Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Assessing the impact of knowledge and perceived economic benefits on T

sustainable consumption through the sharing economy: A sociotechnical
approach
Amal Dabbousa, Abbas Tarhinib,
⁎

a
Saint-Joseph University, Lebanon
b
Lebanese American University, Lebanon, P.O Box: 13-5053 Chouran, Beirut, Lebanon

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Today's advanced technologies are promoting the rise of the sharing economy. This emerging trend has shaped
Sharing economy modern society and transformed the way businesses operate, encouraging better future growth. However, these
Knowledge benefits will materialize only if users engage in the sharing economy in a continuous or sustainable manner. This
Consumption sustainability study aims to depict the key factors that ensure the intention of sustainable consumption through the sharing
Perceived economic benefits
economy. Towards this end, a sociotechnical framework is adopted to analyze and assess the impact of
Sociotechnical approach
Mediation
knowledge and the perceived economic benefits on the intention toward sustainable consumption through
sharing, taking into consideration the mediating roles of trust and attitude. The structural equation modelling
technique is used to test the statistical significance of the relationships between the various constructs of the
proposed model. The results show that knowledge and technology have indirect and significant effects on the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption through trust. Furthermore, attitude mediates the relation be-
tween the social aspect and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption, and the perceived economic
benefits directly influence the intention to engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing economy.

Introduction longer period of time (Bhattacherjee, 2001). Sustainable use behavior,

Today, the sharing economy is becoming a timely and interesting
phenomenon where the need for individuals to grant each other access
to existing resources is increasing (Acquier et al., 2017); such a phe-
nomenon is leading to efficient use of the society's resources
(Ranjbari et al., 2018) and, thus, encourage moving towards a more
sustainable mode of consumption. Sustainable consumption minimizes
the impact on the environment, so that human needs can be met not
only in the present but also for future generations.
Engaging in the sharing economy presents numerous advantages;
particularly, the sharing economy represents an alternative social and
economic movement that helps to share unused resources with others to
decrease waste and will eventually leads to a higher level of common
interests in the society (Belk, 2007). However, significant economic,
and social gains can only materialize if the sharing economy is used in a
continuous or sustainable manner. The concept of sustainable or con-
tinuous use differs from first time usage, as it does not investigate the
initial use behavior; rather, it has a long-term focus and explores a
person's use behavior and interaction with a particular system for a
therefore, denotes the extension of the initial use and it represents a key
factor to investigate when assessing the benefits that the sharing
economy offers. Hence, it is crucial to depict and identify the factors
that ensure the intention to engage in sustainable consumption through
the sharing economy.
A sharing economy is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “an eco-
nomic system in which assets or services are shared between private
individuals, either free or for a fee, typically by means of the Internet”.
For the past decade, the sharing economy has been rising as a new trend
empowered by technology (Zhang et al., 2018; Munoz and
Cohen, 2017; Cheng, 2016; Belk, 2014; Botsman and Rogers, 2010;
Chen et al., 2008). One reason for this rapid growth of the sharing
economy is the online platforms that encourage the consumer-to-con-
sumer (C2C) sharing of resources, such as accommodation, transport,
products, and even food meals (Gawel et al., 2016). Sharing is re-
shaping the economic structure and transforming traditional industries
(Selloni, 2017). This new trend is moving the concept of ownership in
societies into an experience driven by the ability to share
(Frenken, 2017), where the currency used in this new trend is not only

