The Influence of Regulation on Trust and Risk Preference in Sharing Communities

Marth, Sarah; Sabitzer, Thomas; Hofmann, Eva; Hartl, Barbara; Penz, Elfriede

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01369

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…platform cooperativism or resilient communities) (Kostakis and Bauwens, 2014; Scholz, 2016a). At the same time, community-based sharing has emphasized sharing in communities, highlighting the importance of social bonding and solidarity, which is more social and less anonymous (Acquier et al , 2017; Marth et al , 2020). Sharing in the community has created better social ties as those you share with may be relatives, friends or in the close neighbourhood: as Belk (2014a) put it, “sharing in” instead of sharing with strangers (Acquier et al , 2019; Belk, 2010; Belk, 2014b; John, 2013); it can also be “social sharing” across communities with weakly connected individuals with similar interests through digital means (Benkler, 2004; Scholz, 2016a).…”

Section: Sharing Economy At Community-level: Sharing Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also important to prevent the pseudo-sharing criticized by Belk (2014a). In conclusion, studying sharing communities requires the discussion of structure including social ties and bonding (thick or fluid community) (Crucke and Slabbinck, 2019; Huber, 2017), trust and reciprocity (Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Celata et al , 2017; Marth et al , 2020; ter Huurne et al , 2020) and the common view of social orientation (or shared vision) (Kostakis and Bauwens, 2014; Martin, 2016) are essential in understanding the detail and more in-depth conceptualizing of sharing communities. However, sharing communities are still an under-studied topic in sharing economy.…”

Section: Sharing Economy At Community-level: Sharing Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study of sharing communities, especially the role of social capital, is still under-studied (Crucke and Slabbinck, 2019; Marth et al , 2020). Despite the growing interest in studying sharing in the community (Albinsson and Perera, 2012; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014), it is necessary to have more focus on this.…”

Section: The Role Of Social Capital In Sharing Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Current discussion on sharing communities has emerged and contributed to better understanding of sharing within communities, with the basis on the above discussion on social orientation and bonding (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Cherry and Pidgeon, 2018; Marth et al , 2020; Muñoz and Cohen, 2017). Crucke and Slabbinck (2019) argued that sharing communities are a form of “real sharing” between individuals and have the potential to reach a fully socialized sharing economy, which contrasts to a for-profit platform economy (Belk, 2014a; Frenken and Schor, 2017).…”

Section: Sharing Economy At Community-level: Sharing Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The emphasis on the social ties, trust and reciprocity and shared vision in sharing communities can be referenced to the discussion on social capital (in terms of structural, cognitive and relational dimensions) (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Woolcock, 2001). When both concepts are in a close relationship, the role of social capital in sharing communities is still not a common topic in the scholarly literature (Crucke and Slabbinck, 2019; Marth et al , 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Sharing towards cohesive community: the role of social capital in sharing economy

Lai

2021

STICS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Whilst the majority of academic studies have focused on the for-profit business-to-consumer type of sharing economy, the community-based peer-to-peer sharing economy is under-studied, particularly the role of social capital, which is essential to sharing behaviours. This paper aims to unravel the role of social capital in developing sharing communities, particularly as to how sharing can establish social capital and community building in community-based sharing economy projects. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopted a case study approach by selecting a local project in Hong Kong, which aims at achieving sharing community. A total of 10 in-depth interviews of major stakeholders were conducted, including founders, active and inactive members to explore how social capital is developed and its impacts on sharing community. Findings The research finding showed that social capital plays an important role in structural dimensions, on social ties building, cognitive and relational dimension facilitates and motivates sharing behaviour and trust, which are essential in building up a sharing community and in developing a sharing economy in Hong Kong. Originality/value This paper contributes to the current theoretical and empirical discussion that supplements the current study of the community-based sharing economy, from the perspective of social capital, in exploring how a sharing community can be developed.

show abstract

Section: Sharing Economy At Community-level: Sharing Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sharing Economy At Community-level: Sharing Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Role Of Social Capital In Sharing Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sharing Economy At Community-level: Sharing Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sharing towards cohesive community: the role of social capital in sharing economy

Lai

2021

STICS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Coercive and legitimate power in the sharing economy: Examining consumers’ cooperative behavior and trust

Hofmann

Hoelzl²,

Sabitzer³

et al. 2022

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differential impacts of informal mutual versus informal individual saving mechanisms on food insecurity in Kenya: Is risk preference a factor?

Chigusiwa

Kairiza

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Informal mutual and informal individual saving mechanisms have the potential to facilitate consumption smoothing thereby abridging transitory food insecurity and concomitantly household employment of negative consumption coping strategies. Notwithstanding, the potency of Informal mutual and informal individual saving mechanisms in alleviating transitory food insecurity, individual holding of such saving mechanisms is likely to be influenced by their preference of risk among other factors. This study examined the interplay of preference for risk, Informal mutual and informal individual saving mechanisms and food security on the basis of publicly available data from the 2021 Kenya FinAccess survey. We employ the propensity score matching approach to estimate the effects of preference for risk on the household propensity to hold either informal mutual or, informal individual saving mechanisms and the impact thereof on food security. Our study offers three major findings. First, a preference for risk increases the probability of holding informal mutual saving mechanisms but is not relevant in the holding of informal individual saving mechanisms. Second, we find that informal savings increase household food security. Finally, informal mutual saving mechanisms are more efficient in increasing household food security than informal individual saving mechanisms.

show abstract

The Influence of Regulation on Trust and Risk Preference in Sharing Communities

Cited by 4 publications

References 74 publications

Sharing towards cohesive community: the role of social capital in sharing economy

Sharing towards cohesive community: the role of social capital in sharing economy

Coercive and legitimate power in the sharing economy: Examining consumers’ cooperative behavior and trust

Differential impacts of informal mutual versus informal individual saving mechanisms on food insecurity in Kenya: Is risk preference a factor?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About