Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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

Sharing economy versus collaborative consumption: What drives

consumers in the new forms of exchange?
Adriana Luri Minami, Carla Ramos *, Adriana Bruscato Bortoluzzo
Insper Institute of Education and Research, R. Quatá, 300, São Paulo, SP 04546-042, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Digital transformation led to the proliferation of new forms of exchange. This study aims, firstly, to put forward a
New forms of exchange parsimonious conceptualization for sharing economy (SE) and collaborative consumption (CC), concepts used
Sharing economy (SE) interchangeably in literature and practice; secondly, to understand why consumers participate in each and
Collaborative consumption (CC)
whether they have significantly different drivers. We applied structural equation modeling to test our conceptual
Consumer behavior intention
Structural equation modelling
model with 400 participants. A market research company collected the data in Brazil. The convenience sample
included respondents who had used one of the services at least once. Results show that SE is explained mostly by
intrinsic reasons, while CC is driven by the extrinsic factor economics and the intrinsic reason enjoyment.
Economic motivations are significantly stronger in CC than in SE, while convenience and environmental
orientation are predominant in SE. The study advances knowledge in the field, making important managerial
contributions revealing consumers’ priorities in each mode of exchange.

1. Introduction
While the concept of sharing has been around since the beginning of
mankind reflecting “nonreciprocal pro-social behavior” (Benkler, 2004,
p. 275), the digital transformation that took place with the rise of the
Internet and the Web 2.0 enabled the emergence of all new forms of
consumption that go beyond the traditional mode of ownership and
monetary exchange (Bagozzi, 1974), changing the consumer-product
relationship (Bucher, Fieseler & Lutz, 2016; Eckhardt, Houston, Jiang,
Lamberton, Rindfleisch, & Zervas, 2019). These alternatives entail ex­
changes associated with temporary access to goods instead of permanent
ownership (Kumar, Lahiri, & Dogan, 2018), with people opting for
access-based consumption by, for example, car sharing with Zipcar.com
instead of owning a car (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). “Collaborative con­
sumption” (CC) and “Sharing economy” (SE) are two of the most popular
new forms of consumption within the Web 2.0 context. Awareness and
participation in CC have been increasing year after year, and the “sharing
economy” SE is expected to grow from $15 billion in 2014 to $335 billion
in 2025 (PWC Report, 2019). For example, Airbnb had significant
impact on the hotel industry (Zervas, Proserpio, & Byers, 2017), and its
revenues had been forecasted to reach incredible $3 billion in 2020
(Gallagher, 2017). Firms need to recognize and embrace this trend,
implementing changes to adapt to this new reality (Matzler, Veider, &
Kathan, 2015).
Despite being relatively recent, several studies have been conducted
on these new forms of consumption in different sectors or markets
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Chen, 2009), and from different perspectives
(e.g., the social exchange perspective; Wang, Xiang, Yang, & Ma, 2019).
Recently, authors have discussed how these new forms of consumption
challenge the three key pillars of marketing, namely institutions, pro­
cesses and value creation logic, pointing to the need to conduct further
investigation on the topic and to adjust the traditional marketing
frameworks in order to fully understand this emerging phenomenon
(Eckhardt et al., 2019). Research on these new forms of consumption
based on peer-to-peer interaction is thus still giving its first steps,
requiring further attention from both academics and practitioners (e.g.,
Botsman, 2013), namely with regards to what drives customers to
participate in the new forms of exchange (e.g., Benoit, Baker, Bolton,
Gruber, & Kandampully, 2017).
Furthermore, given that the terms SE and CC are relatively new, a
misunderstanding of their meaning prevails in the literature, as well as
among consumers and service providers. The two concepts have been
used interchangeably under diverse nomenclatures, and the differences
between them have frequently been overlooked (for an exception, see
Belk 2014; Benoit et al., 2017). Moreover, as a result of being “socially
desirable” (Belk, 2014), the SE concept has rapidly spread out and is
often unsuitably “appropriated” by practitioners. From a commercial
perspective, this practice is highly beneficial to those who provide

