CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Sharing Economy and PlatformsPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding resource sharing in C2C platforms: The role of picture humanization

Open access
Teubner, Timm, Adam, Marc T P, Camacho, Sonia, Hassanein, Khaled·2014·Unpublished
DOI 10.13140/2.1.3578.0167
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Sharing spare resources on C2C web platforms yields economic advantages for users on both supply and demand sides. It also increases resource efficiency by enabling better utilization patterns, which in turn provides societal and environmental benefits. Establishing trust among users is a key factor in facilitating the sharing of resources in such platforms. Among other methods, the use of profile pictures has proven to increase trust in peer-to-peer interactions. However, this comes at a considerable cost of privacy. In this study, we compare different levels of user representations (i.e. picture humanization) in a lab experiment involving 216 users and analyze their effect on users’ sharing behaviour on a C2C platform. Our results indicate that an increased level of picture humanization increases users’ perception of social presence and decreases their perception of anonymity. In turn, perceived anonymity has a marginal negative impact on users’ sharing behaviour while perceived social presence impacts positively users’ sharing behaviour through a path that involves trust and perceived reciprocity.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.13140/2.1.3578.0167

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Subjects trusted their socially present peers more than their anonymous ones, and trust translated into sharing behavior.

    “Teubner et al. (2014) found, based on different types of user representation in an experiment, that subjects trusted their socially present peers more than their anonymous ones, and that trust translated into sharing behavior.”

    From Trust in the Sharing Economy (2016) · cites this paper as Teubner et al. 2014

