Advertisement

Research on the dynamic incentive mechanism of information sharing in social network services based on reputation mechanism

  • Yanping Gong
  • Peng Fan
Article
  • 169 Downloads

Abstract

Social network services are changing the ways in which people use and engage with each other, which have become widely used as an important tool for information sharing in recent years. So it is important for enterprise to make use of social network services to improve network marketing performance. One of the most important aspects is encouraging marketer to make full use of social network services for information sharing. This study establishes a dynamic model based on reputation mechanism and explicit incentive mechanism for information sharing in social network services. Furthermore, this model is compared with a model of explicit incentive contract without reputation mechanism. Our results show that when considering the reputation mechanism, marketer’s effort and income are both improved in the first and second stage; compared with the model of explicit incentive contract without reputation mechanism, the dynamic model that introduces reputation mechanism can achieve Pareto improvement and increase incentive intensity and play a good restriction for marketer.

Keywords

Social network services Information sharing Reputation mechanism The model of optimal dynamic contract 

Notes

Acknowledgement

National Natural Science Foundation of China; 71272066 and 71672195.

References

  1. 1.
    Aikman, D., Nelson, B., Tanaka, M.: Reputation, risk-taking, macro-prudential policy. J. Bank. Finance 50, 428–439 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, D.M., Ellison, N.B.: Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 13, 210–230 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A.: Science, new media, and the public. Science 339(6115), 40–41 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, C.C.: Examining users’ intention to continue using social network games: a flow experience perspective. Telemat. Inform. 30, 311–321 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K.: What drive consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decis. Support Syst. 53(1), 218–225 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czinkota, M., Kaufmann, H.R., Basile, G.: The relationship between legitimacy, reputation, sustainability, and branding for companies and their supply chains. Ind. Mark. Manage. 43(1), 91–101 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erickson, L.B.: Social Media, Social Capital, and Seniors: The Impact of Facebook on Bonding and Bridging Social Capital of Individuals Over 65. AMCIS, Detroit (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fang, H., Zhang, J., Sensoy, M., Nadia, M.T.: Reputation mechanism for e-commerce in virtual reality environment. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 13(6), 409–422 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holstrom, B., Milgrom, P.: Aggregation and Linearity in the provision of inter-temporal incentives. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper vol. 742, pp. 8–21 (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holmstrom, B.: Managerial incentive problems: a dynamic perspective. Rev. Econ. Stud. 66, 169–182 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoy, M.G., Milne, G.: Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. J. Interact. Advert. 10(2), 28–44 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson, W.C., Xie, W.J., Yi, S.: Corporate fraud and the value of reputations in the product market. J. Corp. Finance 25, 16–39 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keren, M., Miller, J., Thornton, J.R.: The Ratchet: a dynamic managerial incentive model of the soviet enterprise. J. Comp. Econ. 7, 347–367 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, J., Lee, C., Elias, T.: Factors affecting information sharing in social networking sites amongst university students: Application of the knowledge-sharing model to social networking sites. Online Inf. Rev. 39(3), 290–309 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim, Y., Srivastava, J.: Impact of social influence in e-commerce decision making. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, ACM, New York, pp. 293–302 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kreps, D.M., Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., Wilson, R.: Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisons dilemma. J. Econ. Theory 27, 245–252 (1982)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwon, O., Wen, Y.: An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 254–263 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mangold, W.G., Faulds, D.J.: Social media: the new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Bus. Horiz. 52(4), 357–365 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCahery, J., Schwienbacher, A.: Bank reputation in the private debt market. J. Corp. Finance 16, 498–515 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nunamaker, J.F., Briggs, R.O.: Toward a broad vision for information systems. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2(4), 1–12 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Reilly, K., Marx, S.: How young, technical consumers assess online WOM credibility. Qual. Market Res. 14(4), 330–359 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salleh, N., Hussein, R., Mohamed, N., Aditiawarman, U.: An empirical study of the factors influencing information disclosure behavior in social networking sites. In: International Conference on Advanced Computer Science Applications and Technologies, pp. 181–185 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shin, H.K., Shin, J.M., Lee, H.: A study on the factors influencing information sharing in the social network services. J. Inf. Manag. 42(1), 137–156 (2011)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wasko, M., Faraj, S.: Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q. 29, 35–57 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wu, W.Y., Sukoco, B.M.: Why should I share? Examining consumers’ motives and trust on knowledge sharing. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 50(4), 11–19 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang, L.F., Zhang, F.J.: Does e-commerce reputation mechanism matter. Procardia Eng. 15, 4885–4889 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu, S., Cai, C., Zhu, Q., Arunkumar, N.: A study of software pools for seismogeology-related software based on the Docker technique. Int. J. Comput. Appl. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1080/1206212X.2017.1396429 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolCentral South UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations