Paul Bossauer
ABSTRACT
Trust is the lubricant of the sharing economy. This is true especially in peer-to-peer carsharing, in which one leaves a highly valuable good to a stranger in the hope of getting it back unscathed. Nowadays, ratings of other users are major mechanisms for establishing trust. To foster uptake of peer-to-peer carsharing, connected car technology opens new possibilities to support trust-building, e.g., by adding driving behavior statistics to users' profiles. However, collecting such data intrudes into rentees' privacy. To explore the tension between the need for trust and privacy demands, we conducted three focus group and eight individual interviews. Our results show that connected car technologies can increase trust for car owners and rentees not only before but also during and after rentals. The design of such systems must allow a differentiation between information in terms of type, the context, and the negotiability of information disclosure.
Supplemental Material
- Akerlof, G.A. 1978. The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Uncertainty in Economics. Elsevier. 235--251.Google Scholar
- Ballús-Armet, I. et al. 2014. Peer-to-peer car sharing: Exploring public perception and market characteristics in the San Francisco Bay area, California. Transportation Research Record. 2416, 1 (2014), 27--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Belk, R. 2009. Sharing. Journal of consumer rese-arch. 36, 5 (2009), 715--734.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benjaafar, S. et al. 2018. Peer-to-Peer Product Sharing: Implications for Ownership, Usage, and Social Welfare in the Sharing Economy. Management Science. (2018).Google Scholar
- Bossauer, P. et al. 2019. Using Blockchain in Peer-to-Peer Carsharing to Build Trust in the Sharing Economy. (2019).Google Scholar
- Botsman, R. and Rogers, R. 2011. What's mine is yours: how collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. (2011).Google Scholar
- Carutasu, G. et al. 2016. Expanding eCall from cars to other means of transport. Journal of Information Systems & Operations Management. 10, 2 (2016), 354--363.Google Scholar
- Chen, S.C. and Dhillon, G.S. 2003. Interpreting dimensions of consumer trust in e-commerce. In-formation technology and management. 4, 2--3 (2003), 303--318.Google Scholar
- Clement, R. et al. 2019. Internet-Ökonomie: Grundlagen und Fallbeispiele der digitalen und vernetzten Wirtschaft. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
- Coppola, R. and Morisio, M. 2016. Connected car: technologies, issues, future trends. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 49, 3 (2016), 46.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Corbitt, B.J. et al. 2003. Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumer perceptions. Electronic commerce research and applications. 2, 3 (2003), 203--215.Google Scholar
- Derikx, S. et al. 2016. Can privacy concerns for insurance of connected cars be compensated? Electronic Markets. 26, 1 (2016), 73--81.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dinev, T. and Hart, P. 2006. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information systems research. 17, 1 (2006), 61--80.Google Scholar
- Ert, E. et al. 2016. Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tourism Management. 55, (2016), 62--73.Google Scholar
- Feeney, M. and companies Uber, R. 2015. Is ride-sharing safe? (2015).Google Scholar
- Gatersleben, B. 2007. Affective and symbolic aspects of car use. Threats from car traffic to the quality of urban life: Problems, Causes and Solutions. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 219--233.Google Scholar
- Haberle, T. et al. 2015. The connected car in the cloud: a platform for prototyping telematics services. IEEE Software. 32, 6 (2015), 11--17.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hawlitschek, F. et al. 2016. Trust in the sharing economy. Die Unternehmung. 70, 1 (2016), 26--44.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hawlitschek, F. et al. 2016. Understanding the Sharing Economy--Drivers and Impediments for Participation in Peer-to-Peer Rental. System Sciences (HICSS), 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on (2016), 4782--4791.Google Scholar
- Hsiao, J.C.-Y. et al. 2018. The Role of Demographics, Trust, Computer Self-efficacy, and Ease of Use in the Sharing Economy. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (2018), 37.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huurne, M. et al. 2017. Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 16, 6 (2017), 485--498.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jakobi, T. et al. 2019. It Is About What They Could Do with the Data: A User Perspective on Privacy in Smart Metering. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). 26, 1 (2019), 2.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jakobi, T. et al. 2018. Privacy-By-Design für das Connected Car: Architekturen aus Verbrauchersicht. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit-DuD. 42, 11 (2018), 704--707.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kamal, P. and Chen, J.Q. 2016. Trust in Sharing Economy. PACIS (2016), 109.Google Scholar
