Content uploaded by Juho Hamari
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juho Hamari on Sep 26, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in
Collaborative Consumption
Juho Hamari
Game Research Lab, School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere, FI-33014 Tampereen yliopisto,
Finland, and Aalto University School of Business, P.O. Box 11000, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland.
E-mail: juho.hamari@uta.fi
Mimmi Sjöklint
Department of ITM, Copenhagen Business School, Howitzvej 60, Frederiksberg 2000, Denmark.
E-mail: msj.itm@cbs.dk
Antti Ukkonen
Finnish Institute for Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 A, Helsinki 00250, Finland.
E-mail: antti.ukkonen@ttl.fi
Information and communications technologies (ICTs)
have enabled the rise of so-called “Collaborative Con-
sumption” (CC): the peer-to-peer-based activity of
obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and
services, coordinated through community-based online
services. CC has been expected to alleviate societal
problems such as hyper-consumption, pollution, and
poverty by lowering the cost of economic coordination
within communities. However, beyond anecdotal evi-
dence, there is a dearth of understanding why people
participate in CC. Therefore, in this article we investigate
people’s motivations to participate in CC. The study
employs survey data (N=168) gathered from people reg-
istered onto a CC site. The results show that participa-
tion in CC is motivated by many factors such as its
sustainability, enjoyment of the activity as well as eco-
nomic gains. An interesting detail in the result is that
sustainability is not directly associated with participa-
tion unless it is at the same time also associated with
positive attitudes towards CC. This suggests that sus-
tainability might only be an important factor for those
people for whom ecological consumption is important.
Furthermore, the results suggest that in CC an attitude-
behavior gap might exist; people perceive the activity
positively and say good things about it, but this good
attitude does not necessary translate into action.
Introduction
Attitudes towards consumption have shifted in recent
years and brought increasing concern over ecological, soci-
etal, and developmental impact. A growing concern about
climate change and a yearning for social embeddedness by
localness and communal consumption (Albinsson & Perera,
2012; Belk, 2010; Botsman & Rogers, 2010) have made the
“collaborative consumption”/”sharing economy” (The peer-
to-peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing the
access to goods and services, coordinated through
community-based online services) an appealing alternative
for consumers. Past literature shows that people are turned
away from ethical consumption because of economical and
institutional reasons (Bray, Johns, & Kilburn, 2011;
Eckhardt, Belk, & Devinney, 2010), yet with the develop-
ment of new ways of consumption through the sharing
economy, such as collaborative consumption (CC), these
issues are addressed and potentially overcome. The sharing
economy is an emerging economic-technological phenom-
enon that is fuelled by developments in information and
communications technology (ICT), growing consumer
awareness, proliferation of collaborative web communities
as well as social commerce/sharing (Botsman & Rogers,
2010; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Wang & Zhang, 2012). We
consider the sharing economy as an umbrella concept that
encompasses several ICT developments and technologies,
among others CC, which endorses sharing the consumption
Received April 17, 2014; revised March 6, 2015; accepted March 20, 2015
© 2015 ASIS&T •Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.23552
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ••(••):••–••, 2015
V
C2015 ASIS&T Published online 2 June 2015 in Wiley Online
Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.23552
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 67(9):2047–2059, 2016
of goods and services through online platforms. In this
study, we explore how continued participation is motivated
in the part of the sharing economy that is concerned with
CC, namely sharing the consumption of goods and services
through activities such as renting, swapping, or trading. This
includes services such as Zipcar, as well as Couchsurfing
and Airbnb.
Forbes (Geron, 2013) has estimated that “revenue
flowing through the sharing economy directly into people’s
wallets will surpass $3.5 billion, with growth exceeding
25% [SE is referring to only CC and microwork].” At the
same time, investors regard the sharing economy as the new
“mega-trend”; investing hundreds of millions into related
start-ups (Alsever, 2013). Further, the rise of the sharing
economy is predicted to have a major societal impact, and
thus holds relevance to both practitioners and policy makers
(EU Environment, 2013). For instance, a potential change in
e-commerce patterns may have a significant impact on
online sales, which makes it important to examine the role
and effects of CC in an online consumption context.
Despite a growing practical importance, there is a lack
of quantitative studies on motivational factors that affect
consumers’ attitudes and intentions towards CC. The
context is of especially great interest since participation in
CC communities and services is generally characterized as
driven by obligation to do good for other people and for
the environment, such as sharing, helping others, and
engaging in sustainable behavior (Prothero et al., 2011;
Sacks, 2011). However, CC may also provide economic
benefits (saving money, facilitating access to resources,
and free-riding), which constitute more individualistic
reasons for participating. For these reasons there exists a
real practical problem of how CC could become more
widespread. In particular, the possible discrepancy between
motivations and their effect on attitudes and behavior war-
rants an interesting context for research (Bray et al., 2011;
Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
This article explores people’s motivations to participate in
CC. We explore how CC can be defined in more detail in the
section, The Sharing Economy as a Technological Phenom-
enon, but we mainly consider CC to be based on access over
ownership, the use of online services, as well as monetary and
nonmonetary transactions such as sharing, swapping,
trading, and renting (See Botsman & Rogers, 2010). We
adopt the lens of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in attitude
formation and use intentions related to CC (see e.g., Deci &
Ryan, 1985; Lindenberg, 2001). The research model and
hypotheses were developed as a triangulation of three
sources: (a) self-determination theory (classification of
motivations into intrinsic and extrinsic motivations) (Deci
& Ryan, 1985; Lindenberg, 2001); (b) previous studies on
parallel sharing economies-related phenomena (Hennig-
Thurau, Henning, & Sattler, 2007; Lakhani & Wolf, 2005;
Nov, Naaman, & Ye, 2010); and (c) context-specific adjust-
ments. The article is structured as follows. The next section
presents the theoretical framework and background for our
hypotheses. The subsequent section then outlines data and
methods, followed by the results. The article concludes with
a discussion on implications and avenues for future research.
Background
This section gives an overview of how CC is positioned
in the sharing economy as a technological phenomenon. As
a first step, we present our mapping of 254 platforms to
better understand the overall CC landscape. We then unravel
the contextual understanding of the term “sharing” within
the sharing economy and the characteristics it is assigned,
such as the common traits of social dynamics and collectiv-
ism versus individual reputation.
The Sharing Economy as a Technological Phenomenon
The development of information technologies alongside
the growth of web 2.0 has enabled the development of online
platforms that promote user-generated content, sharing, and
collaboration (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Classical
examples of these include open source software repositories
(e.g., SourceForge and Github), collaborative online ency-
clopedias (e.g., Wikipedia) and other content sharing sites
(e.g., Youtube, Instagram), or even peer-to-peer file sharing
(e.g., The Pirate Bay). More recent examples are peer-to-
peer financing such as microloans (e.g., Kiva) and
crowdfunding services (e.g., Kickstarter). These four
examples, open-source software, online collaboration, file
sharing, and peer-to-peer financing, are considered as dif-
ferent instances of the phenomenon we label the “sharing
economy.” The phenomenon of the sharing economy thus
emerges from a number of technological developments that
have simplified sharing of both physical and nonphysical
goods and services through the availability of various infor-
mation systems on the Internet. We will thus view the
“sharing economy” primarily through the lens of informa-
tion technology.
