Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S0148296322000935
Manuscript_b92f556c8a4cecfc4848a065a1279e36

Sharing with perfect strangers: The effects of self-disclosure on consumers’

trust, risk perception, and behavioral intention in the sharing economy
Manuscript ID: JOBR-D-20-04228R3

Author Details:

Author 1 Name: Thi Thanh Huong TRAN

Present position: Assistant professor
University/Institution: Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Research Center, 92 916 Paris La
Défense, France.
Address: Paris La Défense, 92 916, Cedex
Phone number: +33 (0) 6 03 43 71 45. Email: thi-thanh-huong.tran@devinci.fr

Author 2 Name: Kate ROBINSON

Present position: PhD candidate
University/Institution: CEREFIGE, Université de Lorraine
Address: 23-25 Rue Baron Louis, 54000 Nancy
Phone number: +33 (0) 7 63 07 32 02. Email: katyrobinsonpro@gmail.com

Author 3 Name: Nicholas G. PAPAROIDAMIS

Present position: Dean of Research, Full professor of Marketing
University/Institution: Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Research Center, 92 916 Paris La
Défense, France.
Address: Paris La Défense, 92 916, Cedex
Phone number: +33 (0) 1 41 16 75 64. Email: nicholas.paparoidamis@devinci.fr

Corresponding author: Thi Thanh Huong TRAN

Corresponding Author’s Email: thi-thanh-huong.tran@devinci.fr

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank all those colleagues for their comments
and suggestions at different phases of the research project. The authors would also like to
express their appreciation to the Guest Editors and the anonymous Reviewers of the Journal
for their constructive input and insightful guidance on earlier versions of the manuscript.

© 2022 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
Sharing with perfect strangers: The effects of self-disclosure on consumers’
trust, risk perception, and behavioral intention in the sharing economy

Manuscript ID: JOBR-D-20-04228R3

Abstract

The transactional and disposable nature of liquid consumption has placed trust as the
lifeblood of sharing economy service innovation, enabling billions of strangers across the
globe to connect and share in the face of transaction risks. However, managers and service
providers may not realize that self-disclosure acts as a basis to build trust and mitigate risk in
the sharing economy. In four studies across different nations, we demonstrate that service
providers’ self-disclosure not only generates consumer trust but also reduces their risk
perception, which subsequently encourages legitimate transactions on sharing platforms. The
findings reveal that when consumers and service providers are objectively similar, consumers
do not pay much attention to service providers’ disclosed information. Conversely, in the
case of objective dissimilarity, consumers are more attentive to personal and intimate
information shared by service providers. Consumer self-esteem plays differential moderating
roles in the link between service providers’ self-disclosure and consumer responses.

Keywords: sharing economy; self-disclosure; trust; perceived risk; behavioral intention.

 What if that stranger had introduced themselves first, with their names, where they’re from, and the
names of their kids or their dog? …Suddenly, people felt much better about the idea of letting a
stranger hold onto their unlocked phone (like Airbnb hosts feel the first time they open their home to
strangers) — because that person isn’t really a stranger anymore.
—Joe Gebbia, Co-founder of Airbnb in a TED talk

1. Introduction

The burgeoning sharing economy service innovation and the collaborative consumption

movement at the global level have led to a shift from solid relationships and place-based

communities to more transactional and mobile sociality, unpacking the nature of liquidity in

digital and access-based practices (Bardhi, Eckhardt, & Arnould, 2012; Eckhardt et al., 2019;

Herbert & Collin-Lachaud, 2017). Bardhi and Eckhardt (2017) argue that, due to the

ephemeral, fluid, and disposable relationships in the sharing economy, people commit and

trust less while perceiving higher associated risks. Therefore, generating consumer trust and

minimizing risk perception to facilitate online transactions are a pressing need and a key

challenge for all peer-to-peer sharing platforms (e.g., Airbnb, Uber, BlaBlaCar) (Eckhardt et

al., 2019; Sundararajan, 2019). Surprisingly, despite repeated calls for more research in this

area (e.g., Belk, 2014; Herbert & Collin-Lachaud, 2017; Lin et al., 2019), few studies have

empirically examined trust-building and risk-mitigation solutions in the sharing economy.

More importantly, the limited empirical research reports conflicting results. For example,

while some studies prove that reputation systems (e.g., rating scores) are important to

generate trust and reduce perceived risk (Botsman, 2017; Ter Huurne et al., 2017), others

(e.g., Gandini, 2019) argue that reputation based on rating scores as a “fictitious commodity”

of a decentralized sharing economy may not be the best approach to trust-building and risk-

mitigation. This suggests a need for further investigation into new mechanisms for building

trust and reducing perceived risk in the sharing economy via the development of

interpersonal relationships between service providers and consumers, rather than solely

relying on the rating systems (Sundararajan, 2019; Ter Huurne et al., 2017).

1
 Research shows that the central property of interpersonal relationship development in

both offline and online contexts is self-disclosure, in which people reveal personal and

intimate information to others (Collins & Miller, 1994; Utz, 2015). A common definition of

self-disclosure is any personal and intimate information that a person voluntarily

communicates to others (Andersson et al., 2016; Söderlund, 2020). Our review of the recent

literature reveals that self-disclosure is linked to favorable returns for companies in terms of

consumer satisfaction, brand attitude, relationship quality, and purchase intentions (see Web

Appendix A).

There are two main approaches in the self-disclosure literature: consumers’ self-

disclosure and service providers’ self-disclosure. In the first research stream, previous studies

have investigated the role of consumers’ self-disclosure in the development and maintenance

of the relationships between consumers and companies, brands, or salespeople in both online

and offline settings (see Web Appendix A). The second research stream has tried to unpack

the relationships between service providers’ self-disclosure and consumers’ affective and

behavioral responses. These studies acknowledge that service providers’ self-disclosure is an

important factor that increases consumer trust, reduces perceived risk, and motivates future

reciprocal behavior (Andersson et al., 2016; Utz, 2015; Zeng et al., 2020). However, the most

recent work of Xu, Zeng, and He (2021) in the sharing economy context posits that although

all information sources – providers, platform, and peer consumers – influence consumer

purchase behavior, the influences diminish when there is too much extra information (i.e.,

information overloading). These authors also find a nonsignificant relationship between

service providers’ self-description (text length and number of photos) and consumers’

purchase behavior. Such mixed findings suggest that the link between service providers’ self-

disclosure and consumer responses is not only complex but also that self-disclosure from

2
service providers may not necessarily enhance consumer behavioral intention under all

circumstances and conditions.

The present study focuses on the increasing importance of building trust and mitigating

transaction risks in determining consumers’ behavioral intention to use sharing services in

which individual service providers (e.g., Airbnb hosts) are greatly encouraged to self-disclose

on sharing platforms (Gebbia, 2020). Scant empirical evidence exists on how different

aspects (i.e., depth and breadth) of service providers’ self-disclosure affect consumer trust,

risk perception, and their subsequent behavioral intention in the sharing economy service

innovation. To fill this lacuna, we used the social penetration theory as a theoretical

foundation, which highlights the role of self-disclosure in determining consumer trust,

perceived risk, and subsequent behavioral intention during the get-acquainted phase.

Specifically, we conducted a series of studies across different national contexts to test our

hypotheses that service providers’ self-disclosure positively affects consumer behavioral

intention through two alternative routes: (1) by increasing consumer trust in service providers

and (2) by reducing perceived risk.

Furthermore, the inconsistencies in empirical findings on the impact of service

providers’ self-disclosure on consumer responses hint at the need to identify conditioning

factors. Previous researchers have highlighted the direct and moderating effects of objective

similarity and self-esteem in sharing behaviors on peer-to-peer platforms (e.g., Kwok & Xie,

2018; Ta, Esper, & Hofer, 2018; Wilcox & Stephen, 2013). In the present study, we argue

that the outcomes of service providers’ self-disclosure (i.e., beneficial, negligible, or

detrimental) are contingent on whether service providers and consumers share similar

attributes and whether consumers have high (vs. low) self-esteem.

Our study makes three main contributions to the emerging literature on the sharing

economy. First, drawing on social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973), we extend prior

3
research on the sharing economy service innovation (Belk, 2014; Eckhardt et al., 2019;

Sundararajan, 2019) by empirically testing the direct and indirect effects of service providers’

self-disclosure on consumer behavioral intention through two key mediators: consumer trust in

service providers and their risk perception. Second, our study contributes to a recent debate on

the underlying mechanisms of the interpersonal service provider–consumer relationship

development in the sharing economy (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Ter Huurne et al., 2017) by

identifying two important conditioning factors: objective similarity and consumer self-esteem.

While objective similarity exerts dampening effects on the relationships between service

providers’ self-disclosure and consumer responses, consumer self-esteem appears to have

differential moderating effects across national contexts. Third, this study responds to recent calls

(e.g., Belk, 2014; Herbert & Collin-Lachaud, 2017; Lin et al., 2019) for further research on

exploring new systems for building trust, minimizing perceived risk, and enhancing consumer

behavioral intention, especially during the get-acquainted phase of sharing economy transactions

across national markets.

From a theoretical standpoint, this study is the first to provide compelling empirical

evidence for the positive effects of service providers’ self-disclosure (i.e., depth and breadth of

disclosed information) on consumer trust, risk perception, and subsequent behavioral intention.

Moreover, the moderated mediation model of the self-disclosure effects in our study may offer

greater explanatory power beyond the models that use other aspects of service providers’ profiles

(e.g., rating scores or online reviews). Replication of the experiments across different national

contexts enhances the generalizability of our findings in the global sharing economy. From a

managerial perspective, we provide substantive contributions to marketing in the sharing

economy by recommending that managers of sharing platforms inculcate not only general

interpersonal communication but also more intimate self-disclosure from service providers.

4
2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses development

2.1. Social penetration theory

Social penetration theory, which was first introduced by Altman and Taylor (1973), explains

the role of information exchange in developing and dissolving interpersonal relationships.

According to this theory, the process of bonding (i.e., moving a relationship from superficial

to deeper, less risky, and more trusting) largely depends on how individuals purposely reveal

personal information to others (Derlega et al., 1993). In the past decade, research has used

social penetration theory across various social settings, including both romantic relationships

and friendships (Collins & Miller, 1994; Derlega, Winstead, & Greene, 2007) and business

relationships (Hwang, Han, & Kim, 2015; Söderlund, 2020). Recent studies have highlighted

the applicability and relevance of this theory in explaining how self-disclosure increases

social support and a feeling of connection in online relationships when a person reveals his or

her personal and intimate information with strangers on peer-to-peer platforms, such as social

networking sites (e.g., Huang, 2016; Utz, 2015).