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Adrianalm1@al.insper.edu.br (A. Luri Minami), Carlasdmr@insper.edu.br (C. Ramos), AdrianaB@insper.edu.br (A. Bruscato Bortoluzzo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.035
Received 28 February 2020; Received in revised form 15 January 2021; Accepted 19 January 2021
Available online 16 February 2021
0148-2963/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Luri Minami et al.
services under such banner (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Therefore, most
of the extant studies that investigate the reasons why consumers are
willing to participate in sharing or CC, have not considered the differ­
ences between the two modes of exchange. Additionally, such studies
have, in most cases, considered only one specific business (e.g., renting
of private accommodation - Airbnb). Recent research has identified for
this area of research the problems presented herein, and although
important steps have been taken to provide a clearer conceptualization
for SE and CC based modes of consumption and underlying motivations
for consumers’ participation, further investigation is required. For
example, while Benoit et al. (2017) suggested a relevant framework for
differentiating the different types of exchange, the focus relied on CC
and associated motivations, therefore not providing in-depth under­
standing for the remaining forms of exchange.
The aim of this study is twofold: firstly, drawing on the existing
literature, we establish a clear and comprehensive, yet parsimonious,
conceptualization for SE and for CC based modes of exchange; secondly
and most importantly, we theoretically derive a conceptual model on the
reasons why consumers are willing to participate in these two modes of
exchange. We investigate these two specific new forms of exchange
because they are the most popular and the most researched in this area
of literature (see Table 1) and yet, neither academics nor practitioners
have reached a consensual view on what they entail. We use a quanti­
tative approach and structural equation modelling to empirically test the
model and assess whether there are significant differences in the moti­
vations for participating in each form of consumption. Data was
collected from 400 consumers in a South American country where these
new forms of consumption are widely used by consumers and have been
growing. All respondents included in the research had, at some point,
participated in at least one of the two considered modes of exchange.
This study makes important theoretical and managerial contribu­
tions. From a theoretical perspective, building on SE and CC’s specific
and underlying predominant logics (Scaraboto, 2015), this contribution
endeavors for better understanding of the motives that shape con­
sumers’ beliefs and intention to participate in these two specific new
modes of exchange. Particularly, we add to the ongoing discussion of
new modes of exchange by offering a theory-driven conceptualization
for SE and CC, as well as a compared perspective of the reasons why
consumers participate in each consumption mode. We also propose a
motivational model of new modes of exchange rooted in self-
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and SE
and CC’s underlying predominant logics (Scaraboto, 2015), and recon­
cile our findings with the extant literature on new modes of exchange.
From a managerial perspective, considering that consumer behavior is
changing as these forms of exchange are growing all over the world
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Böcker & Meelen, 2017; Hamari, Sjöklint, &
Ukkonen, 2015), any business can be impacted by this new consumption
movement (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Thus, this research helps busi­
nesses and managers to better understand consumers’ motivations,
enabling the emergence of new business models. The study also provides
SE managers with information on how to more effectively differentiate
their offer from collaborative forms of exchange, and vice-versa. Man­
agers can thus develop more targeted service offers, as well as more
effective communication strategies.
2. Sharing economy and collaborative consumption
2.1. Conceptualization
Economic exchange and sharing have been performed since the
beginning of the humankind (Belk, 2014; Sundararajan, 2016). According
to economic theory, market exchange occurs with the trade of a com­
modity (using money or bartering), and the absence of feeling of reci­
procity or friendship between those involved in the exchange (Bagozzi,
1974; Belk, 2007, 2010). This is the logic underlying the traditional
