Skip to main content

Exploring factors that influence information resources sharing intention via the perspective of consensus perception of blockchain

Abstract

With the rapid development of information technology (IT) and information systems (IS), the emergence of information silos has become a severe impediment to their development. Silos have made IS usage inconvenient and inefficient, impeding enterprises’ innovation and development. Thus, the present study aims to resolve these issues by helping understand how to encourage information-resource sharing within the enterprise. A new concept, consensus perception, is proposed based on blockchain characteristics and advantages. A conceptual model is then developed based on principal-agent theory to investigate how to promote information-resource sharing and whether blockchain technology positively promotes information-resource sharing. This research uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to study the influence of consensus perception on information-resource sharing intention. The results show that information security concern and openness directly and significantly influence the intention to share, and that trust has an insignificant influence. However, the impact of privacy concerns is not supported. The findings provide valuable contributions to the literature on BT adoption, Information management (IM), and IS usage.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Alexopoulos N, Daubert J, Mühlhäuser M, Habib SM (2017) Beyond the hype: on using blockchains in trust management for authentication. IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ICESS 2017:546–553. https://doi.org/10.1109/Trustcom/BigDataSE/ICESS.2017.283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Allmendinger MP, Berger ES (2020) Selecting corporate firms for collaborative innovation: entrepreneurial decision making in asymmetric partnerships. Int J Innov Manag 24(01):2050003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    AlSulaimi AM (2018) The distinguish between information security and privacy. J Inf Secur Cybercrimes Res 1(1):61–73

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Aste T, Tasca P, Matteo TD (2017) Blockchain technologies: the foreseeable impact on society and industry. Computer 50(9):18–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bock G-W, Zmud RW, Kim Y-G, Lee J-N (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Q 29(1):87–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Breuer C, Hüffmeier J, Hertel G (2016) Does trust matter more in virtual teams? a meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. J Appl Psychol 101(8):1151–1177. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Brinkhoff A, Özer Ö, Sargut G (2015) All you need is trust? an examination of inter-organizational supply chain projects. Prod Oper Manag 24(2):181–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Chatterjee S, Datta P (2006) Antecedents and contingencies affecting uncertainty in electronic markets: an empirical study. Paper presented at the ECIS 2006 Proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2006/192

  10. 10.

    Chen S-S, Chuang Y, Chen P (2012) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of KMS quality, KMS self-efficacy, and organizational climate. Knowl-Based Syst 31:106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Costa AC, Anderson N (2011) Measuring trust in teams: development and validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust. Eur J Work Organ Psy 20(1):119–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903272083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Datta P, Chatterjee S (2011) Online consumer market inefficiencies and intermediation. ACM SIGMIS Database 42(2):55. https://doi.org/10.1145/1989098.1989102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dhillon G, Syed R, Sá-Soares F (2017) Information security concerns in IT outsourcing: identifying (in) congruence between clients and vendors. Inf Manag 54(4):452–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dinev T, Hart P (2006) An extended privacy calculus model for E-commerce transactions. Inf Syst Res 17(1):61–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Drake DB, Steckler NA, Koch MJ (2004) Information sharing in and across government agencies: the role and influence of scientist, politician, and bureaucrat subcultures. Soc Sci Comput Rev 22:67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303259889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Duncan RB (1972) Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Adm Sci Quart 17(3):313–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14(1):57–74. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Engelsman W (2007) Information assets and their value. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th Twente student conference on IT. University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

  19. 19.