Social penetration theory posits that a relationship becomes deeper, less risky, and more

trusting when two partners reveal themselves to each other over time until they reach the

other’s “core-self”, the most vulnerable part of the person (Carpenter & Greene, 2015). Social

penetration theory describes four main layers of self-disclosure: (1) superficial layers,

including “fairly shallow information” (e.g., favorite clothes or music); (2) middle layers,

including general social and political viewpoints; (3) inner layers, including values and

emotions (e.g., fear, hope); and (4) core personality, reflecting a person’s most vulnerable

information (Carpenter & Greene, 2015). Similarly, Reis and Patrick (1996) distinguish

between descriptive (i.e., revealing personal facts and information) and evaluative (i.e.

sharing private feelings, opinions, and judgements) self-disclosure. Importantly, disclosures,

involving values, emotions, and feelings, located at the core of one's self-definition, allow

5
receivers to support and confirm core aspects of the discloser's view of self (Laurenceau,

Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998). High levels of self-disclosure contribute to a sense of

intimacy in relationships, which is fundamental to relationship success (Sprecher & Hendrick,

2004). A widely held view is that interpersonal relationship development requires reciprocal

behaviors in exchanging information (Altman & Taylor, 1973). When a person receives the

other’s personal information, he/she feels obligated to reveal something about himself/herself

at the same level (Taylor & Altman, 1975) and/or continue to use the brands/services (Hwang

et al., 2015). Self-disclosure has been measured via two main dimensions: depth

(quality/intimacy levels of shared information) and breadth (number of words of shared

information) (Carpenter & Greene, 2015; Moon, 2000).

Building on this knowledge, this study employs social penetration theory to examine

how self-disclosure dynamics in trust-building and risk-mitigation unfold in a sharing

economy context. Specifically, we adopt the specific propositions of social penetration theory

in the sharing economy settings: (1) that people form interpersonal relationships with

strangers depending on their self-disclosure levels on peer-to-peer sharing platforms, (2) that

interpersonal relationships in the sharing economy are governed by the same basic social

rules of behaviors that govern interpersonal interactions in the traditional contexts, and (3)

that the social penetration process could be imbalanced when service providers reveal more

personal and intimate information during the get-acquainted process on sharing platforms.

2.2. Direct effects of self-disclosure

Based on extant definitions in the sharing economy literature, information disclosure is

defined as the joint actions of a sharing economy firm (e.g., Airbnb), providers, or consumers

to reveal the product, service, or provider-related information through a sharing platform (Xu

et al., 2021). In this study, we focus on service providers’ self-disclosure, including personal

and intimate information that service providers voluntarily reveal in their profiles on sharing

6
platforms. Self-disclosure often contains high-risk and sensitive information, which makes

disclosers feel vulnerable, especially during initial interactions (Laurenceau et al., 1998). A

feeling of vulnerability during the self-disclosure process stems from psychological/emotional

fears, perceived physical harm, or potential material/financial damage (Moon, 2000). Many

psychologists posit that people are more willing to disclose to a stranger because they feel

more secure, as shared information will not be revealed to their friends and acquaintances,

who have direct influences on their lives (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977). In the computer-

mediated communication context, self-disclosure is more prevalent, as the relative digital

anonymity in online interactions reduces the fear of potential condemnation or rejection (Qian

& Scott, 2007). Similarly, recent studies and media reports (e.g., Huang, 2016; Utz, 2015)

confirm the link between self-disclosure and a feeling of connectedness on social networking

sites. Belk (2010) conceptualizes sharing not only as enhanced connections with other people

but also as increased feelings of solidarity and bonding. Given the transactional and

disposable relationships in the sharing economy, we argue that service providers’ self-

disclosure is an effective strategy to enhance consumers’ intention to use sharing services

through two important routes: building trust and mitigating perceived risk (See Figure 1).

– Insert Figure 1 about here –

Generating consumer trust. First, as self-disclosure can be either task-specific or

relationship-oriented (Andersson et al., 2016), it allows for a better understanding of potential

service providers, offers rewards in social interactions, and triggers reciprocal behaviors in

the future. In their meta-analysis, Collins and Miller (1994) find a positive effect of self-

disclosure on interpersonal relationship development and posit that this effect is stronger in

get-acquainted interactions than in mature relationships. In a similar vein, other scholars (e.g.,

Derlega et al., 2007; Huang, 2016) indicate that self-disclosure is imperative to the

development and maintenance of a close relationship in both online and offline settings.

7
 Sharing platforms greatly encourage service providers to reveal information about

themselves more (Aufmann, 2020); however, this can potentially lead to an imbalance in the

self-disclosure process. Moreover, not all service providers self-disclose to the same degree;

some reveal too much information about their lives and families, while others share very

basic information about their properties. Such differences may explain why prospective

consumers are more likely to trust and be more willing to use/continue to use certain types of

service providers over others. In these imbalanced self-disclosure situations, we argue that

service provider’s self-disclosure creates a good first impression and results in greater

consumer trust, or consumers’ belief that the service provider will behave in accordance with

their expectations by demonstrating ability, integrity, credibility, and benevolence (Doney &

Cannon, 1997).

Reducing perceived risk. Second, we contend that service providers’ self-disclosure

enables consumers to obtain important personal information during the initial interaction,

leading to lower perceived risk related to peer-to-peer transactions in the sharing economy.

The intangibility and simultaneity of service production and consumption often result in

higher uncertainty of consumers before purchase (Murray & Schlacter, 1990). This

uncertainty is likely to be exacerbated in the sharing economy because consumers use

services provided by an individual stranger rather than an enterprise (Eckhardt et al., 2019).

For example, the idea of renting a stranger’s residence via the online platform like Airbnb

could be considered risky (Sordi et al., 2018). Lamberton and Rose (2012) indicate that

because sharing systems involve rivalry, perceived risk is often associated with uncertainty

and scarcity due to consumer usage patterns and a sense of control. In this context, we

propose that service providers’ self-disclosure may mitigate consumers’ perception of

transaction risks when using sharing services. Thus, we define consumers’ risk perception in

the sharing economy as their uncertainty (i.e. the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes) and the

8
possibility of suffering negative consequences (i.e. the importance of a loss) when pursuing

sharing economy transactions (Laroche et al., 2004). Previous researchers (Mishra, Heide, &

Cort, 1998) claim that in most service encounters, consumers face uncertainty about service

providers’ characteristics and the risks of quality cheating due to information asymmetry to

the service providers’ advantage. The more service providers disclose themselves, the more

consumers know about them; in turn, this reduces fears of the service providers’ potential

opportunistic behaviors (e.g., unpleasant behaviors, monetary loss). When sharing more

personal and intimate information (e.g., social and political views, values, and emotions),

service providers demonstrate their willingness to promote cooperative behaviors and avoid

opportunistic actions during the transactions, reducing consumers’ actual risk and,

accordingly, risk perception (Mishra et al., 1998).

In practice, Airbnb emphasizes that complete profiles with hosts’ disclosed information

can help to reinforce consumer trust and reduce perceived risk. Therefore, Airbnb greatly

encourages hosts to share information about themselves by requiring a certain number of

words in the “About me” section of host profiles as an effort to enrich pre-booking

communication with guests. Hosts’ disclosed information is regarded as an effective way to

build an identity within the Airbnb community as well as an opportunity to win consumers,

rather than merely a task for hosts (Aufmann, 2020).

More specifically, it has been shown repeatedly that information disclosure is a basic

Airbnb trait and a unique feature of each offering and thus determines consumer trust (Kim,

Ferrin, & Rao, 2008; Yang et al., 2019) and perceived trustworthiness (Ert, Fleischer, &

Magen, 2016; Ma et al., 2017). Additionally, Airbnb is considered as less regulated than

traditional hotel industry, leading to a higher risk perception by consumers (Sutherland &

Jarrahi, 2018). Service providers’ self-disclosure allows consumers to learn about and feel

more familiar with the unknown hosts, thus reducing perceived risk and enhancing consumer

9
purchase behavior (Ert et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2021), which naturally stems from any kind of

relationships between two parties. Market signaling theory (Heil & Robertson, 1991)

highlights the role of information disclosure in encompassing various signals that pertain to

specific Airbnb benefits such as home amenities and cultural or local experiences (Guttentag,

2015; Yang et al., 2019). Hence, information disclosure becomes the mechanism that sends

signals (extrinsic cues) to consumers about specific Airbnb product/service characteristics

and service quality, reducing uncertainty and risk while enhancing their behavioral intention

(Wells, Valacich, & Hess, 2011). Thus, we can hypothesize:

H1a Service providers’ self-disclosure increases consumer trust in the service providers.
H1b Service providers’ self-disclosure reduces consumers’ perception of risks related to
sharing economy transactions with the service providers.
H1c Service providers’ self-disclosure motivates consumers to use/continue to use sharing
services from the service providers.

2.3. Mediating effects of consumer trust and perceived risk

Relationship marketing research (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006) provides

substantial evidence that trust acts as a key mediating variable in service relationships.

Drawing on previous findings, we expect that consumer trust mediates the self-disclosure

effect on behavioral intention toward service providers. As with any other services,

consumers must reserve/book a service before experiencing it in the sharing economy (Berry

& Parasuraman, 1991). In this context, trust in service providers gradually replaces

consumers’ reliance on more cognitive evaluations of the providers (Nicholson, Compeau, &

Sethi, 2001). The more service providers self-disclose, the more important personal

information about the providers consumers receive during the initial interaction. This

information assists in the assessment of the trustworthiness of the service providers. When

consumers consider a service provider trustworthy (credible and benevolent), they are more

likely to use/continue to use the service from that provider (Pavlou & Gefen, 2004). In other

10
words, consumer trust consecutively reinforces consumers’ willingness to use/continue to use

services from the providers with trustworthy profiles based on high self-disclosure levels.

This in turn leads to favorable consumer behavioral intention (such as booking sharing

services from and/or writing positive reviews for the service providers).

More specifically, it has been proved that identity and attribute information disclosed

by Airbnb hosts enhances consumers’ perceptions of attractiveness and trustworthiness, both

shown to drive consumer purchase intention (Ert et al., 2016). This mechanism of

attractiveness and trustworthiness drives Airbnb consumers’ judgement and evaluation

procedures influencing their behavioral intention (Xu et al., 2021). Thus, we can hypothesize:

H2 Trust in service providers mediates the relationship between service providers’ self-
disclosure and consumers’ behavioral intention.

Research on perceived risk (Dowling & Staelin, 1994; Mitchell, 1999) has long

acknowledged that consumers’ perception of transaction risks is a crucial factor in their

evaluations and purchase behaviors. The theory of reasoned action explains that perceived

risk increases negative expectations and triggers unfavorable attitudes, resulting in a negative

influence on transaction intention (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). Empirical

evidence supports the negative effect of perceived risk on behavioral intention in online

marketplaces (Pavlou & Gefen, 2004). To more completely explain the mechanism that

translates service providers’ self-disclosure into consumer behavioral outcomes, we treat

consumers’ risk perception as an important mediator.

Specifically, Airbnb consumers display a high level of perceived risk as a consequence

of the uniqueness of service offerings, the physical distance between providers and

consumers, and doubts related to regulatory issues (Xu et al., 2021). As Airbnb consumers

experience actual service quality when arriving at the properties, they only can estimate

transaction risks based on available and initial interaction with service providers. Thus,

11
higher perceived risk leads to less favorable consumer behavioral intention (Liang, Choi, &

Joppe, 2018). Risk perception constitutes the mechanism that translates signals transmitted

through self-disclosure by Airbnb hosts, generating lower risk perceptions and driving

accordingly consumers’ behavioral intention (Xu et al., 2021). Thus, we can hypothesize:

H3 Perceived risk mediates the relationship between service providers’ self-disclosure and
consumers’ behavioral intention.

