Research on platform governance has gained extensive scholarly interest. However, studies on user participation intention towards platform supervision remain underexplored. In this study, a mixed method approach, including qualitative and quantitative methods, is used to explore the factors influencing the supervision intention of e-hailing users. A preliminary interview study is conducted to determine what factors impact users’ supervision intention, and an SEM model is tested using 359 survey data to examine how perceived government regulation, perceived risks/benefits and regulatory events impact supervision intention. Results indicate that perceived government regulation reduces perceived risks and increases the perceived benefits from participation into supervision, perceived risks weakened users’ supervision intention, whereas perceived benefits stimulated it. Perceived risks and perceived benefits positively mediated the relationship between perceived government regulation and users’ supervision intention. Regulatory events have a negative moderating effect on the relationship between e-hailing users’ perceived risks (benefits) and supervision intention.
JiangGCaiXFengXet al. Effect of data environment and cognitive ability on participants’ attitude towards data governance. J Inf Sci. Epub ahead of print 31 May 2021. DOI: 10.1177/01655515211019000.
4.
ZhaoDYuanZChen Met al. Differential pricing strategies of ride-sharing platforms: choosing customers or drivers?Int Trans Oper Res2022; 29: 1089–1131.
5.
MaLZhangXDingXet al. Risk perception and intention to discontinue use of ride-hailing services in china: taking the example of DiDi chuxing. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2019; 66: 459–470.
6.
ChengXHouTMouJ.Investigating perceived risks and benefits of information privacy disclosure in IT-enabled ride-sharing. Inform Manag2021; 58: 103450.
7.
YuLLiHHeWet al. A meta-analysis to explore privacy cognition and information disclosure of internet users. Int J Inf Manag2020; 51: 102015.
8.
JiangGZhangMCaiXet al. Collaborative governance in shared accommodation platform: moderating role of perceived risk. J Hosp Tour Manag2021; 49: 112–128.
9.
ConstantinidesPHenfridssonOParkerGG.Introduction – platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Inf Syst Res2018; 29: 381–400.
10.
TruongYAckermannC-LKlinkRR.The role of legitimacy and reputation judgments in users’ selection of service providers on sharing economy platforms. Inf Manag2021; 58: 103529.
11.
ZhaoKStylianouACZhengY.Sources and impacts of social influence from online anonymous user reviews. Inform Manag2018; 55: 16–30.
12.
SmithHJDinevTXuH.Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quart2011; 35: 989–1015.
13.
ArnsteinSR.A ladder of citizen participation. J Am I Planners1969; 35: 216–224.
14.
XueCTianWZhaoX.The literature review of platform economy. Sci Program2020; 2020: 1–7.
15.
SutherlandWJarrahiMH.The sharing economy and digital platforms: a review and research agenda. Int J Inf Manag2018; 43: 328–341.
16.
SederaDLokugeSGroverVet al. Innovating with enterprise systems and digital platforms: a contingent resource-based theory view. Inform Manag2016; 53: 366–379.
17.
GorwaR.What is platform governance?Inform Commun Soc2019; 22: 854–871.
18.
GanapatiSReddickCG.Prospects and challenges of sharing economy for the public sector. Gov Inform Q2018; 35: 77–87.
19.
HofmannSSæboOBracciniAMet al. The public sector’s roles in the sharing economy and the implications for public values. Gov Inform Q2019; 36: 101399.
20.
KlonickK.The new governors: the people, rules, and processes governing online speech. Harv Law Rev2017; 131: 1598.
21.
EvansAMCamposA.Open government initiatives: challenges of citizen participation. J Policy Anal Manag2013; 32: 172–85.
22.
LeungXYXueLWenH.Framing the sharing economy: toward a sustainable ecosystem. Tour Manag2019; 71: 44–53.
23.
LiangT-PLinY-LHouH-C.What drives consumers to adopt a sharing platform: an integrated model of value-based and transaction cost theories. Inform Manag2021; 58: 103471.
24.
SantosZRCheungCMCoelhoPSet al. Consumer engagement in social media brand communities: a literature review. Int J Inf Manag2022; 63: 102457.
