1 / 17

An Experimental Investigation of Information Sharing

An Experimental Investigation of Information Sharing. Daphne Raban Graduate School of Business University of Haifa draban@univ.haifa.ac.il. Presentation Outline. Why study information sharing? Explanations for reduced sharing Theories Information ownership

step
Download Presentation

An Experimental Investigation of Information Sharing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An Experimental Investigation of Information Sharing Daphne Raban Graduate School of Business University of Haifa draban@univ.haifa.ac.il

  2. Presentation Outline • Why study information sharing? • Explanations for reduced sharing • Theories • Information ownership • Research question and variables • Hypotheses • Experiment • Results • Discussion University of Haifa

  3. Why StudyInformationSharing? • Integral part of work and business • A significant application of IS • Contrasting sharing behaviors University of Haifa

  4. Explanations of Reduced Sharing • Information ‘commons’ invite the ‘tragedy of the commons’, free riding • Database-mediated sharing(Connolly and Thorn, 1990) • Interpersonal sharing(Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994) • Too much effort required • Asymmetry University of Haifa

  5. Theories • Communality(Fulk and Flanagin, 1996; Wasco and Faraj, 2000) • Pro-social transformation(Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994) • Critical mass(Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994) • Diffusion of responsibility(Barron and Yechiam, 2002) • Leadership(Butler, Sproull et al., in press) • Perception of ownership(Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000 & 2001) University of Haifa

  6. Information Ownership • Uneven ownership may create free riding(Adar and Huberman, 2000), OTOH, when ownership is even is sharing needed? • Ownership and self-enhancement (Heider, 1958; Beggan, 1992) • No transfer of rights • Ownership is not clear – an opportunity for framing by IS • Is free riding all that bad in IS? University of Haifa

  7. Research Question and Variables • How can system-induced ownership status influence sharing? • IV: ownership status (3 levels) • DV: willingness to share (WTS) University of Haifa

  8. Research Hypotheses • H1: WTS for privately-owned expertise will be higher than WTS information depicted as an organizationally-owned document • H2: WTS for a privately-owned document will be higher than WTS for information depicted as an organizationally-owned document University of Haifa

  9. The Experiment University of Haifa

  10. Results • 173 participants, 3 treatments, each received one public and one private request for information. University of Haifa

  11. Results of χ2 Tests • H1: WTS for privately-owned expertise will be higher than WTS information depicted as an organizationally-owned document University of Haifa

  12. Results of χ2 Tests • H2: WTS for a privately-owned document will be higher than WTS for information depicted as an organizationally-owned document University of Haifa

  13. Further Analysis • A McNemar test showed a significant difference between WTS for personal and public requests for help (p<0.03) • There was no significant difference for WTS of expertise and private document University of Haifa

  14. Discussion • WTS was significantly higher for expertise and private document than for organizational document • WTS was significantly higher for private requests than for public requests • A simple system-induced depiction of ownership created a significant difference in WTS • Lack of difference between expertise and private document indicates ownership has more influence than information source University of Haifa

  15. Discussion • No problem in using the IM application: a total of 262 personal message and 484 public messages were posted • 13% of the personal messages were WTS • 4% of the public messages were WTS • Sharing induced more by personal appeal • Public channel used more to ‘broadcast’ than to interact • Possible diffusion of responsibility in the public channel University of Haifa

  16. Conclusion and Future Research • A simple system-induced depiction of ownership created a significant difference in WTS • Why are people more inclined to broadcast information publicly but share information more in private? • Do people who participate more also help more? • Is information sharing perceived as a solution to information overload or to information deficiency? • What is the interplay between information sharing, searching and purchasing? University of Haifa

  17. Thank you for listening! draban@univ.haifa.ac.il

More Related