IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v14y2005i4d10.1007_s10726-005-0316-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural Dimensions and Prototypical Criteria for Multi-Criteria Decision Support in Electronic Markets: A Comparative Analysis of Two Job Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Anne-Francoise Rutkowski

    (Tilburg University)

  • Bartel Walle

    (Tilburg University)

Abstract

Electronic markets are virtual meeting places where buyers and sellers interact to trade products or services. The main motivation for both buyers and sellers to participate in an electronic market is the desire to maximize their private utility (Bakos 1998). Electronic markets therefore usually provide some form of communication, decision or negotiation aid for buyers and sellers to support their utility maximizing goals. This paper presents a comparative analysis of two electronic job market case studies conducted at a university in Europe (Brussels, Belgium) and in the United States (Newark, New Jersey). At the occasion of the universities’ career fairs, students (n = 392) and local companies (n = 57) were invited to participate in an electronic job market to identify the best job offers (n = 137) and students, respectively. Participants were able to create personalized software agents to aid their search and decision making activities in the market. Every software agent was embedded with a multi-criteria decision support tool to produce a rank ordered list of students or job offers. Preference data gathered from market participants’ use of the multi-criteria decision model allow us to construct relational preference structures using a technique based on the mathematical theory of fuzzy relations (Bandler and Kohout 1980). These preference structures express relationships among the criteria that students and companies have used to identify job offers and companies, respectively. The purpose of the paper is to present the communicative and cultural implications of these relational preference structures. The theories of Hofstede (1983), Hall (1977) and Trompenaars (1993) on cultural dimensions allow us to discuss cultural differences on the choice of prototypical criteria. The paper concludes with implications for the use of electronic markets in the staffing industry and the role of software agents in such job markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne-Francoise Rutkowski & Bartel Walle, 2005. "Cultural Dimensions and Prototypical Criteria for Multi-Criteria Decision Support in Electronic Markets: A Comparative Analysis of Two Job Markets," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 285-306, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:14:y:2005:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-005-0316-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-005-0316-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-005-0316-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-005-0316-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Choon-Ling Sia & Bernard C. Y. Tan & Kwok-Kee Wei, 2002. "Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 70-90, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Van de Walle, Bartel & Turoff, Murray, 2009. "Fuzzy relations for the analysis of traders' preferences in an information market game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 905-913, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bernhard Kittel & Wolfgang Luhan, 2013. "Decision making in networks: an experiment on structure effects in a group dictator game," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 141-154, January.
    2. Sergei Monakhov, 2021. "How analysis of mobile app reviews problematises linguistic approaches to internet troll detection," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Rob Gleasure & Kieran Conboy & Lorraine Morgan, 2019. "Talking Up a Storm: How Backers Use Public Discourse to Exert Control in Crowdfunded Systems Development Projects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 447-465, June.
    4. Kunsch, P.L. & Kavathatzopoulos, I. & Rauschmayer, F., 2009. "Modelling complex ethical decision problems with operations research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1100-1108, December.
    5. Sora Kang & Kai H. Lim & Min Soo Kim & Hee-Dong Yang, 2012. "Research Note ---A Multilevel Analysis of the Effect of Group Appropriation on Collaborative Technologies Use and Performance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 214-230, March.
    6. Chih-Hung Peng & Nicholas H. Lurie & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2019. "Using Technology to Persuade: Visual Representation Technologies and Consensus Seeking in Virtual Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 948-962, September.
    7. Hutzinger, Clemens & Weitzl, Wolfgang J., 2021. "Co-creation of online service recoveries and its effects on complaint bystanders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 525-538.
    8. Jingchuan Pu & Yuan Chen & Liangfei Qiu & Hsing Kenneth Cheng, 2020. "Does Identity Disclosure Help or Hurt User Content Generation? Social Presence, Inhibition, and Displacement Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 297-322, June.
    9. Lionel P. Robert Jr & Alan R. Dennis & Manju K. Ahuja, 2018. "Differences are Different: Examining the Effects of Communication Media on the Impacts of Racial and Gender Diversity in Decision-Making Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 525-545, September.
    10. Naume Sonhera & David Mhlanga, 2022. "Reducing Cyber Incidents through Good Online Behavioral Norms: Lessons from South Africa," Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Eurasian Publications, vol. 10(1), pages 37-48.
    11. Wei Zeng & Hua Wei & Meiting Liu, 2023. "Need for Distinctiveness Leads to Pathological Internet Use? The Perspective of Cognitive Behavioral Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-13, January.
    12. Ni Huang & Yili Hong & Gordon Burtch, 2015. "Digital Social Visibility, Anonymity and User Content Generation: Evidence from Natural Experiments," Working Papers 15-04, NET Institute.
    13. Sergei Monakhov, 2020. "Early detection of internet trolls: Introducing an algorithm based on word pairs / single words multiple repetition ratio," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.
    14. Burton, F. Greg & Coller, Maribeth & Tuttle, Brad, 2006. "Market responses to qualitative information from a group polarization perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 107-127, February.
    15. Koorank Beheshti, Mohammadali & Gopinath, Mahesh & Ashouri, Sama & Zal, Saeed, 2023. "Does polarizing personality matter in influencer marketing? Evidence from Instagram," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Sam Ransbotham & Gerald C. Kane & Nicholas H. Lurie, 2012. "Network Characteristics and the Value of Collaborative User-Generated Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 387-405, May.
    17. Jordan W. Moffett & Judith Anne Garretson Folse & Robert W. Palmatier, 2021. "A theory of multiformat communication: mechanisms, dynamics, and strategies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 441-461, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:14:y:2005:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-005-0316-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.