The current study aims to analyse the relationship among motivation, constraints and intention to participate in collaborative consumption, with attitude acting as a mediating variable. The study also aims to unravel the role of trust dimension within the context of collaborative consumption.
Research methodology:
The descriptive research design is applied for the present study. Random sampling techniques including area sampling is applied.
Data analysis:
Linear regression, approach is applied to analyse the data. Hierarchical multiple regression is used to assess the effects of a moderating variable.
Findings:
Economic concerns are less important as compared to environmental concerns. Materialistic traits of consumers prevent them from participating in collaborative consumption, and perceived risk also acts as a barrier. Attitude has a very important role in collaborative consumption. Institution-based trust is an impactful independent variable but shows no moderating impact.
Implications:
Marketers can increase the economic benefits of consumers through discount and loyalty cards. Because environmental concerns have a huge impact on attitude and intention, marketers must emphasize on the sustainability aspect of their offerings. For millennials, the most valuable things in life are the lived experiences instead of possessions (Morgan, 2019). Therefore, marketers must leverage on consumer experiences rather than goods. Most importantly, marketers need to focus on the attitude factor. Moreover, the companies must emphasize on the security of the Internet and must explicitly mention the structural and technological safeguards for promoting trust among consumers. The digital platforms can incorporate various measures that can help in promoting privacy and security of the consumers. Areas such as authentication, encryption and integrity need to be given more attention.
Originality/value:
The study has filled the gap in the existing literature by examining the mediating role of attitude on the relationship of motivations and constraints and behavioural intentions. The study has also contributed by exploring institution-based trust in collaborative consumption.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
2.
AlbinssonP. A., PereraB. Y., NafeesL., & BurmanB. (2019). Collaborative consumption usage in the US and India: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 27(4), 390–412.
3.
BaronR. M., & KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
4.
BeldadA., De JongM., & SteehouderM. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 857–869.
5.
BelkR. (2007). Why not share rather than own?The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 126–140.
BotsmanR., & RogersR. (2010). What’s mine is yours. The rise of collaborative consumption. Harper Business.
8.
BucherE., FieselerC., & LutzC. (2016). What’s mine is yours (for a nominal fee)—Exploring the spectrum of utilitarian to altruistic motives for Internet-mediated sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 316–326.
9.
DabbousA., & TarhiniA. (2019). Assessing the impact of knowledge and perceived economic benefits on sustainable consumption through the sharing economy: A sociotechnical approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 149, 119775.
10.
DillahuntT. R., & MaloneA. R. (2015, April). The promise of the sharing economy among disadvantaged communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2285–2294). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702189
11.
EdbringE. G., LehnerM., & MontO. (2016). Exploring consumer attitudes to alternative models of consumption: motivations and barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 5–15.
12.
FelsonM., & SpaethJ. L. (1978). Community structure and collaborative consumption: A routine activity approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 21(4), 614–624.
13.
FertikM. (2019). How to get customers to trust you?https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelfertik/2019/11/26/how-to-get-customers-to-trust-you/#43d51e86f8d6
14.
FishbeinM., & AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research (pp. 181–202). Addison-Wesley
15.
FishbeinM., & AjzenI. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Taylor & Francis.
16.
GreenC. H. (2020). Trust and the sharing economy: A new business model. https://trustedadvisor.com/trust-and-the-sharing-economy-a-new-business-model
17.
HamariJ., SjöklintM., & UkkonenA. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059.
18.
IranS., GeigerS. M., & SchraderU. (2019). Collaborative fashion consumption—A cross-cultural study between Tehran and Berlin. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 313–323.
19.
JaiswalD., & KantR. (2018). Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 60–69.
20.
KamalP., & ChenJ. Q. (2016, June). Trust in sharing economy. In PACIS (p. 109). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301369375.pdf.
21.
KangM., GaoY., WangT., & ZhengH. (2016). Understanding the determinants of funders’ investment intentions on crowdfunding platforms. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116, 1800–1819.
22.
KeeleryS. (2019). Distribution of internet users in India in 2019, by age group. https://www.statista.com/statistics/751005/india-share-of-internet-users-by-age-group/#:~:text=Around%2054%20percent%20of%20the,the%20total%20internet%20user%20base
23.
LangC., & ArmstrongC. M. J. (2018). Collaborative consumption: The influence of fashion leadership, need for uniqueness, and materialism on female consumers’ adoption of clothing renting and swapping. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 13, 37–47.
24.
LastovickaJ. L., BettencourtL. A., HughnerR. S., & KuntzeR. J. (1999). Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: Theory and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 85–98.