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dabbous@usj.edu.lb (A. Dabbous), abbas.tarhini@lau.edu.lb (A. Tarhini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119775
Received 29 July 2019; Received in revised form 11 October 2019; Accepted 11 October 2019
0040-1625/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini
the payment but also the trust (Ertz et al., 2016).
In fact, the concept of sharing is not new, but it was heightened in
its new form after the 2008 economic crash that nurtured the lack of
trust in corporations (Heinrichs, 2013). Since that time, several socie-
ties witnessed the rapid growth of sharing economy platforms
(Schor and Attwood-Charles, 2017). In Europe, sharing facilitated
€27.9bn worth of transactions between 2015 and 2016, with an esti-
mated 191 m European citizens engaging in at least one transaction
(Hausemer et al., 2017). In 2015, the Chinese government declared the
sharing economy a national priority (Li, 2016) and expected that
sharing would comprise 10% of China's GDP by 2020 (Rinne, 2019). In
addition, a Pew Research Center study shows that 72% of Americans
believe that they will use the sharing economy in the coming two years
(Smith, 2016). Likewise, in the Middle East, the sharing economy is also
growing and the estimated spending of GCC consumers on sharing
economy platforms in year 2018 is $10.7 Billion (InfoGraphic, 2018;
Consultancy-me.com, 2018). Furthermore, it is estimated that by 2022
more sharing platforms will flourish and will segment the market with
innovation, leaving incumbents to respond (Dirgová et al., 2018).
Despite the mentioned facts, it is worth noting here that several
questions are still open related to the barriers to the sharing economy,
which are as follows: Are these barriers related to lack of trust in service
providers? A lack of a sharing culture? A lack of options in specific
area? Otherwise, are the barriers because of the poor quality of goods
and services? In their paper, Bohnet et al. (2010) conclude “in MENA
there is a lack of trust between communities”; would this situation
prevents consumers’ initiatives from becoming organized, which in turn
might obstruct the sharing of experiences and knowledge? Hence,
would the increased trust and the new technologies boost those in-
clusive sharing ideas?
The above discussion draws attention to the fact that the develop-
ment process of the sharing economy is yet not complete (Igbudu et al.,
2018), and the concept of sharing is still not mature. Several sharing
economy platforms are blamed for providing inaccurate information
(Dillahunt et al., 2016), breaking privacy policies (Fortes and
Paulo, 2016; Ertz et al., 2016), and being difficult to control because of
anonymity (Cox, 2017). These problems bring certain risks and affect
the consumers’ willingness to participate in the sharing economy.
Therefore, it is necessary to study the sharing economy in greater depth
and to consider the human elements of attitude and trust while studying
it, which will help to unravel the driving factors that boost the intention
to engage in sustainable or continuous consumption through sharing
and will have a major societal impact and will be of great importance to
consumers and policy makers.
As per the sharing economy definition, the core constructs of
sharing are individuals and internet based technical subsystems. Thus,
while studying the sharing economy, we need a fit between the tech-
nical subsystem and the social subsystem. Such a framework is best
grounded in the sociotechnical theory that was originally coined by
Emery and Trist in 1960 (Emery and Trist, 1960). The technical sub-
system comprises the devices, tools, applications and techniques
needed to transform inputs into outputs in a way that enhances sus-
tainable consumption and leverages the economic performance. The
social system comprises the individuals (at all levels) and the knowl-
edge, skills, attitudes, values and needs they bring to the work en-
vironment and the society at large. Drawing on such a sound theoretical
framework, the purpose of this research is to propose and test a holistic
and integrated sociotechnical model that heightens the effects of two
important factors, i.e., trust and attitude, on the intention to engage in
sustainable or continuous consumption through the sharing economy
model. The model introduces four criteria to leverage the sharing
economy, including the perceived economic benefit, knowledge, tech-
nology aspects, and social aspects. Our proposed model guides provi-
ders to build platforms that aid in sustainable consumption by using
resources effectively, strengthening social communities, providing
convenient services, reducing unemployment and enhancing the
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775
economic and environmental benefits. Today, although the bene-
ficiaries of the sharing economy are select groups in societies
(Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2018; Olson, 2012), there are openings to
provide guidance on how to extend these benefits to the whole popu-
lation (Dillahunt et al., 2016). With the aforementioned purpose in
mind, the study addresses the following questions:
■ What are the effects of knowledge, the perceived economic benefits,
technology and the social aspects on the intention to engage in
sustainable consumption through the sharing economy?
■ Is the relation between these variables and the intention to engage
in sustainable consumption mediated by trust?
■ Does attitude have a relevant mediating effect on the relationship
between these variables and the intention to engage in sustainable
consumption?
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: The previous
studies examining the sharing economy are presented in Section 2. The
theoretical frameworks underlying the proposed model and hypotheses
are then discussed. Next, the employed research methodology and the
data analysis results are described, followed by a discussion of the re-
sults. Finally, the study's conclusion, limitations as well as implications
and recommendations for future research and practice are presented.
2. Literature review
Today, there is a growing research field investigating the motiva-
tions and barriers that affect user's decision to participate in the sharing
economy. Some researchers studied the social factor (Botsman and
Rogers, 2010; Hamari et al., 2016) while others studied the environ-
mental factor (Wu and Zhi, 2016). Further, several researchers used
empirical methods to validate the significant impact of the economic
factor (Lee et al., 2018; Bucher and Fieseler, 2016; Hellwig and Mohl-
mann, 2015) towards sharing products (Moeller and Wittkowski, 2010),
cars (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012), and houses (Tussyadiah, 2015). In
addition, some of the literature investigated the relationship between
user participation in the sharing economy and the factors related to
cost, value and suitability (Belk, 2010; Bellotti et al., 2015;
Lamberton and Rose, 2012). However, it should be stressed that with all
this growing research, the factors that drive or hinder consumer par-
ticipation in the sharing economy are still open (Matzner et al., 2015).
Table 1 below presents a selection of the contributions from the lit-
erature related to our research.
It is clear from the literature that to date, the research has primarily
focused on the diverse motivations and concerns of individuals related
to participating in the sharing economy; however, and to the best of our
knowledge, the literature lacks an investigation of the factors that en-
sure the intention to engage in sustainable consumption through the
sharing economy, which is the main contribution of this work.
3. Theoretical framework and hypotheses
In this work, we adopt the following definition of the sharing
economy: “an economic system in which assets or services are shared
by means of the Internet between private individuals, either free or for
a fee, with the intention of making efficient use of society resources that
encourage moving towards a more sustainable mode of consumption”.
Sharing economy is an umbrella label for a category of business models
that strictly oppose the straightforward consumption of goods and
services as the “old economy” would suggest. Researchers adopted
different theories while studying “the sharing behavior”. Barnes and
Mattsson (2017) used the theory of reasoned action (TRA) to examine
the relationship between attitudes and sharing behavior.
Hamari et al. (2016) based their work on the self-determination theory
(Deci and Ryan, 1985), which posits that motivations can be dis-
tinguished by several dimensions, such as enjoyment, sustainability,
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini
Table 1
Summary of relevant studies on the sharing economy.
Literature
Lutz and Newlands (2018)
Benoit et al. (2017)
(Munoz and Cohen (2017)
Ozanne and Ballantine (2010)
Albinsson and Perera (2012)
Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012)
Lamberton and Rose (2012),
Mohlmann (2015)
Shaheen et al. (2012)
Balck and Cracau (2015)
Bellotti et al. (2015)
Hamari et al. (2016)
Matzner et al. (2015)
Tussyadiah (2015)
Belk (2014)
This study
Table 2
Relationships and hypothesis derived.
Relationships
Eco. Ben. → SC
Eco. Ben. → Trust
Eco. Ben. → Attitude
Knwldg. → SC
Knwldg. → Trust
Knwldg. → Attitude
Tech. fit → SC
Tech. fit → Trust
Tech. fit → Attitude
Info. Qual.→ SC
Info. Qual.→Trust
Info. Qual.→ Attitude
Social asp.→ SC
Social asp.→ Trust
Social asp.→ Attitude
Trust → SC
Attitude → SC
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775
Objectives – Findings Method Target group
Objective: To investigate consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: The case of Airbnb. Survey/ Users
Findings: Within a single platform, the variety between offerings can create distinct consumer Interview
segments based on both demographics and behavioral criteria.
Objectives: To identify the criteria to delineate collaborative consumption from related constructs and Interview Provider
provide an overview of possible research directions.
Findings: The research provides a broad perspective of the actors involved in collaborative
consumption and the issues relative to their involvement.
Objectives: To leverage a rigorous comparative method, fs/QCA, to assess the business models of 36 Interview Provider
firms in the sharing economy.
Findings: The analysis leveraged seven dimensions of sharing economy business models.
Objective: To study the hindering factors of sharing. Survey Users
Findings: There are four groups of consumers. Each group is affected by different factors, i.e.,
friendship, sense of belonging, sense of duty, anti-consumption, parental mediation, frugality,
materialism, and efficacy.
Objective: To investigate the drivers of participation in alternative consumption. Interview Users / Provider
Findings: ‘Sense of community’ is a driver and outcome of participation in the sharing economy.
Objective: To study six dimensions of sharing (anonymity, consumer involvement, temporality, type of Interview Users
accessed object, market mediation, and political consumerism).
Findings: Self-interest and increasing convenience are frequent motives for sharing.
Objective: To identify the drivers of the sharing economy. Survey User
Findings: Cost and usefulness factors, perceived risk of product inadequacy, and familiarity with
sharing are drivers of sharing. Trust and user similarity lead to a tendency to share.
Objective: To identify user adoption factors for sharing. Interview Provider /
Findings: Insurances and fear of sharing are factors that hinder the adoption of sharing. Provider
Objective: To identify the drivers of the sharing economy. Survey User
Findings: Cost, Rarity, Environment, Access, and No Ownership are drivers of sharing.
Objective: To investigate the motivation for the sharing economy. Interview User / Provider
Findings: Providers tend to stress idealistic motivations; users are strongly driven by value and
convenience.
Objective: To identify the drivers of the sharing economy. Survey User / Provider
Findings: Attitude is positively correlated with the intention to share with perceived sustainability and
enjoyment.
Objective: To identify the drivers of the sharing economy. Concept. User / Provider
Findings: Based on TAM, three types of beliefs are derived: Behavioral Beliefs, Normative Beliefs, and
Control Beliefs.
Objective: To explore the factors that affect sharing. Survey User
Findings: Sustainability, community and economic benefits, trust, and efficacy.
Objectives: To compare sharing and collaborative consumption. Survey User
Findings: Both are growing in popularity today.
Objective: To assess the impact of knowledge and perceived economic benefits on the intention to Survey User
engage in sustainable consumption using a sociotechnical framework.
Hypothesis derived
H1a. Economic benefit is positively related to the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H1b. Economic benefit will positively influence trust towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H1c. Economic benefit will positively influence the attitude towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H2a. Knowledge has a positive influence on the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H2b. Knowledge will positively influence trust towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H2c. Knowledge will positively influence the attitude towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H3a. Technology fit has a positive influence on the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H3b. Technology fit will positively influence trust towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H3c. Technology fit will positively influence the attitude towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H4a. The information quality has a positive influence on the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H4b. The information quality will positively influence trust towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H4c. The information quality will positively influence the attitude towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H5a. The social aspect is positively related to the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H5b. The social aspect will positively influence trust towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H5c. The social aspect will positively influence the attitude towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6: Trust positively influences the intention to engage in sustainable consumption..
H6a. Trust mediates the relationship between the economic benefit and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6b. Trust mediates the relationship between knowledge and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6c. Trust mediates the relationship between the technology fit and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6d. Trust mediates the relationship between the information quality and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6e. Trust mediates the relationship between the social aspect and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption
H7: Attitude positively influences the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7a. Attitude mediates the relationship between the economic benefit and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7b. Attitude mediates the relationship between knowledge and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7c. Attitude mediates the relationship between the technology fit and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7d. Attitude mediates the relationship between the information quality and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7e. Attitude mediates the positive relation between the social aspect and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
3
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini
economic benefits and reputation. In addition, other researchers based
their work on the trust theory (Xie Xuemei, 2016; Eyal, 2016) and
concluded that the product's characteristics and the owners’ char-
acteristics determine the user experience in the shared accommodation
model. Recent work by Liang et al. (2018) is based on the UTAUT
model and motivation theory and verified the mediating effect of the
sharing intention on the participant's behavior.
In this work, we use a sociotechnical framework that heightens the
effect of strengthened trust and attitude on the intention to engage in
sustainable consumption through the sharing economy. The socio-
technical theory (STT) was first initiated by Emery and Trist in 1960
(Baxter and Sommerville, 2011). STT states that technical and social
systems are interrelated. The technical subsystem comprises the tech-
nological devices, tools, applications and techniques used to perform
tasks. The social system comprises the individual, knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and values. Researchers used sociotechnical frameworks in
different fields (Pasmore, 2006; Emery, 1981; Leavitt, 1965;
Cherns, 1976; Eason, 1982; Mumford, 2006; Clegg, 2000;
Carayon, 2006; Hendrick, 2006). In the vast majority of the literature,
at its core, the sociotechnical research highlighted the idea that dif-
ferent environmental forces affect behavior (Pasmore, 2006), specifi-
cally, the social and the technical factors (Clegg, 2000). It should be
mentioned that several efforts were carried out to model the different
components of sociotechnical frameworks (Carayon, 2006), but none
considered the sociotechnical variables and the role of attitude and
trust on the intention to engage in sustainable consumption. Further, in
today's information age, the knowledge, technological, social and eco-
nomic aspects play a very important role in strengthening trust and
attitude to accomplish sustainable consumption through sharing
economy businesses, which, indeed, leads to the sustainability of future
growth (Schor and Attwood-Charles, 2017; Rinne, 2019;
CBN Editor, 2018). That said, the conceptual model of the study can be
depicted as follows (Fig. 1).
The previous literature shows that the economic driver will play an
important role for customers when deciding to use sharing economy
(Barnes and Mattson, 2016; Lamberton and Rose, 2012; Belk, 2010). In
addition, Eckhardt et al. (2010) found that economic rationalizations
are one of the three main causes that explain why people might not be
willing to consume sustainably. Lamberton and Rose (2012) showed
that sharing economy services are often considered economical. Parti-
cipating in the sharing economy has become an attractive alternative
for many consumers thanks to the cost reductions and economic ben-
efits realized (Henten and Windekilde, 2016). In addition, sharing
economy services could be offered at a lower cost compared to their
traditional counterparts (Lee et al., 2018) due to the general trend of
the decrease of customers’ wealth; thus, customer will prefer sharing
Fig. 1. Sharing economy for future growth - sociotechnical conceptual model.
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775
products rather than owing them (Rudmin, 2016). Some literature
found that economic factors could have both positive and negative ef-
fects on the sharing economy (Bock et al., 2005; Davenport and
Prusak, 1998; Kankanhalli et al., 2005), while other studies found that
the economic benefit is a clear driver for sharing (Tussyadiah, 2015;
Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012). Further research found that the economic
benefits are stronger motivators for sharing than attitude (Hamari et al.,
2016; Van de Glind, 2013; Luchs et al., 2011) and trust (Skalen et al.,
2015; Mohlmann, 2015). Hence, this study posits the following hy-
potheses:
Economic benefit
H1a. The economic benefit is positively related to the intention to
engage in sustainable consumption.
H1b. The economic benefit will positively influence trust towards
the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H1c. The economic benefit will positively influence the attitude
towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6a. Trust mediates the relationship between the economic benefit
and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7a. Attitude mediates the relationship between the economic
benefit and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
Knowledge is another key factor of sustainable sharing because it
drives the consumer to make the right decision with regard to partici-
pation (Lee et al., 2006; Warkentin et al., 2002). Wang et al. (2017)
argue that customer knowledge is positively associated with partici-
pation in sharing platforms and it further enhances trust in sharing. In
addition to Wang, other researchers indicate that a lack of trust would
be a barrier to participation (Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2018;
Botsman, and Rogers, 2010; Salam et al., 2005). In addition, knowledge
can lower the uncertainty level, which will increase trust (Doney et al.,
1998). On the other hand, different studies (Genfen et al., 2003;
McCole and Palmer, 2002) found only an indirect association of
knowledge with trust towards sharing. Further, the literature depicts
knowledge as a precondition to attitude (Stutzman and Green, 1982;
Bradley et al., 1999), and attitude is positively related to behavioral
intention (Lam et al., 2007), which paves the way for stating the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
Knowledge
H2a. Knowledge has a positive influence on the intention to engage
in sustainable consumption.
H2b. Knowledge will positively influence trust towards the
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini
intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H2c. Knowledge will positively influence attitude towards the in-
tention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6b. Trust mediates the relationship between knowledge and the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7b. Attitude mediates the relationship between knowledge and the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
The literature shows that a primary objective of the technology fit
research is to study how technology may serve in building trust among
peers (Malhotra and van Alstyne, 2014; Trang et al., 2015). Thus, the
technology fit research needs to examine the influence of strengthened
trust towards sharing behavior (Gutt and Herrmann, 2015).
Goodhue and Thompson (1995) have tested the relationship between
technology fit and utilization; where, utilization is viewed as the be-
havioral intention to participate (Yen et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010) in
sharing. In a study conducted by Lam et al. (2007), the results show that
attitude is positively related to behavioral intention, and technology fit
has an influence on the intention through attitude formation. Therefore,
we propose the following hypotheses:
Technology fit
H3a. The technology fit has a positive influence on the intention to
engage in sustainable consumption.
H3b. The technology fit will positively influence trust towards the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H3c. The technology fit will positively influence the attitude to-
wards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6c. Trust mediates the relationship between the technology fit and
the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7c. Attitude mediates the relationship between the technology fit
and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
The information quality refers to users’ assessment of the features of
the sharing economy platforms that meet their needs and reflect the
overall excellence of such platforms (Aladwani and Palvia, 2002).
Wang and Lai (2014) posit that information quality is positively asso-
ciated with system usage. Other researchers (Malhotra and van
Alstyne, 2014) even argue that the sustainability of sharing depends on
the quality of the information provided. The quality of such information
is bound to the sharing platforms (Delone and McLean, 2003). This
positive relationship between information quality and the activities of
online peers is set by several studies (Chen et al., 2015; Cheng and
Huang, 2013; Kuan et al., 2008). When consumers trust the sharing
platforms, they tend to participate more in sharing activities. Therefore,
this study hypothesizes the following:
Information quality
H4a. The information quality has a positive influence on the in-
tention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H4b. The information quality will positively influence trust towards
the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H4c. The information quality will positively influence the attitude
towards the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6d. Trust mediates the relationship between the information
quality and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7d. Attitude mediates the relationship between the information
quality and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
Several studies found the social aspect to be an influencing driver of
the sharing economy (Habibi et al., 2016; Ozanne and Ozanne, 2011;
Lee and Brudney, 2009; Kurz et al., 2007). Botsman and Capelin (2016)
highlighted different sharing economy industries known as community-
driven companies that focus on connecting people. A common feature
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775
of such sharing economy industries is that they offer opportunities to
establish sustainable social relationships and support economic growth
(Botsman, 2018). Such a sense of community would contribute less to
sharing initiatives if it is not strengthened by the consumer's attitude
towards sharing (Kruze et al., 2007). Further, Lee & Brudney found that
consumers with notable social commitment would participate in
sharing economy services if they trust that other people will also par-
ticipate. In summary, the social aspect is becoming the key factor in
sharing economy business models and it can be a means to tune the
attitude and trust towards sharing (Priporas et al., 2017;
Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2016). In light of the above, the following
hypotheses can be posited:
Social aspects
H5a. The social aspect is positively related to the intention to en-
gage in sustainable consumption.
H5b. The social aspect will positively influence trust towards the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H5c. The social aspect will positively influence the attitude towards
the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H6e. Trust mediates the relationship between the social aspect and
the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
H7e. Attitude mediates the positive relation between the social as-
pect and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
Trust is quite challenging to define. Mayer, Davis, and Schoolman
defined trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the ac-
tions of another party based on the expectation that the other will
perform a particular action important to the trustors, irrespective of the
trustors’ ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al.,
1995). The literature includes several studies that discuss the positive
role that trust plays in the sharing economy or peer-to-peer exchange
(Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2018; Dillahunt et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2017;
Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2016). In fact, trust in an anonymous re-
lationship is considered a key factor for success in the sharing economy
(Botsman and Rogers, 2010), and as mentioned earlier in a study by
Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2018), which finds that a lack of trust creates
barriers to participate in the sharing economy. Further, as the con-
sumption of sharing economy services increases, the rate of dependency
on other individuals will rise. This higher dependency generates a
greater concern regarding the liability of individuals and increases the
vulnerability to their misconduct; therefore, the need for trust becomes
crucial (Luhmann, 1979). A higher level of trust will enhance the
consumers’ perception towards the service providers and let them as-
sume that there is a higher probability for the service provider to fulfill
its transactional obligations, therefore increasing their purchase inten-
tions (Kim et al., 2009). Hong and Cho (2011) establish that consumer
behavior is highly determined by trust in the used platform. In addition,
different researchers (Malhotra and van Alstyne, 2014; Trang et al.,
2015) studied how technology may build trust among users in sharing
services. However, other works (Wang et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2006;
Warkentin et al., 2002) were more interested in studying the role of
knowledge in enhancing trust towards sharing. Therefore, we propose
the following hypothesis:
H6: Trust positively influences the intention to engage in sustain-
able consumption.
With respect to attitude, Ajzen (1991) considers attitude as a key
factor of participation. However, other researchers reveal that although
attitude is a key driver of consumer behavior, their desire for sustain-
able participation may not lead to action (Phipps et al., 2013, Bray
et al., 2011), simply because they are not aware of the benefits they can
obtain from such participation. Hence, in view of this, there is a need to
study whether attitude positively influences sharing economy services,
as proposed in the following hypothesis:
H7: Attitude positively influences the intention to engage in
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775

