A Comparison of Different Incentives in Peer-to-Peer Sharing Systems
2016-12
Loading...
View/Download File
Persistent link to this item
Statistics
View StatisticsJournal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Title
A Comparison of Different Incentives in Peer-to-Peer Sharing Systems
Authors
Published Date
2016-12
Publisher
Type
Thesis or Dissertation
Abstract
To be successful and sustainable, peer-to-peer sharing systems need their participants to actively provide under-utilized resources, from spare rooms and cars to expertise and time. The goal of this paper is to compare the effectiveness of different incentive strategies in motivating people to share their resources. In particular, we examined five strategies: altruism, money, gifting, experience, and reciprocity. To compare the five strategies, we conducted two studies in the context of a network hospitality service - Couchsurfing. The first study was a survey where we asked hypothetical questions. The second study was a field study where we tested people’s actual responses to the different incentive strategies. Results from the two studies diverge. The survey study suggests that people are averse to all compensations. However, the field study suggests that men are motivated by compensation strategies while women still protest them.
Keywords
Description
University of Minnesota M.S. thesis. December 2016. Major: Computer Science. Advisor: Hiayi Zhu. 1 computer file (PDF); iv, 22 pages.
Related to
Replaces
License
Series/Report Number
Funding information
Isbn identifier
Doi identifier
Previously Published Citation
Suggested citation
Li, Zhiyi. (2016). A Comparison of Different Incentives in Peer-to-Peer Sharing Systems. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/185081.
Content distributed via the University Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor. By using these files, users agree to the Terms of Use. Materials in the UDC may contain content that is disturbing and/or harmful. For more information, please see our statement on harmful content in digital repositories.