    The Results and Conclusion (page unavailable in our copy) support a pathway from greater perceived social presence to trust, reciprocity, and actual sharing behavior. But the experiment compared photos, avatars, and gender-indicating default images; it did not report a direct comparison of trust in socially present peers versus fully anonymous peers. The conclusion explicitly leaves full anonymity for future research. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Annetta, L. A. 2010. "The `I's´ have it: A framework for serious educational game design," Review of General Psychology (14:2), pp. 105-112.
  2. Au, N., Ngai, E., and Cheng, T. C. (2008). Extending the understanding of end user information systems satisfaction formation: An equitable needs fulfillment model approach. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 43-66.
  3. Bartol, K. M., and Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9 (1), 64-77.
  4. Bente, G., Baptist, O., and Leuschner, H. 2012. "To buy or not to buy: Influence of seller photos and reputation on buyer trust and purchase behavior," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (70:1), pp. 1-13.
  5. Berninghaus, S., Güth, W., and Vogt, B. 2008. "Spontaneous evolution of social exchange: An experimental study," The Journal of Socio-Economics, (37:3), pp. 976-997.
  6. Bohnet, I., and Frey, B. S. 1999. "Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment," American Economic Review (89:1), pp. 335-339.
  7. Burnham, T. C. 2003. "Engineering altruism: a theoretical and experimental investigation of anonymity and gift giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (50:1), pp. 133-144.
  8. Byrne, D. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.
  9. Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., and Kritikos, A. (2012). Trust, positive reciprocity, and negative reciprocity: Do these traits impact entrepreneurial dynamics? Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 394-409.
  10. Charness, G., and Gneezy, U. 2008. "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (68:1), pp. 29-35.
  11. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. Marcoulides, Modern Methods for Business Research (pp. 295-336). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D. 1960. "A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology," Journal of Consulting Psychology (24:4), pp. 349-354.
  13. Cyr, D., Hassanein, K., Head, M., and Ivanov, A. 2007. "The role of social presence in establishing loyalty in e- service environments," Interacting with Computers (19:1), pp. 43-56.
  14. Cyr, D., Head, M., Larios, H., and Pan, B. 2009. "Exploring human images in website design: a multi-method approach," Management Information Systems Quarterly (33:3), pp. 539-566.
  15. Dimoka, A., Hong, Y., and Pavlou, P. (2011). "On Product Uncertainty in Online Markets: Theory and Evidence". MIS Quarterly, 36 (2), pp. 395-426.
  16. Dinev, T., and Hart, P. 2006. "An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions," Information Systems Research (17:1), pp. 61-80.
  17. Fischbacher, U. 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics (10:2), pp. 171-178.
  18. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equations with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39-50.
  19. Gefen, D. 2000. "E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust," Omega (28:6), pp. 725-737.
  20. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., and Straub, D. W. 2003. "Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model," MIS Quarterly (27:1), pp. 51-90.
  21. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), pp. 161-178.
  22. Greiner, B. 2004. "An online recruitment system for economic experiments," in Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen, K. Kremer, and V. Macho (eds.), pp. 79-93.
  23. Hassanein, K., and Head, M. 2007. "Manipulating perceived social presence through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards online shopping," Int. Journal of Human-Computer Studies (65:8), pp. 689-708.
  24. Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6 (2), 91-100.
  25. Hess, T. J., Fuller, M., and Campbell, D. E. 2009. "Designing interfaces with social presence: Using vividness and extraversion to create social recommendation agents," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (10:12), pp. 889-919.
  26. Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2 (4), 337-359.
  27. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., and Leidner, D. E. 1998. "Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams," Journal 0f Management Information Systems," (4:4), pp. 29-64.
  28. John, N. A. 2013a. "Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword," New Media & Society, pp. 167-182.
  29. John, N. A. 2013b. "The social logics of sharing," The Communication Review (16:3), pp. 113-131.
  30. Joinson, A. N., Reips, U.-D., Buchanan, T., and Schofield, C. B. P. 2010. "Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online," Human-Computer Interaction (25:1), pp. 1-24.
  31. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., and Wei, K. K. 2005. "Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation," MIS Quarterly (29:1), pp. 113-143.
  32. Krasnova, H., and Veltri, N. F. 2010, "Privacy calculus on social networking sites: Explorative evidence from Germany and USA," in 43th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1-10.
  33. Laufer, R. S., and Wolfe, M. 1977, "Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory," Journal of Social Issues (33:3), pp. 22-42.
  34. Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., and Baedeker, C. 2013. "Collaborative Consumption: Towards a Resource-Saving Consumption Culture," Resources, (2:3), pp. 184-203.
  35. Malhotra, D., Ku, G., and Murnighan, J. K. 2008. "When winning is everything," Harvard Business Review (86:5), pp. 78-86.
  36. Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. 1999. "The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment," Journal of Applied Psychology (84:1), pp. 123-136.
  37. Nowak, K. L., and Biocca, F. 2003. "The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments," Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments (12:5), pp. 481-494. Understanding Resource Sharing in C2C Platforms 8 th -10 th Dec 2014, Auckland, New Zealand
  38. Teubner, Adam, Camacho, and Hassanein Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. J. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  39. Qiu, L., and Benbasat, I. 2010. "A study of demographic embodiments of product recommendation agents in electronic commerce," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (68:10), pp. 669-688.
  40. Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M. A., and McCarthy, J. D. 2003, "Shiny happy people building trust?: photos on e- commerce websites and consumer trust," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 121-128.
  41. Shin, S. K., Ishman, M., and Sanders, G. L. 2007. "An empirical investigation of socio-cultural factors of information sharing in China," Information & Management, (44:2), pp. 165-174.
  42. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., and Jung, D. I. 1998. "Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: the role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence," Computers in Human Behavior (14:3), pp. 491-511.
  43. Steinbrück, U., Schaumburg, H., Duda, S., and Krüger, T. 2002. "A picture says more than a thousand words: photographs as trust builders in e-commerce websites," In CHI'02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 748-749.
  44. Teubner, T., Hawlitschek, F., Adam, M. T. P., and Weinhardt, C. 2013. "Social Identity and Reciprocity in Online Gift Giving Networks," In 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 708-717.
  45. Wang, H. Y., and Wang, S. H. 2010. "Predicting mobile hotel reservation adoption: insight from a perceived value standpoint," International Journal of Hospitality Management (29:4), pp. 598-608.
  46. Wasko, M. M., and Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.
  47. Yoon, C., and Rolland, E. 2012. "Knowledge-sharing in virtual communities: familiarity, anonymity and self- determination theory," Behaviour & Information Technology (31:11), pp. 1133-1143.
  48. Zajonc, R. B., and Sales, S. M. 1966. "Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2:2), pp. 160-168.
  49. Zheng, J., Veinott, E., Bos, N., Olson, J. S., and Olson, G. M. 2002, "Trust without touch: jumpstarting long- distance trust with initial social activities," In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 141-146.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Teubner, T., Adam, M. T. P., Camacho, S., & Hassanein, K.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Unpublished
Publisher
Unpublished
Published
2014
Pages
159849
DOI
10.13140/2.1.3578.0167
OpenAlex
W2105120005
Cited by
40
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3
FWCI
10.77
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
peer-to-peer sharing, profile pictures, user trust, perceived anonymity, social presence, reciprocity, sharing behavior, privacy, resource sharing

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