Fig. 2. Research conceptual model.

sustainable consumption. Table 3

To summarize, Fig. 2 below depicts the proposed research con- Sample demographic characteristics.
ceptual model and relationships, as well as the corresponding hy- Variable Name Values Frequencies %
potheses listed in Table 1.
Gender Male 116 54.2
Female 98 45.8
4. Research methodology Age Under 18 7 3.27
18 to 24 72 33.64
4.1. Data collection and sample characteristics 25 to 34 38 17.76
35 to 44 50 23.36
45 to 54 34 15.9
The objective of this study is to understand how different variables 55 to 64 11 5.14
and their interactions drive the intention to engage in sustainable 65 and above 2 0.93
consumption; as two of the key variables are knowledge and the in- Level of education Less than high school degree 6 2.8
tention to use again, the main concern was to ensure that the re- High school degree or equivalent 22 10.28
Some college but no degree 13 6.1
spondents had previous experience with the use of sharing economy Associate degree 2 0.93
services. Only responses from people who had previously participated Bachelor degree 71 33.17
in the sharing economy were used. Graduate degree 100 46.72
After a pilot test with 34 sharing economy users, data were collected
in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region through the ad-
ministration of an online survey. The sharing economy in the MENA Multiple items are used to assess each construct to ensure its reliability
region is expanding and the estimated spending of the Gulf cooperation and validity. Table 4 presents the adopted variables and the measure-
council (GCC) on sharing platforms reached over $10.7 billion, gen- ment items.
erating $1.7 billion in revenue for the platform providers of sharing
economy services (Consultancy-me.com, 2018). It is, therefore, a very
4.3. Measurement reliability and validity
interesting context to use when investigating the main drivers of the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption. The data analysis is
This study follows a two-step approach to structural equation
carried on 214 completed questionnaires. The sample's demographic
modelling (Hair et al., 2006). The first step is to use a confirmatory
characteristics are presented in Table 3. Just over half of the sample
factor analysis to test the reliability and validity of the constructs used
consisted of males (54.2%). The median age was 18 to 24, and the
in the measurement model. Moreover, the normality assumption for
majority of respondents were under 34 years old. The respondents were
each variable was checked. The second step consists of evaluating and
also well educated with approximately 80% holding either a bachelor's
testing the proposed structural model using a covariance based struc-
or a graduate degree. The profile of the respondents is considered sui-
tural equation modeling. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 20
table, particularly because a majority of the participants were raised in
and the IBM Amos 23 statistical packages.
an age of technological innovation and were able to use new technol-
Descriptive statistics for the measurement scales are presented in
ogies and to participate in the sharing economy.
Table 5. The means ranged from 2.16 to 3.45 and the standard devia-
tions varied from 0.9 to 1.52. The values for skewness and kurtosis are
4.2. Measures between −2 and +2 for all the items, which is considered acceptable to
show the normality of a univariate distribution (George and
All the constructs used in this study were developed using scales Mallery, 2010; Gravetter and Wallnau, 2014).
previously studied and validated, with some minor changes to fit the The results for the reliability, discriminant and convergent validity
context of this research. All items are measured using a seven-point of the constructs are shown in Tables 5 and 6. All standardized re-
Likert scale ranging from 1: strongly agree to 7: strongly disagree. gression weights were above 0.6 and significant at the 0.01 significance