buying and selling that takes place in the markets. On the opposite side of
125
Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137
market exchange in the exchange spectrum, there is sharing, a mode of
exchange that is related to trust and bond (Belk, 2010). Sharing can be
distinguished from other modes of consumption essentially for the
absence of profit drivers, as well as for the prevalence of a sense of com­
munity and generosity, prospect of reciprocity and underlying social
mechanisms (e.g., Belk, 2010; Benoit et al., 2017). As old as the market
exchange, sharing is known as “the most universal form of human eco­
nomic behavior” (Price, 1975, p. 3) and “has probably been the most basic
form of economic distribution in hominid society” (p. 12). As a concept,
sharing can be defined as “the act and process of distributing what is yours
to others for their use and also the act and process of receiving something
from someone for your own use” (Belk, 2007, p. 126).
For many centuries, society has carried out economic transactions
making mainly use of these two forms of exchange described above, i.e.,
with money or the swapping of goods for other goods through market
exchange, or the practice of sharing. And while the buying and market
exchange logic predominated in western developed countries with
customers increasingly looking for more luxurious goods (Sheth, Sethia,
& Srinivas, 2011), the 21st century consumers have been witnessing a
disruptive phenomenon with the increase of new forms of consumption
that allow access without ownership (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). This
new form of acquisition and consumption, characterized by people
preferring access over ownership, has become increasingly popular over
the last decade.
The term sharing has been popularized with the Internet, and the
Web 2.0 (i.e., “internet services based on user-generated content”; John,
2012, p. 167). As sharing has always depended on some form of network
(Botsman & Rogers, 2010), the recent boom of digital platforms that
resulted from the digital proliferation led to the creation of new ways of
sharing and redefinition, as well as dissemination of old ones (Belk,
2013). Moreover, there has been a significant rise of other modes of
consumption that reflect forms of lateral exchange market that are
characterized by “exchange activities among a network of equivalently
positioned economic actors” (Perren & Kozinets, 2018, p. 21), but which
are nevertheless different from the concept of sharing (Belk, 2013). A
large part of such businesses are in fact forms of pseudo-sharing, i.e.,
practices masqueraded as sharing but that are ruled by other mecha­
nisms, namely market mechanisms (Belk, 2014), namely: (i) long-term
renting and leasing; (ii) short-term rental; (iii) online websites
“sharing” your data, and (iv) online-facilitated barter economies. The
Web 2.0 originated a hybrid economy characterized by the coexistence
of different modes of exchange (Belk, Eckhardt, & Bardhi, 2019; Scar­
aboto 2015). Table 1 summarizes the main concepts in the exchange
spectrum used by previous authors regarding the different modes of
consumption, i.e., sharing economy, pseudo-sharing, collaborative
consumption and access-based consumption.
The concepts of SE and CC practices emerged under this Web 2.0
context. While these new forms of consumption present some com­
monalities, namely the adoption of temporary access non-ownership
models for using consumer goods and services and the dependence on
the Web 2.0 to make it happen (Belk, 2014), these modes of exchange
are driven by different dominant logics.
Belk (2013) makes a clear distinction between marketplace ex­
changes, gift-giving and sharing, but other authors, such as Botsman and
Rogers (2010), use all these concepts interchangeably, including CC and
SE. Noticing this semantic confusion taking place in the literature,
Benoit et al. (2017) proposed a theoretical framework using three
characteristics that distinguish different possible modes of exchange, i.
e., buying, renting, non-ownership/access-based services, CC and
sharing or co-owning. The proposed classification is based on the
following attributes: (1) the number and type of actors, (2) the nature of
the exchange, and (3) the directness of exchange. This work focuses on
CC, emphasizing the existence of the triadic exchange that takes place
between a platform provider, a peer service provider and a consumer,
the inexistence of ownership transfer and the market mediation mech­
anism that underlies this mode of consumption (Benoit et al., 2017).
 Table 1

