» Articles » PMID: 30543680

Digital Identity: The Effect of Trust and Reputation Information on User Judgement in the Sharing Economy

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2018 Dec 14
PMID 30543680
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The Sharing Economy (SE) is a growing ecosystem focusing on peer-to-peer enterprise. In the SE the information available to assist individuals (users) in making decisions focuses predominantly on community-generated trust and reputation information. However, how such information impacts user judgement is still being understood. To explore such effects, we constructed an artificial SE accommodation platform where we varied the elements related to hosts' digital identity, measuring users' perceptions and decisions to interact. Across three studies, we find that trust and reputation information increases not only the users' perceived trustworthiness, credibility, and sociability of hosts, but also the propensity to rent a private room in their home. This effect is seen when providing users both with complete profiles and profiles with partial user-selected information. Closer investigations reveal that three elements relating to the host's digital identity are sufficient to produce such positive perceptions and increased rental decisions, regardless of which three elements are presented. Our findings have relevant implications for human judgment and privacy in the SE, and question its current culture of ever increasing information-sharing.

Citing Articles

The evolution of Airbnb research: A systematic literature review using structural topic modeling.

Ding K, Niu Y, Choo W Heliyon. 2023; 9(6):e17090.

PMID: 37484274 PMC: 10361235. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17090.


Quantifying the relationship between specialisation and reputation in an online platform.

Livan G, Pappalardo G, Mantegna R Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):16699.

PMID: 36202960 PMC: 9537143. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20767-7.


Judgments in the Sharing Economy: The Effect of User-Generated Trust and Reputation Information on Decision-Making Accuracy and Bias.

Zloteanu M, Harvey N, Tuckett D, Livan G Front Psychol. 2021; 12:776999.

PMID: 34867688 PMC: 8637778. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.776999.


Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder.

Anwyl-Irvine A, Massonnie J, Flitton A, Kirkham N, Evershed J Behav Res Methods. 2019; 52(1):388-407.

PMID: 31016684 PMC: 7005094. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x.

References
1.
Harries C, Harvey N . Taking advice, using information and knowing what you are doing. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000; 104(3):399-416. DOI: 10.1016/s0001-6918(00)00038-x. View

2.
Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W . Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2010; 62:451-82. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346. View

3.
Garcia-Retamero R, Rieskamp J . Do people treat missing information adaptively when making inferences?. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009; 62(10):1991-2013. DOI: 10.1080/17470210802602615. View

4.
Podsakoff P, Mackenzie S, Lee J, Podsakoff N . Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88(5):879-903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. View

5.
Sofer C, Dotsch R, Wigboldus D, Todorov A . What is typical is good: the influence of face typicality on perceived trustworthiness. Psychol Sci. 2014; 26(1):39-47. DOI: 10.1177/0956797614554955. View