an experimental investigation of information sharing

An Experimental Investigation An Experimental Investigation of Information Sharingof Information Sharing

Daphne RabanDaphne Raban

Graduate School of BusinessGraduate School of Business

University of HaifaUniversity of Haifa

[email protected]@univ.haifa.ac.il

University of HaifaUniversity of Haifa 22

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Why study information sharing?Why study information sharing? Explanations for reduced sharingExplanations for reduced sharing TheoriesTheories Information ownershipInformation ownership Research question and variablesResearch question and variables HypothesesHypotheses ExperimentExperiment ResultsResults DiscussionDiscussion


Why StudyWhy Study InformationInformation Sharing?Sharing?

Integral part of work and businessIntegral part of work and business

A significant application of ISA significant application of IS

Contrasting sharing behaviors Contrasting sharing behaviors


Explanations of Reduced SharingExplanations of Reduced Sharing

Information ‘commons’ invite the ‘tragedy Information ‘commons’ invite the ‘tragedy of the commons’, free ridingof the commons’, free riding Database-mediated sharingDatabase-mediated sharing (Connolly and Thorn, (Connolly and Thorn,

1990)1990)

Interpersonal sharingInterpersonal sharing (Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994)(Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994)

Too much effort requiredToo much effort required

AsymmetryAsymmetry


TheoriesTheories CommunalityCommunality (Fulk and Flanagin, 1996; Wasco and Faraj, 2000)(Fulk and Flanagin, 1996; Wasco and Faraj, 2000)

Pro-social transformationPro-social transformation (Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994)(Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994)

Critical massCritical mass (Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994)(Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994)

Diffusion of responsibilityDiffusion of responsibility (Barron and Yechiam, 2002)(Barron and Yechiam, 2002)

LeadershipLeadership (Butler, Sproull et al., in press)(Butler, Sproull et al., in press)

Perception of ownershipPerception of ownership (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000 & 2001)(Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000 & 2001)


Information OwnershipInformation Ownership UnevenUneven ownership may create free riding ownership may create free riding (Adar and (Adar and

Huberman, 2000)Huberman, 2000),, OTOH, when ownership is OTOH, when ownership is eveneven is sharing is sharing needed?needed?

Ownership and self-enhancement Ownership and self-enhancement (Heider, 1958; Beggan, 1992)(Heider, 1958; Beggan, 1992)

No transfer of rightsNo transfer of rights

Ownership is not clear – an opportunity for framing by ISOwnership is not clear – an opportunity for framing by IS

Is free riding all that bad in IS?Is free riding all that bad in IS?


Research Question and VariablesResearch Question and Variables

How can system-induced ownership status How can system-induced ownership status influence sharing?influence sharing?

IV: ownership status IV: ownership status (3 levels)(3 levels)

DV: willingness to share DV: willingness to share (WTS)(WTS)


Research HypothesesResearch Hypotheses

H1H1: WTS for privately-owned : WTS for privately-owned expertiseexpertise will be higher than WTS information will be higher than WTS information depicted as an depicted as an organizationally-owned organizationally-owned documentdocument

H2H2: WTS for a : WTS for a privately-owned documentprivately-owned document will be higher than WTS for information will be higher than WTS for information depicted as an depicted as an organizationally-owned organizationally-owned documentdocument


The ExperimentThe Experiment


ResultsResults 173 participants, 3 treatments, each received one public 173 participants, 3 treatments, each received one public

and one private request for information.and one private request for information.

WTS for 3 Levels of Ownership

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%

personalrequest

public request

exertise

priv. doc.

org. doc.


Results of Results of χχ2 2 TestsTests

H1H1: WTS for privately-owned : WTS for privately-owned expertiseexpertise will be higher than will be higher than WTS information depicted as an WTS information depicted as an organizationally-owned organizationally-owned documentdocument

Expertise/Organizational documentExpertise/Organizational document

Personal requestPersonal requestPublic requestPublic request

χχ224.214.211.491.49

Sig.Sig.0.03*0.03*0.17 (NS)0.17 (NS)


Results of Results of χχ2 2 TestsTests

H2H2: WTS for a : WTS for a privately-owned documentprivately-owned document will be higher will be higher than WTS for information depicted as an than WTS for information depicted as an organizationally-organizationally-owned documentowned document

Private document/Organizational documentPrivate document/Organizational document

Personal requestPersonal requestPublic requestPublic request

χχ223.653.651.051.05

Sig.Sig.0.05*0.05*0.25 (NS)0.25 (NS)


Further AnalysisFurther Analysis

A McNemar test showed a significant A McNemar test showed a significant difference between WTS for personal and difference between WTS for personal and public requests for help (p<0.03)public requests for help (p<0.03)

There was no significant difference for There was no significant difference for WTS of expertise and private documentWTS of expertise and private document


DiscussionDiscussion WTS was significantly higher for expertise and private WTS was significantly higher for expertise and private

document than for organizational documentdocument than for organizational document

WTS was significantly higher for private requests than WTS was significantly higher for private requests than for public requestsfor public requests

A simple system-induced depiction of ownership A simple system-induced depiction of ownership created a significant difference in WTScreated a significant difference in WTS

Lack of difference between expertise and private Lack of difference between expertise and private document indicates ownership has more influence than document indicates ownership has more influence than information sourceinformation source


DiscussionDiscussion No problem in using the IM application: a total of 262 No problem in using the IM application: a total of 262

personal message and 484 public messages were personal message and 484 public messages were postedposted

13% of the personal messages were WTS13% of the personal messages were WTS

4% of the public messages were WTS4% of the public messages were WTS

Sharing induced more by personal appealSharing induced more by personal appeal

Public channel used more to ‘broadcast’ than to interactPublic channel used more to ‘broadcast’ than to interact

Possible diffusion of responsibility in the public channelPossible diffusion of responsibility in the public channel


Conclusion and Future ResearchConclusion and Future Research

A simple system-induced depiction of ownership A simple system-induced depiction of ownership created a significant difference in WTScreated a significant difference in WTS

Why are people more inclined to broadcast information Why are people more inclined to broadcast information publicly but share information more in private?publicly but share information more in private?

Do people who participate more also help more? Do people who participate more also help more?

Is information sharing perceived as a solution to Is information sharing perceived as a solution to information overload or to information deficiency?information overload or to information deficiency?

What is the interplay between information sharing, What is the interplay between information sharing, searching and purchasing?searching and purchasing?

Thank you for listening!

[email protected]@univ.haifa.ac.il

an experimental investigation of information sharing

Documents