CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 199Sharing Economy and PlatformsDigital Marketing and Social MediaPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Self-Disclosure and Perceived Trustworthiness of Airbnb Host Profiles

Ma, Xiao, Hancock, Jeffrey T., Lim Mingjie, Kenneth, Naaman, Mor·2017·Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
DOI 10.1145/2998181.2998269
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Online peer-to-peer platforms like Airbnb allow hosts to list a property (e.g. a house, or a room) for short-term rentals. In this work, we examine how hosts describe themselves on their Airbnb profile pages. We use a mixed-methods study to develop a categorization of the topics that hosts self-disclose in their profile descriptions, and show that these topics differ depending on the type of guest engagement expected. We also examine the perceived trustworthiness of profiles using topic-coded profiles from 1,200 hosts, showing that longer self-descriptions are perceived to be more trustworthy. Further, we show that there are common strategies (a mix of topics) hosts use in self-disclosure, and that these strategies cause differences in perceived trustworthiness scores. Finally, we show that the perceived trustworthiness score is a significant predictor of host choice--especially for shorter profiles that show more variation. The results are consistent with uncertainty reduction theory, reflect on the assertions of signaling theory, and have important design implications for sharing economy platforms, especially those facilitating online-to-offline social exchange.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2998181.2998269

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Trust in machines can be examined in terms of people's confidence in a machine's ability to perform as expected, benevolence, and integrity to adhere to ethical standards.

    “Prior researchers have examined trust in machines in terms of people's confidence in a machine's ability to perform as expected, benevolence (well-meaning), and integrity to adhere to ethical standards [36]”

    From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ma, X., Hancock, J. T., Lim Mingjie, K., & Naaman, M.
Affiliations
  • Cornell Tech (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-02-25
Pages
2397-2409
DOI
10.1145/2998181.2998269
OpenAlex
W2588243197
Cited by
199
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 12
FWCI
102.84
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
self-disclosure, perceived trustworthiness, Airbnb, peer-to-peer platforms, short-term rentals, uncertainty reduction theory, signaling theory, sharing economy, host selection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review