We argue that although these different instances (open
source, online collaboration, file sharing, peer-to-peer
financing) of the sharing economy seem superficially differ-
ent, they share a number of common aspects. To begin with,
all have origins and growth stemming from the tech-driven
culture of Silicon Valley. This is easily attributed to open
source and content sharing services, but as reported by, for
example, Sacks (2011), this is also where the first, largest,
and most successful CC services have emerged in the last
few years. More importantly, the various instances of the
sharing economy also share the characteristics of online
collaboration, online sharing, social commerce, and some
form of underlying ideology, such as collective purpose or a
common good, as will be discussed in the section, Aspects of
the Sharing Economy.All of these characteristics can also be
attributed to CC services.
In this article, also CC is mainly positioned as a category
of this contemporary technology-driven sharing economy.
In our view this is an interesting and relevant approach to
CC, because almost all practical CC activities are mediated
2 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2048 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
by various information systems, as we will outline here.
Therefore, we study CC mainly as a technological phenom-
enon, as opposed to, for example, the perspective of an
emerging consumer culture. We position our study in the
literature on technology participation and adoption, as well
as content contribution. We view CC as not just consumption
but as an activity where both the contribution and use of
resources are intertwined through peer-to-peer networks.
The consumer-related literature is also relevant. For
example, CC could be viewed from perspective of sharing
(e.g., Belk, 2014a, 2014b), borrowing (e.g., Jenkins et al.
2014), reuse and remix culture (e.g., Lessig, 2008), charity
(e.g., Hibbert & Horne, 1996; Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998),
second-hand markets, sustainable consumption (e.g.,
Young, Hwang, McDonald, & Oates, 2010), and for
instance, even anticonsumption (Ozanne & Ballantine,
2010). We note, however, that although framing CC in the
context of consumer studies is of course complementary, it
is beyond the scope of this work.
We define the term CC broadly as the peer-to-peer-based
activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing access to goods and
services, coordinated through community-based online ser-
vices. This definition was formed by the combination of
previous considerations as well as by the mapping of
254 CC websites of. The websites were identified by sys-
tematically going through all the categories (i.e., transport,
equipment, children, etc.) of the directory on collaborative-
consumption.org. This contains a collection of various types
of websites that relate their business to the sharing economy/
CC. The directory is continuously updated by adding CCs
that are just starting out and also updated by removing those
CCs that have halted operations.
To qualify for the mapping, the CC must be an online
website, a mobile app, or a combination that is continuously
used and maintained by the users. However, a website that
advertises a standalone and purely offline activity, such as a
flea market, would not qualify. The evaluation of each
website was made by alphabetically and systematically
going through the directory, opening the website, then
reading and examining its content, and, if necessary, signing
up for an account to look at any additional features. The
mapping placed the CCs in different categories that
described the mode of exchange: sharing, new purchase,
second-hand purchase, renting, donating, swapping, and
lending or borrowing. An overview of the mapping can be
seen in Table 1. Notably, some services facilitate multiple
types of activities, such as renting as well as purchasing, and
thus belong to more than one category.
The mapping of 254 CC platforms revealed that the
activities may be separated into two main categories of
exchange: access over ownership and transfer of ownership.
However, it is possible for a platform to facilitate both
modes of exchange. This occurs when the platform has more
than one type of trading activity, such as lending (access
over ownership) and donating (transfer of ownership),
causing an overlap between the main categories. Out of the
254 platforms, 191 were identified as facilitating access over
ownership while 139 provided the transfer of ownership. A
total of 76 platforms had overlapping categories.
Access over ownership is the most common mode of
exchange. Access over ownership means that users may
offer and share their goods and services to other users for a
limited time through peer-to-peer sharing activities, such as
renting and lending (see Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Most
common was renting. For example, MonJouJou rents out
childrens’ toys for a duration of 15, 30, or 60 days. Other
examples are AirBnb, and RentTheRunway where goods
and services can be accessed by users for a certain amount of
time and often for a fee. Another example, Berlin-based
Drivenow is a paid car-sharing service where a user may
book any of the designated cars randomly distributed
throughout the city and when the user is done, he may park
the car anywhere within the assigned city area.
Alternatively, the transfer of ownership passes ownership
from one user to another through swapping, donating, and
purchasing of primarily second-hand goods. For instance,
services such as Swapstyle or ReSecond help users to swap
unwanted clothes. Other examples are Zilch and ThredUp.
Swapping or donating are the most popular categories fol-
lowed by the least popular category, namely purchasing used
goods. An overview of the mapping can be seen in
Table 1.
Furthermore, this analysis sheds light on numerous
aspects of the sharing economy but particularly on the mul-
tiplicity of the term “sharing.”We want to emphasize that our
definition of the sharing economy differs slightly from those
of other scholars (Belk, 2007, 2010), as well as some other
definitions of “sharing economy” (Lessig, 2008; Sacks,
2011) or “collaborative consumption” (Belk, 2014a, 2014b;
Botsman & Rogers, 2010).
TABLE 1. Overview of mapping of 254 collaborative consumption services.
Mode of exchange Trading activity Monetary transaction Market allotment Example
Access over ownership Renting Yes 131 platforms Renttherunway.com
Lending No 60 platforms Couchsurfing.com
Transfer of ownership Swapping No 59 platforms Swapstyle.com
Donating No 59 platforms Freegive.co.uk
Purchasing used goods Yes 51 platforms Thedup.com
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015 3
DOI: 10.1002/asi
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2049
Moreover, CC operates through technological platforms,
such as a website or mobile app, yet relies heavily on
social dynamics for the actual sharing and collaboration.
In fact, Wiertz and de Ruyter (2007) propose that firms
that own and operate such online platforms do not control
the actual sharing at all. Instead, the development is led
by social dynamics, such as enjoyment and self-marketing
of a community (Lin and Lu, 2011; Wasko & Faraj,
2000). Therefore, sharing economy (and in particular
CC) platforms act merely as economical-technological
coordination providers. This resembles for example,
GitHub and Torrent trackers, which do not necessarily
have control of the content distributed, exchanged
and coordinated. “Collaborative consumption communi-
ties” represent such coordinating centers in the context
of CC.
In summary, this article suggests that CC is a peer-to-
peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing access
to goods and services, coordinated through community-
based online services. This is based on existing definitions
that are combined and refined with the findings from the
mapping of the 254 platforms. Nevertheless, there remains
a difficulty in defining this phenomenon, because of the
wide variations in existing terminology. A definition should
include CC’s socioeconomical as well as technological
aspects, taking into account that it manifests varying
degrees of digital and physical exchange. In this way, CC
also affords several equally important perspectives for
analysis. However, mainstream media have merely defined
CC as an “economic model based on sharing, swapping,
trading, or renting products and services, enabling access
over ownership” (Botsman, 2013). Another previous schol-
arly definition restricts CC only to nonmonetary transac-
tions “the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a
fee or other compensation” (Belk, 2014b, p. 1597).
However, this is where the definitions diverge based on
whether monetary exchange is allowed as a part of CC.
