arbiter
JournalsAccount

EXPRESS: Economic Inequality Hinders Consumers’ Access to Peer-To-Peer Services

Jinyan Xiang et al.

Journal of Marketing2026https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429261417972article
FT50UTD24AJG 4*ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms promise openness and access, yet various biases and barriers shape who gets served. This research investigates how regional economic inequality drives access to peer-to-peer services. Using archival, survey, and experimental data across multiple contexts—including lending, lodging, car rental, and tool sharing—the authors provide convergent evidence that heightened economic inequality within a consumer’s geographic region (community, state, or nation) reduces providers’ willingness to serve that consumer when inequality is a salient socioeconomic cue. This decreased willingness constitutes a form of exclusion rooted in providers’ inferences about potential consumers. Thought protocol analyses reveal that providers infer lower socioeconomic status (SES) and diminished trustworthiness among consumers from more unequal regions, thereby increasing perceived financial risk of serving them. Crucially, the authors demonstrate a boundary condition with practical relevance: a strong platform reputation, such as high ratings, can counteract the negative effects of regional economic inequality, restoring access and interpersonal trust in P2P exchanges.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429261417972

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jinyan2026,
  title        = {{EXPRESS: Economic Inequality Hinders Consumers’ Access to Peer-To-Peer Services}},
  author       = {Jinyan Xiang et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Marketing},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429261417972},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

EXPRESS: Economic Inequality Hinders Consumers’ Access to Peer-To-Peer Services

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.