CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourSharing Economy and Platforms

Toward an Understanding of Online Lending Intentions: Evidence from a Survey in China

Open access
Chen, Dongyu, Lou, Hao, Van Slyke, Craig·2015·Communications of the Association for Information Systems
DOI 10.17705/1cais.03617
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The online peer-to-peer lending marketplace has experienced rapid growth since its inception in 2005. It has played a significant role in helping small and micro-enterprises resolve financing problems. However, this marketplace is still in its infant stage. To better understand the lending activities associated with peer-to-peer lending, we need theoretically grounded empirical research. In this study, we investigate the perceptual drivers of online lending from the perspective of lenders. We empirically test our research model with survey data collected from 217 lenders in a major online peer-to-peer lending website in China. Our results reveal that trust was the most critical determinant of willingness to lend. Perceived information quality was important in mitigating perceived risk and enhancing trust, and perceived social capital impacted trust in borrowers. Furthermore, perceived risk did not significantly influence lending willingness, but had a negative impact on trust. These findings indicate that transaction behaviors in the peer-to-peer market may not be the same as that in the purchase-oriented e-commerce settings. We conclude by discussing the study’s implications for research and practice along with the its limitations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17705/1cais.03617

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A seller's perceived social capital, ability, and integrity have a significant impact on the feeling of trust towards the seller.

    “Also, a seller's perceived social capital, ability, and integrity are attributes that have a significant impact on the feeling of trust towards the seller (Alfina et al., 2014;Chen, Lou, et al., 2015).”

    From Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as Chen, Lou, et al., 2015

    The Soft Information section proposes that perceived social capital influences a lender’s trust in a borrower, and Major Findings reports that it enhances that trust. The study concerns borrowers in online lending, not sellers, and the cited passages do not establish ability or integrity as additional attributes with significant effects on trust. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Factors relating to perceived risk have an effect on trust.

    “In total, six studies reported factors relating to perceived risk as having an effect on trust (Chen, Lou, et al., 2015;Jones & Leonard, 2014;Möhlmann, 2016;Sutanonpaiboon & Abuhamdieh, 2008;Utz et al., 2009;Zhang et al., 2014).”

    From Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as Chen, Lou, et al., 2015

  • Seller characteristics influence trusting beliefs.

    “Four studies measured different seller characteristics that influence trusting beliefs (Alfina et al., 2014;Chen, Lou, et al., 2015;Malinen & Ojala, 2013;Teubner et al., 2015).”