Previous research has extensively examined the relationship between trust and risk,

highlighting the antecedent role of trust in the minimization of risk-related factors. Extant

literature has established that trust in service providers reduces risk perceptions by alleviating

expectations of opportunistic behaviors, especially in virtual communities (Pavlou, 2003;

Pavlou & Gefen, 2004). In situations of impersonal online services where consumers have

low levels of control, trust’s role is pivotal in diminishing the effect of perceived risk on

behavioral intention (Deutsch, 1960; Rousseau et al., 1998). Trust becomes a critical factor

that eliminates specific problems of risk in highly uncertain situations where consumers face

uncontrollable contexts (e.g., service provision in the sharing economy) (Kim et al., 2008). In

other words, as levels of trust increase, consumers’ risk perception is minimized.

In the sharing economy, service providers with trustworthy profiles based on high self-

disclosure levels significantly reduce perceived risk by removing some of the uncertainty

regarding unpleasant behaviors or monetary loss during the transactions. This results in higher

consumer willingness to use/continue to use the services from the service providers (Zamani et

al., 2019). Within an Airbnb context, impersonal and intangible cues intensify the need for host

trustworthiness driven by information disclosure (Ert et al., 2016). As tangible evidence and

physical interactions occur later in the service continuum, Airbnb users seek out early trusting

factors to prevent risk-related occurrences (Yang et al., 2019). Thus, we can hypothesize:

H4 Trust in service providers mediates the effect of service providers’ self-disclosure on

perceived risk, which in turn translates to consumers’ behavioral intention.

12
 2.4. Moderating effect of objective similarity/dissimilarity

Research in social psychology has widely used the concept of similarity to reflect objectively

similar characteristics between people, such as home country, cultural background, religion,

family structure, and workplace (Pinel et al., 2006). People often recognize the degree of

similarity to others through information exchange during initial interactions. Previous studies

reveal that similarities between exchange partners significantly and directly enhance the trust

development, which in turn encourage participation in collaborative consumption (Botsman

& Rogers, 2010). Due to enhanced trust and fluid communication, consumers should be less

concerned about risks associated with the transactions and have a higher intention to use

sharing services when they have more in common with service providers (Lamberton &

Rose, 2012). Drawing on construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2011), we argue that

services providers’ disclosed information on sharing platforms, such as nationalities, races,

and hometowns, enables consumers to evaluate whether the providers are similar to them.

Greater similarity levels with service providers allow consumers to build up their trust, lower

perception of potential transaction risks, and trigger more positive behavioral intention.

We explain the moderating effect of objective similarity by employing the concept of

psychological distance (Sordi et al., 2018). In the case of objective similarity, consumers feel

more connected with objectively similar others (e.g., people from the same country, race, or

hometown) (Pinel et al., 2006). This enables fluid communication between service providers

and consumers, resulting in enhanced trust, lower risk perception, and more positive behavioral

intention toward the providers, regardless of self-disclosure levels. Prior work posits that

consumers are more likely to use sharing services with objectively similar providers whom they

perceive as socially closer to themselves and as in-group members than dissimilar others

(Hazée et al., 2019; Kwok & Xie, 2018). These arguments also receive support from the “less is

more” principle of Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007), who claim that the less information people

13
have about a person with similar characteristics, the more they want to develop a relationship

with him or her. In the sharing economy, these arguments are consistent with the notion of Belk

(2010) that the boundaries of the aggregate sense of self in sharing can be expanded to new

acquaintances as a result of their similarities. Thus, sharing economy transactions could be

facilitated by the transfer of emotional-laden possessions between similar partners, even under

low levels of self-disclosure (Lastovicka & Fernandez, 2005).

By contrast, objective dissimilarity heightens concerns about manipulation or betrayal

by others who do not share anything in common (Siegrist, Cvetkovich, & Roth, 2000). The

objective dissimilarity between service providers and consumers often results in

psychological distance, leading to lower trust, higher perceived risk, and subsequent

unfavorable behavioral intention. In this case, service providers’ self-disclosure plays a more

prevalent role in engendering consumers’ desires to develop and maintain relationships with

service providers. The absence of objective similarity (e.g., being from different countries,

races, or hometowns) leads consumers to seek other cues (e.g., values, opinions, emotions, or

subjective experience) to foster interpersonal relationships with potential service providers

(Huneke & Pinel, 2016). Greater dissimilarity requires higher levels of self-disclosure (i.e.,

more intimate and diverse types of disclosed information from service providers) to establish

connections between service providers and consumers, strengthening the effects of self-

disclosure on trust, perceived risk, and behavioral intention. In other words, in the case of

objective dissimilarity, high self-disclosure levels result in higher trust, lower perceived risk,

and more favorable intention to pursue transactions with service providers. Based on the

discussion above, we expect objective similarity to mitigate the self-disclosure effects on

consumer responses and objective dissimilarity to strengthen these effects in the sharing

economy.

14
 In the Airbnb intangible service environment, consumers perceive high levels of

uncertainty and as a result, the role of service providers’ self-disclosure becomes crucial

(Yang et al., 2019). When consumers perceive that they are similar to the host, the objective

similarity allows the consumer to identify with the host, which in turn reduces psychological

distance between them and allows consumers to trust the host and make their booking

decisions without relying on more personal and intimate disclosed information from the host.

On the other hand, objective similarity is expected to positively moderate the negative effect

of service providers’ self-disclosure on perceived risk as consumers feel less uncertain and

more familiar with the host. Thus, we can hypothesize that:

H5a Objective similarity negatively moderates the relationship between service providers’ self-
disclosure and trust. In case of objective similarity (dissimilarity), the positive effect of self-
disclosure on trust is attenuated (strengthened).
H5b Objective similarity positively moderates the relationship between service providers’ self-
disclosure and perceived risk. In case of objective similarity (dissimilarity), the negative effect
of self-disclosure on perceived risk is attenuated (strengthened).
H5c Objective similarity negatively moderates the relationship between service providers’ self-
disclosure and behavioral intention. In case of objective similarity (dissimilarity), the positive
effect of self-disclosure on behavioral intention is attenuated (strengthened).

2.5. Moderating effect of consumer self-esteem

Self-esteem refers to a person’s global feeling and belief of his/her self-worthiness, reflecting

overall liking or disliking of the self (Rosenberg, 1965). Self-esteem is a key determinant of

self-disclosure and emotional expressivity (Gaucher et al., 2012). An extensive body of

literature has shown how self-esteem affects the way people disclose themselves in both

offline and online contexts (Li et al., 2020; Wilcox & Stephen, 2013). Yet, little is known

about how consumers with different self-esteem levels react to others’ self-disclosure and the

resulting implications for consumer behavior in the sharing economy.

According to the sociometer theory, dispositional self-esteem offers an implicit and

fast assessment of the extent to which a person is likely to be accepted, which in turn affects

15
his/her likelihood of developing and maintaining social relationships and of avoiding social

exclusion (Leary et al., 1995). We posit that when receiving others’ self-disclosure and

emotional expressivity, people with varying levels of self-esteem have different reactions.

Our argument is based on the finding that individuals with low self-esteem (LSE) are likely

to have lower satisfaction with social support and relationship intimacy than those with high

self-esteem (HSE) (Hobfoll, Nadler, & Leiberman, 1986).

More relevant to our argument, Leary and Baumeister (2000) propose that HSE

individuals are more likely to succeed in satisfying their need to belong via social interaction

with others than LSE ones. Specifically, it is argued that individuals with HSE generally feel

confident, liked, and accepted by others while those with LSE doubt about their value and

tend to avoid social rejection. Consistent with this proposition, Cameron et al. (2010) posit

that LSE individuals, by employing the self-protective approach, tend to underestimate the

acceptance from potential romantic partners. On the contrary, HSE individuals are more open

to promote with new relationships as they overestimate the likelihood of being accepted by

others. In line with previous studies, we argue that consumer self-esteem enhances trust in

others’ responsiveness and caring (McCarthy, Wood, & Holmes, 2017), attenuates perceived

risk (Lin, Lin, & Raghubir, 2003), and promotes new relationships (Cameron et al., 2010) as

it concerns whether one is worthy of others’ caring, leading to self-positivity bias and

overestimated acceptance. Therefore, when facing the service providers’ self-disclosure as a

signal to detect a potential future acceptance, consumers with relatively lower levels of self-

esteem are more likely to trust less, perceived higher risks, and engage in escaping behaviors

(e.g., do not use sharing services). In contrast, those with relatively higher levels of self-

esteem are more likely to develop new relationships with service providers. However, self-

esteem is “a culture-bound construct”, which could result in phenotypic differences in

people’s psychological reactions across different cultural contexts (Brown et al., 2009).

16
 In the Airbnb service continuum, information disclosure by hosts is perceived

differently by consumers depending on their self-esteem levels. Consumers with HSE are

prepared to regard a host’s disclosed information at face value, thus trusting more the host.

On the contrary, consumers with LSE are more likely to question or doubt the disclosed

information, thus reducing its effect on trust. In a similar vein, for consumers with HSE

information disclosure by the host, is seen as a validation of their purchase decisions and

therefore its impact on behavioral intention strengthens. Consumers with LSE will be more

reluctant to accept information disclosure as a primary driver of their behavioral intention.

Conversely, consumers with HSE will be less reliant on information disclosure by hosts for

reducing their perceived risk levels, whereas consumers with LSE will rely heavily on hosts’

disclosed information for reassurance therefore making it more influential in reducing

perceived risk. Thus, we can hypothesize that:

H6a Self-esteem positively moderates the relationship between service providers’ self-
disclosure and trust. For individuals with HSE (LSE), the positive effect of self-disclosure on
trust is stronger (weaker).
H6b Self-esteem negatively moderates the relationship between service providers’ self-
disclosure and perceived risk. For individuals with HSE (LSE), the negative effect of self-
disclosure on perceived risk is stronger (weaker).
H6c Self-esteem positively moderates the relationship between service providers’ self-
disclosure and behavioral intention. For individuals with HSE (LSE), the positive effect of
self-disclosure on behavioral intention is stronger (weaker).

3. Overview of studies

We investigate the hypothesized relationships in four experimental studies using different

approaches to manipulate two self-disclosure aspects (i.e., depth and breadth). We selected

Airbnb as the research context for the experiments for three main reasons. First, Airbnb is

one of the largest and most promising peer-to-peer accommodation platforms, with more than

two million consumers in 100,000 cities all over the world (Airbnb, 2019). Second, the

transactional mechanism of Airbnb allows hosts and guests to find each other and interact

17
online during the get-acquainted phase and, in most cases, face-to-face interactions during the

service delivery phase. During initial encounters, as Airbnb services require the sharing of

personal space, potential consumers pay attention not only to property attributes but also to

hosts’ characteristics and their willing sociality (Lutz & Newlands, 2018). Third, Airbnb

managers repeatedly stress that host self-disclosure plays an important role in trust-building

and risk reduction, as every user is encouraged to create an insightful profile with detailed

and more intimate information (Aufmann, 2020; Shapiro, 2017).

In Studies 1a and 1b, we examine the self-disclosure depth effects on consumer

responses and the moderating role of objective similarity by manipulating country-of-origin

(COO) and race. In Study 2, we test another conditioning factor, consumer self-esteem, on the

links between host self-disclosure and consumer trust, risk perception, and behavioral intention.

Study 3 aims to generalize the findings of the previous studies by replicating the experimental

designs in another national context. Specifically, while Studies 1a, b and Study 2 took place in

the U.S. context, a Western developed market, Study 3 took place in the East Asian emerging

market of Vietnam. Drawing on the four main layers of self-disclosure from social penetration

theory and inspired by real host descriptions on Airbnb, we developed self-disclosure

manipulations with a series of pre-tests (see Web Appendix B). In all studies, the manipulations

used a fictitious host account with the same name, destination, membership status, review

number, response rate, and response time across all conditions to control the potential effects of

exogenous factors.

