do I belong? modeling sense of virtual community among Linux kernel contributors. In: 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 14–20 May, pp. 319–331. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

128.

Tyler

Degoey

(1995) Collective restraint in social dilemmas: procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(3): 482–497.

129.

Van Dijck

Poell

(2015) Social media and the transformation of public space. Social Media+ Society 1(2): 2056305115622482.

130.

Walters

Bolger

(2019) Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs, and compliance with the law: a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology 15(3): 341–372.

131.

Weibel

(2007) Formal control and trustworthiness: shall the twain never meet? Group & Organization Management 32(4): 500–517.

132.

Welbourne

Blanchard

Boughton

(2009) Supportive communication, sense of virtual community and health outcomes in online infertility groups. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on communities and technologies, University Park, PA, 25–27 June, pp. 31–40. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

133.

Weld

(2024) Quantifying governance of online communities at web scale. In: Companion proceedings of the ACM web conference 2024 (Vol. 8), Singapore, 13–17 May, pp. 1222–1225. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

134.

Weld

Zhang

Althoff

(2022) What makes online communities ‘better’? measuring values, consensus, and conflict across thousands of subreddits. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth international AAAI conference on web and social media. Available at: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/19363/19135 (accessed 28 March 2023).

135.

Wright

Barker

(2000) Assessing concertive control in the term environment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73(3): 345–361.

136.

Zhang

(2009) Feeling the sense of community in social networking usage. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 57(2): 225–239.

137.

Zhang

Hugh

Bernstein

(2020) PolicyKit: building governance in online communities. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, Virtual Event, 20–23 October, pp. 365–378. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

138.

Zuckerman

Porac

Lathin

, et al (1978) On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 4(3): 443–446.

Governance dynamics in online communities: Autonomy,control,and sense of virtual community

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature review

Online communities

SoVC

Online governance, autonomy, and control

Current study

Governance processes

Formal control

Social control

Community size and participatory governance

Methods

Measures

Results

Discussion

Limitations and future work

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biography

References