Social Network Analysis and Mining

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 437–456 | Cite as

Investigating the impact of differences in kind upon resource consumption in web-based social networks

  • Sandra A. Vannoy
  • Charlie C. Chen
  • B. Dawn Medlin
Original Article
  • 200 Downloads

Abstract

Understanding factors that encourage membership is becoming critically important in the success of web-based social networks. Web-based social structures provide various resources designed to encourage membership, such as mechanisms for finding individuals, posting and receiving messages, joining groups, promoting oneself or events, sharing news or photos, and protecting personal information. However, resources in the web-based social structure deviate quite drastically from resources in the traditional world being equally available to all societal members, reproduced at near zero cost, where consumption does not reduce supply but increases societal value of the resource, and where resource consumption requires trust of the consumer and affects privacy of the social network population. This paper uses the sociological view that clusters of individuals who exhibit similar patterns of behavior will emerge in social structures. Given that trust and privacy have long been established as important concepts in understanding behaviors in the online environment, we endeavor in this study to determine whether trust and privacy emerge as critical factors in the environment of the web-based social network. We use social network analysis to cluster individuals who exhibit both high and low tendencies toward trust and privacy, and then examine patterns of consumption of resources across these networks.

Keywords

Privacy Resource Resource consumption Social network analysis Social structure Trust Web-based social network 