4. Studies 1a and 1b: Manipulating self-disclosure depth

4.1. Study 1a

Study 1a examines how host self-disclosure (manipulated in terms of self-disclosure depth)

affects consumer trust, risk perception, and behavioral intention toward the host. We also

18
investigate the moderating effect of objective similarity (manipulated in terms of COO) on the

link between a host’s self-disclosure and consumer responses.

Method

We recruited 205 U.S. consumers (46.3% male; Mage = 41.64 years, SD = 11.63) from an

online panel Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to take part in a 10-minute study in

exchange for pay. Most of the participants had some experience with using different types of

sharing platforms as a consumer and/or as a provider, especially for ridesharing (69.8%) and

home-sharing besides Airbnb (68.8%) (See Table 1). Participants were randomly assigned to

one of four 2 (self-disclosure depth: deep vs. no-deep) × 2 (objective similarity/dissimilarity:

same COO vs. different COO) between-subjects designs.

– Insert Table 1 about here –

Participants were asked to imagine that they were travelling alone to New York next

month for a short holiday and they needed to search for a private room in the house of a local

person on the Airbnb platform. Following the approach of Pinel et al. (2006), participants

first disclosed their COO and then we used this information to randomly assigned participants

to each of the host descriptions with the respective introductory sentence: in the objective

similarity condition (The host is originally from the participants’ COO) and in the objective

dissimilarity condition (The host is NOT originally from the participants’ COO). In the deep-

self-disclosure condition, participants read a description about the service provider’s beliefs,

values, and emotions, while in the no-deep-self-disclosure condition, they read a host’s

description about their house and a general welcome (see Web Appendix B for complete

stimuli and pretests). The lengths of the two host descriptions were identical (59 words).

After reading the host description, participants rated their trust in the host on a seven-

point scale adapted from Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, and Gremler (2002) and their risk

19
perception scale adapted from Tseng and Wang (2016). Participants also indicated their

behavioral intention (in terms of usage, recommendation, and repurchase) (Melnyk & van

Osselaer, 2012; Umashankar, Ward, & Dahl, 2017). Finally, participants responded to

manipulation check questions on intimacy ratings, perceived host description length, and

perceived similarity with the host, and perceived importance of COO on seven-point scales

(For the full list of measurements, see Web Appendix D).

In line with prior work on consumer behavior in the sharing economy, we included

control variables: consumer demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, and COO), prior

experience with using sharing services (e.g., ridesharing, home-sharing, finance, and others),

and consumer innovativeness (Roehrich, 2004). Consumer innovativeness appears to be an

important motive of sharing economy participation because the more innovative consumers

are, the more likely they are willing to try new forms of collaborative consumption and

prosocial behaviors given their high hedonic values (Hwang & Griffiths, 2017).

Results

Manipulation checks. Participants rated the description in the deep-self-disclosure condition

(M = 5.08) as having a higher intimacy rating than that in the no-deep-self-disclosure

condition (M = 4.61; t(203) = 2.22, p < .03). Perceived length of the two host descriptions

was not significantly different (p > .19). We then checked if the objective similarity

manipulation affected participants’ perceived similarity with the host as expected. As

intended, participants in the objective similarity condition perceived the host as more similar

than did participants in the dissimilarity condition (Msimilarity= 5.01, Mdissimilarity = 4.22; t(203)

= 3.88, p < .001). Overall, participants indicated that their home country played an important

role in determining who they are (t-test vs. the scale midpoint [4]; M = 4.74; t(204) = 6.79, p

< .001) (Pinel et al., 2006). This suggests the importance of objective similarity (in terms of

COO) in determining consumer perceptions and behaviors.

20
Main effects of self-disclosure. The t-test results indicate that host self-disclosure had a

marginally significant and positive effect on consumer trust (Mdeep = 5.58, Mno-deep= 5.29;

t(203) = 1.94, p < .06). As expected, participants perceived higher risks when using sharing

services with the host in the no-deep self-disclosure condition (Mno-deep= 3.76) than the one in

the deep self-disclosure condition (Mdeep= 3.29; t(203) = 2.13, p < .05). Participants also

expressed significantly more positive behavioral intention (Mdeep = 5.13) in the deep-self-

disclosure condition than those in the no-deep-self-disclosure condition (Mno-deep = 4.77;

t(203) = 1.99, p < .05). The results support H1a, H1b, and H1c.

Mediating effects of consumer trust and risk perception. We conducted a sequential mediation

analysis using Model 6 in the Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro with 10,000 iterations to derive

a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effects of consumer trust and perceived risk. In

the mediation model, we entered the host self-disclosure conditions as the independent variable,

consumer trust and perceived risk as the sequential mediators, and behavioral intention as the

dependent variable. We also controlled for the effects of consumer demographic features, prior

experience, and consumer innovativeness in the analysis. For the conditional indirect effects,

we found a significant mediating effect of consumer trust (indirect effect = .11, SE = .05, 95%

CI = [.02, .20]), supporting H2. The mediating effect of perceived risk on the link between host

self-disclosure and behavioral intention was not significant (indirect effect = .02, SE = .02, 95%

CI = [–.003, .07]), rejecting H3. Consumer trust also significantly mediated the self-disclosure

effect on perceived risk, which is in turn translated to behavioral intention (indirect effect = .01,

SE = .01, 95% CI = [.001, .04]), supporting H4. Consumer innovativeness and prior experience

were significant covariates (ps < .05).

Moderating role of objective similarity. We performed three 2 × 2 analyses of covariance

(ANCOVAs) with consumer trust, perceived risk, and behavioral intention as the dependent

variables and host self-disclosure conditions and objective similarity as the between-subjects

21
variables. We included consumer age, gender, COO, prior experience, and consumer

innovativeness as covariates. The results reveal that the interactive effects of host self-

disclosure and objective similarity on consumer trust (F(1, 193) = 3.20, p < .08, η2 = .02) and

perceived risk (F(1, 193) = 2.79, p < .10, η2 = .01) were marginally significant. We found the

significant moderating effect of objective similarity on the link between host self-disclosure

and consumer behavioral intention (F(1, 193) = 5.38, p < .03, η2 = .03). Altogether, the

results support H5a, H5b, H5c (See Figure 2). Besides, the results also indicate that consumer

innovativeness was a significant covariate for consumer trust and behavioral intention (ps <

.001) and prior experience was a significant covariate for all three dependent variables (ps <

.05).

– Insert Figure 2 about here –

4.2. Study 1b

To ensure the generalizability of the host self-disclosure effects obtained in Study 1a, we

manipulated objective similarity with a different approach, namely host race via hosts’

avatars on the Airbnb platform. A pretest was conducted to test the effectiveness of the race

manipulation via hosts’ photos (see Web Appendix C). All the selected photos were

equivalent in appearance cues and attractiveness.

Method

We recruited 281 U.S. Caucasian consumers (63.0% male; Mage = 39.82 years, SD = 10.97)

from Mturk via the qualification approach (Wessling, Huber, & Netzer, 2017). The majority

of the participants had some experience with using different types of sharing platforms as a

consumer and/or as a provider, especially for ridesharing (64.1%) and home-sharing besides

Airbnb (61.9%) (See Table 1). Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight 2 (self-

22
disclosure depth: deep vs. no-deep) × 2 (objective similarity/dissimilarity: same race vs.

different race) × 2 (host gender: male vs. female) between-subjects designs.

We used the same cover story and the host self-disclosure manipulation as in Study 1a.

We randomly assigned participants into the objective similarity/dissimilarity manipulation

with the host description featured either (1) the Caucasian host or (2) the host from other

racial groups (Asian, Black, or Hispanic). Participants were also randomly assigned to read

the description of either the male or female host. The lengths of all the host descriptions were

identical (59 words). We employed the same scales to measure trust, perceived risk,

behaviors intention, manipulation checks, and control variables as in Study 1a.

Results

Manipulation checks. Participants perceived the host to disclose themselves more in the deep-

self-disclosure condition (Mdeep = 5.50) than that in the no-deep-self-disclosure condition

(Mno-deep = 5.11; t(279) = 2.40, p < .02). Perceived lengths of the two host descriptions were

not significantly different (p > .35). As expected, participants in the objectively similar

condition perceived the host as more similar than those in the dissimilar condition (Msimilarity

= 5.30, Mdissimilarity = 4.68; t(279) = 3.62, p < .001).

Main effects of self-disclosure. The results confirm the main effects of host self-disclosure on

trust (Mdeep = 5.60, Mno-deep = 5.36; t(279) = 1.97 p < .05), perceived risk (Mdeep = 3.97, Mno-

deep = 4.30; t(279) = 1.72, p < .09), and behavioral intention (Mdeep = 5.63, Mno-deep = 5.37;

t(279) = 2.09, p < .05), confirming H1a, H1b, and H1c. Host gender had no significant impact

on the three dependent variables (ps > .40).

Mediating effects of consumer trust and risk perception. By using Model 6 (Hayes, 2013;

10,000 iterations), we also confirmed the significant mediating effect of consumer trust

(indirect effect = .09, SE = .04, 95% CI = [.01, .16]), confirming H2. Perceived risk only

23
mediated the host self-disclosure effect on behavioral intention via trust (indirect effect = .002,

SE = .002, 95% CI = [.001, .01]), confirming H4. Consumer innovativeness significantly

influenced behavioral intention (p < .001).

Moderating role of objective similarity. The results of ANCOVAs reveal the significant

interaction effects of host self-disclosure and objective similarity on consumer trust (F(1,

269) = 5.28, p < .03, η2 = .02), perceived risk (F(1, 269) = 4.58, p < .04, η2 = .02), and

behavioral intention (F(1, 269) = 3.96, p < .05, η2 = .01), confirming H5a, H5b, H5c (See Figure

2). Host gender had non-significant impact on the dependent variables (ps > .25). Consumer

innovativeness was a significant covariate for all dependent variables (ps < .001) and prior

experience was a significant covariate for perceived risk (p < .03).

Discussion

Together, Studies 1a and 1b demonstrate the significant effects of host self-disclosure depth

on consumer trust, perceived risk, and behavioral intention. We found that the host self-

disclosure effects on consumer responses vary along the dimensions of objective similarity.

Findings provide consistent support for the hypotheses that hosts with more intimate

disclosures tend to be judged as more trusted, less risky, and receive more favorable

behavioral intention than those with low self-disclosure levels, especially when there is an

objective dissimilarity. These effects are robust across different approaches of objective

similarity manipulation.

In the next study, we investigate consumer self-esteem as a boundary condition for the

observed effects of host self-disclosure on consumer responses in the sharing economy. To

the extent that consumers feel good about themselves can make them be more open and

confident in developing interpersonal relationships with hosts based on their disclosed

information. Thus, we expect consumer self-esteem strengthens the positive effects of host

24
self-disclosure on consumer trust and behavioral intention while attenuating its negative

effect on perceived risk.