A. Luri Minami et al.

Concepts of new modes of exchange.
Author Main subject Concept defined Definition Specific domain

Belk (2007) Impendiments and incentives to sharing. Sharing “Sharing as the act and process of distributing what is ours to others for their use as well as –
the act and process of receiving something from others for our use”.
Belk (2010) Distinction between sharing in and sharing out. Sharing Sharing in as the sharing within the family or circle of friends. –
Sharing out as the giving to others with clear boundaries separating self and others.
Bardhi & Eckhardt Nature of access in contrast to ownership and sharing. Access-based consumption “Transaction that may be market mediated in which no transfer of ownership takes place”. Zipcar
(2012)
Belk (2013) Similarities and differences between sharing and collaborative Sharing and collaborative Sharing reinforces concepts from Belk (2007) and Belk (2010) Transportation
consumption. consumption “Collaborative Consumption is people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a companies
resource for a fee or other compensation. This definition excludes sharing activities,
because there is no compensation involved”.
Botsman (2013) Concepts of sharing economy, peer economy, collaborative Sharing and collaborative Collaborative consumption is “an economic model based on sharing, swapping, trading, or –
consumption and collaborative economy. consumption renting products and services, enabling access over ownership”.
Sharing economy is “an economic model based on sharing underutilized assets from spaces
to skills to stuff for monetary or non-monetary benefits. It is currently largely talked about
in relation to P2P marketplaces but equal opportunity lies in the B2C models”.
Belk (2014) Concepts of sharing and pseudo-sharing. Sharing and pseudo-sharing Sharing - same concept as Belk (2007) and Belk (2010) –
Pseudo-sharing “is a business relationship masquerading as communal sharing. […] But it
is not sharing, despite promoters often employing a sharing vocabulary. Four types are
common”: (i) Long-term renting and leasing; (ii) Short-term rental; (iii) Online sites’
Sharing Your data; (iv) Online-facilitated barter economies.
Scaraboto (2015) Definition of hybrid economies emerging in collaborative Hybrid-economy Hybrid-economies are the coexistence of multiple modes of exchange, guided by the logics Geocaching
consumer-producer networks. of market-based exchange, sharing, gift-giving and others.
Hamari, Sjöklint & Motives to participate in collaborative consumption. Sharing and collaborative “Collaborative consumption is the peer-to-peer-based activity of obtatinig, giving or Sharetribe
Ukkonen (2015) consumption sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through communty-based online
services”.
“Sharing economy is an emerging economic-technological phenomenon […], growing
126

consumer awareness, proliferation of collaborative web communities as well as social

commerce/ sharing”.
Bucher, Fieseler & Motives for internet-mediated based forms of sharing and their Internet-mediated sharing Sharing reinforces concepts from Belk (2007), bu challenges the dichotomy between –
Lutz (2016) role in molding attitudes towards one’s owned items - supplier altruistically motivated (sharing) and the utilitarian motivated (pseudo-sharing)
perspective. distribution of possessions, showing that there is in fact a vast and complex array of
sharing motivations.
Böcker & Meelen Motives to participate in peer-to-peer economy and differences Sharing economy Sharing economy as “consumer granting each other temporary access to their under- Car, ride, lodging, tool
(2017) between different socio-demographics groups. utilized physical assets (”idle capacity“), possibly for money”. and meal sharing
Torrent-Sellens Motives to participate in collaborative behavior. Collaborative behavior and Collaborative consumption as “the new form of mass sharing between and among people, –
(2019) the sharing economy principally through peer-to-peer (P2P) digital platforms”.
Benoit et al. Concepts of collaborative consumption and other modes of Sharing and collaborative Sharing an exchange between two or more individuals, with no ownership transfer, but –
(2017) consumption and framework of role of three players (platform consumption usually with a shared ownership. No mediation through market, but by social
provider, peer service provider and customer). mechanisms.
Collaborative consumption as a a triadic exchange among a platform provider, peer
service provider and the customer. There is no transfer of ownership, but an usage for an

Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137

agreed (short) time of an underutilized asset. It is mediated through market mechanisms.
Eckhardt et al. Sharing economy’s impact on marketing traditional beliefs and Sharing economy Sharing economy as a “technologically enabled socioeconomic system with five key –
(2019) practices, by challenging three of its key foundations: characteristics (i.e., temporary access, transfer of economic value, platform mediation,
institutions, processes and value creation. expanded consumer role and crowd-sourced supply”.
Wang et al. (2019) Motives to participate in the sharing economy in the specific Sharing economy and Sustainable consumption behaviors are “customer voluntary behaviors that support P2P accomodation
context of customer sustainable consumption. sustainable consumption sustainability with the recognition of environmental and societal influences during -Xiaozhu
behaviors consumption”; Sharing economy as peer-to-peer interactions, fee-based for customer with
the aim of allowing to maximize under-utilized goods.
Dellaert (2019) Emergence of consumer co-production networks and firm’s Sharing economy and Sharing economy as new consumer co-production activities. –
function in providing support to consumers in their co- consumer co-production
production journey.

Source: The authors.