    Flavián C, Guinalíu M (2006) Consumer trust, perceived security and privacy policy. Ind Manag Data Syst 106(5):601–620. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570610666403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Francisco K, Swanson D (2018) The supply chain has no clothes: technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency. Logistics 2(1):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics2010002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gefen D, Straub DW (2004) Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega 32(6):407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gibbs JL, Rozaidi NA, Eisenberg J (2013) Overcoming the “Ideology of Openness”: probing the Affordances of Social Media for Organizational Knowledge Sharing. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19(1):102–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gill M, Crane S (2017) The role and importance of trust: a study of the conditions that generate and undermine sensitive information sharing. Secur J 30(3):734–748. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2015.13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gu D, Guo J, Liang C, Lu W, Zhao S, Liu B, Long T (2019) Social media-based health management systems and sustained health engagement: TPB perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(9):1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Haesevoets T, Cremer DD, Schutter LD, McGuire J, Yang Y, Jian X, Hiel AV (2019) Transparency and control in email communication: the more the supervisor is put in cc the less trust is felt. J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04220-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hair JF (2019) Multivariate data analysis, 8th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hawlitschek F, Notheisen B, Teubner T (2018) The limits of trust-free systems: a literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy. Electron Commer Res Appl 29:50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hayes AF (2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun Monogr 76(4):408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hayes AF (2017) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. The Guilford Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hinton PR, Brownlow C, McMurray I (2014) SPSS explained, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hofhuis J, Rijt PGA, Vlug M (2016) Diversity climate enhances work outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication. Springerplus 5(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2499-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hoy MB (2017) An introduction to the blockchain and its implications for libraries and medicine. Med Ref Serv Q 36(3):273–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2017.1332261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Huang Q, Davison RM, Gu J (2011) The impact of trust, guanxi orientation and face on the intention of Chinese employees and managers to engage in peer-to-peer tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Inf Syst J 21(6):557–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2010.00361.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hughes L, Dwivedi YK, Misra SK, Rana NP, Raghavan V, Akella V (2019) Blockchain research, practice and policy: applications, benefits, limitations, emerging research themes and research agenda. Int J Inf Manag 49:114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Ji Y, Zhang J, Ma J, Yang C, Yao X (2018) BMPLS: blockchain-based multi-level privacy-preserving location sharing scheme for telecare medical information systems. J Med Syst 42(8):147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-0998-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Karamchandani A, Srivastava SK, Srivastava RK (2020) Perception-based model for analyzing the impact of enterprise blockchain adoption on SCM in the Indian service industry. Int J Inf Manag 52:102019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kim S-H, Kim JK (2018) Determinants of the adoption of mobile cloud computing services: a principal-agent perspective. Inf Dev 34(1):44–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666916673216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kisekka V, Giboney JS (2018) The effectiveness of health care information technologies: evaluation of trust, security beliefs, and privacy as determinants of health care outcomes. J Med Internet Res 20(4):e107. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kline RB (2016) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 4th edn. The Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Kshetri N (2017) Blockchain’s roles in strengthening cybersecurity and protecting privacy. Telecommun Policy 41(10):1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Lam LW (2012) Impact of competitiveness on salespeople’s commitment and performance. J Bus Res 65(9):1328–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Li R, Yu R, Wang X (2018) Information resources sharing security in cloud computing. J Appl Sci Eng Innov 5(3):65–68

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Liu P, Chetal A (2005) Trust-based secure information sharing between federal government agencies. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 56(3):283–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Liu Y, Wu X, Qiu C, Yin M, He Y, Chen Z (2019) Research on user privacy information disclosure behavior model in online medical health service. In: 2019 9th Int Conf Educ Soc Sci (ICESS 2019), pp. 343–348

  46. 46.

    MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V (2002) A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychol Methods 7(1):83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Agarwal J (2004) Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf Syst Res 15(4):336–355. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Mamonov S, Triantoro TM (2018) The strategic value of data resources in emergent industries. Int J Inf Manag 39:146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    McNeil K L (2016) Work group trust: Differences between individualist and collectivist cultures. Allied Acad Int Conf. Acad Organ Culture, Commun Conflict. Proceedings, 21(1): 40–45

  50. 50.

    Meng X (2015) The role of trust in relationship development and performance improvement. J Civ Eng Manag 21(7):845–853. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.893923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Miller D, Dröge C (1986) Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Adm Sci Quart 31(4):539–560. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Nakamoto S (2008) Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Retrieved from https://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/

  53. 53.

    Norman SM, Avolio BJ, Luthans F (2010) The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. Leadersh Q 21(3):350–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Nunnally JC (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Oliveira T, Thomas M, Baptista G, Campos F (2016) Mobile payment: understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Comput Hum Behav 61:404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Ølnes S, Ubacht J, Janssen M (2017) Blockchain in government: Benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing. Gov Inf Q 34:355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Pan X, Pan X, Song M, Ai B, Ming Y (2020) Blockchain technology and enterprise operational capabilities: an empirical test. Int J Inf Manage 52:101946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Park JH, Park JH (2017) Blockchain security in cloud computing: use cases, challenges, and solutions. Symmetry 9(8):164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Pavlou PA, Liang H, Xue Y (2007) Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective. MIS Q 31(1):105–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (2003) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press, CA

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Phung T, Mai K (2017) Personality traits, perceived risk, uncertainty, and investment performance in Vietnam. Global Bus Finance Rev 22(1):67–79

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Pournader M, Shi Y, Seuring S, Koh SCL (2020) Blockchain applications in supply chains, transport and logistics: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Prod Res 58(7):2063–2081. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1650976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 36(4):717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Puck J, Rygl D, Kittler M (2007) Cultural antecedents and performance consequences of open communication and knowledge transfer in multicultural process-innovation teams. J Organ Transform Social Change 3(2):223–241. https://doi.org/10.1386/jots.3.2.223_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Queiroz MM, Wamba SF (2019) Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: an empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. Int J Inf Manag 46:70–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Rogers DP (1987) The development of a measure of perceived communication openness. J Bus Commun 24(4):53–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368702400404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manag Rev 23(3):393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Saberi S, Kouhizadeh M, Sarkis J, Shen L (2019) Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. Int J Prod Res 57(7):2117–2135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1533261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Seppänen R, Blomqvist K, Sundqvist S (2007) Measuring inter-organizational trust—a critical review of the empirical research in 1990–2003. Ind Mark Manag 36(2):249–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Shin D-H (2010) The effects of trust, security and privacy in social networking: a security-based approach to understand the pattern of adoption. Interact Comput 22(5):428–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Shropshire J, Menard P, Sweeney B (2017) Uncertainty, personality, and attitudes toward DevOps. Paper presented at the AMCIS 2017 proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2017/AdoptionIT/Presentations/28/

  72. 72.