6
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775

Table 4
Constructs and adopted items.
Constructs Items Description Sources

Knowledge KN1 I am familiar with the sharing economy. Wang et al. (2009)
KN2 I have sufficient knowledge of the sharing economy.
KN3 I understand the transaction model for the sharing economy.
Technological Aspect: Information Quality IQ1 The sharing economy produces the most current information. Hsu et al. (2012), Lee et al. (2018)
IQ2 The sharing economy provides me with all the information I
need.
IQ3 The sharing economy provides me with accurate information.
Technological Aspect: Technology Fit TF1 I generally use the sharing economy because it can increase Venkatesh et al. (2003)
the effectiveness of performing job tasks.
TF2 Participating in the sharing economy improves my decision
making.
TF3 Participating in the sharing economy improves my job
performance.
Social Aspect SA1 The sharing economy helps me maintain social relationships Hamari et al. (2016), Sung et al. (2018)
with others.
SA2 The sharing economy will make me feel connected with
others.
SA3 The sharing economy helps strengthen social relations with
others.
Economic Benefits EB1 I can save or earn money if I participate in the sharing Bock et al. (2005), Hamari et al. (2016) Kim et al. (2007),
economy. Lee et al. (2018)
EB2 My participation in the sharing economy can improve my
economic situation.
EB3 Participating in the sharing economy is cheaper than other
options available in the market.
Attitude AT1 I find participating in the sharing economy is a positive thing. Ajzen (1991)
AT2 I think participating in the sharing economy is a good thing.
AT3 Overall, participating in the sharing economy makes sense.
Trust TR1 The sharing economy is trustworthy. Kim et al. (2008), Chen et al. (2009), Mittendorf (2017)
TR2 The sharing economy delivers what it promises. Pavlou (2003), Fortes and Paulo (2016)
TR3 The sharing economy is reliable. Kim et al. (2008), Chen et al. (2009), Mittendorf (2017)
The intention to engage in sustainable SC1 I will make an effort to participate in the sharing economy Casaló et al. (2010), Kim et al. (2014)
consumption next time I have the opportunity.
SC2 I will participate in the sharing economy more often if Hamari et al. (2016), Sung et al. (2018)
possible.
SC3 I intend to participate in the sharing economy to meet my Hamari et al. (2016), Lee et al. (2018)
needs.

Table 5
Construct measurements.
Construct Item Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Standardized Estimate Cronbach's Alpha CR AVE

Economic Benefits EB1 2.1636 0.91743 0.995 1.225 0.743 0.745 0.766 0.526
EB2 2.2897 1.00243 1.170 1.962 0.818
EB3 2.5140 1.10368 0.969 1.203 0.601
Knowledge KN1 2.9112 1.52185 0.894 0.252 0.782 0.849 0.863 0.679
KN2 2.9393 1.37757 0.915 0.614 0.913
KN3 3.2991 1.52115 0.743 −0.126 0.769
Information Quality IQ1 3.2804 1.13249 0.488 −0.036 0.676 0.843 0.852 0.661
IQ2 3.4579 1.13651 0.483 0.126 0.911
IQ3 3.3037 1.14911 0.527 0.277 0.835
Technology Fit TF1 3.1168 1.36365 0.684 0.046 0.685 0.844 0.855 0.665
TF2 3.2570 1.35464 0.587 −0.300 0.891
TF3 3.3037 1.33085 0.573 0.054 0.855
Social Aspect SA1 2.8972 1.24798 0.665 0.049 0.869 0.907 0.909 0.770
SA2 2.8925 1.24193 0.725 0.007 0.911
SA3 2.7523 1.06121 0.747 0.394 0.851
Trust TR1 3.2757 1.13571 0.412 −0.395 0.760 0.863 0.866 0.684
TR2 3.1495 1.08168 0.575 −0.176 0.859
TR3 3.0607 1.04861 0.593 −0.108 0.858
Attitude AT1 2.4813 0.89187 0.337 −0.518 0.835 0.913 0.915 0.783
AT2 2.4860 0.92299 0.475 −0.317 0.911
AT3 2.3505 0.96101 0.721 0.522 0.907
Intention to engage in sustainable consumption SC1 2.6636 1.10010 0.955 1.340 0.908 0.888 0.893 0.736

7
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775

Table 6
Inter-construct correlation matrix.
Construct TF TR AT KN SA IQ SC EB

Technology Fit (TF) 0.815

Trust (TR) 0.625 0.827
Attitude (AT) 0.510 0.574 0.885
Knowledge (KN) 0.178 0.379 0.378 0.824
Social Aspect (SA) 0.628 0.453 0.472 0.145 0.877
Information Quality (QA) 0.582 0.561 0.467 0.371 0.491 0.813
Intention to engage in sustainable consumption (SC) 0.555 0.654 0.777 0.425 0.397 0.488 0.858
Economic Benefits (EB) 0.613 0.539 0.533 0.490 0.512 0.532 0.630 0.725

level, as indicated in Table 5. This study uses both the Cronbach's alpha
and composite reliability scores (CR) to test the internal consistency
and reliability of the constructs. For all items, the Cronbach's alpha and
composite reliability scores (CR) are adequate and satisfy the minimum
accepted requirement of 0.7 and above (Nunnally, 1978; Fornell and
Larcker, 1981), as indicated in Table 5.
The constructs’ validity is assessed by evaluating both the con-
vergent and discriminant validity. The results presented in Tables 5 and
6 reveal that the average variance extracted (AVE) values exceed the
threshold of 0.5 for all the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981),
which indicates that more than 50% of the variance in the items can be
explained by their respective constructs. Furthermore, in support of the
discriminant validity, and following the guidelines of Fornell and
Larcker (1981), the square root of the AVE for the construct should be
greater than its correlations with all other latent constructs. Table 6
presents the square root of the AVE extracted for each latent variable on
the diagonal and shows that these square roots are all superior to any
correlations between the latent constructs. These results indicate that
the scale has a satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity.
4.4. Model fit
Several fit indices are used to assess the adequacy of the proposed
structural model with mediation. The overall model fit was tested using
five common criteria, the chi-square/ degrees of freedom ration (χ2/
df), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual (SRMR), the Steiger-Lind Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) index and the Pclose statistic. The results are
reported in Table 7. Overall, these indicators demonstrate a good model
fit. All the values are within the acceptable range according to the
cutoff criteria of Hu and Bentler (1999). Furthermore, the model ex-
plains 39.8% and 49.4% of the variances of Attitude and Trust towards
the sharing economy, respectively. As for the sustainable consumption
of the sharing economy, the model explains 71.1% of its variance. The
hypothesized structural model is, therefore, considered appropriate for
this study.
4.5. Methodological details and model building
The maximum likelihood estimation technique is used to perform
the structural equation modeling using the Amos 23 statistical package.
This study adopted an incremental model-building technique to test the
proposed model hypotheses (Hair et al., 2010). This technique is
Table 7
Fit Indices for the structural model with mediation.
Measure Estimate structural model Threshold
χ2/DF 1.752 Between 1 and 3
CFI 0.951 >0.95
SRMR 0.060 <0.08
RMSEA 0.058 <0.06
Pclose 0.057 >0.05
Table 8
Sequential model comparison.
Model χ2 Df Δ χ2 Δ df P value Δ χ2
Model 1 249.835 120 – –
Model 2 v/s Model 1 392.5 224 142.665 104 0.007
suitable as it allows the replication of the previously established re-
search findings, which this study builds on to propose and test a more
developed model with two mediators. Model 1 will test the direct im-
pact of knowledge, economic benefits, social aspects and technology on
the main dependent variable, i.e., the intention to engage in sustainable
consumption through the sharing economy. Trust and attitude towards
the sharing economy are then added to the initial model to generate
model 2. Since model 2 contains multiple mediators, this study si-
multaneously tests the impacts of the mediating effects of trust and
attitude on the relations between the independent variables and the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing
economy. The main advantage of this simultaneous testing is that it
allows us to know if the mediation was independent of the influence of
the other mediator (Kenny et al.,1998). A comparison between the two
models is conducted to check if the addition of the 2 mediators en-
hanced the model fit, leading to higher fit indices and an increase in the
percentage of variance explained of the variable of interest, i.e., the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing
economy. The χ2 and degrees of freedom values were evaluated to
depict if the model fit improves after the addition of the mediators. As
reported in Table 8, model 2 enhances the overall model fit when
compared to model 1, with a significant difference between the two
models, indicating that the model with more paths better explains the
data. Furthermore, model 2 explains 71.1% of the variance of the in-
tention to engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing
economy, whereas model 1 explains only 46%. Finally, the Cohen's
effect size, which represents a good indicator in a hierarchical multiple
regression, is equal to 0.464. Therefore, the effect size due to the ad-
dition of the two mediators to the proposed conceptual model is con-
sidered a large effect. Hence, the simultaneous addition of trust and
attitude towards the sharing economy significantly improves the per-
centage of variance explained, generates a large size effect and en-
hances the model fit. The study therefore will focus on the results of
model 2 in the results section.
This study adopts the bootstrapping approach (5000 iterations) with
95% bias-corrected confidence intervals to test the mediating effects
and assess the indirect effects in the proposed model (Preacher and
Hayes, 2008). The bootstrapping approach is a nonparametric tech-
nique that directly tests the significance of the mediation effects.
Bootstrapping is recommended by researchers, as it is considered one of
the most powerful techniques for testing indirect effects without
making any assumptions about the shape of the sampling distribution
(MacKinnon et al., 2004). An indirect effect will be considered sig-
nificant if the 0 value is not included in the bootstrapped confidence
interval. Alternatively, if the p-value is less than 0.05, the null hy-
pothesis that the true indirect effect is zero is rejected at the 95% level

8
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775

Table 9
Hypothesis verification of the structural model with 2 mediators.
Relationships Hypothesis Estimate SE P value Hypothesis verification