- Kawgan-Kagan, I. 2015. Early adopters of carsharing with and without BEVs with respect to gender preferences. European Transport Research Re-view. 7, 4 (Oct. 2015), 33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-015-0183--3.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kollock, P. 1999. The production of trust in online markets. Advances in group processes. 16, 1 (1999), 99--123.Google Scholar
- Lauterbach, D. et al. 2009. Surfing a web of trust: Reputation and reciprocity on couchsurfing. com. 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering (2009), 346--353.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lawson, P. et al. 2015. The Connected Car: Who is in the Driver's Seat? A Study on Privacy and On-board Vehicle Telematics Technology. (2015).Google Scholar
- Lawson, P. et al. 2015. The Connected Car: Who is in the Driver's Seat? A Study on Privacy and On-board Vehicle Telematics Technology. (2015).Google Scholar
- Li, H. et al. 2016. Examining individuals' adoption of healthcare wearable devices: An empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. International journal of medical informatics. 88, (2016), 8--17.Google Scholar
- Liu, D. et al. 2015. Friendships in online peer-to-peer lending: Pipes, prisms, and relational herding. (2015).Google Scholar
- Ma, X. et al. 2017. Self-disclosure and perceived trustworthiness of Airbnb host profiles. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (2017), 2397--2409.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mayring, P. 2004. Qualitative content analysis. A companion to qualitative research. 1, (2004), 159--176.Google Scholar
- Mayring, P. 2010. Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Springer. 601--613.Google Scholar
- McKnight, D.H. and Chervany, N.L. 2001. What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International journal of electronic commerce. 6, 2 (2001), 35--59.Google Scholar
- Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Metcalf, D. et al. 2016. Wearables and the internet of things for health: wearable, interconnected devices promise more efficient and comprehensive health care. IEEE pulse. 7, 5 (2016), 35--39.Google Scholar
- Meurer, J. et al. 2014. Social dependency and mo-bile autonomy: supporting older adults' mobility with ridesharing ict. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems (2014), 1923--1932.Google Scholar
- Mikusz, M. et al. 2015. Business model patterns for the connected car and the example of data orchestrator. International Conference of Software Business (2015), 167--173.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Muermann, A. and Straka, D. 2011. Asymmetric information in automobile insurance: new evidence from telematic data. Working paper, Vienna University of Economics and Business.Google Scholar
- Olakanmi, O. and Oluwaseun, S. 2018. A Trust Based Secure and Privacy Aware Framework for Efficient Taxi and Car Sharing System. International Journal of Vehicular Telematics and Infotainment Systems (IJVTIS). 2, 1 (2018), 34--47.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Owyang, J. et al. 2013. The collaborative economy. Altimeter, United States. (2013).Google Scholar
- Pakusch, C. et al. 2018. P2P-Carsharing. Motive, -ngste und Barrieren bei der Teilnahmeeine explorative Studie. Internationales Verkehrswesen. 70, 4 (2018).Google Scholar
- Palen, L. and Dourish, P. 2003. Unpacking privacy for a networked world. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (2003), 129--136.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pfitzmann, A. et al. 2000. Mehrseitige Sicherheit in offenen Netzen. Grundlagen, praktische Umset-zung und in Java implementierte Demonstrations-Software. (2000).Google Scholar
- Pfitzmann, A. 2001. Multilateral security: Enabling technologies and their evaluation. Informatics (2001), 50--62.Google Scholar
- Qiu, W. et al. 2018. More Stars or More Reviews? Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Hu-man Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2018), 153:1--153:11.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rabiee, F. 2004. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 63, 4 (Nov. 2004), 655--660. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2004399.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Resnick, P. and Zeckhauser, R. 2002. Trust among strangers in Internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay's reputation system. The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 127--157.Google Scholar
- Salam, A.F. et al. 2005. Trust in e-commerce. Communications of the ACM. 48, 2 (2005), 72--77.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schreier, H. et al. 2017. Endbericht Evaluation CarSharing (EVA-CS). (2017).Google Scholar
- Share Economy in Deutschland wächst weiter: https://www.pwc.de/de/pressemitteilungen/2018/share-economy-in-deutschland-waechst-weiter.html. Accessed: 2018-09--12.Google Scholar
- Smithson, J. 2000. Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 3, 2 (Jan. 2000), 103--119. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/136455700405172.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Solove, D. 2008. Understanding privacy. (2008).Google Scholar
- Spremann, K. 1987. Agent and principal. Agency theory, information, and incentives. Springer. 3--37.Google Scholar
- Stevens, G. et al. 2014. Mehrseitige, barrierefreie Sicherheit intelligenter Messsysteme. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit-DuD. 38, 8 (2014), 536--544.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stevens, G. et al. 2018. Mehrseitiges Vertrauen bei IoT-basierten Reputationssystemen. Mensch und Computer 2018-Workshopband. (2018).Google Scholar