References

  1. Abercrombie N, Hill S, Turner B (2000) The penguin dictionary of sociology. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Acquisti A, Gross R (2006) Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing and privacy on the Facebook. In: George D, Philippe G (eds) Privacy enhancing technologies: 6th international workshop, revised selected papers. Lecture notes in computer science/security and cryptology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany, pp 37–58Google Scholar
  3. Ahuja M, Gupta B, Raman P (2003) An empirical investigation of online consumer purchasing behavior. Commun ACM 46(12):145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews D, Preece J, Turoff M (2002) A conceptual framework for demographic groups resistant to on-line community interaction. Int J Electron Commer 6(3):9–24Google Scholar
  5. Awad N, Krishnan MS (2006) The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Q 30(1):13–28Google Scholar
  6. Backstrom L, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J, Lan X (2006) Group formation in large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution. In: Ungar L, Craven D, Eliassi-Rad G, Eliassi-Rad T (eds) Proceedings of the twelfth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, New York, pp 44–54Google Scholar
  7. Benassi P (1999) TRUSTe: an online privacy seal program. Commun ACM 42(2):56–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benbasat I, Gefen D, Pavlou P (2008) Special issue: trust in online environments. J Manag Inf Syst 24(4):5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benbasat I, Gefen D, Pavlou P (2010) Introduction to the special issue on novel perspectives on trust in information systems. MIS Q 34(2):1–5Google Scholar
  10. Bhattacharyya P, Garg A, Wu S (2011) Analysis of user keyword similarity in online social networks. Soc Netw Anal Min 1:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blau P (1975) Approaches to the study of social structure. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Borgatti S, Cross R (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Manag Sci 49(4):432–445MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borgatti S, Everette M (1997) Network analysis of 2-mode data. Soc Netw 19(3):243–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borgatti S, Everett M, Freeman C (2002) Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  15. Boyd D (2008) Facebook’s privacy train wreck: exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence 14(1):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyd D, Ellison N (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J Comput Mediat Commun 13:869–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brodka P, Saganowski S, Kazienko P (2012) GED: the method for group evolution discovery in social networks. Soc Netw Anal Min. http://www.springerlink.com/content/d6771886878t8p10/fulltext.html. Accessed 15 June 2012
  18. Bullock L (2011) Facebook use dropping a real phenomenon? http://www.socialable.co.uk/facebook-use-dropping-a-real-phenomenon/. Accessed 15 February 2012
  19. Burnham K (2010) Facebook’s 4 big rivals in location-based technology. http://www.cio.com/article/603920/Facebook_s_4_Big_Rivals_in_Location_Based_Technology. Accessed 20 August 2011
  20. Caverlee J, Liu L, Webb S (2010) The SocialTrust framework for trusted social information management: architecture and algorithms. InfSci 180:95–112Google Scholar
  21. Cazier JA (2006) Value congruence and trust online: their impact on privacy and price premiums. Cambria Press, YoungstownGoogle Scholar
  22. Chi L, Holsapple C, Srinivasan C (2007) Competitive dynamics in electronic networks: a model and the case of interorganizational systems. Int J Electron Commer 11(3):7–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chi L, Ravichandran T, Andrevski G (2010) Information technology, network structure, and competitive action. Inf Syst Res 21(3):543–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cutillo LA, Molva R, Strufe T (2009) Privacy preserving social networking through decentralization. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on wireless on-demand network systems and services, IEEE, pp 145–152Google Scholar
  25. Dai H, Salam A (2009) Determinants and influences of service convenience in electronic mediated environment (EME): an empirical study of Chinese consumers. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth americas conference on information systems, paper 512. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/512. Accessed 26 November 2011
  26. Data Use Policy (2012). http://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy. Accessed 20 February 2012
  27. Diamond J (2008) What’s your consumption factor? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02diamond.html. Accessed 24 October 2011
  28. Doney PM, Cannon JP (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J Mark 61:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Doreian P, Batagelj V, Ferligoj A (2004) Generalized block modeling of two-mode network data. Soc Netw 26:29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dwyer C, Hiltz S, Passerini K (2007) Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: a comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth americas conference on information systems, paper 339. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339. Accessed 11 August 11 2011
  31. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C (2007) The benefits of Facebook friends: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput Mediat Commun 12(4):1143–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Evans N (2010) Social computing’s evolution in the enterprise. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180218/Social_computing_s_evolution_in_the_enterprise. Accessed 25 October 2011
  33. Facebook Pressroom Statistics. http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22. Accessed 13 February 2012
  34. Fetto J (2011) About Face(book)? http://www.experian.com/blogs/marketing-forward/2011/06/14/about-facebook/. Accessed 13 February 2012
  35. Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter: why social science inquiry has failed and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub D (2003) Trust and tam in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q 27(1):51–90Google Scholar
  37. George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  38. Golbeck J, Hendler J (2006) Inferring binary trust relationships in Web-based social networks. ACM Trans Internet Technol 6(4):497–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Soc 78(6):1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grant R (1996) Towards knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hachman M (2012) Facebook used by half of the world’s Internet users, save Asia. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399732,00.asp. Accessed 24 July 2012
  42. Hanneman R, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social network methods. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/. Accessed 18 December 2008
  43. Hanneman R, Shelton C (2011) Applying modality and equivalence concepts to pattern finding in social process-produced data. Soc Netw Anal Min. http://www.springerlink.com/content/l20jh416879987kt/fulltext.html
  44. Hatala J (2006) Social network analysis in human resource development: a new methodology. Hum Resour Dev Rev 5(1):45–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hine C, Eve J (1998) Privacy in the marketplace. Inf Soc 14(4):253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Houston RW, Taylor GK (1999) Consumer perceptions of CPA Web Trust SM assurances: evidence on expectation gap. Int J Audit 3:89–105Google Scholar
  47. Jackson M (2009) Disadvantaged through discrimination? The role of employers in social stratification. The Br J Soc 60:669–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jacoby J, Matell M (1971) Three-point Likert scales are good enough. J Mark Res 8:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jarvenpaa S, Leidner D (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Org Sci 10(6):791–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kendall D (2007) Sociology in our times, 6th edn. Thomson Wadsworth, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  51. Kim D, Song Y, Braynov S, Rao R (2001) A B-to-C trust model for on-line exchange. In: Proceedings of the seventh Americas conference on information systems, AIS, paper 153. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2001/153. Accessed 11 October 2011