Eco. Ben. (EB) → Intention to engage in SC Eco. Ben. (EB)→ Trust (TR) H1a 0.226* 0.111 0.013 Supported
Eco. Ben. (EB) → Attitude (AT) H1b 0.069 ns 0.116 0.530 Not Supported
Knwldg. (KN) → Intention to engage in SC H1c 0.168 ns 0.110 0.134 Not Supported
H2a
.032ns 0.056 0.626 Not Supported
Knwldg. (KN) → Trust (TR) H2b 0.195* 0.058 0.015 Supported
Knwldg.(KN) → Attitude (AT) H2c 0.197* 0.055 0.016 Supported
Tech. fit (TF) → Intention to engage in SC H3a
0.078ns 0.098 0.391 Not Supported
Tech. fit (TF) → Trust (TR) H3b 0.413*** 0.103 *** Supported
Tech. fit → Attitude H3c 0.200 ns 0.092 0.062 Not Supported
Info. Qual. (IQ) → Intention to engage in SC H4a −0.003ns 0.092 0.962 Not Supported
Info. Qual. (IQ) →Trust (TR) H4b 0.194* 0.099 0.027 Supported
Info. Qual. (IQ) → Attitude (AT) H4c 0.097 ns 0.092 0.266 Not Supported
Social asp. (SA)→ Intention to engage in SC H5a −0.125ns 0.064 0.071 Not Supported
Social asp. (SA)→ Trust (TR) H5b 0.035 ns 0.067 0.679 Not Supported
Social asp. (SA) → Attitude (AT) H5c
0.184* 0.064 0.033 Supported
Trust (TR) → Intention to engage in SC H6
0.221⁎⁎ 0.092 0.005 Supported
Attitude (AT) → Intention to engage in SC H7
0.538⁎⁎⁎ 0.090 ⁎⁎⁎
Supported

Notes: ns, not significant, ⁎⁎⁎

(p < 0.001), ⁎⁎
(p < 0.01), * (p < 0.05).

of significance. The non-standardized regression weights are reported a) EB → Intention to engage in SC.
in the results section. 2) Knowledge has a significant positive impact on trust towards the
sharing economy and indirectly enhances the intention to engage in
5. Results sustainable consumption through the sharing economy.
a) KN → TR → Intention to engage in SC, Hypothesis H6b will be
5.1. Hypothesis verification results tested for mediation.
3) The technology fit has a significant positive impact on trust towards
The results of the hypothesis testing are summarized in Table 9. The the sharing economy and exerts an indirect impact on the intention
results of the SEM analysis indicate that the perceived economic ben- to engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing economy.
efits only has a direct significant impact on the intention to engage in a) TF → TR → Intention to engage in SC, Hypothesis H6c will be
sustainable consumption through the sharing economy (β = 0.226, tested for mediation.
p < 0.05), so hypothesis H1a is supported. Economic benefits do not 4) The information quality has a significant positive impact on trust
affect attitude and trust towards the sharing economy; therefore, hy- towards the sharing economy and has an indirect effect on the in-
potheses H1b and H1c are not supported. Knowledge does affect trust tention to engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing
and the attitude towards the sharing economy positively (β = 0.195, economy.
p < 0.05; β = 0.197, p < 0.05, respectively); thus, hypotheses H2b and a) IQ → TR → Intention to engage in SC, Hypothesis H6d will be
H2c are supported. However, knowledge does not have a direct impact tested for mediation.
on the intention to engage in sustainable consumption through the 5) Knowledge has a significant positive impact on attitude towards the
sharing economy, so hypothesis H2a is rejected. Technology fit appears sharing economy and indirectly influences the intention to engage in
to only have a significant impact on trust (β = 0.413, p < 0.001); hy- sustainable consumption through the sharing economy.
pothesis H3b is supported while hypotheses H3a and H3c are not. a) KN → AT → Intention to engage in SC, Hypothesis H7b will be
Furthermore, results reveal that the information quality also positively tested for mediation.
affects trust towards the sharing economy (β = 0.194, p < 0.05), while 6) The social aspect has a significant positive impact on the attitude
it does not have an impact on attitude or the intention to engage in towards the sharing economy and indirectly affects the intention to
sustainable consumption, so hypothesis H4b is supported while hy- engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing economy.
potheses H4a and H4c are not. The social aspect has a positive sig- a) SA → AT → Intention to engage in the SC, Hypothesis H7e can be
nificant impact on attitude (β = 0.184, p < 0.05) but does not influ- tested for mediation.
ence trust or the intention to engage in sustainable consumption; thus, b) Hence, hypotheses H6a, H6e, H7a, H7c and H7d will not be
hypothesis H5c is supported while hypotheses H5a and H5b are re-
jected. Finally, both trust and attitude are shown to have a strong po- Table 10
sitive significant impact on the intention to engage in sustainable Bootstrap analysis and statistical significance of the indirect effects.
consumption through the sharing economy (β = 0.221, p < 0.01;
Path Hypothesis Estimate Lower Bounds Upper Bounds P value
β = 0.538, p < 0.001, respectively), so hypotheses H6 and H7 are
(BC) (BC)
supported.
The analysis of the above results reveals that overall 6 paths are SC TR KN H6b 0.036 0.008 0.097 0.025*
depicted, as follows: SC TR TF H6c 0.098 0.028 0.213 0.013*
SC TR IQ H6d 0.056 0.006 0.165 0.057 ns
SC AT KN H7b 0.089 0.005 0.190 0.083 ns
1) The Economic Benefit has a direct significant positive impact on the SC AT SA H7e 0.091 0.020 0.193 0.038*
intention to engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing
economy. Notes: ns, not significant, * (p < 0.05).