5. Study 2: Manipulating self-disclosure breadth

Study 2 aims to test the robustness of the host self-disclosure effects with a different pool of

U.S. consumers by using another self-disclosure manipulation approach (i.e., self-disclosure

breadth). More importantly, we also examine the moderating effect of consumer self-esteem

on the relationship between host self-disclosure and consumer behavioral intention in the

sharing economy. We propose that relative to HSE consumers, LSE ones tend to respond

negatively to host self-disclosure as they doubt their interpersonal value and underestimate

the acceptance from others.

Method

We recruited one hundred and thirty-seven U.S. consumers (61.3% male, Mage = 40.59 years,

SD = 10.11) from Mturk in exchange for pay. As in Studies 1a and 1b, around 60% of the

participants had used several sharing platforms as a consumer and/or as a provider, e.g.,

ridesharing (67.2%) and home-sharing besides Airbnb (59.1%) (See Table 1). We randomly

assigned participants to one of 2 (self-disclosure breadth: long vs. short) between-subjects

designs.

We used the same cover story as in Studies 1a and 1b. Regarding self-disclosure

manipulation, participants were randomly assigned to read the host profile with either a long

description (217 words) or a short description (46 words), as selected from the pre-test (see

Web Appendix B). Then, participants responded to the dependent variable measures,

including consumer trust, perceived risk, and behavioral intention, manipulation checks, and

control variables as in Studies 1a and 1b. Participants indicated their positive self-esteem on

five items adapted from Rosenberg (1965).

25
 Results

Manipulation checks. Participants in the long-self-disclosure condition evaluated the

description to be longer (Mlong = 5.91; Mshort = 3.93; t(135) = 8.43, p < .001) and to have a

higher intimacy rating (Mlong = 5.76; Mshort = 4.40; t(135) = 5.62, p < .001) than those in the

short-self-disclosure condition.

Main effects of self-disclosure. Consistent with Studies 1a and 1b, we found a significant

effect of host self-disclosure on consumer trust (Mlong = 5.72; Mshort = 5.02; t(135) = 4.16, p <

.001), perceived risk (Mlong = 3.71; Mshort = 4.17; t(135) = 1.68, p < .10), and behavioral

intention (Mlong = 5.30; Mshort = 4.60; t(135) = 3.61, p < .001), confirming H1a, H1b, H1c.

Mediating effects of consumer trust and risk perception. We performed a bootstrapping

analysis to test the sequential mediation model (Model 6; Hayes, 2013; 10,000 iterations).

The results indicate that the indirect effect via both mediators was significant (indirect effect

= .02, SE =.01, 95% CI = [.003, .03]), as was the indirect effect via consumer trust (indirect

effect = .14, SE = .05; 95% CI = [.05, .25]), confirming H2 and H4. The indirect effect via

perceived risk alone was nonsignificant (indirect effect = .03, SE = .02; 95% CI = [–.001,

.08]). Consumer innovativeness, gender, prior experience were significant covariates (ps <

.05).

Moderating effect of consumer self-esteem. We conducted a mediated moderation analysis

using Model 8 in the Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro with 10,000 iterations to derive a 95% CI

for the moderating effect of self-esteem and mediating effects of consumer trust and perceived

risk. We included host self-disclosure manipulation as the independent variable, behavioral

intention as the dependent variable, trust and perceived risk as the mediators, and mean-

centered self-esteem as the moderator. Providing support for a mediated moderation, the self-

disclosure × self-esteem had a marginally significant effect on trust (β = .11, t = 1.66, p < .10)

26
and a significant interaction effect on perceived risk (β = – .26, t = – 2.23, p < .03), and

behavioral intention (β = –.11, t = –2.23, p < .03). Trust (β = .65, t = 9.97, p < .001) and

perceived risk (β = – .13, t = – 3.61, p < .001), in turn, had significant effects on behavioral

intention. These results support H6a and H6b while providing evidence for the opposite direction

for the moderating effect of consumer self-esteem on the link between host self-disclosure and

consumer behavioral intention, partially supporting H6c.

We conducted spotlight analyses at two standard deviations above and below the mean

of the self-esteem score. Consistent with our proposition, at two standard deviations below the

mean, host self-disclosure had a nonsignificant indirect effect on behavioral intention via both

trust (95% CI = [–.05, .21]) and perceived risk (95% CI = [–.04, .07]). On the contrary, at two

standard deviations above the mean of the self-esteem score, host self-disclosure had a

significant indirect effect on behavioral intention via both trust (95% CI = [.07, .38]) and

perceived risk (95% CI = [.03, .17]). Finally, the index of moderated mediation was also

significant (95% CI = [.01, .09]) (See Figure 3).

– Insert Figure 3 about here –

Discussion

Overall, the results of Study 2 are consistent with the findings obtained in Studies 1a and 1b,

by highlighting the significant effects of host self-disclosure (manipulated via self-disclosure

breadth) on consumer trust, risk perception, and behavioral intention. More importantly, the

findings support our proposed mechanism: HSE (vs. LSE) consumers had greater trust and

perceived lower risk when making transactions with hosts who disclosed themselves more

(vs. less) and the differences in consumer trust and risk perception mediated the difference in

the behavioral intention toward hosts with different self-disclosure levels. Interestingly, we

27
found that consumer self-esteem had a significant and negative moderating effect on the link

between host self-disclosure and behavioral intention in the U.S. context.

6. Study 3: Replication in an East Asian emerging country

Studies 1a, 1b, and 2 established the significant mediating effects of trust and perceived risk

as well as the moderating effects of objective similarity and self-esteem in the context of a

Western developed market (the United States). In Study 3, we investigate the proposed

mechanism of the host self-disclosure effects on consumer responses in an East Asian

emerging market, Vietnam. Moreover, while we manipulated separately self-disclosure

dimensions (depth and breadth) in Studies 1a, 1b, and 2, Study 3 includes these two self-

disclosure dimensions simultaneously.

Previous studies indicate that East Asian collectivists are more conscious and

motivated to develop interpersonal relationships than Western individualists and that they

also put greater value on group harmony and belongingness (Chen, Chen, & Meindl, 1998;

Malhotra et al., 1994). Differences in cultural orientation could resemble value distinctions in

forming a relationship with service providers as either friends or business people (Grayson,

2007). Patterson, Cowley, and Prasongsukarn (2006) argue that compared with Western

individualist consumers, East Asian collectivist consumers are more attentive to personal

connections that induce a harmonious relationship with service providers, especially when

they receive positive signals from providers in service encounters.

We selected Vietnam to empirically retest our hypotheses because of its rich culture and

rapid development in sharing economy services. Hofstede (2003) classifies Vietnam as a

collectivist country with high power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, high long-term

orientation, and low masculinity. According to the Vietnam Investment Review (2019), although

the majority (76%) of Vietnamese consumers have favorable attitudes toward “shared products

28
and services”, the sharing economy remains in its infancy because of low awareness, trust

issues, and high perceived transaction risk in using new types of peer-to-peer transactions. We

argue that the role of service providers’ self-disclosure in increasing consumer intention to use

sharing services in Vietnam could differ significantly from its effects in a Western mature and

individualist market. Therefore, investigating the service providers’ self-disclosure effects on

consumer decisions to participate in sharing economy transactions in an East Asian emerging

and collectivist country is crucial to ensure the generalizability of the findings across national

cultures.

Method

Three hundred and seventy-five consumers (36.7% male, Mage= 24.10 years, SD = 6.85) from

five closed groups on Facebook for travelling lovers and homestay seekers in Vietnam (e.g.,

Vietnam Airbnb Hosts Community, Review Homestay Vietnam, Vietnamese homestay

network) voluntarily participated in the online experiment. Similar to previous studies, the

majority of participants had some experience with using sharing economy services, such as

ridesharing (89.1%) and home-sharing besides Airbnb (80.3%) (See Table 1). We randomly

assigned participants to one of eight 2 (self-disclosure depth: deep vs. no-deep) × 2 (self-

disclosure breadth: long vs. short) × 2 (objective similarity/dissimilarity: same hometown vs.

different hometown) between-subjects designs.

Participants were asked to disclose their hometown at the beginning of the experiment.

In the objective similarity condition, participants then read a description of the host from the

same hometown, while in the objective dissimilarity condition, they read a description of the

host from a different hometown. We manipulated host self-disclosure in terms of depth and

breadth of the host’s disclosed information, selected from the pre-test (see Web Appendix B).

Participants assessed the dependent variable measures, consumer self-esteem, manipulation

check questions, and control variables using the same scales as in previous studies.

29
 Results

Manipulation checks. Participants perceived the host to disclose themselves more in the deep-

self-disclosure condition (Mdeep = 4.18) than in the no-deep-self-disclosure condition (Mno-deep

= 3.75; t(373) = 3.01, p < .01). Participants also perceived the host description as longer in the

long-self-disclosure condition (Mlong = 4.13) than in the short-self-disclosure condition (Mshort

= 3.80; t(373) = 2.29, p < .03). Overall, the host descriptions successfully manipulated the

depth and breadth of self-disclosure. As we anticipated, participants in the objective similarity

condition believed they were more similar to the host (Msimilarity = 4.31) than those in the

objective dissimilarity condition (Mdissimilarity = 3.73; t(373) = 5.06, p < .001). Thus, we

deemed the objective similarity manipulation successful.

Main effect of self-disclosure dimensions. We found the significant effects of host self-

disclosure breadth on consumer trust (Mlong = 4.55; Mshort = 4.18; t(373) = 3.85, p < .001),

perceived risk (Mlong = 3.71; Mshort = 4.06; t(373) = 3.85, p < .001), and behavioral intention

(Mlong = 4.65; Mshort = 4.29; t(373) = 4.61, p < .001), confirming H1a, H1b, and H1c. Host self-

disclosure depth had a significant impact on consumer trust (Mdeep = 4.46; Mno-deep = 4.27;

t(373) = 2.01, p < .05) and a marginally significant impact on perceived risk (Mdeep = 3.80;

Mno-deep = 3.96; t(373) = 1.73, p < .10), confirming H1a and H1b, but exerted nonsignificant

influence on behavioral intention (p > .14), rejecting H1c. The 2 × 2 ANCOVAs reveal the

nonsignificant interaction effects between the two self-disclosure dimensions on the

dependent variables (ps > .32).

Mediating effects of consumer trust and risk perception. As in previous studies, we

performed a bootstrapping analysis to test the sequential mediation model (Model 6; Hayes,

2013; 10,000 iterations) separately for each self-disclosure dimension.

30
 Regarding self-disclosure breadth, the results show the significant indirect effect via

both mediators was significant (indirect effect = .01, SE = .003, 95% CI = [.001, .01]), as were

the indirect effects via consumer trust (indirect effect = .08, SE = .02; 95% CI = [.04, .13])

and perceived risk (indirect effect = .02, SE = .01; 95% CI = [.003, .04]), confirming H2, H3,

and H4. Consumer innovativeness was the only significant covariate (p < .001).

Regarding self-disclosure depth, we found a significant mediating effect of trust on

the link between self-disclosure and behavioral intention (indirect effect = .05, SE = .02, 95%

CI = [.002, .09]) and the significant sequential mediating effect of trust via perceived risk

(indirect effect = .004, SE = .003, 95% CI = [.001, .01]), confirming H2 and H4. Consumer

innovativeness was the only significant covariate (p < .001).