  52. Kovar SE, Burke KG, Kovar BR (2000) Consumer perceptions of CPA WebTrust assurances: evidence of an expectation gap. Int J Audit 3:89–105Google Scholar
  53. Larkin E (2010) Can you really trust Facebook? http://www.pcworld.com/article/199162/can_you_really_trust_facebook.html. Accessed 12 February 2012
  54. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. University of Cambridge Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lin N (2001) Social capital—a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lippert SK, Swiercz PM (2005) Human resource information systems (HRIS) and technology trust. J Inf Sci 31(5):340–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lowry P, Vance A, Moody G, Beckman B, Read A (2008) Explaining and predicting the impact of branding alliances and web site quality on initial consumer trust of e-commerce web sites, Special Issue: trust in online environments. J Manag Inf Syst 24(4):199–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Macaulay L, Keeling K, McGoldrick P, Dafoulas G, Kalaitzakis E, Keeling D (2007) Co-evolving e-tail and on-line communities: conceptual framework. Int J Electron Commer 11(4):53–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Machlis S (2010) I’m losing trust in Facebook. http://blogs.computerworld.com/15990/ive_lost_trust_in_facebook. Accessed 24 October 2011
  60. Malhotra N, Kim S, Agarwal J (2004) Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf Syst Res 15(4):336–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Martinez A, Dimitriadis Y, Tardajos J, Velloso O, Villacorta M (2003) Integration of SNA in a mixed evaluation approach for the study of participatory aspects of collaboration. http://www.ischool.washington.edu/mcdonald/ecscw03. Accessed 1 October 2011
  62. McKnight H, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13:334–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mills C (2010) Facebook privacy issues getting worse. http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/2010/05/25/facebook-privacy-issues-getting-worse. Accessed 12 August 2011
  64. Needle D (2010) Consumerization of IT poorly understood? http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/datbus/article.php/3890361/Consumerization-of-IT-Poorly-Understood.htm. Accessed 16 November 2011
  65. Nikitkov A, Bay D (2008) Online auction fraud: ethical perspective. J Bus Ethics 79(3):235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. O’Dell J (2011) Facebook’s ad revenue hit $1.86B for 2010. http://mashable.com/2011/01/17/facebooks-ad-revenue-hit-1-86b-for-2010/. Accessed 19 February 2012
  68. O’Laughlin B (1975) Marxist approaches in anthropology. Annu Rev Anthr 4:341–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Opsahl T (2012) Triadic closure in two-mode networks: Redefining the global and local clustering coefficients. Soc Netw 34. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.07.001
  70. Pachal P (2011) Why Facebook is losing U.S. users. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386884,00.asp. Accessed 15 February 2012
  71. Panagiotou G (2006) Managerial cognitions of competitive environments: a strategy group analysis. Manag Res News 29:439–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Parameswaran M, Whinston A (2007) Research issues in social computing. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(6):336–350Google Scholar
  73. Pavlou P, Dimoka A (2006) The nature and role of feedback text comments in online marketplaces: implications for trust building, price premiums, and seller differentiation. Inf Syst Res 17(4):392–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pavlou P, Gefen D (2004) Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inf Syst Res 15(1):37–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Perrin C (2010) Why you should never trust Facebook. http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/why-you-should-never-trust-facebook/4708. Accessed 19 Feb 2012
  76. Pénard T, Poussing N (2010) Internet use and social capital: the strength of virtual ties. J Econ Issues 44:569–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Piccoli G, Ives B (2003) Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams. MIS Q 27(3):365–395Google Scholar
  78. Prescott L (2010) 54 % of US Internet users on Facebook, 27 % on MySpace. http://venturebeat.com/2010/02/10/54-of-us-internet-users-on-facebook-27-on-myspace/. Accessed 2 December 2011
  79. Protalinski E (2012) Facebook has over 845 million users. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-has-over-845-million-users/8332. Accessed 18 February 2012
  80. Radtke N, Janssen M (2009) Consumption and production of digital public goods: modeling the impact of different success metrics. In: Proceedings of the 2009 spring simulation multiconference, Society for Computer Simulation International. Article 26Google Scholar
  81. Rosen D, Barnett G, Kim J (2011) Social networks and online environments: when science and practice co-evolve. Soc Netw Anal Min 1:27–42Google Scholar
  82. Sacks M (2002) The social structure of new venture funding: stratification and the differential liability of newness. In: Lounsbury M, Ventresca M (eds) Research in the sociology of organizations. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 263–294Google Scholar
  83. Salam A, Iyer L, Palvia P, Singh R (2005) Trust in e-commerce. Commun ACM 48(2):73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shen K (2012) Identification vs. self-verification in virtual communities (VC): theoretical gaps and design implications. In: El Morr C, Maret P (eds) Virtual community building and the information society: current and future directions, pp 208–236. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-869-9
  85. Smith H, McKeen J (2007) Developments in practice XXVI: social networks: knowledge management’s “killer app”? Commun AIS 19:611–621Google Scholar
  86. Smith H, Milberg S, Burke S (1996) Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Q 20(2):167–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stainback K, Tomaskovic-Devey D, Skaggs S (2010) Organizational approaches to inequality: inertia, relative power, and environments. Annu Rev Soc 36(1):225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Steel E, Fowler G (2010) Facebook in privacy breach. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968.html. Accessed 11 October 2011
  89. Suh B, Han I (2003) The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the acceptance of electronic commerce. Int J Electron Commun 7(3):135–161Google Scholar
  90. Tagliaventi M, Bertolotti F, Macrì D (2010) A perspective on practice in interunit knowledge sharing. Eur Manag J 28(5):331–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tsvetovat M, Kouznetsov M (2011) Social network analysis for startups. http://mediashow.ru/sites/default/files/books/2011/11/social.network.analysis.for_.startups.1449306462.pdf
  92. Uzzi B (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. Am Soc Rev 61(4):674–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Laere K, Heene A (2003) Social networks as a source of competitive advantage for the firm. J Workplace Learn 15(6):248–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vannoy SA, Palvia PP (2010) The social influence model of technology adoption. Commun ACM 53(6):149–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wade M, Hulland J (2004) The resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Q 28(1):107–142Google Scholar
  96. Wang D, Xu L, Chan H (2008) Understanding users’ continuance of Facebook: the role of general and specific computer self-efficacy. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information systems. Paper 168. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2008/168. Accessed 11 October 2011
  97. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wilska T (2003) Mobile phone use as part of young people’s consumption styles. J Consum Policy 26:441–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Winch P (1958) The idea of social science and its relation to philosophy. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  100. Womack B (2011) Facebook revenue will reach $4.27 billion, EMarketer Says. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-20/facebook-revenue-will-reach-4-27-billion-emarketer-says-1-.html. Accessed 10 February 2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra A. Vannoy
    • 1
  • Charlie C. Chen
    • 1
  • B. Dawn Medlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Information Systems, Walker College of BusinessAppalachian State UniversityBooneUSA

Personalised recommendations