IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tsa/wpaper/0027is.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Investigating the Reciprocal Relationships Within Health Virtual Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Zhechao (Charles) Liu

    (University of Texas at San Antonio)

  • Nima Kordzadeh

    (University of Texas at San Antonio)

  • Yoris A. Au

    (University of Texas at San Antonio)

  • Jan G. Clark

    (University of Texas at San Antonio)

Abstract

This paper attempts to shed light on the puzzling finding that the results of applying the conventional or nonlinear unit root tests to the yen real exchange rates (RERs) in some recent studies appear to be rather sensitive to whether or not including the data of recent decade in the studies. It is found that this sensitivity of the test results may come from the failure to take into account the large rise and fall in the yen RERs. Using the newly developed unit root tests which account for the presence of multiple smooth temporary breaks in the RERs, the results clearly show that the yen RERs in the post-Bretton Woods period can be characterized as being linear or nonlinear stationary around infrequent smooth temporary mean changes, supporting the validity of PPP.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhechao (Charles) Liu & Nima Kordzadeh & Yoris A. Au & Jan G. Clark, 2012. "Investigating the Reciprocal Relationships Within Health Virtual Communities," Working Papers 0007, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    • Handle: RePEc:tsa:wpaper:0027is
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://interim.business.utsa.edu/wps/is/0007IS-673-2012.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Marko Pahor & Miha Škerlavaj & Vlado Dimovski, 2007. "The Network Perspective To Organizational Learning — A Comparison Of Two Companies," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Christian Stary & Franz Barachini & Suliman Hawamdeh (ed.), Knowledge Management Innovation, Technology and Cultures, chapter 6, pages 65-79, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Mike Thelwall, 2009. "Homophily in MySpace," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(2), pages 219-231, February.
    4. Marko Pahor & Miha Škerlavaj & Vlado Dimovski, 2008. "Evidence for the network perspective on organizational learning," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(12), pages 1985-1994, October.
    5. Brian S. Butler, 2001. "Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based Model of Online Social Structures," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 346-362, December.
    6. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2003. "Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 209-223, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kordzadeh, Nima & Warren, John & Seifi, Ali, 2016. "Antecedents of privacy calculus components in virtual health communities," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 724-734.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elina H. Hwang & Param Vir Singh & Linda Argote, 2015. "Knowledge Sharing in Online Communities: Learning to Cross Geographic and Hierarchical Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1593-1611, December.
    2. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    3. Wonseok Oh & Jae Yun Moon & Jungpil Hahn & Taekyung Kim, 2016. "Research Note—Leader Influence on Sustained Participation in Online Collaborative Work Communities: A Simulation-Based Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 383-402, June.
    4. Carol X. J. Ou & Robert M. Davison, 2016. "Shaping guanxi networks at work through instant messaging," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1153-1168, May.
    5. Alain Mermoud & Marcus Matthias Keupp & Kévin Huguenin & Maximilian Palmié & Dimitri Percia David, 2019. "To share or not to share: A behavioral perspective on human participation in security information sharing," Post-Print hal-02147702, HAL.
    6. Ulrich Bretschneider & Marco Hartmann & Jan Marco Leimeister, 2018. "Keep them alive! Design and Evaluation of the “Community Fostering Reference Model”," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 60(6), pages 493-511, December.
    7. Nikolaus Franke & Peter Keinz & Katharina Klausberger, 2013. "“Does This Sound Like a Fair Deal?”: Antecedents and Consequences of Fairness Expectations in the Individual’s Decision to Participate in Firm Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1495-1516, October.
    8. Atif Ahmad & Kevin C. Desouza & Sean B. Maynard & Humza Naseer & Richard L. Baskerville, 2020. "How integration of cyber security management and incident response enables organizational learning," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 939-953, August.
    9. Marjan Cugmas & Anuška Ferligoj & Miha Škerlavaj & Aleš Žiberna, 2021. "Global structures and local network mechanisms of knowledge-flow networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-23, February.
    10. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    11. Carlo Borzaga & Ermanno Tortia, 2004. "Worker involvement in entrepreneurial nonprofit organizations. Toward a new assessment of workers' perceived satisfaction and fairness," Department of Economics Working Papers 0409, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    12. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    13. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    14. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    15. Friedrich Heinemann & Martin Kocher, 2013. "Tax compliance under tax regime changes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(2), pages 225-246, April.
    16. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Ann Majchrzak, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Vigilant Interaction in Knowledge Collaboration: Challenges of Online User Participation Under Ambivalence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 773-784, December.
    17. Drouvelis, Michalis & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2015. "Are happier people less judgmental of other people's selfish behaviors? Experimental survey evidence from trust and gift exchange games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 111-123.
    18. David, Paul A. & Shapiro, Joseph S., 2008. "Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 364-398, December.
    19. Liuan Wang & Lu (Lucy) Yan & Tongxin Zhou & Xitong Guo & Gregory R. Heim, 2020. "Understanding Physicians’ Online-Offline Behavior Dynamics: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 537-555, June.
    20. Sauermann, Jan, 2015. "Worker Reciprocity and the Returns to Training: Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 9179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tsa:wpaper:0027is. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wendy Frost (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbutsus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.