25.
LawsonS. J., GleimM. R., PerrenR., & HwangJ. (2016). Freedom from ownership: An exploration of access-based consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2615–2623.
26.
LiL., & WangW. (2020). The effects of online trust-building mechanisms on trust in the sharing economy: The perspective of providers. Sustainability, 12(5), 1717.
27.
LimaS. H., LimaD. S., AraújoF. S., & LeocádioA. L. (2018). Materialism, individualism and collaborative consumption in tourism: An investigation of Airbnb users in Brazil. Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo, 27(1), 24–42.
28.
MazareanuE. (2019). Value of the sharing economy worldwide in 2014 and 2025. https://www.statista.com/statistics/830986/value-of-the-global-sharing-economy/
29.
McKnightD. H., ChoudhuryV., & KacmarC. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359.
30.
Medium (2020). How to make an app like Uber. https://medium.com/@addevice/how-to-make-an-app-like-uber-45dd40613043
31.
MitchellV. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. European Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), 163–195.
32.
MittendorfC. (2018). Collaborative consumption: The role of familiarity and trust among millennials. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 35. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-12-2016-2040
33.
MoellerS., & WittkowskiK. (2010). The burdens of ownership: Reasons for preferring renting. Managing Service Quality, 20(2), 176–191.
34.
MorganB. (2019). NOwnership, no problem: An updated look at why millennials value experiences over owning things. https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2019/01/02/nownership-no-problem-an-updated-look-at-why-millennials-value-experiences-over-owning-things/#4cb1cc3c522f
35.
NgK. Y. N. (2020). The moderating role of trust and the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 1221–1240.
36.
PaniP. (2018). Ola to go on a green drive. The Hindu. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/ola-bets-big-on-evs/article23554422.ece
37.
Press Trust of India (2019). India to have 920 mn mobile users by 2025, 88 mn 5G among them: GSMA. https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/india-mayhave-88-million-5g-connections-by-2025-gsma-119060500842_1.html#:~:text=%C2%ABBack-,India%20to%20have%20920%20mn%20mobile%20users%20by%202025,mn%205G%20among%20them%3A%20GSMA&text=Global%20telecom%20industry%20body%20GSMA,include%2088%20million%205G%20connections
38.
ProtheroA., DobschaS., FreundJ., KilbourneW. E., LuchsM. G., OzanneL. K., & ThøgersenJ. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.
39.
RebiazinaV. (2020). Millennials are major drivers of sharing economy. https://iq.hse.ru/en/news/388202439.html
40.
RichinsM. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209–219.
41.
RoosD., & HahnR. (2019). Understanding collaborative consumption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior with value-based personal norms. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 679–697.
42.
LockS. (2019). Number of Airbnb users in the United States from 2016 to 2022 (in millions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/346589/number-of-us-airbnb-users/#:~:text=Number%20of%20Airbnb%20users%20in%20the%20U.S.%202016%2D2022&text=In%202017%2C%20the%20number%20of,reach%2045.6%20million%20by%202022
43.
SchaefersT., LawsonS. J., & Kukar-KinneyM. (2016). How the burdens of ownership promote consumer usage of access-based services. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 569–577.
44.
SoK. K. F., OhH., & MinS. (2018). Motivations and constraints of Airbnb consumers: Findings from a mixed-methods approach. Tourism Management, 67, 224–236.
45.
SrikantM. (2013). Materialism in consumer behavior and marketing: A review. Management & Marketing, 8(2), 329.
46.
TavakolM., & DennickR. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53.
47.
Ter HuurneM., RonteltapA., CortenR., & BuskensV. (2017). Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(6), 485–498.
48.
TilikidouI., & DelistavrouA. (2004). The influence of the materialistic values on consumers’ pro-environmental post-purchase behavior. In CronW. L., & LowG. S. (Eds.), Marketing Theory and Applications, Proceedings of the 2004 American Marketing Association Winter Educators’ Conference (Vol. 15, pp. 42–49). American Marketing Association.
49.
TorresJ., TorresP., & AugustoM. (2019). The impact of trust and electronic word-of-mouth reviews on purchasing intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 37(1), 136–151.
50.
TussyadiahI. P. (2016). Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 70–80.
51.
TussyadiahI. P., & PesonenJ. (2016). Impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation use on travel patterns. Journal of Travel Research, 55(8), 1022–1040.
52.
XuC., PeakD., & PrybutokV. (2015). A customer value, satisfaction, and loyalty perspective of mobile application recommendations. Decision Support Systems, 79, 171–183.