Moreover, as we discussed earlier, publicly available list-
ings of CC services include a variety of services that have
different features and modes of exchange including mon-
etary transactions. In this article we have primarily inves-
tigated CC as a technological development, and have
viewed it from the perspective of research on peer-to-peer
technologies, such open source software repositories (e.g.,
SourceForge and Github), collaborative online encyclope-
dias (e.g., Wikipedia), and other content sharing sites (e.g.,
Youtube, Instagram), or even peer-to-peer file sharing (e.g.,
The Pirate Bay). This approach provides a solid bridge to
tie the CC phenomenon into the existing literature, both
conceptually and in terms of theory.
Aspects of the Sharing Economy
In the following four sections we take a more detailed
look at the characteristics of the sharing economy; namely
online collaboration, social commerce, the notion of sharing
online, and consumer ideology.
Collaboration online. The growing use of information tech-
nologies in the web 2.0 era has increased the amount of
user-generated content and also the manner in which infor-
mation is created and consumed online (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010; Nov, 2007). The peer-to-peer platform has grown into
an essential tool for the purposes of such information cre-
ation and consumption. The term peer-to-peer is commonly
associated with file sharing, however, it also refers to the
larger phenomenon of collaborative activities between users
online, such as consumer-to-consumer exchanges. In fact,
Rodrigues and Druschel (2010) describe the peer-to-peer
platform as a system in which content generation is highly
distributed and decentralized as a result of the organic
growth and strong user self-organization. Moreover, an
essential aspect of this type of platforms is the focus on
collaboration (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Rodrigues &
Druschel, 2010), in which, for example, open software proj-
ects may be gathered and facilitated. A particularly well-
known example is Wikipedia, where online users work
together to produce content by sharing knowledge. In addi-
tion, studies on participation motives in open-source soft-
ware (OSS) projects (Lakhani & Wolf, 2005; Oreg & Nov,
2008; Roberts, Hann, & Slaughter, 2006) suggest that
participation is influenced by a variety of factors such as
reputation, enjoyment, and both intrinsic and extrinsic moti-
vation (see also Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
Social commerce. Online social commerce rests on peer-to-
peer interaction as it is “a form of commerce that is mediated
by social media” and uses social media to “support social
interactions and user contributions to assist activities in the
buying and selling of products and services online and
offline” (Wang & Zhang, 2012, p. 2). Social commerce and
social shopping are often used interchangeably, although
social shopping is a subcategory of social commerce
(Stephen & Toubia, 2010) and is more related to the social
influence exerted by peers on purchasing decisions (Wang &
Zhang, 2012). On the other hand, group deals that are
obtained via social buying services (such as Groupon) seem
to mostly be motivated by saving money.
Social commerce thus relies on platforms with peer-to-
peer interaction, which in turn rely on users being motivated
to continue using and engaging through social networking
sites (SNS). SNS and social commerce share common
ground as both involve peer-to-peer interaction on social
media, although the latter also include mercantile features
(Ellison & boyd, 2013; Wang & Zhang, 2012). The motiva-
tion of users to continue participating in social commerce is
multifaceted, and often relies on the perception of individual
enjoyment (also through relatedness) and economic benefits.
Nevertheless, Wang and Zhang (2012) assert that social
commerce is moving beyond individual enjoyment and cen-
tering on economic concern. For instance, a pertinent form
of social commerce is the consumer self-coordination of
group deals for pursuit of economic gains (Wang & Zhang,
2012). Kozinets (1999) also proposes that consumers
are empowered through peer-to-peer sharing in an online
4 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2050 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
commerce setting in which they turn to their social networks
to retrieve information about products, rather than commer-
cial sources. The role of marketers is thus reduced while the
role of users is induced to be both a consumer and a pro-
ducer. This is also important in many cases of CC in which
the participants can be consumers, providers, or both.
Sharing online. The term “sharing” has experienced a
major change in meaning with the evolution of online ser-
vices, especially in an SNS setting (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010). In an SNS context, the concept of sharing commonly
refers to sharing information, such as status updates, links,
or photos. However, increased reliance on IT-based
e-commerce systems has also facilitated the sharing of
goods and services through information technology
(Galbreth, Ghosh, & Shor, 2012; Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2007), such as CC platforms like Couchsurfing, Zipcar,
Neighbourgoods, and Sharetribe.
The development of CC platforms, have thus far primar-
ily been investigated from a service design perspective (e.g.,
Hamari, 2013; Lamberton & Rose, 2012; Suhonen,
Lampinen, Cheshire, & Antin, 2011). For example, Couch-
surfing, a community for sharing accommodation among
travelers and one of the most successful sharing services to
date, has received the most attention (Molz, 2012; Rosen,
Lafontaine, & Hendrickson, 2011). Sharing has been studied
in the context of digital goods (e.g., music files—see e.g.,
Shang, Chen, & Chen, 2008) and open source software. For
example, Huang (2005) studies norms and motivations asso-
ciated with peer-to-peer music sharing, whereas Zentner
(2006) focuses on the effects of music sharing on record
sales. Finally, in the context of information sharing, Nov
(2007) examines motivations for Wikipedia editors and Nov
et al. (2010) address online photography sharing.
Ideological considerations. Information technology is
increasingly used as a means to further collective action in
support of the advancement of an ideology or idea (Oh,
Agrawal, & Rao, 2013). For instance, the social media plat-
form Twitter was used as a reporting tool during the Arab
Spring (Metzgar & Maruggi, 2009) and the 2008 U.S. presi-
dential candidates campaigned extensively through social
media (Wattal, Schuff, Mandviwalla, & Williams, 2010).
Open-source and in particular the free software movement
have strong ideological underpinnings (Raymond, 1999).
However, the ideology and ideas that underlie the sharing
economy may go beyond collective action for political pur-
poses, even if notions of anticonsumerism clearly are related
(Ozanne & Ballantine, 2010). We argue that green consump-
tion (see e.g., Eckhardt et al., 2010) and other sustainable
behavior are even more important drivers in the context of
CC.
Research Model and Hypotheses
As discussed, online collaboration, such as peer-to-peer
activity, is fuelled by enjoyment, economic incentive,
reputation, and self-fulfillment. This is much like social
commerce and online sharing that are also driven by enjoy-
ment, economic incentive, reputation, yet additionally
paired with collaboration. The application of ideology, such
as sustainability and green consumption, is mainly propelled
by reputation and economic concern. As a result, we propose
four possible and distinguishable categories in which the
forthcoming hypotheses are developed, namely sustainabil-
ity,enjoyment,reputation, and economic benefits. These will
be discussed in more detail.
Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985)
posits that motivations can be distinguished as intrinsic or
extrinsic. The former emerge from the intrinsic value or
enjoyment related to the given activity, whereas extrinsic
motivations are related to external pressures, such as repu-
tation and monetary gain. According to Lindenberg (2001),
there are two kinds of intrinsic motivations: enjoyment
derived from the activity itself and value derived from acting
appropriately—that is, conforming to norms. Related
studies have also classified these motivations by the degree
of association with other people (Lakhani & Wolf, 2005;
Nov et al., 2010), which is complementary to Lindenberg’s
(2001) conceptualization. For example, striving to enjoy an
activity or obtaining economic gains through the activity are
not directly affected by others’ opinions. On the other hand,
reputation and conforming to norms depend directly on how
other people reflect upon the activity. We operationalize
these motivational dimensions as follows: for intrinsic moti-
vations we consider (a) enjoyment, (b) sustainability and for
extrinsic motivations, (c) economic benefits, and (d) reputa-
tion. The following subsections discuss the variables and
hypotheses in more detail.