9
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini
investigated further for mediation analysis in the next section.
5.2. Mediation analysis results
Based on the previous section results, the role of trust as a mediator
between knowledge, technology fit, information quality and the in-
tention to engage in sustainable consumption is tested. Furthermore,
this section assesses whether the attitude toward the sharing economy
mediates the relation between knowledge, the social aspect and the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing
economy. The bootstrapping results for these specific indirect effects
are summarized in Table 10. As illustrated in Table 10, the impact of
knowledge and technology fit on the intention to engage in sustainable
consumption through the sharing economy is mediated by trust, so
hypotheses H6b and H6c are supported while hypothesis H6d is re-
jected. As for the information quality, trust does act as a mediator in the
relation between information quality and the intention to engage in
sustainable consumption. The relation between knowledge and the in-
tention to engage in sustainable consumption is not mediated by the
attitude towards the sharing economy, so hypothesis H7b is not sup-
ported. Furthermore, the mediating role of attitude towards the sharing
economy is confirmed in the relation between the social aspect and the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption, so hypothesis H7e is
supported.
Finally, the significant paths’ results of this study can be summar-
ized as follows:
1 Trust fully mediates the positive relation between knowledge, the
technology fit and the intention to engage in sustainable consump-
tion.
2 Attitude fully mediates the positive relation between the social as-
pect and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
3 The economic benefit only has a direct positive effect on the in-
tention to engage in sustainable consumption.
4 The information quality affects trust positively, while knowledge
has a positive influence on attitude; however no mediation exists
and the two variables do not exert a direct impact on the intention to
engage in sustainable consumption.
6. Results Discussion and theoretical and practical contributions
Drawing on the sociotechnical theory, this study develops a theo-
retical framework that aims to investigate the main factors that depict
the intention to engage in sustainable consumption behavior through
the sharing economy. The model introduces four variables to leverage
the sharing economy comprising the perceived economic benefit,
knowledge, technology aspects, and social aspects. In addition, it in-
vestigates the role of trust and attitude towards the sharing economy as
mediators. Understanding the drivers for the intention to engage in
sustainable consumption is of major importance to ensure the con-
tinuous use of the sharing economy and to realize the expected benefits
generated from the use of this channel.
The estimation results indicate that both the technical and the social
factors as well as the perceived economic benefits are essential to en-
sure the intention to engage in sustainable consumption through
sharing economy and establish the role of attitude and trust as media-
tors. These results offer several theoretical and practical contributions.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
This study presents several findings of potential interest for future
research on the intention to engage in sustainable consumption through
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775
the sharing economy within a sociotechnical framework.
First, to the best of the authors’ knowledge there is little empirical
evidence that considers both the social and the technical factors that
influence the intention to engage in sustainable consumption through
the sharing economy. Moreover, this is considered the first study that
provides a unified model that combines social and technical factors to
investigate the intention to engage in sustainable or continuous use
behavior while introducing trust and attitude towards the sharing
economy as mediators.
Second, the structural model results highlight the importance of
trust as a factor that affects the intention to engage in sustainable
consumption through the sharing economy directly and acts as a
mediator between two key drivers of the sharing economy, namely,
knowledge and technology, and the intention to engage in sustainable
consumption. This result is in line with previous research, which pro-
vides evidence that trust in sharing economy platforms affects the
customers’ intentions to participate in this service (Mittendorf, 2017)
and is essential when analyzing commercial relationships
(McKnight and Chervany, 2001), particularly those that might yield
uncertainty or risk (Hosmer, 1995). However, the mediation results
advance the prior work by showing that the positive impact of knowl-
edge and technology fit on the intention to engage in sustainable con-
sumption is fully mediated by trust and can only materialize when trust
in this channel increases.
Third, this mediation result offers an important contribution to the
current body of literature, which seeks to assess the impact of knowl-
edge and technology on the intention to use the sharing economy. In
fact, prior works showed that technology is considered a main driver for
the sharing economy (Bostman and Rogers, 2010; Owyang, 2013;
Demailly and Novel, 2014) and that knowledge is positively associated
with participation in sharing platforms (Wang et al., 2017) and drives
the sustainable behavior, as it enables the consumers to make the right
decision (Kim et al., 2014). However, this study established that both
the social enablers (knowledge) and the technical ones (i.e., technology
fit and information quality) are relevant factors that do not directly
affect the intention to engage in sustainable consumption through the
sharing economy, rather they have an indirect positive impact on this
intention through developing the users’ trust. Therefore, the need for
trust in the sharing economy becomes a crucial factor to consider when
investigating the drivers of the sharing economy, particularly that it
also acts as a mediator.
Fourth, this study establishes the link between the social aspect,
attitude and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption
through the sharing economy. The social aspect has a positive impact
on attitude, which mediates the relation between this factor and the
intention to engage in sustainable consumption. This result adds in-
sights in addressing the habitual impact that the social aspect has on
participating in the sharing economy by showing that it has only an
indirect positive effect that is fully mediated by the attitude towards the
sharing economy. Hence, this result advances the prior work by high-
lighting the fact that people for whom the sharing economy is con-
sidered a channel to strengthen their social relationships will not be
encouraged to continuously use this channel unless they develop a
positive attitude towards sharing.
Fifth, although several studies have shown that the perceived eco-
nomic benefit has a positive impact on the intention to participate in
the sharing economy (Tussyadiah, 2015; Henten and
Windekilde, 2016), this result is still controversial. Some literature
found that economic factors could have positive and negative effects on
the sharing economy (Bock et al., 2005; Davenport and Prusak, 1998;
Kankanhalli et al., 2005). This study contributes to the literature by
investigating the effect that the perceived economic impact exerts on
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini
the intention to engage in sustainable consumption and whether this
relation is mediated by attitude or trust. The results indicate that the
perceived economic benefit only has a direct positive effect on sus-
tainable consumption. This result is in line with Hamari et al. (2016),
who found that the expected gain of economic benefits did not have a
significant impact on the attitude towards collaborative consumption
(CC) but directly exerts a positive influence on the intention to parti-
cipate in CC. The fact that attitude and trust do not mediate the relation
between economic benefits and sustainable consumption is reasonable
because for a large number of consumers, the reduction in costs is a key
motivator for participating in the sharing economy. These results
highlight the existence of a discrepancy between the variables affecting
attitude and behavioral intentions; particularly, the economic benefits
are shown to be an important motivator to participate in the sharing
economy but are not influenced by attitudes or trust.
Seventh, the results indicate that the information quality has a po-
sitive impact on trust while knowledge influences attitude positively;
however, no mediation exists and the two factors do not exert a direct
impact on the intention to engage in sustainable consumption. These
results show that information quality and knowledge only have an in-
direct impact on the intention to engage in sustainable consumption
through the sharing economy. This influence is materialized through
the increase in trust and the formation of a positive attitude towards the
sharing economy. Thus, the results are not in line with the stem of
literature which posits that platforms that provide users with timely
and accurate information and a friendly user interface are more likely
to have a higher rate of platform use (Kuan et al., 2008) or with studies
which show that knowledge directly increases the participation in
sharing platforms (Wang et al., 2017).
Finally, the context of this study, which explores the intention to
engage in sustainable consumption through the sharing economy
within MENA countries, is of major importance, particularly showing
that trust is a major issue in this region. In addition, the participation in
the sharing economy in these countries is still at a nascent stage and has
not reached its full potential yet. Moreover, the context of this study is
considered important, particularly that the intention to engage in sus-
tainable consumption through the sharing economy within the MENA
region may not be fully explained by the theories and studies developed
in other regions or within different cultural environments.
6.2. Practical contributions
The study also offers relevant practical contributions. The research
results highlight the fact that the factors driving sustainable consump-
tion of the sharing economy not only depend on consumers but can also
be determined by service providers. Service providers have a better
chance to increases the sustainable consumption of their products and
the services exchanged through sharing economy platforms by means of
the measures described below.
One of the major findings of this study is that the intention to en-
gage in sustainable consumption through the sharing economy can be
influenced through the formation of trust. Fostering users’ trust can be
an effective strategy adopted by service providers to increase the par-
ticipation rate in the sharing economy and ensure the continuous use of
this channel. To influence trust formation, service providers should
focus on both the technical and social factors that affect the users’ trust.
Hence, they should attempt to increase the users’ intention to engage in
sustainable consumption by offering sufficient, accurate and reliable
information to enhance the consumers’ knowledge and by using tech-
nological aspects and innovations that aim to increase the technology
fit and improve the performance and efficiency of their transactions.
Moreover, to effectively increase the intention to engage in
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775
sustainable consumption through the sharing economy, service provi-
ders should emphasize the economic savings that consumers can realize
through the use of their platforms. In addition, they can build a rich set
of marketing stimuli to highlight the fact that sharing economy services
are offered at a lower cost compared to their traditional counterparts.
Furthermore, this study's results show that to ensure sustainable
consumption through the sharing economy, service providers will have
to establish cohesive communities of consumers. These communities
will strengthen the social relationships among the users of this channel
and will help to develop a positive attitude towards the sharing
economy, which, in turn, can lead to sustainable consumption.
7. Conclusion
As technological innovations and consumers’ needs and require-
ments continuously change, it is fundamental to understand and ex-
plore the essential factors that ensure sustainable consumption through
the sharing economy. The main purpose of this study is to investigate
how social and technical factors affect the intention to engage in sus-
tainable consumption through the sharing economy, taking the MENA
region as a case study. Although there is currently increasing interest in
the sharing economy, the research still lacks quantitative studies that
analyze the drivers of the intention to engage in sustainable con-
sumption through this channel. Towards this end, a sociotechnical
framework is adopted to assess the impacts of knowledge, technology,
the social aspect and the perceived economic benefits on the intention
to engage in sustainable consumption and to understand the mediating
role of trust and attitude. The hypothesized relationships were tested
using the structural equation modeling technique.
The results of this study reveal the importance of both the technical
and social factors as drivers of the intention to engage in sustainable
consumption through the sharing economy. The technological aspects
included in this study, namely, the information quality and technology
fit, were both found to have a significant positive impact on trust but
not on attitude. Furthermore, trust mediates the positive relation be-
tween two key drivers of the sharing economy, namely, knowledge and
technology fit, and the intention to engage in sustainable consumption.
Trust, therefore, appears to be a main driver of the intention to engage
in sustainable consumption behavior. Hence, the more consumers know
and the more enhanced the technological aspects offered by sharing
economy platforms, the higher their trust and their participation in the
sharing economy and the better their attitude towards this channel. As
for the social aspect, the results of this study indicate that people who
maintain and strengthen their social relationships through the use of
the sharing economy will develop a positive attitude and have a higher
probability of participating in this channel. In addition, the results of
this study reveal that the users with higher expected economic benefits
are more likely to engage in sustainable consumption behavior. Hence,
knowledgeable consumers that consider using sharing economy tech-
nology to fit their needs while expecting to realize economic benefits
and enhance their social relations will develop positive attitudes and a
higher trust level - which both lead to sustainable consumption.
Finally, this study provides relevant implications for research and
practice. On the research level, this study advances our understanding
of the main drivers of sustainable consumption through the sharing
economy and fill the gaps in this strand of the literature. This study
unifies several conceptual components within the sociotechnical fra-
mework and proposes a new conceptual model to explain sustainable
consumption behavior. This study is also considered one of the first
attempts to quantitatively explore the effects of knowledge, perceived
economic benefits, technology and social aspects on sustainable con-
sumption through the sharing economy and to provide empirical
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini
evidence on the mediating role played by attitude and trust. Therefore,
the proposed research model sets the ground for the elaboration of
more developed models that investigate sustainable consumption
through the sharing economy.
8. Limitations and further research venue
While this research presents several contributions, it might suffer
from some limitations. One of the limitations could be the sample
profile, as data were only collected from the MENA region, which limits
the possibility of generalizing the results to other regions. It is, there-
fore, recommended to replicate this study in different geographical
regions and cultural contexts to shed light on possible regional or cul-
tural differences that influence the sustainable consumption behavior
through the sharing economy. Furthermore, this research does not
study the sustainable consumption of a specific good or service ex-
changed through sharing economy platforms since its aim was first to
determine the main factors that drive the sustainable consumption
behavior in general. Understanding which types of goods and services
are exchanged through sharing economy platforms is particularly
driven by these factors and is an important avenue for future work.
References
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., Pinkse, J., 2017. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing
economy: an organizing framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125 (1), 1–10.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50
(2), 179–211.
Aladwani, A.M., Palvia, P.C., 2002. Developing and validating an instrument for mea-
suring userperceived web quality. Inf. Manage. 39 (6), 467–476.
Albinsson, P., Perera, B., 2012. Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: building
community through sharing events. J. Consum. Behav. 11 (4), 303–315.
Balck, B., & Cracau, D. (2015). Empirical analysis of customer motives in the share
economy: a cross-sectoral comparison. Working Paper 150002, Otto-von-Guericke
University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G.M., 2012. Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. J.
Consum. Res. 39 (1), 881–898.
Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J., 2016. Understanding current and future issues in collaborative
consumption: a four-stage Delphi study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 104,
200–211.
Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J., 2017. Understanding collaborative consumption: test of a
theoretical model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 118 (1), 281–292.
Bhattacherjee, A., 2001. Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-
confirmation model. MIS Quart. 25 (3), 351–370.
