The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do we need rules for “what's mine is yours”? Governance in collaborative consumption communities
Open accessAbstract
With collaborative consumption, people are provided with access to a good rather than owning it. The current study addresses the problem of regulation in collaborative consumption communities, investigating whether governance increases cooperation, if and why consumers support a governance system and whether supporters and non-supporters differ in their distrust in others. To address these questions, an experiment (within-subject design) was conducted. After reading vignettes, participants indicated how likely they would cooperate and whether they support governance or not—giving reasons for their evaluation. The majority of participants support governance and governance increases cooperation. Supporters argue that humans are egoistic, whereas non-supporters are concerned about negative consequences, asking for alternative incentives. Supporters of governance also differ from non-supporters according to their trust in others. The current study allows valuable recommendation, as more and more sharing networks are created, facing the problem of whether to regulate access or not.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dawes, R. M. (1980) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125 · Cited by 2,022
Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing: Table 1.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/666376 · Cited by 2,015
Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption
Shaw, D., & Newholm, T. (2002) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.10008 · Cited by 572
The role of system trust in business-to-consumer transactions
PENNINGTON, R., WILCOX, H. D., & GROVER, V. (2003) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045777 · Cited by 407
Cited by
Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.004 · Cited by 554
Bouncken, R. B., & Reuschl, A. J. (2018) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-016-0215-y · Cited by 435
Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy
Wirtz, J., So, K. K. F., Mody, M. A., Liu, S. Q., & Chun, H. H. (2019) · Journal of Service Management · doi:10.1108/josm-11-2018-0369 · Cited by 414
Sharing economy: A comprehensive literature review
Hossain, M. (2020) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102470 · Cited by 367
When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies
Murillo, D., Buckland, H., & Val, E. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.024 · Cited by 330
Metadata
- Authors
- Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., & Kirchler, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Business Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-08
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2756-2763
- ISSN
- 0148-2963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2181126620
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 38.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do we need rules for “what's mine is yours”? Governance in collaborative consumption communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.011
- The paper
- Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., & Kirchler, E. (2016). Do we need rules for “what's mine is yours”? Governance in collaborative consumption communities. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.011
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.