Sustainability
Participation in CC is generally expected to be highly
ecologically sustainable (Prothero et al., 2011; Sacks, 2011).
Such motivations are generally linked to ideology and norms
(Lindenberg, 2001), which in our theoretical framework and
in related work (Lakhani & Wolf, 2005; Nov et al., 2010) are
conceptualized as intrinsic motivations. Recent develop-
ments suggest that CC platforms are used to foster a sus-
tainable marketplace (Phipps et al., 2013) that “optimizes
the environmental, social, and economic consequences of
consumption in order to meet the needs of both current and
future generations” (Luchs et al., 2011, p. 2). Also, open
source software development and participation in peer pro-
duction (e.g., Wikipedia) are driven by altruistic motives
such as openness and freedom of information as argued by
Nov (2007) as well as Oreg and Nov (2008). Thus, partici-
pation and collaboration in online platforms may be influ-
enced by attitudes shaped by ideology and socio-economic
concerns, such as anti-establishment sentiments (Hennig-
Thurau et al., 2007) or a preference for greener consump-
tion, which we believe to be a particularly important factor
in the context of CC. Therefore, we operationalize the intrin-
sic motivation related to norms as ecological sustainability.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015 5
DOI: 10.1002/asi
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2051
We hypothesize that sustainability is a major predictor for
attitude formation and behavioral intentions towards CC.
H1a: (Intrinsic motivation: Sustainability). Perceived sus-
tainability of CC positively influences attitudes towards CC.
H1b: (Intrinsic motivation: Sustainability). Perceived sus-
tainability of CC positively influences behavioral intentions
to participate in CC.
Enjoyment
A fundamental dimension of intrinsic motivation is the
autotelic nature of the activity or the enjoyment derived from
the activity itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lindenberg, 2001). In
terms of intrinsic motivation, software developers contribute
to open-source projects as a result of enjoyment and a
feeling of competence (Lakhani & Wolf, 2005; Nov, 2007;
Roberts et al., 2006; Wasko & Faraj, 2000; see also Ryan &
Deci 2000). Enjoyment has been regarded as an important
factor also in other sharing-related activities, such as infor-
mation system use (Van der Heijden, 2004), and information
sharing on the Internet (Nov, 2007; Nov et al., 2010). Nev-
ertheless, the initial motivation to collaborate does not
explain nor predict sustained participation (Fang & Neufeld,
2009). A study on the continued use of social networking
services established that enjoyment is a primary factor, fol-
lowed by the number of peers and usefulness (Lin & Lu,
2011). Social networking services and similar service design
used elsewhere can be seen to especially promote related-
ness (see Hamari & Koivisto, 2015 and e.g., Deci & Ryan,
1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000 on relatedness), which is a major
determinant for intrinsically motivated use such as enjoy-
ment. Therefore, we include enjoyment as the second intrin-
sic motivation to our model to predict attitudes and
behavioral intentions towards CC.
H2a: (Intrinsic motivation: Enjoyment). Perceived enjoy-
ment from participating in CC positively influences attitude
towards CC.
H2b: (Intrinsic motivation: Enjoyment). Perceived enjoy-
ment from participating in CC positively influences behav-
ioral intentions to participate in CC.
Reputation
Reputation has been shown to be an important external
motivation factor in determining participation in communi-
ties and other online collaboration activities such as informa-
tion sharing (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Wasko & Faraj,
2005) and open-source projects (Lakhani & Wolf, 2005; Nov
et al., 2010). In particular, gaining reputation among like-
minded people has been shown to motivate sharing in online
communities and open-source projects (Parameswaran &
Whinston, 2007; Raymond, 1999). Anthony, Smith, and
Williamson (2009) reported that reputation and commitment
to the community are important drivers for Wikipedia editors.
When Wasko and Faraj (2005) explored why individuals
share knowledge in electronic networks of practice, they
established that contribution is often underlined by the per-
ception that it enhances personal reputation. Donath (1999)
also supported the conclusion that reputation can be a moti-
vator for active participation. Yang and Lai (2010, p. 1377)
found that “individuals are more likely to gain self-based
achievement rather than enjoyment in the process of sharing
knowledge.” Hars and Ou (2001) also found that self-
marketing and building of reputation are the strongest indi-
cators of likelihood to collaborate online. Similarly, an active
participant in CC may expect intangible rewards in the form
of higher status within the CC community.
H3a: (Extrinsic motivation: Reputation). Perceived reputa-
tion increase from participating in CC positively influences
attitude towards CC.
H3b: (Extrinsic motivation: Reputation). Perceived reputa-
tion increase from participating in CC positively influences
behavioral intentions to participate in CC.
Economic Benefits
As the previous sections discuss, CC—and sharing goods
and services in general—is often regarded as not only eco-
logically sound but also economical. See, for example, the
works of Belk (2010) as well as Lamberton and Rose
(2012). Therefore, participating in sharing can also be ratio-
nal, utility maximizing behavior wherein the consumer
replaces exclusive ownership of goods with lower-cost
options from within a CC service. Furthermore, there are
signs of both positive and negative influences of economic
incentives on sharing behavior (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee,
2005; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei,
2005). Hars and Ou (2001) study both the intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations of participation in open source devel-
opment, and find that a strong extrinsic motivation is the
potential future rewards, such as economic benefits. Addi-
tionally, in the context of peer-to-peer networks, sharing
serves as an incentive for saving economic resources (Luchs
et al., 2011). Therefore we hypothesize that extrinsic
rewards, in the form of saving money and time, derived from
CC positively influence attitudes toward CC and intentions
to participate in it.
H4a: (Extrinsic motivation: Economic outcomes). Perceived
extrinsic reward of participating in CC positively influences
attitude towards CC.
H4b: (Extrinsic motivation: Economic outcomes). Perceived
extrinsic reward of participating in CC positively influences
behavioral intentions to participate in CC.
Attitude
Attitude is regarded as a major determinant of behavior
(Ajzen, 1991). Furthermore, when studying a phenomenon
with which there is reason to expect a possible discrepancy
between attitudes and behavior it is essential to measure
them separately.
With respect to motivation to participate or consume
certain goods, consumer behavior literature suggests that
6 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2052 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
although consumers may be ideologically and ethically
minded, their aspirations may not translate into sustainable
behavior (e.g., Bray et al., 2011; Phipps et al., 2013; Vermeir
& Verbeke, 2006). A few issues might explain this attitude-
behavior gap: (a) actually pursuing sustainable behavior can
be costly both in terms of coordination and direct cost, (b)
people lack the means of deriving benefits from signaling
such behavior (and thus not able to gain recognition from the
behavior). For instance, studies show that people are moti-
vated to take on sustainable behavior especially when other
consumers have been able to signal that they are also par-
ticipating (Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008). (c)
There is not enough information for the consumers about
sustainable consumption. We argue that technologically
mediated CC may alleviate these concerns. They may enable
a more efficient coordination of sharing activities, which in
turn aids in the facilitation of active communities around a
cause. Nonetheless, the question remains whether peoples’
attitudes towards CC are determined by for example, green
values and if so, do they also reflect their actual behavior? Or
does the attitude-behavior gap exist also in this context? In
order to address this issue, among other predictions, we
investigate the relationship between the attitudes and behav-
iors.