Baxter, G., Sommerville, I., 2011. Socio-technical systems: from design methods to sys-
tems engineering. Interact. Comput. 23 (1), 4–17.
Belk, R., 2007. Why not share rather than own? Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 611 (1),
126–140.
Belk, R., 2010. Sharing. J. Consum. Res. 36 (5), 715–734.
Belk, R., 2014. You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption
online. J. Bus. Res. 67 (8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001.
Bellotti, V., Ambard, A., Turner, D., Gossmann, C., Demkova, K., Carroll, J.M., 2015. A
muddle of models of motivation for using peer-to-peer economy systems. In:
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. ACM, pp. 1085–1094.
Benoit, S., Baker, T.L., Bolton, R.N., Gruber, T., Kandampully, J., 2017. A triadic fra-
mework for collaborative consumption (CC). motives, activities and resources &
capabilities of actors. J. Bus. Res. 79 (1), 219–227.
Bock, G.-.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-.G., Lee, J.-.N., 2005. Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quart. 29 (1), 87–111.
Bohnet, Iris, Herrmann, Benedikt, Al-Ississ, Mohamad, Robbett, Andrea, Al-Yahia, Khalid,
Zeckhauser, Richard, 2010. The elasticity of trust: how to promote trust in the Arab
Middle East and the United States. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP10-031.
Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2010. What's Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative
Consumption. HarperCollins, New York.
Botsman, R., Capelin, L., 2016. Airbnb: building a revolutionary travel company. Said
Business School Case. Said Business School. University of Oxford.
Bradley, J., Waliczek, T., Zajicek, J., 1999. Relationship between environmental knowl-
edge and environmental attitude of high school students. J. Environ. Educ. 30, 17–21.
Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., 2016. What's mine is yours (for a nominal fee)-exploring the
spectrum of utilitarian to altruistic motives for internet-mediated sharing. Comput.
Human. Behav. 62 (1), 316–326.
12
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775
Carayon, P., 2006. Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Appl. Ergon. 37,
525–535.
Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., 2010. Determinants of the intention to participate
in firm-hosted online travel communities and effects on consumer behavioral inten-
tions. Tourism Manage. 31, 898–911.
CBN Editor, 2018. Growth in China's Sharing Economy Tipped to Stay Above 30% until
2023. China Banking News http://www.chinabankingnews.com/2018/06/04/
growth-chinas-sharing-economy-tipped-stay-30-2023/.
Chen, J., Zhang, C., Xu, Y., 2009. The role of mutual trust in building members loyalty to
a C2C platform provider. Int. J. Electron. Commerce 14 (1), 147–171.
Chen, M.L., Wang, G.P., Deng, S.Y., Sun, Y., 2008. Comparative study on formative and
functional mechanism of initial and sustainable online trust. Sci. Res. Manage. 29 (5),
187–195.
Chen, X., Huang, Q., Davison, R.M., Hua, Z., 2015. What drives trust transfer? the
moderating roles of seller-specific and general institutional mechanisms. Int. J.
Electron. Commerce 20 (2), 261–289.
Cheng, H., Huang, S., 2013. Exploring antecedents and consequence of online group
buying intention: an extended perspective on theory of planned behaviour. Int. J. Inf.
Manage. 33 (1), 185–198.
Cheng, M., 2016. Sharing economy: a review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp.
Manage. 57, 60–70.
Cherns, A., 1976. The principles of sociotechnical design. Hum. Relat. 29 (1), 783–792.
Clegg, C.W., 2000. Sociotechnical principles for system design. Appl. Ergon. 31, 463–477.
Consultancy-me.com (2018). GCC sharing economy reaches $10 billion mark, but chal-
lenges remainhttps://www.consultancy-me.com/news/223/gcc-sharing-economy-
reaches-10b-mark-but-challenges-remain.
Cox, J., 2017. The sharing economy is failing for one simple reason – people can't be
trusted. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/uber-airbnb-sharing-
economy-people-cant-be-trusted-a7867301.html.
Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L., 1998. Working Knowledge: managing What Your
Organization Knows. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behaviour. Plenum, New York.
DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 2003. The delone and mclean model of information systems
success: a ten-year update. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 19 (4), 3–30.
Demailly, D., Novel, A.-.S. (2014). The sharing economy: make it sustainable, Studies
N°03/14, IDDRI, Paris, France, p.30.
Dillahunt, T., Lampinen, A., O'Neill, J., Terveen, L., Kendrick, C., 2016. Does the sharing
economy do any good? In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (CSCW ’16
Companion).
Dillahunt, T., Wang, X., Wheeler, E., Cheng, H., Hecht, B., Zhu, H., 2017. The sharing
economy in computing: a systematic literature review. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput.
Interact. 1, 1–26.
Dirgová, E., Janičková, J., Klencová, J, 2018. New trends in the labor market in the
context of shared economy. TEM J. 7 (4), 791–797. https://doi.org/10.18421/
TEM74-15.
Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., Mullen, M.R., 1998. Understanding the influence of national
culture on the development of trust. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23, 601–620.
Eason, K., 1982. The process of introducing information technology. Behav. Inf. Technol.
1 (2), 197–213.
Emery, F., 1981. Characteristics of Socio Technical Systems, in the Evolution of Socio-
Technical Systems: a Conceptual Framework and an Action Research Program,
E.Trist,Toronto. Ontario: Quality of Work Life Centre.
Emery, F., Trist, E., 1960. In: Churchman, C.W., Verhulst, M. (Eds.), Socio-Technical
Systems, in Management Sciences Models and Techniques 2. Pergamon Press,
London, pp. 83–97.
Ertz, M., Durif, F., Arcand, M., 2016. Collaborative consumption: conceptual snapshot at a
buzzword. J. Entrepreneurship Educ. 19 (2), 1–23.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J.Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Fortes, N., Paulo, R., 2016. Privacy concerns and online purchasing behaviour: towards
an integrated model. Eur. Res. Manage. Bus. Econ. 22 (3), 167–176.
Frenken, K., 2017. Political economies and environmental futures for the sharing
economy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical
and Engineering Sciences 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0367.
Gawel, A., Machur, W., Pennington, J., 2016. Understanding sharing economy (REF
021216). World Economic Forum http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_Understanding _the_Sharing_Economy_report_2016.pdf.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D., 2003. Trust and tam in online shopping: an in-
tegrated model. MIS Quarterly 27 (1), 51–90.
George, D., Mallery, M., 2010. SPSS For Windows Step By Step: A Simple Guide and
Reference, 17.0 Update (10a ed.). Pearson, Boston.
Goodhue, D., Thompson, R.L., 1995. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS
Q. 19 (2), 213–236.
Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gutt, D., Herrmann, P.K., 2015. Sharing means caring? hosts’ price reactions to rating
visibility. In: ECIS 2015 Proceedings.
Habibi, M.R., Kim, A., Laroche, M., 2016. From sharing to exchange: an extended fra-
mework of dual modes of collaborative nonownership consumption. J. Assoc.
Customer Res. 1 (2), 277–294.
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate Data
Analysis (Vol. 6). Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Wolfinbarger, M.F., Ortinau, D.J., & Bush, R.P. (2010). Essentials of marketing
researchMcGraw-Hill.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A., 2016. The sharing economy: why people participate
in collaborative consumption. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67 (9), 2047–2059.
Hausemer, P., Rzepecka, J., Dragulin, M., Vitiello, S., Rabuel, L., Nunu, M., Diaz, A.,
Emma, P., Fiorentini, S., Gysen, S., Meeusen, T., Quaschning, S., Dunne, A.,
Grinevich, V., Huber, F., & Baines, L. (2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in
online peer-to-peer platform markets. Eur. Commission Rep.https://ec.europa.eu/
info/sites/info /files/final_report_may_2017.pdf.
Heinrichs, H., 2013. Sharing economy: a potential new pathway to sustainability. Gaia 22
(4), 228–231.
Hendrick, H., 2006. Sociotechnical systems theory: the sociotechnical systems model of
work systems. International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors 3 CRC
Press ch.574.
Henten, A.H., Windekilde, I.M., 2016. Transaction costs and the sharing economy, info:
the journal of policy, regulation and strategy for telecommunications. Inf. Media 18
(1), 1–15.
Hong, I.B., Cho, H., 2011. The impact of consumer trust on attitudinal loyalty and pur-
chase intentions in B2C e-marketplaces: intermediary trust vs. seller trust. Int. J. Inf.
Manage. 31 (5), 469–479.
Hosmer, L.T., 1995. Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and phi-
losophical ethics. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20 (2), 379–403.
Hsu, C.-.L., Chang, K.-.C., Chen, M.-.C., 2012. The impact of website quality on customer
satisfaction and purchase intention: perceived playfulness and perceived flow as
mediators. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manage. 10 (4), 549–570.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure ana-
lysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1), 1–55.
Igbudu, N., Garanti, Z., Popoola, T., 2018. Enhancing bank loyalty through sustainable
banking practices: the mediating effect of corporate image. Sustainability 10 (11),
4050.
InfoGraphic. (2018). Sharing economy in middle east – statistics and trends [infographic].
Go-Gulf.https://www.go-gulf.com/blog/sharing-economy-middle-east/.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K.-.K., 2005. Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Q. 29 (1), 113–143.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D., Bolger, N., 1998. Data analysis in social psychology. In: Gilbert,
D., Fiske, S., Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill,
New York, pp. 233–265.
Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L., Rao, H.R., 2009. Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for
successful e-commerce relationships: a longitudinal exploration. Inf. Syst. Res. 20 (2),
237–257.
Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L., Rao, H.R., 2008. A trust-based consumer decision-making model in
electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decis.
Support Syst. 44 (2), 544–564.
Kim, H.-.W., Chan, H.C., Gupta, S., 2007. Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an
empirical investigation. Decis. Support Syst. 43 (1), 111–126.
Kim, Y., Yun, S., Lee, J., 2014. Can companies induce sustainable consumption? the
impact of knowledge and social embeddedness on airline sustainability programs in
the us. Sustainability 6 (6), 3338–3356.
Kuan, H.-.H., Bock, G.-.W., Vathanophas, V., 2008. Comparing the effects of website
quality on customer initial purchase and continued purchase at e-commerce websites.
Behav. Inf. Technol. 27 (1), 3–16.
Kurz, T., Linden, M., Sheehy, N., 2007. Attitudinal and community influences on parti-
cipation in new curbside recycling initiatives in northern ireland. Environmental
Behaviour 39, 367–391.
Lam, T., Cho, V., Qu, H., 2007. A study of hotel employee behavioral intentions towards
adoption of information technology. Int J Hosp Manag 26 (1), 49–65.
Lamberton, C.P., Rose, R.L., 2012. When is ours better than mine? a framework for un-
derstanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J Mark 76 (1),
109–125.
Leavitt, H. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry; structural, technological
and humanistic approached, in handbook of organizations, J. G. march, Chicago:
Rand McNally & Company, 1144–1170.
Lee, J., Gemba, K., Kodama, F., 2006. Analyzing the innovation process for environmental
performance improvement. Technol Forecast. Soc. Change 73, 290–301.
Lee, Y.J., Brudney, J.L., 2009. Rational volunteering: a benefit-cost approach. Int. J.
Sociol. Soc. Policy 29 (1), 512–530.
Lee, Z., Chan, T., Balaji, M., Chong, A., 2018. Why people participate in the sharing
economy: an empirical investigation of uber. Internet Res. 28 (3), 829–850.
Li, Y. (2016). Five catch phrases from China's ‘twin sessions’. In: 13th Five-Year Plan in
Focus, China Dialogue. https://chinadialogueproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/up-
loads/ content/file_en/9048/507.pdf.
Liang, X.B., Jin, Y., Jiang, J., 2018. Factors impacting consumers’ sharing behavior under
sharing economy: a UTAUT-based model. In: In Proceedings of the 18th International
Conference on Electronic Business. ICEB, Guilin, GXNU, December 2-6.
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. J. Res.
Consumers 19 (1), 1–12.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. John Wiley & Sons.
Lutz, C., Newlands, G., 2018. Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: the
case of airbnb. J Bus Res 88 (1), 187–196 pp.
13
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Williams, J., 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behav Res
39 (1), 99–128.
Malhotra, A., Van Alstyne, M., 2014. The dark side of the sharing economy and how to
lighten it. Commun ACM 57 (11), 24–27.
Matzner, M., Chasin, F., Todenhöfer, L., 2015. To share or not to share: towards under-
standing the antecedents of participation in it-enabled sharing services. ECIS.
Mayer, R., Davis, J., Schoorman, F., 1995. An integrative model of organization trust.
Acad. Manage. Rev. 20, 709–734.
McCole, P., Palmer, A., 2002. Transaction frequency and trust in internet buying beha-
viour. Irish Mark. Rev. 15 (2), 35–50.
McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L., 2001. What trust means in E-Commerce customer re-
lationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. Int. J. Electron. Commerce 6
(2), 35–59.
Mittendorf, C., 2017, January, January. The implications of trust in the sharing econ-
omy–an empirical analysis of uber. In: In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences..
Moeller, S., Wittkowski, K., 2010. The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring
renting. Manag. Serv. Qual. 20 (1), 176–191.
Mohlmann, M., 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the
likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consumer Behav. 14 (3),
193–207.
Mumford, E., 2006. The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes,
failures and potential. Inf. Syst. J. 16, 317–342.
Munoz, P., Cohen, B., 2017. Mapping out the sharing economy: a configurational ap-
proach to sharing business modelling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125 (1), 21–37.
Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Olson, K., 2012. National study quantifies the “Sharing economy” movement. Technical
Report. Mithun CampbellRetrieved on Jan. 28, 2019 from. http://www.prnewswire.
com/news-releases/national-study-quantifies-thesharing-economy-movement-
138949069.html.
Owyang, J. (2013). The collaborative economy. ALTIMETERhttp://www.slideshare.net/
Altimeter/the-collaborative-economy.
Ozanne, L., Ballantine, P., 2010. Sharing as a form of anti‐consumption? an examination
of toy library users. J. Consumer Behav. 9 (6), 485–498.
Pasmore, W., 2006. Action Research in the Workplace: the Socio-Technical Perspective, in
Handbook of Action research: concise paperback. In: Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (Eds.),
Sage Publications, London, pp. 38–48.
Pavlou, P., 2003. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk
with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commerce 7 (3), 101–134.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40 (3),
879–891.
Priporas, C.V., Stylos, N., Rahimi, R., Vedanthachari, L.N., 2017. Unraveling the diverse
nature of service quality in a sharing economy: a social exchange theory perspective
of airbnb accommodation. Int. J. Contemporary Hosp. Manage. 29, 2279–2301.
Ranjbari, M., Morales-Alonso, G., Carrasco-Gallego, R., 2018. Conceptualizing the sharing
economy through presenting a comprehensive framework. Sustainability 10 (7),
2336–2359.
Rinne, A. (2019). Four big trends for the sharing economy in 2019. World Economic
Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/sharing-economy.
Rudmin, F., 2016. The customer science of sharing: a discussant's observations. J. Assoc.
Customer Res. 1 (2), 198–209.
Salam, A., Iyer, L., Palvia, P., Singh, R., 2005. Trust in ECommerce. Commun. ACM 48
(2), 73–77.
Schor, J.B., Attwood-Charles, W., 2017. The sharing economy: labour, inequality and
sociability on for-profit platforms. Sociol. Compass 11 (8), e12493.
Selloni, D., 2017. New forms of economies: sharing economy, collaborative consumption,
peer-to-peer economy. CoDesign For Public-Interest Services. Springer International
Publishing, pp. 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53243-1_2.
Shaheen, S., Mallery, M., Kingsley, K., 2012. Personal vehicle sharing services in North
America. Res. Transp. Bus. Manage. 3 (1), 71–81.
Skalen, P., Pace, S., Cova, B., 2015. Firm-brand community value co-creation as align-
ment of practices. Eur. J. Mark. 49 (3/4), 596–620.
Smith, A. (2016). Shared, Collaborative and on Demand: the New Digital Economy.
Retrieved from:http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/05/19/the-new-digital-
economy/.
Stutzman, T., Green, S., 1982. Factors affecting energy consumption: two field tests of the
Fishbein-Ajzen model. J. Soc. Psychol. 117, 183–201.
Sun, E., McLachlan, R., Naaman, M., 2017. TAMIES: a study and model of adoption in P2P
resource sharing and indirect exchange systems. In: In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
(CSCW’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 2385–2396. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2998181.2998202.
Sung, E., Kim, H., Lee, D., 2018. Why do people consume and provide sharing economy
accommodation? —a sustainability perspective. Sustainability 10 (6), 2072.
Trang, S., Busse, S., Schmidt, J., Falk, T., Marrone, M., 2015. The danger of replacing
human interaction in IS-driven collaborative consumption services. In: ECIS 2015
Proceedings.
Tussyadiah, I., Pesonen, J., 2018. Drivers and barriers of peer-to-peer accommodation
stay - an exploratory study with American and finnish travellers. Current Issues
Tourism 21 (6), 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1141180.
A. Dabbous and A. Tarhini Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149 (2019) 119775