A. Luri Minami et al.
Our research focuses on two of these modes of consumption, namely
SE and CC and our discussion will therefore be around these from this
point onwards. While Benoit et al.’s (2017) work makes a key contri­
bution to the field and to the conceptualization of different forms of
consumption, firstly, we argue that the proposed classification would
benefit from the addition of a fourth attribute – i.e., the existence and
form of compensation. From the literature review we understand that in
SE no monetary compensation takes place in the exchange of goods and
services (Belk, 2007); on the other hand, in CC, there is monetary
compensation (Benoit et al., 2017).
Secondly, we argue that Benoit et al.’s (2017) conceptualization of
SE can be adjusted to better reflect today’s reality, and to be more in­
clusive. To begin with, the authors’ suggested definition does not fully
consider the impact that the digital revolution also had on this mode of
consumption. We contend that the expansion of digital technology
resulted in two changes to the traditional format of SE: a) besides in­
dividuals, SE based businesses can now involve digital platforms and
platform providers but, differently from CC, those are not-for-profit; and
b) sharing can now take place on a global scale, not being confined to
individuals’ neighborhoods. Moreover, there are SE situations where
there actually is the transfer of ownership of goods, but in the form of
giving. While SE is often used as an “umbrella” concept that includes the
multitude of new non-ownership forms of consumption and exchange
that emerged with the recent advances in the technology/digital arena
(Sundararajan, 2016), in line with the notion of sharing defined by
Benoit et al. (2017) and Belk (2010, 2014), we argue that this should not
be the case as it can be misleading.
Therefore, drawing on Benoit et al.’s (2017) suggested conceptuali­
zation for CC, SE, and buying, and considering the discussion presented
above, we put forward the following definitions for these forms of
consumption:
Sharing economy consists of the practice of using and sharing prod­
ucts or services between two or more individuals with the support of the
Web 2.0, and that does not involve any form of material compensation.
Usually there is no transfer of ownership, unless it is in the form of
giving. The exchange typically takes place locally, between members of
a community, but as a result of technology, it can also occur between
individuals in different neighborhoods or even countries. Sharing is not
mediated through market mechanisms, but instead through social
mechanisms. The exchange can take place directly between individuals
– exchange involving two or more individuals (e.g., friends sharing
clothes) - or through a not-for-profit online platform (e.g., FreeCycle.
org1, Couchsurfing.org2, Bliive3, and Tem Açúcar? 4).
Collaborative consumption consists of the practice of using and sharing
products or services with the support of the Web 2.0 and between a
platform provider, a peer service provider and a customer (user) - triadic
exchange -, in exchange for monetary compensation. There is no transfer
of ownership, and the exchange can take place locally in the community
or neighborhood where the involved peers live or work (e.g., Uber5), or
1
FreeCycle.org is a nonprofit global movement of people who are giving (and
getting) things for free in their own cities and neighborhoods. The main aim is
to allow for re-usage of goods and avoiding waste of goods that are still in good
conditions. There is no charge for the membership and the moderation of each
local group is carried out by volunteers from that region.
2
Couchsurfing is an online hospitality service network where members
arrange homestays all over the world, free of charge. Peer consumers make
their “couch” available to other, and in return, they get to use their peers’
“couches”.
3
Bliive is a platform where members share and request experiences, using
time as currency. Consumers can exchange any services, skills, knowledge, or