H5: Attitude towards CC positively influences behavioral
intention to participate in CC.
Methods and Data
Data
The data consist of responses obtained from 168 regis-
tered users of the service Sharetribe who were recruited via
an official Sharetribe e-mail newsletter. Sharetribe
(http://www.sharetribe.com/) is an international CC hub that
offers its service package to various organizations.
Sharetribe is used in communities all over the world, and at
the time of writing there were 479 local “Sharetribes,”
worldwide. The company, Sharetribe Ltd., is a social for-
profit enterprise registered in Finland. Its stated mission is to
help people connect with their community and to help elimi-
nate excessive waste by making it easier for everyone to use
assets more effectively by sharing them. Most of the
“Sharetribes” are narrow, local communities such as orga-
nizations or neighborhoods where the benefits of CC are
emphasized in forms of trust and information access, and
also to decrease transaction costs.
The responses were gathered in January 2013. Partici-
pants were informed that they had the chance of winning a
100-Euro gift card for an Internet store. The demographics
of the sample are shown in Table 2. We also want to point
out that although the respondents were all registered users of
Sharetribe, most of them were not active users of the site.
However, as registered users of a CC service, we expect the
respondents to be more knowledgeable about CC than the
population at large, and therefore in a better position to give
an informed response to our survey. At the beginning of the
questionnaire we defined CC as “an economic model based
on sharing, swapping, bartering, trading or renting access
to products within a community as opposed to personal
ownership.”
The questionnaire employed psychometric measurement
(Nunnally, 1978). We measured each construct with four or
five items that were all on a 7-point Likert scale. All items
were adapted from existing prominent published sources
except for the items for the SUST construct (see Appendix).
The primary analytical technique was structural equation
modeling (SEM, see e.g., Hair et al., 2010; Nunnally, 1978).
SEM provides the possibility to run multivariate, multilevel
path analyses and, thus, permits more complex models than
traditional regression analyses. For instance, path modeling
provides a powerful tool to investigate both direct and medi-
ated effects. Furthermore, SEM analyses are the primary
technique when using latent psychometric variables. The
descriptive demographic data were analyzed in SPSS 20,
and all of the model testing was conducted through partial
least squares (PLS) analysis with SmartPLS 2.0 M3 (Ringle,
Wende, & Will, 2005).
Validity and Reliability
We tested convergent validity with three metrics: average
variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and
Cronbach’s alpha (alpha). All of these values were accept-
able (see Table 3, AVE should be greater than 0.5, CR
greater than 0.7, and Cronbach’s alpha above 0.8—Fornell
& Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). Construct EXTR had a
slightly smaller alpha than recommended; however, the
other validity metrics were good and the lower alpha is not
likely to point to a validity issue. The construct passed all of
the validity and reliability tests. No indicators were omitted.
Discriminant validity was first assessed by a comparison
of the square root of the AVE of each construct to all
correlations between it and other constructs (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981), where all of the square roots of the AVEs
should be greater than any of the correlations between the
corresponding construct and another construct (Chin, 1998).
Second, we assessed discriminant validity by confirming
that all items corresponding to a specific construct had a
higher loading with the appropriate construct than with any
TABLE 2. Demographic information.
N% N%
Gender Female 71 42% Tenure <3 months 30 18%
Male 97 58% 3–6 months 28 17%
6–12 months 38 23%
Age <20 19 11% 12–24 months 41 24%
20–25 66 39% 24–36 months 18 11%
26–30 28 17% >36 months 13 8%
31–35 21 12%
36–40 12 7%
>40 22 13%
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015 7
DOI: 10.1002/asi
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2053
other construct. Third, following Pavlou, Liang, and Xue
(2007), we determined that no intercorrelation between con-
structs was more than 0.9 in the correlation matrix (see
Table 3). All three tests indicate that the discriminant valid-
ity and reliability are acceptable. In addition, to reduce the
likelihood of common method bias, we randomized the
order of the measurement items in the survey, limiting
respondents’ ability to detect patterns between measurement
items (Cook, Campbell, & Day, 1979).
The sample size satisfies different criteria for the lower
bounds of sample size for PLS-SEM: (a) 10 times the largest
number of structural paths directed at a particular construct
in the inner path model (therefore, the sample size threshold
for the model in this study would be 55 cases) (Chin &
Newsted, 1999); and (b) according to Anderson and Gerbing
(1984), a threshold for any type of SEM is approximately
150 respondents for models where constructs comprise of
three or four indicators. (c) The sample size also satisfies
stricter criteria relevant for variance-based SEM: For
example, Bentler and Chou (1987) recommend a ratio of
five cases per observed variable (therefore, the sample size
threshold for the model in this study would be 135).
Results
The model could account for 75% of the variance in
attitudes towards CC and 66.3% of the variance in behav-
ioral intention to participate in CC. The results are summa-
rized in Figure 1 and Table 4.
In case of the intrinsic motivations, perceived sustainabil-
ity significantly predicted attitude to CC (H1a beta =0.591,
t=10.211); however, it did not have a direct association
with behavioral intentions (H1b beta =−0.066, t=0.859).
Further investigation, though, showed that perceived sus-
tainability has a small (beta =0.121, t=1.832) total effect
through attitude to behavioral intention. Perceived enjoy-
ment had a significant positive effect on both attitude
towards CC (H2a beta =0.421, t=7.491) and behavioral
intention to participate in CC services (H2b beta =0.451,
t=4.936).
In case of the extrinsic motivations, expected gains in
reputation did not significantly affect either attitude towards
CC (H3a beta =−0.047, t=0.913) or behavioral intention to
participate in CC services (H3b beta =0.108, t=1.581).
Anticipated gain of economic benefits did not have a
TABLE 3. Convergent and discriminant validity.
AVE CR Alpha ATT BI ENJ EXTR REP SUST
ATT 0.641 0.899 0.858 0.801
BI 0.710 0.907 0.863 0.684 0.843
ENJ 0.694 0.919 0.889 0.706 0.778 0.833
EXTR 0.549 0.829 0.724 0.473 0.569 0.591 0.741
REP 0.655 0.883 0.824 0.391 0.544 0.605 0.492 0.809
SUST 0.656 0.907 0.867 0.798 0.511 0.526 0.426 0.306 0.810
Sustainability
Reputation
Enjoyment
Economic
benefits
Attitude
(R²=0.750)
Behavioral
intention
(R²=0.663)
0.421***
0.125*
0.451***
0.316***
-0.066
-0.047
0.108
-0.004
0.591***
FIG. 1. Results model.
8 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2054 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
significant effect on attitude towards CC (H4a beta =0.004,
t=0.063), but did have significantly positive direct influ-
ence on intention to participate in CC (H4b beta =0.125,
t=1.769).
Finally, attitude had a significant positive effect on
behavioral intentions (H5 beta =0.316, t=3.342). The
effect of reported attitude on behavior is interesting in the
contexts of sustainability. As noted, many studies have
found that there is a gap between people’s attitudes and
behavior in similarly motivated sharing activities. Although,
the path coefficient here is significant and positive, the effect
size from attitude is rather low. When the path between
attitude and behavior is deleted from a model, the remaining
models still explain 63.8% of behavioral intentions com-
pared to the original 66.3% Therefore, it appears that also in
the context of CC, an attitude-behavior gap may exist. More-
over, the path coefficient between attitude and behavior can
be regarded as relatively small when compared to studies on
technology adoption in general.