Moderating effect of objective similarity. A 2 × 2 × 2 ANCOVA on behavioral intention

reveals a marginally significant two-way interaction between host self-disclosure depth and

objective similarity (F(1, 361) = 3.11, p < .08, η2 = .01) and a significant three-way

interaction (F(1, 361) = 4.11, p < .05, η2 = .01), confirming H5c (see Figure 4). By contrast,

we did not find significant two-way and three-way interaction effects between self-disclosure

aspects and objective similarity on trust and perceived risk (ps > .31), rejecting H5a and H5b.

Consumer innovativeness was a significant covariate for consumer trust and behavioral

intention (ps < .001) and prior experience was a significant covariate for all three dependent

variables (ps < .05).

– Insert Figure 4 about here –

Moderating effect of consumer self-esteem. Using the same approach as in Study 2, we

conducted a mediated moderation analysis using Model 8 in the Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS

macro with 10,000 iterations for each self-disclosure dimension separately. We found a

marginally significant self-disclosure breadth × self-esteem interaction on trust (β = .10, t =

31
1.79, p < .08) and on behavioral intention (β = .07, t = 1.84, p < .07), supporting H6a and H6c

but not for perceived risk (β = .03, t = .59, p > .55), rejecting H6b. Trust (β = .44, t = 12.27, p <

.001) and perceived risk (β = – .15, t = – 4.22, p < .001), in turn, had significant effects on

behavioral intention.

The spotlight analyses show the significant indirect effect of host self-disclosure

breadth on behavioral intention via trust (95% CI = [.05, .16]) at two standard deviations

above the mean of consumer self-esteem and nonsignificant indirect effect at two standard

deviations below the mean (95% CI = [–.02, .10]). On the contrary, the indirect effects of host

self-disclosure on behavioral intention via perceived risk were significant at all consumer self-

esteem levels (See Figure 3). Regarding host self-disclosure depth, we did not find any

significant moderating effects of self-esteem on the links between self-disclosure and

dependent variables (ps > .52).

Discussion

These results generally replicated those from the prior three studies, demonstrating the

significant impact of host self-disclosure on consumer trust, risk perception, and behavioral

intention. They also replicated the evidence of the moderating effect of objective similarity

from Studies 1a and 1b, using a different manipulation – specifically, Studies 1a and 1b relied

on COO and race manipulation and Study 3 relied on hometown manipulation. Additionally,

the results from Study 3 illustrated the positive moderating role of self-esteem in the link

between host self-disclosure breadth and consumer trust and their behavioral intention. In the

context of an East Asian emerging market and collectivistic cultural like Vietnam, host self-

disclosure breadth (in terms of host description length) plays a more important role in

triggering favorable consumer responses in comparison with host self-disclosure depth.

32
7. Theoretical contributions and managerial implications

We demonstrate the value of service providers’ self-disclosure in generating consumer trust,

reducing risk perception, and enhancing behavioral intention in the sharing economy context.

This study helps unpack the complex underlying mechanism in which consumers make their

decisions to pursue sharing economy transactions. Controlling for consumer demographic

characteristics and consumer innovativeness, the results uniformly show that service

providers’ self-disclosure is an effective tool to increase consumer trust and reduce risk

perceptions, which in turn translates into more positive consumer reactions in digital and

access-based practices across national contexts.

Furthermore, we proposed two important conditioning factors of service providers’

self-disclosure effects—objective similarity and consumer self-esteem. Specifically, we show

that the act of self-disclosure by service providers may drive consumers who do not share

common characteristics (e.g., COO, race, and hometown) to use/continue to use services

from service providers and/or recommend them both online and offline (Studies 1a, 1b, and

3). Moreover, the results reveal the differential moderating effects of consumer self-esteem

across different national markets. In the context of developed and individualistic markets like

the United States, consumer self-esteem strengthens the impact of host self-disclosure on

trust while dampening the host self-disclosure effects on perceived risk and behavioral

intention. By contrast, in the emerging and collectivistic markets like Vietnam, consumer

self-esteem reinforces the positive effects of host self-disclosure on both trust and behavioral

intention (Study 2 and Study 3) (For a summary of the results, see Table 2).

– Insert Table 2 about here –

33
 7.1. Theoretical contributions

In the sharing economy, self-disclosure is necessary to develop and maintain interpersonal

relationships with strangers during the get-acquainted process (Shapiro, 2017). Much of the

work on the sharing economy has focused on how to generate trust based on the platforms’

features such as rating scores and consumer reviews (Botsman, 2017; Ter Huurne et al.,

2017). However, relatively little research has explored how the mere act of self-disclosure

from service providers increases consumer trust while reducing perceived transaction risks,

which in turn enhances behavioral intention. By filling this gap, the current research makes

several contributions to marketing in the sharing economy.

First, we extend consumer research on liquid and collaborative consumption in the

sharing economy context (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017; Bardhi et al., 2012) by providing cross-

national empirical evidence for the positive impact of service providers’ self-disclosure on

consumer behavioral intention in the sharing economy via two alternative routes: building

consumer trust and mitigating perceived risk. The study draws on social penetration theory

(Altman & Taylor, 1973) to identify, conceptually propose, operationalize, and empirically

examine the effects of service providers’ self-disclosure on consumer trust, risk perception,

and their intention to pursue sharing economy transactions. A primary contribution of this

study is the attention paid to service providers’ self-disclosure (i.e., both depth and breadth).

The analyses show that the quality and/or quantity of disclosed information increases

consumer trust while reducing consumers’ perceptions of transaction risks; this in turn leads

to more positive behavioral intention across national markets. The reason for this, in

hindsight, may be that, consumers perceive disclosed information (i.e., depth and/or breadth)

from service providers as a powerful cue to guarantee cooperative behavior and minimize

risk perception. Service providers need to show their openness and willingness to invest in

34
the relationship with prospective consumers by disclosing information about themselves in a

longer and/or deeper way.

In sum, our study demonstrates that service providers’ self-disclosure is an effective

tool for trust-building and risk reduction, which in turn enhances consumer intention to make

initial transactions on peer-to-peer sharing platforms. We define this idea as service

providers’ sincere openness to share personal information and express their personalities,

signaling the interest in developing relationships with potential consumers and the genuine

willingness to welcome strangers into their properties, regardless of national context.

Second, we respond the repeated calls (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Herbert & Collin-Lachaud,

2017; Sundararajan, 2019) to uncover conditioning factors of the relationship between service

providers’ characteristics and consumer responses in the sharing economy. Specifically, we

demonstrate the novel underlying processes driving the effects of service providers’ self-

disclosure on consumer responses in the sharing economy by emphasizing the conditioning

roles of objective similarity and consumer self-esteem. The self-disclosure effect is contingent

on objective similarity/dissimilarity between service providers and consumers. When objective

similarity exists between them, service providers and consumers can communicate more

effectively, diminishing the role of service providers’ self-disclosure. However, in the case of

objective dissimilarity, service providers’ self-disclosure becomes more pronounced to

establish connections between them and potential consumers.

Moreover, consumer self-esteem plays different moderating roles in facilitating the

development of interpersonal relationships with strangers in sharing economy transactions.

Consumer self-esteem enhances the effect of service providers’ self-disclosure on trust across

two countries studied. Consumer self-esteem significantly dampens the self-disclosure effect

on perceived risk in the U.S. market, but not in the Vietnamese context. Interestingly, we

found the negative moderating effect of consumer self-esteem on the link between service

35
providers’ self-disclosure and consumer behavioral intention in the U.S. market while this

moderating effect is positive in the Vietnamese market.

In the Western developed countries like the United States, consumers generally report

higher levels of self-esteem (Brown et al., 2009). In these countries, consumers feel more

confident and require less information to make their decisions (Knight & Nadel, 1986; Weiss

& Knight, 1980). They are also highly selective in the information that they pay attention to,

remember, and easily frame information in a more exaggerated way (Heine, 2001). Therefore,

service providers’ self-disclosure might be considered as unnecessary information for HSE

consumers in the Western developed markets when making their decisions to use sharing

services, resulting in the detrimental effect of service providers’ self-disclosure on consumer

behavioral intention. On the other hand, self-esteem is generally lower in East Asian countries

(Brown et al., 2009). East Asian consumers tend to understand and predict the behavior of

others based on situational information, leading to the greater utility of service providers’ self-

disclosure in these markets (Heine, 2001).

Third, we examine the role of self-disclosure in developing newly formed relationships

between service providers and consumers during initial interactions on sharing platforms.

This is a particularly conservative test of our hypotheses, as initial interactions are typically

brief with little time for a consumer to develop trust, evaluate associated risks, and make

decisions to use sharing services. Furthermore, under conditions of liquid consumption in the

sharing economy, consumers seem to trust less in and commit less to relationships with

service providers while perceiving higher transaction risks (Eckhardt et al., 2019;

Sundararajan, 2019). However, our findings consistently show a positive effect of self-

disclosure on consumers’ behavioral intention by generating consumer trust and reducing

perceived risk on peer-to-peer sharing platforms across national settings. This adds a new

twist to previous research on trust-building and risk reduction in the sharing economy. Given

36
the high explanatory power and generalizability in a cross-national investigation, we provide

useful and reliable evidence that personal information exchange initiated by service providers

can transform a superficial relationship into a meaningful one, with greater consumer trust,

lower perceived risk, and more favorable behavior intention.

7.2. Managerial implications

Given the transactional and disposable nature of liquid consumption, generating consumer

trust and reducing perceived transaction risks are pressing concerns and key challenges for

sharing economy entities (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Sundararajan, 2019). However, managers and

service providers of sharing platforms may not be effectively leveraging all the values

embedded in the sharing systems during the get-acquainted process to be converted into

greater consumer trust, lower perceived transaction risks, and more positive consumer

behavioral intention. Moreover, in general, individual service providers on sharing platforms

are often not trained on how to create their online profiles and describe themselves to attract

prospective consumers.

Considering the findings of our research, we urge managers of sharing platforms to

provide more guidelines for individual service providers to develop their online profiles and

descriptions to strengthen interpersonal relationships with potential consumers. In Studies 1a,

1b, and 3, the key moderator was objective similarity/dissimilarity between service providers

and consumers. We provide empirical evidence to support the “less is more” principle of

Norton et al. (2007) that in case of objective similarity, providers do not need to share a great

deal of personal information about themselves. By contrast, in the case of objective

dissimilarity (e.g., international guests are using Airbnb to book accommodation with local

hosts), disclosed information from service providers plays an important role in creating a

“multidimensional identity” (Umashankar et al., 2017, p. 96). In such cases, deeper and/or

37
longer disclosed information makes it easier for consumers to trust and be more confident in

the sharing economy transactions.

Furthermore, when service providers reveal more personal and intimate information,

thus signaling true interest in building relationships with consumers and a willingness to share

their properties with strangers, consumers are more likely to trust more and perceive less risk,

which subsequently leads to more positive behavioral intention. Although these results may

seem intuitive, self-disclosure is often regarded as a signal of friendly and trusted providers.

Nevertheless, in practice, service providers are often reluctant to share personal and vulnerable

information with strangers because they do not trust the sharing systems or do not believe that

their self-disclosure will influence consumer decisions. We advocate that marketers of sharing

platforms should encourage the self-disclosure process by explaining its benefits and

introducing different privacy settings to ensure that service providers can select types of

personal information they want to share with specific types of consumers.