experiences in a given community.
4
Tem Açúcar is an online platform used for lending and borrowing items
from neighbors.
5
Uber is an online platform-based company that offers multiple services,
including peer-to-peer ridesharing.
127
Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137
globally (e.g., Airbnb6). CC is mediated through market mechanisms.
Buying or marketplace exchange consists of the traditional mode of
transaction and consumption that exists in the market. It takes place
between a provider and a customer, with the transfer of ownership of a
new product or the use of a service for a monetary compensation. The
exchange is always mediated through market mechanisms. Traditional
hotels and restaurants are examples of businesses characterized as
buying.
If we consider a continuum of exchange, CC is between sharing and
marketplace exchange. Table 2 summarizes the definitions put forward
above for each mode of exchange.
2.2. Predominant logics and core motivations
Possession as the representation of consumer desire, is a notion that
has been challenged over the last decade. What researches have been
finding is that access can establish other modes of relationship with
objects, thus reducing the need of ownership (Chen, 2009), and
changing the former wisdom that “You are what you own” to “You are
what you can access and share” (Belk, 2013). This can be better un­
derstood as consumers are now opting for paying for a temporary
experience instead of buying or owning things (Bardhi & Eckhardt,
2012). The new forms of consumption challenge the three key pillars of
marketing: institutions, processes and value creation logic (Eckhardt
et al., 2019). Consumers become involved in new co-production activ­
ities by producing value for other consumers; firms need to reconsider
their role in the value creation process, and define new marketing ac­
tions that can create value for such value co-creating consumers (Del­
laert, 2019).
Previous studies have been carried out to describe the predominant
logic – fundamental and recognizable principles (Scaraboto, 2015) -
underlying the types of exchange described as sharing, collaborative and
market exchange. Below, we highlight the main aspects of the pre­
dominant logics for each form of exchange (consolidated view described
in Table 3).
There is a clear difference between the core logics of SE, CC and
market exchange. While in SE one is expected to find altruism, gener­
osity, personality and love and caring between parties as participants’
main attitudes (Belk, 2007; Lamberton & Rose, 2012; Scaraboto, 2015),
in the traditional market exchange mode (Bagozzi, 1974), consumers’
attitudes are characterized by egoism, stinginess, impersonality, and
independence between parties and rationalization of profits (Belk, 2007;
Scaraboto, 2015). The concept of SE has thus been described as para­
doxical, because “’sharing’ implies a moral economy of ‘sharing in’ with
a small community of close others […] while ‘economy’ implies a
market economy where access-based consumption takes place within a
potentially large community of distant other […]” (Belk et al., 2019, p.
1). In CC, on the other hand, traditionally there is interdependence be­
tween the involved parties and an object-self relationship (Lamberton &
Rose, 2012; Scaraboto, 2015). Mutualism is nevertheless a congruent
principle between CC and SE (Scaraboto, 2015), as mutual benefit is
expected to result from the interaction between the parties involved in
both forms of exchange. The predominant logics underlying each mode
of exchange helps us to understand the possible motivation for users to
participate in SE and in CC, which is the core subject of this study.
3. Conceptual model
3.1. Motivation and consumption
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci,
6
Airbnb is an online platform-based company that offers peer-to-peer hos­
pitality services. Consumers lease or rent short-term lodging from peer con­
sumers through the platform.
A. Luri Minami et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137