Discussion and Directions for Further Research
Our results indicate that intrinsic motivations are a strong
determinant of attitude (H1a and H2a not rejected) whereas
extrinsic motivations did not reflect positively on attitude
(H3a and H4a rejected). For continuous use intentions,
however, extrinsic motivations were a more prominent pre-
dictor (H4b not rejected), along with enjoyment from the
activity (H2b not rejected).
Attitude, also as expected, positively influences use
intentions, but to quite a small degree in comparison to the
relationship typically observed between these constructs.
This could indicate a discrepancy between reported atti-
tudes and actual behavior in this context. Although per-
ceived sustainability positively influences attitudes towards
CC, it plays a lesser role when people consider actual par-
ticipation in CC. However, we could also observe that some
of the perceived sustainability was translated into behavioral
intentions through attitude. On the other hand, economic
benefits (saving money and time) seem to have a significant
effect on behavioral intentions but not on attitudes towards
CC. Thus, there seems to be a discrepancy between factors
that affect attitudes and behavioral intentions: Perceived
sustainability is an important factor in the formation of
positive attitudes towards CC, but economic benefits are a
stronger motivator for intentions to participate in CC.
Eckhardt et al. (2010) found three main reasons why
people may not be willing to consume sustainably: eco-
nomic rationalizations, institutional dependencies, and
developmental realism. The same reasons might also apply
to CC with regards to the motivations related to sustainabil-
ity. For instance, related to economic rationalizations, CC
might not in all cases turn out to be economical. Sporadic
and unstandardized trades with a variety of unknown people
can unexpectedly increase search and coordination costs.
Although CC could be more economical in monetary terms,
it may not be so in other respects. Moreover, as long as new
imported products remain on the market with relatively low
prices (that do not necessarily reflect the ecological price or
impact that the manufacturing and shipping necessitate)
people might not be interested in sharing. Along those same
lines, Eckhardt et al. (2010) suggest that people commonly
justify their nonsustainable consumption with institutional
reasons: legislators have not curbed consumption, manufac-
turing, or imports of unsustainable products with regulations
and taxes. Following from these institutional dependencies,
and as Eckhardt et al. suggest, it is believed that sharing may
curb economic growth. Although these notions have come
up in general qualitative inquiries, they deserve further
research, not only in the context of CC, to investigate their
quantitative impact on sustainable consumption behavior
(see also, Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, 2010 and
Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
CC has been regarded as a mode of consumption that
engages especially environmentally and ecologically con-
scious consumers. Our results also support the notion that
viewing CC as a sustainable activity can lead to an increase
in participation, but only if by taking this view we increase
positive attitudes towards CC. Our results, however, also
suggest that these aspirations might not translate strongly
into action. Expectations as to the diffusion of CC might
thus be deflated; it may actually be people seeking economic
benefits who in the end opportunistically adopt CC as one of
the modes of consumption. In a worst-case scenario, some
users in a sharing economy might be altruistic and share
their goods whereas other users may be mostly enjoying
benefits from others’ sharing. This situation might affect the
sustainability of CC services in general. Further studies
could investigate coordination mechanisms that would alle-
viate such problems in CC. See, for example, Ostrom (1990)
on managing shared resources.
On the other hand, our results also suggest that enjoy-
ment plays an essential role in attitude formation and use
intentions. Some people might take part in CC simply
because it is fun and provides a meaningful way to interact
with other members of the community.Therefore, even if the
particular motivations of individual participants vary from
mainly altruistic to strongly gain-seeking, the sharing
economy as a whole remains functional, provided that the
TABLE 4. Direct and mediated effects.
Direct effects
Total effects (direct
effect +mediated effect
via attitude)
Attitude Behavioral intention Behavioral intention
Attitude n/a 0.316*** 0.316***
Sustainability 0.591*** −0.066 0.121*
Enjoyment 0.421*** 0.451*** 0.583***
Reputation −0.047 0.108 0.093
Economic
benefits
−0.004 0.125* 0.124*
Note.*=p<.1, *** =p<.01.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015 9
DOI: 10.1002/asi
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2055
benefits for each participant outweigh possible costs
incurred through the imbalance of contributions. And, of
course, “economic gains” as defined in this study also trans-
late into saving money, which is an understandable motiva-
tor for many consumers such as those affected by the recent
financial crisis.
Norms diffuse in communities over time (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and, according to
Lindenberg (2001), when obligation to those norms is a
strong motivator for an individual, personal-gain seeking
will be minimized. Our results might suggest that in rela-
tively new CC services (see Table 1 for how long users had
been members of the Sharetribe service) perhaps not enough
time has elapsed for diffusion and establishment of norms
within the community. Also, ties between people within the
community may be too weak for norms to have a meaningful
effect.
Furthermore, as initially discussed in the context of
blood donation (Titmuss, 1970) and further theoretically
developed by Frey and Jegen (2001), the “crowding-out”
phenomenon might be at play within the sharing economy.
In this phenomenon, extrinsic motivations start over-
shadowing the initial intrinsic motivations. Although
people might have started participating in CC for intrinsic
reasons (e.g., because of perceived sustainability), the
motivations might have shifted toward extrinsic ones.
Similar phenomena have been discussed in the contexts of
recycling (De Young, 1988) and information sharing (Nov,
2007).
Two alternative approaches to preventing the crowding-
out effect and therefore preventing the economic benefits
becoming the dominant motivator can be conceived. We
can either increase the intrinsic motivations or curb the
extrinsic ones. In the context of this study two main intrin-
sic motivations were considered; the enjoyment of partici-
pating and internalized ideological reasons (sustainability).
As seen in the results, the enjoyment of participation was
the strongest determinant. Therefore, simply, attempting to
make participation more pleasurable, more communal, and
supportive for the ideological cause by promoting a posi-
tive buzz should prove to hinder the crowding-out effect via
enforcing the intrinsic motivations. The other approach
would attempt to impede extrinsic motivations taking hold
of those participating. A softer form of this approach might
include the employment of trust systems that enable par-
ticipants to formally signal to other users how equally they
share or consume. For instance, gamification, has been
used for both; increasing intrinsic motivations via attempt-
ing to make the interaction with the system more game-like
as well as for tracking participant behaviors (Hamari, 2013;
Hamari, Huotari, & Tolvanen, 2015). A popular example of
such a system would be “achievements” that monitor user
behavior and award badges in user profiles of differing
feats and predefined behaviors (Hamari & Eranti, 2011).
Simple trust systems have been employed in several
e-commerce websites such as eBay in the form of seller
feedback.
In sharing economy platforms different ideological and
communal tendencies, such as anti-establishment sentiment,
freedom of information, and in the case of CCs, especially
the greenness of the activity, are considered important inter-
nalized drives for behavior. If we observe for example the
culture around file sharing, we can immediately notice how
strong and prevalent the ideology is within the communities
that participate. “Pirates” have their own political parties,
they organize rallies, and generally celebrate their idea of
free information sharing. There are many channels and
mechanisms for participants to congregate and revel in the
community-binding ideological drive that potentially further
boosts the internalized motivations to participate in the file-
sharing activities. Following this reasoning, CCs also could
benefit from employing affordances for participants to
signal their norms and their compliance to those norms that
are commonly held within a CC community.
