Trust in the Ride Hailing Service of the Sharing Economy: The Roles of Legitimacy and Process Transparency

Trust in the Ride Hailing Service of the Sharing Economy: The Roles of Legitimacy and Process Transparency

Mohammad S. Najjar, Laila Dahabiyeh
Copyright: © 2021 |Pages: 24
DOI: 10.4018/JOEUC.20211101.oa10
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

This paper examines the factors that influence customers’ trust in the ride hailing service (RHS). RHS faces legal, social, and safety concerns making trust critical in using RHS. Drawing on legitimacy and uncertainty reduction theories, we propose a theoretical framework of the antecedents of trust. We develop a survey instrument and collect data to empirically test the research model. The results reveal an association between the legitimacy of the service and customers’ trust in the service. Nonetheless, the different types of legitimacy vary in their effect on trust levels. We further show that process transparency positively affects trust in RHS. We discuss our findings and offer valuable theoretical and practical implications to the growing literature on trust in the sharing economy.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

Recently, people are increasingly relying on the democratized marketplace of the sharing economy to collaboratively make use of underutilized inventory (Zervas, Proserpio, & Byers, 2017). The sharing economy does not simply generate incremental economic activities, it is changing the whole consumption pattern (Zervas et al., 2017), shaking the foundation of traditional marketing channels (Ferrell, Ferrell, & Huggins, 2017), and giving rise to collaborative consumption. Powered by digital technologies, collaborative consumption resembles a novel approach for offering innovative services that challenge conventional means (Möhlmann, 2015).

Ride hailing service (RHS) is a typical example of how collaborative consumption, through a digitally enabled innovation, is transforming the transportation industry. RHS came as a result of multiple actors’ efforts to develop a business model that addresses deficiencies in the public transportation infrastructure (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014). In RHS, platform providers (e.g., Uber and Lyft) use digitally enabled innovations (e.g., mobile or web applications) to match peer service providers (drivers) with potential customers (Yang, Song, Chen, & Xia, 2017).

RHS is diffusing rapidly with an expected revenue annual growth rate of 12.9 percent resulting in approximately 692.9m users worldwide by 2023 (Statista, 2019). This rapid diffusion is supported by the multiplicity of advantages RHS offers such as fuel saving, reduction in traffic congestion, improved customer service due to timely response time, and cost savings (Jacobson & King, 2009; Kathan, Matzler, & Veider, 2016). Nonetheless, RHS is facing significant challenges. Taxi drivers around the world are protesting against RHS and lobbying for a ban on the service (BBC, 2018; Rhodes, 2017; Verbergt & Schechner, 2015). Governments are also skeptical about RHS especially since the peer service providers (i.e., private citizens) in several countries do not need to take licensing exams or carry necessary insurance (Malhotra & Van Alstyne, 2014). Moreover, the fact that peer service providers utilize their own private vehicles, and the lack of responsibility by RHS platform providers and their tendency to shift the liability of incidents to peer service providers or customers are negatively affecting trust in the service (Amey, Attanucci, & Mishalani, 2011; Gonzalez-Padron, 2017). Safety is also a main concern in RHS. A CNN investigation revealed that at least 103 Uber drivers in the US have been accused of sexually assaulting or abusing their passengers in the past four years (O'Brien, Black, Devine, & Griffin, 2018).

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 36: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 35: 3 Issues (2023)
Volume 34: 10 Issues (2022)
Volume 33: 6 Issues (2021)
Volume 32: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 31: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 30: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 29: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 28: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 27: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 26: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 25: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 24: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 23: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 22: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 21: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 20: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 19: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 18: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2005)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2004)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2003)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2002)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2001)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2000)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (1999)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (1998)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (1997)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (1996)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (1995)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (1994)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (1993)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (1992)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (1991)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (1990)
Volume 1: 3 Issues (1989)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing