Earlier research on online communication has observed how its distinctive characteristics (such as limited cues and potential asynchronicity) facilitate online communication, notably ‘hyperpersonal communication’. Yet these distinctive characteristics do not explain the development of trust in online communication. This article uses qualitative interviews with 17 internet users to explore the foundations of trust in online friendships, drawing on Piotr Sztompka’s theoretical framework. It concludes that there are four main sources of online trust. First, reputation, whether grounded in a pseudonym or offline identity. Second, performance, due to the scope for enhanced performance in online communication. More than this, performance plays an especially important role in the building of online friendship, following Giddens’ model of the pure relationship (1991). Third, pre-commitment, through self-disclosure, which in turn encourages a ‘leap of faith’ and reciprocal self-disclosure. Finally, situational factors, especially the premium placed upon intimacy and the pure relationship in contemporary societies.

The family business succession planning literature routinely assumes two main motives on the part of incumbents: family business continuity across generations and family harmony. The cross–tabulation of these motives produces a typology consisting of four distinct combinations of motives for succession planning. In turn, these combinations suggest four outcomes of succession planning, framed as institutionalization, implosion, imposition, and individualization. The first two outcomes—institutionalization and implosion—are fully elucidated in the literature. The other two—imposition and individualization—are routinely overlooked. The proposed typology highlights the repertoire of motives that inform succession planning, and how they promote distinct succession outcomes.

There is a new orthodoxy in the field that was once understood as the sociology of the family, and is increasingly understood as the sociology of 'personal life', 'intimacy', 'relationships' and 'families'. The orthodoxy highlights the open-endedness of intimate relations at the expense of the family as an institution; that is, reflexivity over and above convention. This article argues that the new orthodoxy not only overstates reflexivity at the expense of convention, but abdicates understanding to frameworks grounded in biologistic and economistic understandings of human behaviour. The article makes its point through attention to three areas of research at odds with the new orthodoxy: paternity uncertainty, inheritance and family business. It then proposes that conceptualization of the family as an institutional regime gives due weight to the reflexive reconfiguration of family relationships and practices on the one hand, and their institutional embeddedness on the other.

No abstract

The renewed attention to family business in western societies is usually attributed to a past lack of attention to the subject because of its private character and to the resurgence of family business in the context of economic restructuring. This paper argues that there is a third reason for the renewed attention to family business, namely, the changing character of the family institution. In particular, there are broad trends toward the pursuit of individual autonomy and democratization in family relationships. A qualitative study of high‐wealth stakeholders in Australian family businesses found that the principles of individual autonomy and democratization presented challenges for family business solidarity and continuity. These challenges gave rise to new family business institutions designed to facilitate communication and trust. These institutions are at the center of the renewed attention to family business in western societies.