A stricter method could employ systems that would allo-
cate resources evenly (in contrast to merely monitoring the
sharing activities) with the aim of regulating free riding and
preventing excessive economic exploitation of CCs. This
could be achieved, for example, by regulating the ratio of
contributions and receivers of favors. (Some file-sharing
systems employ such mechanisms.) Although goods and
services shared in CCs are not of equal value, another
method would be to monitor the inbound and outbound
value (rather than absolute amount) of goods and services
from the individuals participating in the CC. However, in the
end all regulatory systems seem to partly defeat the original
ideas of sharing economies: freedom of exchange, altruism,
and communal trust. On the other hand, even though the
crowding-out effect is commonly considered as a negative
motivational phenomenon, strong utilitarian motivations
may also encourage people to liquidate their possessions and
therefore stimulate the activity within the sharing economy.
Therefore, pure utilitarian or economic motivations do not
necessarily have to be considered as solely negative aspects.
Perhaps users with differing motivations for participating
could coincide in CC platforms in mutually beneficial ways.
Further studies could longitudinally follow the shifts in
motivations for participating in the sharing economy.
The technological and economical developments around
sharing economies can also lead to interesting legal reper-
cussions. The maintaining organizations of some other
online peer-to-peer coordination hubs have ended up in legal
problems based on what individuals have exchanged
through the hub (e.g., Pirate Bay). Because in practice and
principle all sharing economy services, to varying degrees,
possess the trait of being autonomous and separated hubs
from their users, it is an interesting question to what extent
their operators should be held responsible for the goods
being exchanged through them. Legal troubles could loom
over any distribution and coordination of sharing, whether
the goods being shared are digital or physical (see e.g.,
Manner, Siniketo, & Polland, 2009; Radbod, 2010 for
Craigslist- and Pirate Bay-related cases). These aspects also
pose interesting further research questions.
10 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2056 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
In summary this study has the following implications
for the providers of CC platforms and services. The service
should be pleasurable to use because enjoyment is an
important motivator. The problem of free-riders can be
alleviated using trust systems or gamification, or even by
employing stricter resource allocation mechanisms that
enforce contribution and not just consumption. Such
systems have proven to be useful in other contexts (e.g.,
online shopping, Wikipedia, file sharing), and in light of
our study, CC platforms are no exception.
Furthermore, future studies should consider measuring
actual use, to investigate usage patterns more accurately.
Usage data from CC services could reveal whether consum-
ers indeed show different behavior patterns that match the
altruistic (sustainability) versus individualistic (economic
benefits) motivations considered in this article. Are some
users, in fact, mainly giving whereas others mainly receive?
Another important question has to do with practical issues in
designing CC systems so as to alleviate potential problems
of one-sided gain-seeking. Time banking (Seyfang, 2004) is
one such mechanism. Finally, understanding what types of
goods and services are particularly amenable to CC is
another important avenue for future work.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Albinsson, P.A., & Perera, B.Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st
century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of Con-
sumer Behaviour, 11(4), 303–315.
Alsever, J. (2013). The “mega trend” that swallowed Silicon Valley. CNN
Money. Retrieved from http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/10/03/the-
mega-trend-that-swallowed-silicon-valley/
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on
convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for
maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2),
155–173.
Anthony, D., Smith, S.W., & Williamson, T. (2009). Reputation and reli-
ability in collective goods the case of the online encyclopedia wikipedia.
Rationality and Society, 21(3), 283–306.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G.M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The
case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–
898.
Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own? The Annals of theAmeri-
can Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 126–140.
Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–
734.
Belk, R. (2014a). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. The Anthro-
pologist, 18(1), 7–23.
Belk, R. (2014b). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative
consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–
1600.
Bentler, P.M., & Chou, C.P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling.
Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral
intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrin-
sic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate.
MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.
Botsman, R. (2013). The Sharing Economy Lacks A Shared Definition.
Fast Company, November 21, 2013. Retrieved from http://www
.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-
definition
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Beyond Zipcar: Collaborative consump-
tion. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), p. 30.
Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the
factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4),
597–608.
Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A., & Whitwell, G.J. (2010). Why ethical
consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding
the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behav-
iour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1),
139–158.
Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural
equation modeling. In G.A. Macoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for
business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Chin, W.W., & Newsted, P.R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis
with small samples using partial least squares. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.),
Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–342). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T., & Day, A. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:
Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Davenport, T.H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: Managing what
your organization knows. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
De Young, R. (1988). Exploring the difference between recyclers and non-
recyclers: The role of information. Journal of Environmental Systems,
18(4), 341–351.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum.
Donath, J.S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M.
Smith & P. Kullock (Eds.) Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29–59).
London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
Eckhardt, G.M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T.M. (2010). Why don’t consumers
consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 426–436.
Ellison, N., & boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In W.
Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 151–172).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
EU Environment. (2013). New research indicates Sharing Economy is
gaining in importance. EU Environment Online Resource Efficiency
Platform, May 2013, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
resource_efficiency/news/up-to-date_news/31052013_en.htm
Fang, Y., & Neufeld, D. (2009). Understanding sustained participation in
Open Source software projects. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 25(4), 9–50.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Frey, B.S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding out theory. Journal of
Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589–611.
Galbreth, M.R., Ghosh, B., & Shor, M. (2012). Social sharing of informa-
tion goods: Implications for pricing and profits. Marketing Science,
31(4), 603–620.
Geron, T. (2013). Airbnb and the unstoppable rise of the share economy.
Forbes, Feb 13, Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/
01/23/airbnb-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/
Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a
viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in
hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.): Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming Homo economicus into Homo ludens: A
field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading
service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 236–
245.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015 11
DOI: 10.1002/asi
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2057
Hamari, J., & Eranti, V. (2011). Framework for Designing and Evaluating
Game Achievements. In Proceedings of Digra 2011 Conference: Think
Design Play, Hilversum, Netherlands, September 14–17, 2011.
Hamari, J., Huotari, K., & Tolvanen, J. (2015). Gamification and econom-
ics. In S.P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world:Approaches,
issues, applications (pp. 139–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hamari, J. & Koivisto, J. (2015). “Working out for likes”: An empirical
study on social influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human
Behavior, 50, 333–347.
Hars, A., & Ou, S. (2001). Working for Free?—Motivations of Participating
in Open Source Projects. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii Interna-
tional Conference on System Sciences.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Henning, V., & Sattler, H. (2007). Consumer file
sharing of motion pictures. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 1–18.
Hibbert, S., & Horne, S. (1996). Giving to charity: Questioning the donor
decision process. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(2), 4–13.
Huang, C.-Y. (2005). File sharing as a form of music consumption. Inter-
national Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(4), 37–55.
Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M., & Scullion, R. (2014). The messy social
lives of objects: Inter-personal borrowing and the ambiguity of
possession and ownership. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(2), 131–
139.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing knowl-
edge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation.
MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143.
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The
challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1),
59–68.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act
environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behav-
ior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.
Kozinets, R.V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing?: The strategic implications
of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal,
17(3), 252–264.
Lakhani, K.R., & Wolf, R. (2005). Why hackers do what they do: Under-
standing motivation and effort in free / Open Source software projects. In
J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, & K.R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives
on free and Open Source software (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Lamberton, C.P., & Rose, R.L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A
framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial
sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109–125.
