The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What's Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing
Abstract
As technology for information access improves, people have more opportunities to share information. A theory of information sharing is advanced and we report the results of three experiments on attitudes about sharing technical work and expertise in organizations. Based on research on sensitive topics difficult to study in the field, we derived vignette-based measures of attitudes. Subjects read a description of an employee's encounter with a previously unhelpful coworker who subsequently requested help—in the form of a computer program or computer advice. The influence of prosocial attitudes and organizational norms is inferred from subjects' support of sharing despite the previous unhelpful behavior of the coworker. Experiments 1 and 3 demonstrated that greater self interest reduces support of sharing, but that a belief in organizational ownership of work encourages and mediates attitudes favoring sharing. Work experience and business schooling contribute to these attitudes. The theory asserts that information as expertise belongs to a special category of information that is part of people's identity and is self-expressive. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that subjects felt computer expertise belonged more to its possessor than the computer program did but would share it more than the program. Hence, attitudes about information sharing depend on the form of the information. Sharing tangible information work may depend on prosocial attitudes and norms of organizational ownership; sharing expertise may depend on people's own self-expressive needs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Cited by
Thriving at work: A meta‐analysis
Kleine, A., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2019) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2375 · Cited by 606
Ba, S., Stallaert, J., & Whinston, A. B. (2001) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.12.3.225.9712 · Cited by 326
Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K., & Chen, H. (2010) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.003 · Cited by 306
Sharing Knowledge and Expertise: The CSCW View of Knowledge Management
Ackerman, M. S., Dachtera, J., Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2013) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-013-9192-8 · Cited by 229
Mettler, T., & Winter, R. (2016) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2015.28 · Cited by 47
Influence of social software features on the reuse of Business Intelligence reports
Alpar, P., Engler, T. H., & Schulz, M. (2015) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2015.01.004 · Cited by 36
“I Would Just Ask Someone”: Learning Feature-Rich Design Software in the Modern Workplace
Kiani, K., Chilana, P. K., Bunt, A., Grossman, T., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2020) · 2020 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) · doi:10.1109/vl/hcc50065.2020.9127288 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 1994-12
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 400-421
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2021451445
- Cited by
- 1,173
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.