    From Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as Chen, Lou, et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Ahlerup, P., Olsson, O., & Yanagizawa, D. (2009). Social capital vs institutions in the growth process. European Journal of Political Economy, 25(1), 1-14.
  2. Ashta, A., & Assadi, D. (2010). An analysis of European online micro-lending websites. Innovative Marketing, 6(2), 7-17.
  3. Atkinson, M. A., & Kydd, C. (1997). Individual characteristics associated with World Wide Web use: An empirical study of playfulness and motivation. ACM SIGMIS Database, 28(2), 53-62.
  4. Barasinska, N. (2010). Would Lehman sisters have done it differently? An empirical analysis of gender differences in investment behavior. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Intelligent Information Privacy Management, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
  5. Barnes, S., & Vidgen, R. (2002). Assessing e-commerce quality with WebQual: An evaluation of the usability, information quality, and interaction quality of Internet bookstores. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3(3), 114-127.
  6. Berger, S., & Gleisner, F. (2009). Emergence of financial intermediaries in electronic markets: The case of online P2P lending. Business Research, 2(1), 39-65.
  7. Berkovich, E. (2011). Search and herding effects in peer-to-peer lending: Evidence from prosper.com. Annals of Finance, 7(3), 389-405.
  8. Cassar, A., Crowley, L., & Wydick, B. (2007). The effect of social capital on group loan repayment: Evidence from field experiments. The Economic Journal, 117(517), 85-106.
  9. Chen, D., & Han, C. (2012). A comparative study of online P2P lending in the USA and China. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 17(2), 2-15.
  10. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  11. Collier, B., & Hampshire, R. (2010). Sending mixed signals: Multilevel reputation effects in peer-to-peer lending markets. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Savannah, Georhia, USA.
  12. Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82.
  13. Fama, E. F. (1985). What's different about banks? Journal of Monetary Economics, 15(1), 29-39.
  14. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  15. Gao, P., & Damsgaard, J. (2007). A framework for understanding mobile telecommunications market innovation: A case of China. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8(3), 184-195.
  16. Gefen, D., Benbasat, I., & Pavlou, P. (2008). A research agenda for trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 275-286.
  17. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(5), 91-109.
  18. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2004). The role of social capital in financial development. American Economic Review, 94(3), 526-556.
  19. Harris, P., Rettie, R., & Kwan, C. C. (2005). Adoption and usage of M-commerce: A cross-cultural comparison of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(3), 210-224.
  20. Herzenstein, M., Dholakia, U. M., & Andrews, R. L. (2011). Strategic herding behavior in peer-to-peer loan auctions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(1), 27-36.
  21. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tracinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an Internet store. Information Technology and Management, 1(12), 45-71.
  22. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
  23. Katherine, A. K., & Sergio, H. (2009). Lending behavior and community structure in an online peer-to-peer economic network. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
  24. Kumar, S. (2007). Bank of one: Empirical analysis of peer-to-peer financial marketplaces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Montreal.
  25. Liang, H. G., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, J. Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59-87.
  26. Lim, N. (2003). Consumers' perceived risk: Sources versus consequences. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2(3), 216-228.
  27. Lin, M. F., Prabhala, N. R., & Viswanathan, S. (2013). Judging borrowers by the company they keep: Friendship networks and information asymmetry in online peer-to-peer lending. Management Science, 59(1), 17-35.
  28. Liu, D., Lu, Y., & Brass, D. (2013). Friendships in online peer-to-peer lending: Pipes, prisms, and social herding prisms, and social herding. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2251155. · DOI
  29. Lopez, S. H., Pao, A. S. Y., & Bhattacharrya, R. (2009). The effects of social interactions on P2P lending. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1731014
  30. Lu, Y., Zhao, L., & Wang, B. (2010). From virtual community members to C2C e-commerce buyers: Trust in virtual communities and its effect on consumers' purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(4), 346-360.
  31. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
  32. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.
  33. Nah, F. F. H., & Davis, S. (2002). HCI research issues in e-commerce. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3(3), 98-113.
  34. Nahapiet, S., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
  35. Nicolaou, A. I., & McKnight, D. H. (2006). Perceived information quality in data exchanges: Effects on risk, trust, and intention to use. Information Systems Research, 17(4), 332-351.
  36. Ortega, A. C. B., & Bell, F. (2008). Online social lending: Borrower-generated content. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Toronto.
  37. Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101-134.
  38. Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115-143.
  39. Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H. G., & Xue, J. J. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105-136.
  40. Petersen, M. A., & Rajan, R. G. (1994). The benefits of lending relationships: Evidence from small business data. The Journal of Finance, 49(1), 3-37.
  41. Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623-656.
  42. Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1), 33- 60.
  43. Puro, L., Teich, J. E., Wallenius, H., & Wallenius, J. (2010). Borrower decision aid for people-to-people lending. Decision Support System, 49(1), 52-60.
  44. Robert, L. P., Jr., Dennis, A. R., & Ahuja, M. K. (2008). Social capital and knowledge integration in digitally enabled teams. Information Systems Research, 19(3), 314-334.
  45. Sheu, J. J., Chang, Y. W., & Chu, K. T. (2008). Applying decision tree data mining for online group buying consumers' behavior. International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Management, 2(2), 140-157.
  46. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
  47. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.
  48. Weiss, G., Pelger, K., & Horsch, A. (2010). Mitigating adverse selection in P2P lending-empirical evidence from Prosper.com. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1650774
  49. Zhang, J. J., & Liu, P. (2012). Rational herding in microloan markets. Management Science, 58(2), 892-912.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, D., Lou, H., & Van Slyke, C.
Affiliations
Northern Arizona University (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Dongyu
ORCID
Chen, Dongyu
Venue
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Information Systems
Published
2015
Volume
36
ISSN
1529-3181 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17705/1cais.03617
OpenAlex
W792461072
Cited by
54
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communications of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (71302186, 71302008)
  • Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China
  • National Social Science Fund of China
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
Keywords
trust, perceived information quality, risk perception, social capital, small and micro enterprise financing, online lending platforms, China

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