Strategic Information Transmission in Peer-to-Peer Lending Markets
Abstract
Peer-to-peer (P2P) marketplaces, such as Uber, Airbnb, and Lending Club, have experienced massive growth in recent years. They now constitute a significant portion of the world's economy and provide opportunities for people to transact directly with one another. However, such growth also challenges participants to cope with information asymmetry about the quality of the offerings in the marketplace. By conducting an analysis of a P2P lending market, the authors propose and test a theory in which countersignaling provides a mechanism to attenuate information asymmetry about financial products (loans) offered on the platform. Data from a P2P lending website reveal significant, nonmonotonic relationships among the transmission of nonverifiable information, loan funding, and ex post loan quality, consistent with the proposed theory. The results provide insights for platform owners who seek to manage the level of information asymmetry in their P2P environments to create more balanced marketplaces, as well as for P2P participants interested in improving their ability to process information about the goods and services they seek to transact online.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
With constantly evolving ecosystems, markets and consumption patterns, sharing platforms need to understand the factors that draw and keep consumers with the platform.
“With constantly evolving ecosystems, markets and consumption patterns (e.g.Caldieraro et al., 2018;Lamberton and Rose, 2012), sharing platforms need to understand the factors that draw and keep consumers with the platform.”
From Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy (2019) · cites this paper as Caldieraro et al., 2018
Cites
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69 · Cited by 1,727 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Service Research Priorities: Designing Sustainable Service Ecosystems
Field, J. M., Fotheringham, D., Subramony, M., Gustafsson, A., Ostrom, A. L., Lemon, K. N., Huang, M.-H., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2021) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/10946705211031302 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
- Authors
- Caldieraro, F., Zhang, J. Z., Cunha, M., & Shulman, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration, FGV/EBAPE.
- University of Washington (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Jonathan Z.
- Cunha, Marcus
- Shulman, Jeffrey D.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 42-63
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2773521745
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 9.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Marketing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Keywords
- peer-to-peer lending, information asymmetry, strategic information transmission, loan quality, online marketplaces, platform management, non-monotonic relationship
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