The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Recommendation Agents for Electronic Commerce: Effects of Explanation Facilities on Trusting Beliefs
Abstract
We empirically test the effects of explanation facilities on consumers' initial trusting beliefs concerning online recommendation agents (RAs). RAs provide online shopping advice based on user-specified needs and preferences. The characteristics of RAs that may hamper consumers' trust building in the RAs are identified, and the provision of explanation facilities is proposed as a knowledge-based approach to enhance consumers' trusting beliefs by dealing with these obstacles. This study examines the effects of three types of explanations about an RA and its use—how, why, and trade-off explanations—on consumers' trusting beliefs in an RA's competence, benevolence, and integrity. An RA was built as the experimental platform and a laboratory experiment was conducted. The results confirm the important role of explanation facilities in enhancing consumers' initial trusting beliefs and indicate that consumers' use of different types of explanations enhances different trusting beliefs: the use of how explanations increases their competence and benevolence beliefs, the use of why explanations increases their benevolence beliefs, and the use of trade-off explanations increases their integrity beliefs.
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
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251829 · Cited by 6,822
Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81 · Cited by 5,550
When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing?
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995 · Cited by 2,878
Consumer trust in an Internet store
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000) · Information Technology and Management · doi:10.1023/a:1019104520776 · Cited by 2,577
Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0015 · Cited by 2,516
What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2001.11044235 · Cited by 2,282
A trust model for consumer Internet shopping
Lee, M. K. O., & Turban, E. (2001) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2001.11044227 · Cited by 2,012
Cited by
Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research
Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0057 · Cited by 2,921
Ali, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., Guidotti, R., Del Ser, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805 · Cited by 1,762
Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222250405 · Cited by 737
Self-citationHow Much Information?: Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface
Kizilcec, R. F. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858402 · Cited by 615
Examining Trust in Information Technology Artifacts: The Effects of System Quality and Culture
Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., & Straub, D. W. (2008) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240403 · Cited by 599
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, W., & Benbasat, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 217-246
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W2001468398
- Cited by
- 498
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 41.42
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recommendation Agents for Electronic Commerce: Effects of Explanation Facilities on Trusting Beliefs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2753/mis0742-1222230410
- The paper
- Wang, W., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Recommendation Agents for Electronic Commerce: Effects of Explanation Facilities on Trusting Beliefs. Journal of Management Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222230410
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.