Table 2
Conceptualization of modes of consumption.
Modes of Attributes
Consumption
Number and nature of actors Transfer of Mechanism Type of Examples
ownership mediation compensation

Sharing Economy Dyadic, triadic or more: two or more individuals (family and Possible Social Non-monetary FreeCycle.org
friends), and possibly a not-for-profit platform provider mechanisms Tem Açúcar?
Bliive
Friends exchanging
clothes
Collaborative Triadic: for-profit platform provider, peer service provider and a No Market Monetary Airbnb
consumption customer (user) mechanisms Uber
Marketplace Dyadic: provider and customer Yes Market Monetary Hotels
exchange mechanisms Restaurants

Source: The authors, based on Benoit et al. (2017).

2000) has been the most frequently used motivation theory in SE and CC
motivation-related research over the last decade (Bellotti, Ambard,
Turner, Gossmann, Demkova, & Carroll, 2015; Böcker & Meelen, 2017;
Grant, 2008; Hamari et al., 2015). Given SDT’s wide acceptance in the
field, and the motivation-driven nature of our research, we found SDT to
be appropriate theoretical lens to conduct this research. According to
this theory, motivation can be driven by intrinsic values - one finds
fulfillment in the activity itself - and by extrinsic motivation - one re­
sponds to external pressure, such as punishments and rewards (mainly
monetary). SDT can be understood by thinking about a spectrum where
“on the left most extreme is complete lack of motivation. The center of
the spectrum represents increasing degrees of internalization of and
identification with external values” (Bellotti et al., 2015, p. 1086). On
the rightmost extreme side of the spectrum, there is the intrinsic moti­
vation that can be distinguished between the enjoyment coming from
the activity itself, and the value from acting conforming the norms
(Lindemberg, 2001). Table 4 presents an illustration and summary of
key studies conducted in the field with the aim of identifying the pre­
viously identified extrinsic and intrinsic motivations for consumers’
participation in SE and CC.
As a result of the misconception that predominates in the literature
regarding both forms of consumption, most existing research that
studies the motivation-related aspects does not differentiate between the
two forms of consumption. We argue that as a result of the features and
predominant logic underpinning each consumption mode, the reasons
that drive consumers’ willingness to participate or the actual partici­
pation in SE or CC modes show different degrees of relevance or
importance.
3.2. Hypotheses development
Fig. 1 presents our research model regarding the different degrees of
relevance in the motivations that lead consumers to participate in SE and
CC. The model includes extrinsic (economic, trend orientation, conve­
nience) and intrinsic motivations (enjoyment, social and community,
and environmental). The literature points to other factors that may
impact consumers intention to participate in new modes of exchange,
namely sociodemographic ones (Hellwig, Morhart, Girardin, & Hauser,
2015; Torrent-Sellens, 2019). We therefore include age, gender and
education in the conceptual model as control variables.
As part of the extrinsic motivations previously found in the literature
with SDT, economic or utilitarian value is identified as one of the main
reasons why people participate in the new modes of exchange (Albins­
son & Perera, 2012; Böcker & Meelen, 2017; Hamari et al., 2015;
Lamberton & Rose, 2012). Economic motivation is associated with the
idea of utilitarian value (Wang, Baker, Wagner, & Wakefield, 2007),
reflecting the assessment of the product or service in what concerns their
underlying benefits and costs. Consumers looking for utilitarian value
focus on “making purchases in an efficient and timely manner to achieve
their goals with a minimum of irritation” (Wang et al., 2007, p. 146).
Economic benefits, costs or money savings are therefore core drivers for
participation in CC (Hamari et al., 2015), as well as in SE (Bellotti et al.,
2015). Moreover, CC can be a source of income (Benoit et al., 2017).
Drawing on the predominant logics of the different types of ex­
change, we posit that although economic motivation is expected to
explain participation intention in both CC and SE, the impact is expected
to be stronger in CC than in the latter. CC is characterized by object-self
relationships (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012), which reflect the similarity
between this form of consumption and market exchange, in the sense
that consumers are mostly looking for utilitarianism and self-interest.
Furthermore, in collaborative collaboration, there is strong interde­
pendence between the participants that engage in economic activities to
allow for value creation (Scaraboto, 2015). Transactions take place
through market mechanisms and for a monetary compensation. This is
quite distinct from the love and caring, generosity and altruism pre­
dominant logics that underlie SE (Belk, 2007, 2010), and that reflect
consumers’ concern for the well-being of others instead of one’s own
interest. We therefore put forward the following hypotheses.

Table 3
Predominant logics in the different types of exchange.
Predominant Logics

Sharing Collaborative consumption Marketplace exchange

Altruism (Belk, 2007)
Generosity (Belk, 2007)
Personality (Belk, 2007)
Love and caring (Belk, 2010)
Mutuality (Scaraboto, 2015)
Interdependence between parties (Scaraboto, 2015; Lamberton & Rose, 2012) Egoism (Belk, 2007)
Mutuality (Scaraboto, 2015) Stinginess (Belk, 2007)
Object-self relationship (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012) Impersonality (Belk, 2007)
Negative reciprocity (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012) Qualitative relations between objects (Belk, 2010)
Independence between parties (Scaraboto, 2015)
Self-interest (Scaraboto, 2015)
Rationalization of profit (Scaraboto, 2015)
Anonymity (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012)

Source: The authors.

128
A. Luri Minami et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137

Table 4 H1: The perceived economic benefit is a driver for consumers’

Main intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for engaging in sharing economy and participation intention in a) sharing economy and b) collaborative
collaborative consumption. consumption, and c) this motivation is expected to be stronger for
Sharing Collaborative collaborative consumption than for sharing economy.
Economy Consumption

