CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 85Sharing Economy and PlatformsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourDigital Platforms and Economics

Digital Trust and Peer-to-Peer Collaborative Consumption Platforms: A Mediation Analysis

Open access
Möhlmann, Mareike·2016·SSRN Electronic Journal
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.2813367
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper investigates the nature of digital trust in the context of P2P collaborative consumption platforms. We have analyzed data from the website Trustpilot (N=5,606), survey data from users of the online sharing platform Airbnb (N=232), and data retrieved from an online experiment conducted among current non-users of a fictitious online sharing platform (N=462). The findings reveal that trust in P2P collaborative consumption platforms (Airbnb, Lyft, and Uber) is lower than trust in P2P exchange first generation platforms (Ebay), as well as large online retail services and non-P2P platforms (Walmart, Zappos, Amazon). Furthermore, we find that the three trust-building management measures: ‘reliable insurance cover’, ‘simultaneous reviews’, and a ‘large network: many offers worldwide’ had a positive effect on ‘trust in the platform provider’. The findings confirm the hierarchical nature of the two-fold trust construct, meaning that ‘trust in the platform provider’ has a positive effect on the ‘trust in peers’ sharing on this platform. A mediation analysis reveals that ‘trust in the platform’ fully mediates all statistically significant effects of trust-building measures on the ‘trust in peers’ variable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.2813367

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • 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 Möhlmann, 2016

  • Guarantees offered by a platform contribute to trust.

    “Three studies found that guarantees offered by a platform contribute to trust (Möhlmann, 2016;Teubner & Hawlitschek, in press;San-Martín & Camarero, 2014).”

    From Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as Möhlmann, 2016

  • The risk a buyer runs when doing business via C2C platforms has a negative effect on trust in the platform.

    “Three studies identified that the risk a buyer runs when doing business via C2C platforms has a negative effect on trust in the platform (Lu et al., 2012;Möhlmann, 2016;San-Martín & Camarero, 2014).”

    From Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as Möhlmann, 2016

  • The reputation of a platform has an influence on trust.

    “Furthermore, the reputation of a platform was found to have an influence on trust by two studies (Lee & Lee, 2004;Möhlmann, 2016).”

    From Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as Möhlmann, 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Möhlmann, M.
Affiliations
Bentley University (US)
Corresponding author
Möhlmann, Mareike
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.2813367
OpenAlex
W2509637261
Cited by
84
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Warwick (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
Keywords
digital trust, peer-to-peer platforms, collaborative consumption, sharing economy, peer trust, trust-building strategies, insurance coverage, peer review, network size, Airbnb, Lyft, Uber, eBay, e-commerce platforms, mediating effect of trust

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