1. An Experimental Investigation of Information Sharing Daphne Raban Graduate School of Business University of Haifa University of Haifadraban@univ.haifa.ac.il

2. University of Haifa 2 Presentation Outline  Why study information sharing?  Explanations for reduced sharing  Theories  Information ownership  Research question and variables  Hypotheses  Experiment  Results  Discussion

3. University of Haifa 3 Why Study Information Sharing?  Integral part of work and business  A significant application of IS  Contrasting sharing behaviors

4. University of Haifa 4 Explanations of Reduced Sharing  Information ‘commons’ invite the ‘tragedy of the commons’, free riding Database-mediated sharing (Connolly and Thorn, 1990) Database-mediated sharing (Connolly and Thorn, 1990) Interpersonal sharing (Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994) Interpersonal sharing (Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994)  Too much effort required  Asymmetry

5. University of Haifa 5 Theories  Communality (Fulk and Flanagin, 1996; Wasco and Faraj, 2000)  Pro-social transformation (Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994)  Critical mass (Constant, Kiesler et al., 1994)  Diffusion of responsibility (Barron and Yechiam, 2002)  Leadership (Butler, Sproull et al., in press)  Perception of ownership (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000 & 2001)

6. University of Haifa 6 Information Ownership  Uneven ownership may create free riding (Adar and Huberman, 2000), OTOH, when ownership is even is sharing needed?  Ownership and self-enhancement (Heider, 1958; Beggan, 1992)  No transfer of rights  Ownership is not clear – an opportunity for framing by IS  Is free riding all that bad in IS?

7. University of Haifa 7 Research Question and Variables  How can system-induced ownership status influence sharing?  IV: ownership status (3 levels)  DV: willingness to share (WTS)

8. University of Haifa 8 Research Hypotheses  H1: WTS for privately-owned expertise will be higher than WTS information depicted as an organizationally-owned document  H2: WTS for a privately-owned document will be higher than WTS for information depicted as an organizationally-owned document

9. University of Haifa 9 The Experiment

10. University of Haifa 10 Results  173 participants, 3 treatments, each received one public and one private request for information.

11. University of Haifa 11 Results of χ 2 Tests  H1: WTS for privately-owned expertise will be higher than WTS information depicted as an organizationally- owned document Expertise/Organizational document Personal request Public request χ2χ2χ2χ24.211.49 Sig.0.03* 0.17 (NS)

12. University of Haifa 12 Results of χ 2 Tests  H2: WTS for a privately-owned document will be higher than WTS for information depicted as an organizationally-owned document Private document/Organizational document Personal request Public request χ2χ2χ2χ23.651.05 Sig.0.05* 0.25 (NS)

13. University of Haifa 13 Further Analysis  A McNemar test showed a significant difference between WTS for personal and public requests for help (p<0.03)  There was no significant difference for WTS of expertise and private document

14. University of Haifa 14 Discussion  WTS was significantly higher for expertise and private document than for organizational document  WTS was significantly higher for private requests than for public requests  A simple system-induced depiction of ownership created a significant difference in WTS  Lack of difference between expertise and private document indicates ownership has more influence than information source

15. University of Haifa 15 Discussion  No problem in using the IM application: a total of 262 personal message and 484 public messages were posted  13% of the personal messages were WTS  4% of the public messages were WTS  Sharing induced more by personal appeal  Public channel used more to ‘broadcast’ than to interact  Possible diffusion of responsibility in the public channel

16. University of Haifa 16 Conclusion and Future Research  A simple system-induced depiction of ownership created a significant difference in WTS  Why are people more inclined to broadcast information publicly but share information more in private?  Do people who participate more also help more?  Is information sharing perceived as a solution to information overload or to information deficiency?  What is the interplay between information sharing, searching and purchasing?

17. Thank you for listening! draban@univ.haifa.ac.il