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid
economy. New York: Penguin Press.
Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos, 54(2–3),
317–342.
Lin, K.Y., & Lu, H.P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An
empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161.
Luchs, M.G., Naylor, R.W., Rose, R.L., Catlin, J.R., Gau, R., & Kapitan, S.
(2011). Toward a sustainable marketplace: Expanding options and
benefits for consumers. Journal of Research for Consumers, 19(1),
1–12.
Manner, M., Siniketo, T., & Polland, U. (2009). The Pirate Bay ruling—
when the fun and games end. Entertainment Law Review, 20(6), 197–
205.
Metzgar, E., & Maruggi, A. (2009). Social media and the 2008 US presi-
dential election. Journal of New Communications Research, 4(1), 141–
165.
Molz, J.G. (2012). CouchSurfing and network hospitality: It’s not just about
the furniture. Hospitality & Society, 1(3), 215–225.
Nov, O. (2007). What motivates Wikipedians? Communications of the
ACM, 50(11), 60–64.
Nov, O., Naaman, M., & Ye, C. (2010). Analysis of participation in an
online photo-sharing community: A multidimensional perspective.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technol-
ogy: JASIST, 61(3), 555–566.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, O., Agrawal, M., & Rao, H.R. (2013). Community intelligence and
social media services: A rumor theoretic analysis of tweets during social
crises. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 407–426.
Oreg, S., & Nov, O. (2008). Exploring motivations for contributing to open
source initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2055–2073.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions
for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ozanne, L.K., & Ballantine, P.W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-
consumption? An examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 9(6), 485–498.
Parameswaran, M., & Whinston, A.B. (2007). Social computing: An over-
view. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
19(1), p. 37.
Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating
uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspec-
tive. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105–136.
Phipps, M., Ozanne, L., Luchs, M., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S., &
Catlin, J. (2013). Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable
consumption: A social cognitive framework. Journal of Business
Research, 66(8), 1227–1234.
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W.E., Luchs, M.G.,
Ozanne, L.K., & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Oppor-
tunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.
Radbod, S.T. (2010). Craigslist-A Case for Criminal Liability for Online
Service Providers. Berkeley Tech. LJ,25,597.
Raymond, E.R. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux
and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly & Associates.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta).
Roberts, J.A., Hann, I.-H., & Slaughter, S.A. (2006). Understanding the
motivations, participation, and performance of open source software
developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management
Science, 52(7), 984–999.
Rodrigues, R., & Druschel, P. (2010). Peer-to-peer systems. Communica-
tions of the ACM, 53(10), 72–82.
Rosen, D., Lafontaine, P.R., & Hendrickson, B. (2011). CouchSurfing:
Belonging and trust in a globally cooperative online social network. New
Media & Society, 13(6), 981–998.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facili-
tation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Sacks, D. (2011). The sharing economy. Fast Company 2011, April 11,
Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/155/the-sharing-
economy.html
Seyfang, G. (2004). Time banks: Rewarding community self-help in the
inner city? Community Development Journal, 39(1), 62–71.
Shang, R.-A., Chen, Y.-C., & Chen, P.-C. (2008). Ethical decisions about
sharing music files in the P2P environment. Journal of Business Ethics,
80(2), 349–365.
Stephen, A.T., & Toubia, O. (2010). Deriving value from social commerce
networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 215–228.
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J.G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase
incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to
sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434–446.
Suhonen, E., Lampinen, A., Cheshire, C., & Antin, J. (2011). Everyday
favors: A case study of a local online gift exchange system. In W.G.
Lutters, D.H. Sonnenwald, T. Gross, and M. Reddy (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 16th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp.
11–20). New York: ACM.
Titmuss, R. (1970). The gift relationship: From human blood to social
policy. New York: Pantheon Books.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information
systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Explor-
ing the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agri-
cultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194.
12 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2058 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Wang, C., & Zhang, P. (2012). The evolution of social commerce: The
people, management, technology, and information dimensions. Commu-
nications of the Association for Information Systems, 31(1), 105–127.
Wasko, M.M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: Why people partici-
pate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 9(2), 155–173.
Wasko, M.M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social
capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice.
MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.
Wattal, S., Schuff, D., Mandviwalla, M., & Williams, C.B. (2010). Web 2.0
and politics: The 2008 US presidential election and an e-politics research
agenda. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 669–688.
Wiertz, C., & de Ruyter, K. (2007). Beyond the call of duty: Why customers
contribute to firm-hosted commercial online communities. Organization
studies, 28(3), 347–376.
Yang, H.L., & Lai, C.Y. (2010). Motivations of Wikipedia content contribu-
tors. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1377–1383.
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., & Oates, C.J. (2010). Sustainable
consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products.
Sustainable Development, 18(1), 20–31.
Zentner, A. (2006). Measuring the effect of file sharing on music purchases.
Journal of Law and Economics, 49(1), 63–90.
Appendix A: Survey items and loadings
Item Statement Loading Adapted from
ATT1 All things considered, I find participating in collaborative consumption to be a wise move. 0.748 Ajzen (1991)
ATT2 All things considered, I think collaborative consumption is a positive thing. 0.836
ATT3 All things considered, I think participating in collaborative consumption is a good thing. 0.877
ATT4 Overall, sharing goods and services within a collaborative consumption community makes
sense.
0.813
ATT5 Collaborative consumption is a better mode of consumption than selling and buying
individually.
0.720
BI1 All things considered, I expect to continue collaborative consumption often in the future. 0.775 Bhattacherjee (2001)
BI2 I can see myself engaging in collaborative consumption more frequently in the future. 0.862
BI3 I can see myself increasing my collaborative consumption activities if possible. 0.847
BI4 It is likely that I will frequently participate in collaborative consumption communities in the
future.
0.882
ENJ1 I think collaborative consumption is enjoyable. 0.794 van der Heijden (2004)
ENJ2 I think collaborative consumption is exciting. 0.819
ENJ3 I think collaborative consumption is fun. 0.892
ENJ4 I think collaborative consumption is interesting. 0.784
ENJ5 I think collaborative consumption is pleasant. 0.870
EXTR1 I can save money if I participate in collaborative consumption. 0.770 Bock et al. (2005)
EXTR2 My participation in collaborative consumption benefits me financially. 0.790
EXTR3 My participation in collaborative consumption can improve my economic situation. 0.754
EXTR4 My participation in collaborative consumption saves me time. 0.641
REP1 Contributing to my collaborative consumption community improves my image within the
community.
0.865 Kankanhalli et al. (2005);
Wasko & Faraj (2005)
REP2 I gain recognition from contributing to my collaborative consumption community. 0.786
REP3 I would earn respect from others by sharing with other people in my collaborative consumption
community.
0.810
REP4 People in the community who contribute have more prestige than those who do not. 0.773
SUST1 Collaborative consumption helps save natural resources. 0.864 Constructed by the authors –
Please refer to this study.SUST2 Collaborative consumption is a sustainable mode of consumption. 0.746
SUST3 Collaborative consumption is ecological. 0.883
SUST4 Collaborative consumption is efficient in terms of using energy. 0.750
SUST5 Collaborative consumption is environmentally friendly. 0.796
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015 13
DOI: 10.1002/asi
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2016
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2059