For service providers on sharing platforms, it is crucial to consider self-disclosure as an

effective way to build their identity as a member of sharing communities. By disclosing

themselves (e.g., beliefs, values, emotions, and subjective experience), service providers can

convey consumer trust and reduce their perception of transaction risks, especially for those

who do not have consumer reviews or prior experience of being service providers (e.g., hosts

in Airbnb). Therefore, self-disclosure should be regarded as an opportunity for service

providers to connect with potential consumers, rather than simply a task of creating a profile.

Our results also support the proposition of Joe Gebbia, the co-founder of Airbnb, that

“trust on Airbnb is shared; it goes both ways” (Aufmann, 2020). We found that self-disclosure

is a process that requires a relative balance to maximize communication effectiveness. Given

that consumers who receive self-disclosure information may also want to reveal themselves

and be understood by service providers, the results suggest that it would be useful for service

38
providers to have some personal information of potential consumers, ranging from basic

information (e.g., name, gender, nationality) to more personal and vulnerable information

(e.g., social and political views, values, emotions, subjective experience). Depending on

similarity levels, service providers could modify the way they disclose themselves with

potential consumers during the get-acquainted process. This is particularly relevant in the

sharing economy because self-disclosure appears to be effective in building trust, mitigating

risks, and enhancing behavioral intention across national settings. Sharing platforms could also

develop a new algorithm to allow a match between service providers and consumers based on

their objective similarity (e.g., the same home country, race, or hometown) or to encourage

service providers to disclose themselves in a more intimate way in the case of objective

dissimilarity.

Considering the differential moderating effect of self-esteem, our findings provide

evidence of cultural differences in the self-disclosure effects on consumer reactions. Service

providers need to be aware of self-esteem implications in different cultures. In the Western

developed market (e.g., the United States), even though service providers’ self-disclosure is

helpful to build trust and reduce perceived risk, it could have a detrimental effect on consumer

behavioral intention when service providers disclose themselves too much (i.e., long host

descriptions). On the other hand, disclosed information from service providers plays an

important role in facilitating the trust development and encourages generally LSE consumers

in East Asian emerging markets to make their decisions to use sharing services.

Overall, we urge marketers to rethink the role of self-disclosure in interpersonal

relationship development in the sharing economy. On many sharing platforms, self-disclosure

is inherently imbalanced (only either providers or consumers share their personal information)

or not compulsory for both. A lack of personal information shared by both sides makes the

relationship development between service providers and consumers difficult in the sharing

39
economy, especially in the get-acquainted phase. This work reveals that self-disclosure would

be better viewed as a means by which service providers show their interests in developing

relationships with consumers, resulting in enhanced trust, lower perceived risk, and more

favorable behavioral intention toward the service providers.

8. Limitations and future research

Given the nature of the social penetration process in peer-to-peer sharing platforms, we

focused on the underlying mechanism of the self-disclosure effects by emphasizing the

mediating roles of trust and perceived risk as well as the moderating roles of objective

similarity and consumer self-esteem. However, to uncover additional underlying processes,

we suggest that researchers examine the mediating roles of enjoyment of solitude (Caprariello

& Reis, 2013) and perceived emotional synchrony (Páez et al., 2015), as these might

influence the degree to which consumers are willing to develop relationships when receiving

disclosed information from service providers. Considering the nature of sharing platforms,

further research should focus on how sharing economy firms can ensure the privacy of both

service providers’ and consumers’ personal data to reduce data vulnerability or perceived

susceptibility to potential harm due to unwanted uses of disclosed information, resulting from

data breaches or identity theft (Martin, Borah, & Palmatier, 2017). In addition, we suspect

that in the sharing economy, where communication often occurs both online and offline

during the service delivery process, perceived partners’ responsiveness and partners’ self-

esteem play an important role in the self-disclosure process and interpersonal relationship

development (Birnbaum et al., 2016).

Given the consistent findings on the self-disclosure effects across national settings, we

suggest that future studies could expand our understanding of when and how self-disclosure

affects other relational constructs (e.g., consumer satisfaction, commitment, loyalty) during

the offline service delivery process, in which service providers and consumers have face-to-

40
face interactions. In this study, we only focused on two aspects of self-disclosure (i.e., depth

and breadth). Examination of the other information attributes (i.e., understandability,

reliability, relevance, and certainty) of service providers’ disclosure on consumer reactions

would be an intriguing future research opportunity (Prince‐Embury, 1992).

Recently, Xu et al. (2021) have found a concave relationship between room information

and consumer purchase behavior, but no relationship between providers’ self-disclosure and

consumer purchase behavior. Thus, future research is needed to test the possible adverse

effects of providers’ self-disclosure on consumer responses when disclosed information goes

beyond the limit or falls short, meaning, for example, that too much information may have an

opposite effect. Furthermore, we did not examine the self-disclosure effect on consumers’

willingness to pay. We encourage researchers to continue this line of research by examining

how self-disclosure interacts with objective similarity to affect consumers’ willingness to pay

in the sharing economy. Finally, future research could continue to explore the functional

equivalence of self-esteem as well as of other psychological constructs in consumer behavior

in the sharing economy across different cultural contexts.

In conclusion, self-disclosure is an impetus to interpersonal relationship development

among strangers across the globe during the get-acquainted phase in the sharing economy.

We add to prior work on self-disclosure by showing its paradoxical roles in generating trust,

reducing perceived risk, and subsequently enhancing behavioral intention to use sharing

services, especially when sharing partners are objectively different. In the context of liquid

consumption in the sharing economy in which people tend to trust less, commit less while

perceiving high risks, the more service providers disclose themselves in initial service

encounters, the more consumers will desire to use sharing services from the service

providers.

41
References
Airbnb. (2019). Your safety is our priority. Retrieved from https://www.airbnb.com/trust.
Accessed 14/10/2019.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Andersson, P. K., Gustafsson, A., Kristensson, P., & Wästlund, E. (2016). The effect of
frontline employees’ personal self-disclosure on consumers’ encounter experience.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 40-49.
Aufmann, C. (2020). Designing for trust. Retrieved from https://airbnb.design/designing-for-
trust/. Accessed 02/01/2020.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2017). Liquid consumption. Journal of Consumer Research,
44(3), 582-597.
Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2012). Liquid relationship to possessions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 510-529.
Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715-734.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600.
Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing services: Competing through quality.
New York: The Free Press.
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-
Milner, C. (2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness
for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4),
530-546.
Botsman, R. (2017). Who can you trust?: How technology brought us together and why it
could drive us apart. UK: Penguin Books Limited.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Beyond zipcar: Collaborative consumption. Harvard
Business Review, 88(10), 30.
Brown, J. D., Cai, H., Oakes, M. A., & Deng, C. (2009). Cultural similarities in self-esteem
functioning: East is East and West is West, but sometimes the twain do meet. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(1), 140-157.
Cameron, J. J., Stinson, D. A., Gaetz, R., & Balchen, S. (2010). Acceptance is in the eye of
the beholder: Self-esteem and motivated perceptions of acceptance from the opposite
sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 513-529.
Caprariello, P. A., & Reis, H. T. (2013). To do, to have, or to share? Valuing experiences
over material possessions depends on the involvement of others. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 199-215.
Carpenter, A., & Greene, K. (2015). Social penetration theory. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff,
S. R. Wilson, J. P. Dillard, J. Caughlin & D. Solomon (Eds.), The International
Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 1-4). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Chen, C. C., Chen, X.-P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The
cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review,
23(2), 285-304.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-475.
Derlega, V., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. (1993). Self-disclosure (Vol. 5). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1977). Privacy and self‐disclosure in social relationships.
Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 102-115.

42
Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Greene, K. (2007). Self-disclosure and starting a close
relationship. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship
beginnings (pp. 153-174). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human
Relations, 13(2), 123-139.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35-51.
Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119-134.
Eckhardt, G. M., Houston, M. B., Jiang, B., Lamberton, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Zervas, G.
(2019). Marketing in the sharing economy. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 5-27.
Ert, E., Fleischer, A., & Magen, N. (2016). Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The
role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tourism Management, 55, 62-73.
Gandini, A. (2019). Reputation: The fictitious commodity of the sharing economy? In R.
Belk, F. Bardhi & G. Eckhardt (Eds.), Handbook of the Sharing Economy. London:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gaucher, D., Wood, J. V., Stinson, D. A., Forest, A. L., Holmes, J. G., & Logel, C. (2012).
Perceived regard explains self-esteem differences in expressivity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1144-1156.
Gebbia, J. (2020). How Airbnb designs for trust. Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/joe_gebbia_how_airbnb_designs_for_trust. Accessed
20/06/2020.
Grayson, K. (2007). Friendship versus business in marketing relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 71(4), 121-139.
Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: Disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism
accommodation sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1192-1217.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Hazée, S., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Delcourt, C., & Warlop, L. (2019). Sharing Goods? Yuck,
No! An investigation of consumers’ contamination concerns about access-based
services. Journal of Service Research, 22(3), 256-271.
Heil, O., & Robertson, T. S. (1991). Toward a theory of competitive market signaling: A
research agenda. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 403-418.
Heine, S. J. (2001). Self as cultural product: An examination of East Asian and North
American selves. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 881-905.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationship
marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality.
Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230-247.
Herbert, M., & Collin-Lachaud, I. (2017). Collaborative practices and consumerist habitus:
An analysis of the transformative mechanisms of collaborative consumption.
Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 32(1), 40-60.
Hobfoll, S. E., Nadler, A., & Leiberman, J. (1986). Satisfaction with social support during
crisis: Intimacy and self-esteem as critical determinants. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51(2), 296-304.
Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huang, H.-Y. (2016). Examining the beneficial effects of individual's self-disclosure on the
social network site. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 122-132.
Huneke, M., & Pinel, E. C. (2016). Fostering selflessness through I-sharing. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 10-18.

43
Hwang, J., & Griffiths, M. A. (2017). Share more, drive less: Millennials value perception
and behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 34(2), 132-146.
Hwang, J., Han, H., & Kim, S. (2015). How can employees engage customers? Application
of social penetration theory to the full-service restaurant industry by gender.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1117-1134.
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making
model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents.
Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544-564.
Knight, P. A., & Nadel, J. I. (1986). Humility revisited: Self-esteem, information search, and
policy consistency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(2),
196-206.
Kwok, L., & Xie, K. L. (2018). Buyer-seller similarity: Does it lead to a successful peer-to-
peer transaction of room-sharing services? International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 30(9), 2925-2944.
Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for
understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of
Marketing, 76(4), 109-125.
Laroche, M., McDougall, G. H., Bergeron, J., & Yang, Z. (2004). Exploring how intangibility
affects perceived risk. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 373-389.
Lastovicka, J. L., & Fernandez, K. V. (2005). Three paths to disposition: The movement of
meaningful possessions to strangers. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 813-823.
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal
process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner
responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(5), 1238-1251.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem:
Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1-62.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an
interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68(3), 518-530.
Li, L. M. W., Chen, Q., Gao, H., Li, W. Q., & Ito, K. (2020). Online/offline self‐disclosure to
offline friends and relational outcomes in a diary study: The moderating role of self‐
esteem and relational closeness. International Journal of Psychology, 56(1), 129-137.
Liang, L. J., Choi, H. C., & Joppe, M. (2018). Understanding repurchase intention of Airbnb
consumers: Perceived authenticity, electronic word-of-mouth, and price sensitivity.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(1), 73-89.
Lin, M., Miao, L., Wei, W., & Moon, H. (2019). Peer engagement behaviors:
Conceptualization and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 22(4), 388-
403.
Lin, Y.-C., Lin, C.-H., & Raghubir, P. (2003). Avoiding anxiety, being in denial, or simply
stroking self-esteem: Why self-positivity? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4),
464-477.
Lutz, C., & Newlands, G. (2018). Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: The
case of Airbnb. Journal of Business Research, 88, 187-196.
Ma, X., Hancock, J. T., Lim Mingjie, K., & Naaman, M. (2017). Self-disclosure and
perceived trustworthiness of Airbnb host profiles. Proceedings of Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 2397-2409.