KlievinkBJanssenMTanY-H.A stakeholder analysis of business-to-government information sharing: the governance of a public-private platform. Int J Electron Gov Res2012; 8: 54–64.
27.
TiwanaAKonsynskiBBushAA.Research commentary – platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Inform Syst Res2010; 21: 675–687.
28.
MoonMJ.Government-driven sharing economy: lessons from the sharing city initiative of the Seoul metropolitan government. J Dev Soc2017; 33: 223–243.
29.
JuJLiuLFengY.Design of an O2O citizen participation ecosystem for sustainable governance. Inform Syst Front2019; 21: 605–620.
30.
KoopmanCMitchellMThiererA.The sharing economy and consumer protection regulation: the case for policy change. J Bus Entrep Law2014; 8: 529.
31.
PhangCWKankanhalliATanBC.What motivates contributors vs.Lurkers? An investigation of online feedback forums. Inform Syst Res2015; 26: 773–792.
32.
YunusESusiloDRiyadiSet al. The effectiveness marketing strategy for ride-sharing transportation: intersecting social media, technology, and innovation. Entrep Sustain Issues2019; 7: 1424.
33.
DandlFBogenbergerK.Comparing future autonomous electric taxis with an existing free-floating carsharing system. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst2018; 20: 2037–2047.
34.
AarhaugJOlsenS.Implications of ride-sourcing and self-driving vehicles on the need for regulation in unscheduled passenger transport. Res Transp Econ2018; 69: 573–582.
35.
JinSTKongHWuRet al. Ridesourcing, the sharing economy, and the future of cities. Cities2018; 76: 96–104.
36.
ZhouXHLiuC.Research on urban vehicle management dilemma under multiple logics. Harv Bus Rev2014; 13: 139–150.
37.
IannielloMIacuzziSFedelePet al. Obstacles and solutions on the ladder of citizen participation: a systematic review. Public Manag Rev2019; 21: 21–46.
38.
HongLFuCWuJet al. Information needs and communication gaps between citizens and local governments online during natural disasters. Inf Syst Front2018; 20: 1027–1039.
39.
KimYDarnallN.Business as a collaborative partner: understanding firms’ sociopolitical support for policy formation. Public Adm Rev2016; 76: 326–337.
40.
Lee-GeillerSLeeTD.Using government websites to enhance democratic E-governance: a conceptual model for evaluation. Gov Inform Q2019; 36: 208–225.
41.
PorumbescuGANeshkovaMIHuntoonM.The effects of police performance on agency trustworthiness and citizen participation. Public Manag Rev2019; 21: 212–237.
42.
McDermottP.Building open government. Gov Inform Q2010; 27: 401–413.
43.
NeshkovaMIGuoH.Public participation and organizational performance: evidence from state agencies. J Public Admin Res Theory2012; 22: 267–288.
44.
BenamatiJHOzdemirZDSmithHJ.An empirical test of an antecedents – privacy concerns – outcomes model. J Inf Sci2017; 43: 583–600.
45.
HamariJSjöklintMUkkonenA.The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2016; 67: 2047–2059.
46.
XuHDinevTSmithJet al. Information privacy concerns: linking individual perceptions with institutional privacy assurances. J Assoc Inf Syst2011; 12: 1.
47.
HuaYChengXHouTet al. Monetary rewards, intrinsic motivators, and work engagement in the IT-enabled sharing economy: a mixed-methods investigation of internet taxi drivers. Decision Sci2020; 51: 7555–7558.
48.
VenkateshVBrownSASullivanY.Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: an extension and illustration. J Assoc Inf Syst2016; 17: 435–495.
49.
HaenleinMKaplanAM.A beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis. Underst Stat2004; 3: 283–297.
50.
GlaserBGStraussALStrutzelE.The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nurs Res1968; 17: 364.
51.
FurneauxBWadeMR.An exploration of organizational level information systems discontinuance intentions. MIS Quart2011;35: 573–598.
52.