    Slyke CV, Shim JT, Johnson R, Jiang JJ (2006) Concern for information privacy and online consumer purchasing. J Assoc Inf Syst 7(6):16

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Smith HJ, Milberg SJ, Burke SJ (1996) Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Q 20(2):167–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/249477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Sniehotta FF, Presseau J, Araújo-Soares V (2014) Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychol Rev 8(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.869710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Su J, Bai Q, Sindakis S, Zhang X, Yang T (2019) Vulnerability of multinational corporation knowledge network facing resource loss: a super-network perspective. Manag Decis 59(1):84–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2019-0227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Su J, Yang Y, Yang T (2018) Measuring knowledge diffusion efficiency in R&D networks. Knowl Manag Res Pract 16(2):208–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1435186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Tett G (2015) The silo effect: the peril of expertise and the promise of breaking down barriers. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Thakur V, Doja MN, Dwivedi YK, Ahmad T, Khadanga G (2020) Land records on blockchain for implementation of land titling in India. Int J Inf Manag 52:101940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Thomas GF, Zolin R, Hartman JL (2009) The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. J Bus Commun 46(3):287–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943609333522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Topaloğlu C (2012) Consumer motivation and concern factors for online shopping in Turkey. Asian Academy of Management Journal 17(2):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Trenz M, Huntgeburth JC, Veit D (2013) The role of uncertainty in cloud computing continuance: antecedents, mitigators, and consequences. Paper presented at the ECIS 2013 proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2013_cr/147

  82. 82.

    Tsai Y-C, Yeh J-C (2010) Perceived risk of information security and privacy in online shopping: a study of environmentally sustainable products. Afr J Bus Manag 4(18):4057–4066

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Tsou H-T, Hsu SH-Y (2015) Performance effects of technology–organization–environment openness, service co-production, and digital-resource readiness: the case of the IT industry. Int J Inf Manag 35(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Valkenburgh PV (2016) Open matters—why permissionless blockchains are essential to the future of the internet [Coin Center]. Retrieved from https://coincenter.org/files/2016-12/openmattersv1-1.pdf

  85. 85.

    Wang L, Liu W, Han X (2017) Blockchain-based government information resource sharing. In: 2017 IEEE 23rd Int Conf Parallel Distrib Syst (ICPADS), 804–809.

  86. 86.

    Wang Y, Singgih M, Wang J, Rit M (2019) Making sense of blockchain technology: how will it transform supply chains? Int J Prod Econ 211:221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Wong L-W, Leong L-Y, Hew J-J, Tan GW-H, Ooi K-B (2020) Time to seize the digital evolution: adoption of blockchain in operations and supply chain management among Malaysian SMEs. Int J Inf Manag 52:101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Xiao Y, Li C, Song L, Yang J, Su J (2021) A multidimensional information fusion-based matching decision method for manufacturing service resource. IEEE Access 9:39839–39851. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3063277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Yenisey MM, Ozok AA, Salvendy G (2005) Perceived security determinants in e-commerce among Turkish university students. Behav Inf Technol 24(4):259–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929042000320992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Ying W, Jia S, Du W (2018) Digital enablement of blockchain: evidence from HNA group. Int J Inf Manag 39:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Ylitalo J (2009) Controlling for common method variance with partial least squares path modeling: a Monte Carlo study. Retrieved from http://salserver.org.aalto.fi/vanhat_sivut/Opinnot/Mat-2.4108/pdf-files/eyli09b.pdf

  92. 92.

    Yu T-K, Lu L-C, Liu T-F (2010) Exploring factors that influence knowledge sharing behavior via weblogs. Comput Hum Behav 26(1):32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Zhao D, Huo C, Fan H (2018) Examining individuals’ behavior intention of mobile health management services: an empirical study from information privacy perspective. J Mod Inf (05), 74–81. Retrieved from https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=CJFDLAST2018&filename=XDQB201805011&v=MjU4MTQ5RVpZUjhlWDFMdXhZUzdEaDFUM3FUcldNMUZyQ1VSN3FmWXVackZ5emxWN3pQUFNuYWJMRzRIOW5NcW8=

  94. 94.

    Zhou T (2011) The impact of privacy concern on user adoption of location-based services. Ind Manag Data Syst 111(2):212–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111115146

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gang Li.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table

Table 7 Definitions of constructs

7

Appendix B

See Table

Table 8 Questionnaire items of constructs

8

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, G., Fang, CC. Exploring factors that influence information resources sharing intention via the perspective of consensus perception of blockchain. Inf Technol Manag (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-021-00338-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Blockchain
  • Consensus perception
  • Trust
  • Openness
  • Information privacy concern
  • Information security concern