44
Malhotra, N. K., Ulgado, F. M., Agarwal, J., & Baalbaki, I. B. (1994). International services
marketing: A comparative evaluation of the dimensions of service quality between
developed and developing countries. International Marketing Review, 11(2), 5-15.
Martin, K. D., Borah, A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2017). Data privacy: Effects on customer and
firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 36-58.
McCarthy, M. H., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2017). Dispositional pathways to trust: Self-
esteem and agreeableness interact to predict trust and negative emotional disclosure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 95-116.
Melnyk, V., & van Osselaer, S. M. (2012). Make me special: Gender differences in
consumers’ responses to loyalty programs. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 545-559.
Mishra, D. P., Heide, J. B., & Cort, S. G. (1998). Information asymmetry and levels of
agency relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), 277-295.
Mitchell, V. W. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. European
Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1340-1362.
Moon, Y. (2000). Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from
consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 323-339.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Murray, K. B., & Schlacter, J. L. (1990). The impact of services versus goods on consumers’
assessment of perceived risk and variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 18(1), 51-65.
Nicholson, C. Y., Compeau, L. D., & Sethi, R. (2001). The role of interpersonal liking in
building trust in long-term channel relationships. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 29(1), 3-15.
Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why
familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 97-
105.
Páez, D., Rimé, B., Basabe, N., Wlodarczyk, A., & Zumeta, L. (2015). Psychosocial effects
of perceived emotional synchrony in collective gatherings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 108(5), 711-729.
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the
effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4),
136-153.
Patterson, P. G., Cowley, E., & Prasongsukarn, K. (2006). Service failure recovery: The
moderating impact of individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptions of
justice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 263-277.
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.
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building effective online marketplaces with institution-
based trust. Information Systems Research, 15(1), 37-59.
Pinel, E. C., Long, A. E., Landau, M. J., Alexander, K., & Pyszczynski, T. (2006). Seeing I to
I: A pathway to interpersonal connectedness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90(2), 243-257.
Prince‐Embury, S. (1992). Information attributes as related to psychological symptoms and
perceived control among information seekers in the aftermath of technological
disaster. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1148-1159.
Qian, H., & Scott, C. R. (2007). Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1428-1451.

45
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In E.
T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (pp. 523-563). New York: Guilford Press.
Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. Journal of
Business Research, 57(6), 671-677.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). In M. Rosenberg (Ed.),
Conceiving the self (Vol. 61, pp. 201-205). New York: Basic Books.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
Shapiro, N. (2017). Perfect Strangers: How Airbnb is building trust between hosts and guests.
Retrieved from https://news.airbnb.com/perfect-strangers-how-airbnb-is-building-
trust-between-hosts-and-guests/. Accessed 02/01/2020.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A
meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325-343.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and
risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362.
Söderlund, M. (2020). Employee encouragement of self-disclosure in the service encounter
and its impact on customer satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
53, 1-9.
Sordi, J. D., Perin, M. G., Petrini, M. d. C., & Sampaio, C. H. (2018). Construal level and
collaborative consumption: An exploratory approach. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 42(2), 264-273.
Sprecher, S., & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations
with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 23(6), 857-877.
Sundararajan, A. (2019). Commentary: The twilight of brand and consumerism? digital trust,
cultural meaning, and the quest for connection in the sharing economy. Journal of
Marketing, 83(5), 32-35.
Sutherland, W., & Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). The sharing economy and digital platforms: A
review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 43,
328-341.
Ta, H., Esper, T. L., & Hofer, A. R. (2018). Designing crowdsourced delivery systems: The
effect of driver disclosure and ethnic similarity. Journal of Operations Management,
60, 19-33.
Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. (1975). Self-disclosure as a function of reward-cost outcomes.
Sociometry, 38(1), 18-31.
Ter Huurne, M., Ronteltap, A., Corten, R., & Buskens, V. (2017). Antecedents of trust in the
sharing economy: A systematic review. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(6), 485-
498.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2011). Construal level theory. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski &
E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 118-134).
London, England: Sage.
Tseng, S.-Y., & Wang, C.-N. (2016). Perceived risk influence on dual-route information
adoption processes on travel websites. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2289-
2296.
Umashankar, N., Ward, M. K., & Dahl, D. W. (2017). The benefit of becoming friends:
Complaining after service failures leads customers with strong ties to increase loyalty.
Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 79-98.

46
Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but
also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection.
Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1-10.
Vietnam Investment Review. (2019, 29/08/2019). Sharing is caring for Vietnam’s economy.
Vietnam Investment Review. Retrieved from https://www.vir.com.vn/sharing-is-
caring-for-vietnams-economy-70217.html. Accessed 20/05/2020.
Weiss, H. M., & Knight, P. A. (1980). The utility of humility: Self-esteem, information
search, and problem-solving efficiency. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 25(2), 216-223.
Wells, J. D., Valacich, J. S., & Hess, T. J. (2011). What signal are you sending? How website
quality influences perceptions of product quality and purchase intentions. MIS
Quarterly, 35(2), 373-396.
Wessling, K. S., Huber, J., & Netzer, O. (2017). MTurk character misrepresentation:
Assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 211-230.
Wilcox, K., & Stephen, A. T. (2013). Are close friends the enemy? Online social networks,
self-esteem, and self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 90-103.
Xu, X., Zeng, S., & He, Y. (2021). The impact of information disclosure on consumer
purchase behavior on sharing economy platform Airbnb. International Journal of
Production Economics, 231, 1-23.
Yang, S.-B., Lee, K., Lee, H., & Koo, C. (2019). In Airbnb we trust: Understanding
consumers’ trust-attachment building mechanisms in the sharing economy.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 198-209.
Zamani, E. D., Choudrie, J., Katechos, G., & Yin, Y. (2019). Trust in the sharing economy:
the Airbnb case. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(9), 1947-1968.
Zeng, F., Ye, Q., Li, J., & Yang, Z. (2020). Does self-disclosure matter? A dynamic two-
stage perspective for the personalization-privacy paradox. Journal of Business
Research, 124, 667-675.

47
 Objective
similarity/dissimilarity
(Studies 1a, 1b, and Study 3)
H5a H5b H5c H1c

Trust in service
provider
H1a
Self-disclosure H2
Depth of self-disclosure
(Studies 1a and 1b)
H4 Behavioral
Breadth of self-
disclosure (Study 2) intention

Depth and breadth of H3

self-disclosure (Study 3) H1b
Perceived risk
H6a H6b H6c

Consumer self-esteem
(Study 2 and Study 3)

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

48
Study 1a
No-deep self-disclosure No-deep self-disclosure No-deep self-disclosure
Deep self-disclosure Deep self-disclosure
7 Deep self-disclosure
7 7
5.72 5.44
5.22 5.35
5.32

Behavioural intention
4.88 4.94
4.66

Perceived risk
3.82
Trust

3.71 3.53
4 4 4
3.04

1 1 1
Objective dissimilarity Objective similarity Objective dissimilarity Objective similarity Objective dissimilarity Objective similarity

Study 1b

No-deep self-disclosure No-deep self-disclosure No-deep self-disclosure

Deep self-disclosure Deep self-disclosure Deep self-disclosure
7 7 7
5.72 5.50 5.78 5.50
5.43 5.34 5.41

Behavioural intention
5.28
Perceived risk

4.42 4.19 4.19

3.72
Trust

4 4 4

1 1 1
Objective dissimilarity Objective similarity Objective dissimilarity Objective similarity Objective dissimilarity Objective similarity

Figure 2. Moderating effects of objective similarity/dissimilarity in Study 1a and Study 1b

49
Study 2: The U.S. context

7 7 7
Low self-esteem Low self-esteem Low self-esteem
High self-esteem High self-esteem High self-esteem

Behavioral intention
Perceived risk
Trust

4 4 4

1 1 1
Low self-disclosure High self-disclosure Low self-disclosure High self-disclosure Low self-disclosure High self-disclosure

Study 3: Vietnamese context

Low self-esteem 7 Low self-esteem 7 Low self-esteem

7
High self-esteem High self-esteem High self-esteem

Behavioral intention
Perceived risk
Trust

4 4 4

1 1 1
Low self-disclosure High self-disclosure Low self-disclosureHigh self-disclosure Low self-disclosure High self-disclosure

Figure 3. Moderating effects of consumer self-esteem in Study 2 and Study 3

50
Study 3
Objective dissimilarity Objective similarity
7 7
No-deep self-disclosure No-deep self-disclosure
Deep self-disclosure Deep self-disclosure

Behavioural intention
4.75
Behavioural intention

4.57 4.63 4.65

4.47
4.07 4.31 4.24

4 4

1 1
Short self-disclosure Long self-disclosure Short self-disclosure Long self-disclosure

7
No-deep self-disclosure
Deep self-disclosure
Behavioural intention

4.51 4.55
4.48 4.34

1
Objective similarity Objective disimilarity

Figure 4. Moderating effect of objective similarity on the link between host self-disclosure
and consumer behavioral intention in Study 3

51
 Table 1. Demographics of respondent samples

Study 1a Study 1b Study 2 Study 3

Gender
% of Male 46.3 63.0 61.3 36.7
Age
Mean 41.64 39.82 40.59 24.10
SD 11.63 10.97 10.11 6.85
Minimum 21 21 24 18
Maximum 76 76 76 61
Prior experience with sharing platforms
Ridesharing (%) 69.8 64.1 67.2 89.1
Home-sharing besides Airbnb (%) 68.8 61.9 59.1 80.3

Table 2. A summary of results

Study 1a Study 1b Study 2 Study 3

Manipulated self-disclosure aspect Depth Depth Breadth Depth Breadth
H1a: Self-disclosure → Trust Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported
(marginally)
H1b: Self-disclosure → Perceived risk Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported
(marginally) (marginally) (marginally)
H1c: Self-disclosure → Behavioral intention Supported Supported Supported Not Supported
supported
H2: Self-disclosure → Trust → Behavioral Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported
intention
H3: Self-disclosure → Perceived risk → Not Not Not Not Supported
Behavioral intention supported supported supported supported
H4: Self-disclosure → Trust → Perceived Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported
risk → Behavioral intention
H5a: Self-disclosure × Objective Supported Supported Not Not
similarity→ Trust (marginally) supported supported
H5b: Self-disclosure × Objective Supported Supported Not Not
similarity→ Perceived risk (marginally) supported supported
H5c: Self-disclosure × Objective Supported Supported Supported Supported
similarity→ Behavioral intention (both two- (three-way
way and interaction)
three-way
interactions)
H6a: Self-disclosure × Self-esteem → Trust Supported Not Supported
(marginally) supported (marginally)
H6b: Self-disclosure × Self-esteem → Supported Not Not
Perceived risk supported supported
H6c: Self-disclosure × Self-esteem → Partially Not Supported
Behavioral intention supported supported (marginally)

52