- Stevens, G. et al. 2017. Second Dashboard: Information Demands in a Connected Car. Mensch und Computer 2017-Tagungsband. (2017).Google Scholar
- Stevens, G. and Bossauer, P. 2017. Dealing with Personal Data in the Age of Big Data Economies. Zeitschrift fuer Geistiges Eigentum/Intellectual Property Journal. 9, 3 (2017), 266--278.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stevens, G. and Pipek, V. 2018. Making use: understanding, studying, and supporting appropriation. Socio-Informatics: A Practice-Based Perspective on the Design and Use of IT-Artefacts. Oxford University Press. 139--178.Google Scholar
- Stevens, G. and Wulf, V. 2002. A new dimension in access control: Studying maintenance engineering across organizational boundaries. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (2002), 196--205.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stevens, G. and Wulf, V. 2009. Computer-supported access control. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). 16, 3 (2009), 12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Swan, M. 2015. Connected car: quantified self becomes quantified car. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks. 4, 1 (2015), 2--29.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. 2010. Sage hand-book of mixed methods in social & behavioral re-search.Google Scholar
- Teigland, R. et al. 2019. The Importance of Trust in a Digital Europe: Reflections on the Sharing Economy and Blockchains. Trust in the European Union in Challenging Times. Springer. 181--209.Google Scholar
- Teubner, T. 2014. Thoughts on the sharing economy. Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Commerce (2014), 322--326.Google Scholar
- Teubner, T. and Flath, C.M. 2016. Privacy in the sharing economy. Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Thomas, L. et al. 1995. Comparison of focus group and individual interview methodology in examining patient satisfaction with nursing care. Social Sciences in Health. 1, 4 (1995), 206--220.Google Scholar
- Truong, N.B. et al. 2016. A reputation and knowledge based trust service platform for trustworthy social internet of things. Innovations in Clouds, Internet and Networks (ICIN), Paris, France. (2016).Google Scholar
- Tsai, J.Y. et al. 2011. The Effect of Online Privacy Information on Purchasing Behavior: An Experimental Study. Information Systems Research. 22, 2 (Jun. 2011), 254--268.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Walter, J. et al. 2017. PRICON: self-determined privacy in the connected car motivated by the privacy calculus model. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (2017), 421--427.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Waterman, R.W. and Meier, K.J. 1998. Principal-agent models: an expansion? Journal of public administration research and theory. 8, 2 (1998), 173--202.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Weidner, W. et al. 2017. Telematic driving profile classification in car insurance pricing. Annals of Actuarial Science. 11, 2 (2017), 213--236.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wiegard, R.-B. and Breitner, M.H. 2017. Smart services in healthcare: A risk-benefit-analysis of pay-as-you-live services from customer perspective in Germany. Electronic Markets. (2017), 1--17.Google Scholar
- Xu, H. et al. 2009. The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location-based services. Journal of Management Information Systems. 26, 3 (2009), 135--174.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yoon, D. et al. 2008. Future automotive insurance system based on telematics technology. Advanced Communication Technology, 2008. ICACT 2008. 10th International Conference on (2008), 679--681.Google Scholar
- Zervas, G. et al. 2017. The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Journal of Marketing Research. 54, 5 (2017), 687--705.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Trust versus Privacy: Using Connected Car Data in Peer-to-Peer Carsharing
Recommendations
The connected car: an empirical study of electric cars as mobile digital devices
MobileHCI '17: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and ServicesThe amount of interactive digital technology in cars is increasing rapidly, and many new cars are shipped with connectivity. As a result, a new platform has emerged that holds potentials to facilitate many new and different interactions, both inside and ...
Connected car overview: solutions, challenges and opportunities
IML '17: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Internet of Things and Machine LearningIn this paper, we defined the key concepts of IoV as application of IoT: connected car and an overview of the different communication cases leaded from vehicle to-x namely, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle -to- Internet (V2I), and vehicle-to-road ...
The Effect of Consumer Privacy Empowerment on Trust and Privacy Concerns in E-Commerce
'eValues'Privacy concerns and a lack of trust have been shown to reduce consumer's willingness to transact with an online vendor. Understandably, firms are searching for methods to reduce consumer privacy concerns and increase trust. In this study, we introduce ...
Comments