ByrneBM.Structural equation modeling with Amos: basic concepts, applications, and programming (multivariate applications series). New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2010.
53.
AliRFDominicP.Investigation of information security policy violations among oil and gas employees: a security-related stress and avoidance coping perspective. J Inf Sci. Epub ahead of print 6 April 2022. DOI: 10.1177/01655515221087680.
54.
SthapitEBjörkP.Sources of distrust: Airbnb guests’ perspectives. Tour Manag Perspect2019; 31: 245–253.
55.
PapathanassisAKnolleF.Exploring the adoption and processing of online holiday reviews: a grounded theory approach. Tour Manag2011; 32: 215–224.
56.
CorbinJMStraussA.Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol1990; 13: 3–21.
57.
McKimCA.The value of mixed methods research: a mixed methods study. J Mix Methods Res2017; 11: 202–222.
58.
LiuSDengZ.How environment risks moderate the effect of control on performance in information technology projects: perspectives of project managers and user liaisons. Int J Inf Manag2015; 35: 80–97.
59.
CannonSSummersLH.How Uber and the sharing economy can win over regulators. Harv Bus Rev2014; 13: 24–28.
60.
HartlBHofmannEKirchlerE.Do we need rules for ‘what’s mine is yours’? Governance in collaborative consumption communities. J Bus Res2016; 69: 2756–2763.
61.
MiltgenCLSmithHJ.Exploring information privacy regulation, risks, trust, and behavior. Inf Manag2015; 52: 741–759.
62.
LwinMWirtzJWilliamsJD.Consumer online privacy concerns and responses: a power–responsibility equilibrium perspective. J Acad Mark Sci2007; 35: 572–585.
63.
XuHTeoH-HTanBCet al. Research note – effects of individual self-protection, industry self-regulation, and government regulation on privacy concerns: a study of location-based services. Inf Syst Res2012; 23: 1342–1363.
64.
KimDJFerrinDLRaoHR.Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-commerce relationships: a longitudinal exploration. Inf Syst Res2009; 20: 237–257.
65.
GuoJLiuNWuYet al. Why do citizens participate on government social media accounts during crises? A civic voluntarism perspective. Inf Manag2021; 58: 103286.
66.
SonJ-YKimSS.Internet users’ information privacy-protective responses: a taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Quart2008; 32: 503–29.
67.
LinK-YLuH-P.Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Comput Hum Behav2011; 27: 1152–1161.
68.
LambertonCPRoseRL.When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J Marketing2012; 76: 109–125.
69.
LuchsMGNaylorRWRoseRLet al. Toward a sustainable marketplace: expanding options and benefits for consumers. J Res Consum2011; 19: 1–12.
70.
LuBWangZZhangS.Platform-based mechanisms, institutional trust, and continuous use intention: the moderating role of perceived effectiveness of sharing economy institutional mechanisms. Inf Manag2021; 58: 103504.
HongIB.Understanding the consumer’s online merchant selection process: the roles of product involvement, perceived risk, and trust expectation. Int J Inf Manag2015; 35: 322–336.
73.
HairJFJrSarstedtMHopkinsLet al. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur Bus Rev2014; 26: 106–121.
74.
HanLWangSZhaoDet al. The intention to adopt electric vehicles: driven by functional and non-functional values. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2017; 103: 185–197.
75.
KeilMTanBCWeiK-Ket al. A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. MIS Quart2000; 24: 299–325.
76.
WeberTA.Intermediation in a sharing economy: insurance, moral hazard, and rent extraction. J Manag Inf Syst2014; 31: 35–71.
77.
LeiL-cGaoSZengE-y.Regulation strategies of ride-hailing market in China: an evolutionary game theoretic perspective. Electron Commer Res2020; 20: 535–563.
78.
LiuCMarchewkaJTLuJet al. Beyond concern – a privacy-trust-behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Inf Manag2005; 42: 289–304.
79.
Al-DebeiMAkroushMAshouriMI.Consumer attitudes towards online shopping: the effects of trust, perceived benefits, and perceived web quality. Internet Res2015; 25: 707–733.