Tussyadiah, I.P., Pesonen, J., 2016. Impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation use on travel international conferences. Dr. Tarhini is actively involved in social and environmental
patterns. J. Travel Res. 55, 1022–1040. initiatives through his membership in several forums and associations, namely the
Tussyadiah, I.P., 2015. An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative Academic Youth Association-Abba, which he co-founded in the year 2000
consumption in travel. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism.
Springer, pp. 817–830.
Van de Glind, P., 2013. The consumer potential of collaborative consumption. Master's
Thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of informa-
tion technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 425–478.
Wang, C.C., Chen, C.A., Jiang, J.C., 2009. The impact of knowledge and trust on E-
Consumers' online shopping activities: an empirical study. JCP 4 (1), 11–18.
Wang, W., Lai, Y., 2014. Examining the adoption of kms in organizations from an in-
tegrated perspective of technology, individual, and organization. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 38 (1), 55–67.
Wu, X., Zhi, Q., 2016. Impact of shared economy on urban sustainability: from the per-
.
spective of social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Energy Procedia 104,
191–196.
Yen, D., Wu, C.S., Cheng, F.F., Huang, Y.W., 2010. Determinants of users’ intention to Amal Dabbous received her Ph.D. in Economics from Concordia University, Canada. She
adopt wireless technology: an empirical study by integrating TTF with TAM. Comput. has a solid academic background in Economics, Finance and Econometrics, in addition to
Hum. Behav. 26 (5), 906–915. practical research and teaching experience from teaching various courses for all levels
Zhang, C., Kolte, P., Kettinger, W.J., Yoo, S., 2018. Established companies' strategic re- (graduate and undergraduate) both in Canada and Lebanon. She is currently an Assistant
sponses to sharing economy threats. MIS Quart. Executive 17 (1). Professor at the faculty of Business Administration at Saint Joseph University (USJ) of
Zhou, T., Lu, Y., Wang, B., 2010. Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking Beirut. Her research interests are: financial economics, information and communication
user adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (4), 760–767. technology and organizational concepts and energy economics

Abbas A. Tarhini is the president of the MENA chapter of the Association for Information
Systems (MENA-AIS) and an honorable member of the Beta Gamma Sigma honor society.
Currently, he is the VP for research at the Lebanese Association for Information Systems
(AIS Lebanon chapter), and the treasurer at the Arab Computing Society (ACS), Lebanon
Chapter. Dr. Tarhini is a Faculty member at the Information Technology and Operations
Management Department at the Lebanese American University (LAU). He received his
bachelor and Masters of Science degrees in Computer Science from the Lebanese
American University, Lebanon and his PhD in Information Systems from University of
Reims, France. His research interests include applications of data mining and analytics,
deep learning, stochastic search algorithms, blockchain, IS/IT adoption and im-
plementation, and Web-enabling Software and Security. His research has been published .
in recognized peer reviewed journals. He is on the steering committees of a number of

14