Barbara Hartl

Power versus trust – what matters more in collaborative consumption?

Purpose Collaborative consumption, such as car sharing, specifically implicates customer-to-customer interaction, which must be regulated by service providers (companies, peers and self-regulating communities), comprising different challenges for business organizations. While in conventional business relations, consumers are protected from undesirable customer behavior by laws, regulations (power) in the context of collaborative consumption are rare, so that trust becomes more relevant. It is the purpose of the study to investigate possible mechanisms to prevent undesirable customers in collaborative consumption. Design/methodology/approach In between subject designs, samples of 186 and 328 consumers filled in experimental online questionnaires with vignettes. Analyses were made of differences among car sharing companies, private persons and car sharing communities in terms of the power of providers, trust in providers and trust in other users of the shared goods, undesirable customer behavior and consumer–provider relations. Findings Companies, private persons and self-regulating communities differ in terms of perceived power and trust. Participants specifically perceive mainly coercive power with the car sharing company, but with the private person and the community, reason-based trust in other users is perceived as prevalent. Nevertheless, undesirable customer behavior varies only marginally over the models. Originality/value The present study is the first to investigate measures to prevent undesirable customer behavior over different collaborative consumption models. This enables appropriate identification of market segments and tailoring of services. The study identifies opportunities for companies in contrast to private persons and self-regulating communities and, in doing so, provides important stimulation for marketing strategy and theory development.

Does the sole description of a tax authority affect tax evasion?--the impact of described coercive and legitimate power.

Following the classic economic model of tax evasion, taxpayers base their tax decisions on economic determinants, like fine rate and audit probability. Empirical findings on the relationship between economic key determinants and tax evasion are inconsistent and suggest that taxpayers may rather rely on their beliefs about tax authority’s power. Descriptions of the tax authority’s power may affect taxpayers’ beliefs and as such tax evasion. Experiment 1 investigates the impact of fines and beliefs regarding tax authority’s power on tax evasion. Experiments 2-4 are conducted to examine the effect of varying descriptions about a tax authority’s power on participants’ beliefs and respective tax evasion. It is investigated whether tax evasion is influenced by the description of an authority wielding coercive power (Experiment 2), legitimate power (Experiment 3), and coercive and legitimate power combined (Experiment 4). Further, it is examined whether a contrast of the description of power (low to high power; high to low power) impacts tax evasion (Experiments 2-4). Results show that the amount of fine does not impact tax payments, whereas participants’ beliefs regarding tax authority’s power significantly shape compliance decisions. Descriptions of high coercive power as well as high legitimate power affect beliefs about tax authority’s power and positively impact tax honesty. This effect still holds if both qualities of power are applied simultaneously. The contrast of descriptions has little impact on tax evasion. The current study indicates that descriptions of the tax authority, e.g., in information brochures and media reports, have more influence on beliefs and tax payments than information on fine rates. Methodically, these considerations become particularly important when descriptions or vignettes are used besides objective information.

Mental Accounting and Tax Compliance Experimental Evidence for the Effect of Mental Segregation of Tax Due and Revenue on Compliance

Taxes are a burdensome and tedious issue for self-employed who have just started their business. The present research suggests mental accounting as a measure for self-employed to keep track of their financial activities. Based on prospect theory, we argue that the mental segregation of taxes due from net income affects a taxpayer’s reference point in the compliance decision and results in higher tax compliance. Findings from a laboratory experiment confirm this prediction. Further, we show that relevance of mental tax accounting is higher when the tax due is not specified externally as it is the case in pay slips provided to employees. The individual tendency toward mental segregation of tax due and net income is positively related to the sex and age of respondents, their attitudes toward taxpaying, and their experiences gathered in the course of the experiment.

Authorities' Coercive and Legitimate Power: The Impact on Cognitions Underlying Cooperation

The execution of coercive and legitimate power by an authority assures cooperation and prohibits free-riding. While coercive power can be comprised of severe punishment and strict monitoring, legitimate power covers expert, and informative procedures. The perception of these powers wielded by authorities stimulates specific cognitions: trust, relational climates, and motives. With four experiments, the single and combined impact of coercive and legitimate power on these processes and on intended cooperation of n1 = 120, n2 = 130, n3 = 368, and n4 = 102 student participants is investigated within two exemplary contexts (tax contributions, insurance claims). Findings reveal that coercive power increases an antagonistic climate and enforced compliance, whereas legitimate power increases reason-based trust, a service climate, and voluntary cooperation. Unexpectedly, legitimate power is additionally having a negative effect on an antagonistic climate and a positive effect on enforced compliance; these findings lead to a modification of theoretical assumptions. However, solely reason-based trust, but not climate perceptions and motives, mediates the relationship between power and intended cooperation. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

The Double-Edged Relationship between Coercive Power and Compliance with Public Authority: Evidence from a Representative Sample of Austrian Self-Employed Taxpayers

Empirical evidence on the impact of public authorities’ coercive power on compliance of citizens is inconsistent. In some studies, coercive power had a positive effect and in other studies it had a weak or negative effect on compliance. This inconsistency may be related to the double-edged nature of coercive power. Cluster analysis of data from a representative sample of self-employed taxpayers confirmed that some citizens perceive coercive power as illegitimate and do not trust public authority whereas others perceive coercive power as legitimate and do trust public authority. This perceptual difference may determine whether citizens’ interactions with public authority is characterized by antagonism and lack of compliance or synergism and compliance. Results also indicate that perceiving coercive power as a targeted way to safeguard citizens in contrast to as a random threat to citizens reinforces the double-edged perception of coercive power. Theoretical and practical conclusions as to how coercive power can enhance interaction climates and cooperation are drawn.