Motives References Motives References Trend orientation reflects the willingness to have access to the latest
products, also involving the increase of symbolic power (Moeller &
Extrinsic Economic Lamberton & Economic Hennig-
Rose (2012) Thurau, Wittkowski, 2010). Trendiness and novelty seeking are associated with
Henning, & the concept of perceived hedonic value (Wang et al., 2007), reflecting
Sattler (2007) consumers’ assessment of a product or service in what concerns “fun and
Hamari, Lamberton & playfulness, [and] potential entertainment and emotional worth rather
Sjöklint & Rose (2012)
Ukkonen
than the achievement of any prespecified end goal” (p. 146). Trendiness
(2015) is also associated with power and reputation, and therefore with the
Böcker & Hamari, notion of social value (Gassenheimer, Houston, & Davis, 1998).
Meelen Sjöklint & Perceived social value results from individuals’ comparative assessment
(2017) Ukkonen
of a product or service in terms of “value received from their motiva­
(2015)
Böcker & tional investment with the relationship and the expected returns from
Meelen (2017) alternative options” (p. 325). The concept of trend orientation also
Benoit et al. brings the idea of an experience economy, where consumers desire and
(2017) look for experience rather than a simple exchange of goods (Pine &
Trend Davidson, Trend Moeller &
orientation Habibi & orientation Wittkowski
Gilmore, 1998). Moeller and Wittkowski (2010) identify trend orienta­
Laroche (2010) tion as a significant extrinsic motivation for CC; people prefer renting (i.
(2018) e., participating in CC) to owning (Belk, 2007). Consumers tend to look
Convenience Davidson, Convenience Moeller & for novelty, fun, and change through a variety seeking behavior (Kahn,
Habibi & Wittkowski
1995).
Laroche (2010)Bardhi
(2018) & Eckhardt Both CC and SE can grant consumers access to the newest and
(2012) different products and services through an alternative way of con­
Intrinsic Environmental Botsman Environmental Botsman sumption, as well as access to unique products not found in the tradi­
(2013) (2013) tional marketplace. However, this need for trendiness appears to be a
Hamari, Hamari,
Sjöklint & Sjöklint &
stronger driver for consumers’ participation in CC rather than in SE,
Ukkonen Ukkonen given that CC is characterized by object-self relationship and driven by
(2015) (2015) self-centered interests (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). This is quite different
Enjoyment Hamari, Enjoyment Hamari, from the logic of altruism that underpins SE (Belk, 2007), where con­
Sjöklint & Sjöklint &
sumers are driven by acts of generosity towards others. Furthermore,
Ukkonen Ukkonen
(2015) (2015) consumers can participate in SE for their experiential and transformative
Social Jung et al. Social Böcker & aspects; this is the case in more individualistic cultures such as the
(2016) Meelen (2017) American culture (Davidson, Habibi & Laroche, 2018). We therefore put
Benoit et al. forward that the search for trendiness is a stronger driver for CC than for
(2017)
SE.
Source: The authors.

Fig. 1. Conceptual Model. Source: The authors.

129
A. Luri Minami et al.
H2: The perceived trendiness benefit is a driver for consumers’
participation intention in a) sharing economy and b) collaborative
consumption, and c) this motivation is expected to be stronger for
collaborative consumption than for sharing economy.
Drawing on Morganosky’s (1986) conceptualization of convenience,
Moeller and Wittkowski (2010) define convenience orientation as the
“predisposition to accomplish a task in the shortest possible time with
the least expenditure of energy” (p. 181). Same as economic value, the
convenience based motivation is also associated with the concept of
utilitarian value and the evaluation of a product or service’s underlying
benefits and costs (Wang et al., 2007). Moeller and Wittkowski (2010)
also associate convenience with the concept of burden of ownership, as
ownership has consequences that the owner needs to bear with, such as
product alteration or obsolescence, incorrect product selection, main­
tenance/repair of the product and paying the full cost for something that
is not frequently used. These burdens or inconveniences can be easily
overcome with CC. Moeller and Wittkowski (2010) show that conve­
nience orientation is a significant extrinsic driver for the preference of
renting an asset instead of owning it, i.e., for CC. Bardhi and Eckhardt’s
(2012) study of car sharing, another form of CC, reinforces the relevance
of convenience in this form of consumption. The authors show that
consumers look for an alternative to market-mediated access in order to
avoid the possibility of opportunism, social and emotional obligation
that derives from ownership. Consumers that participate in CC set to get
what they need with maximum convenience (Bellotti et al., 2015).
Depending on whether ownership transfer takes place or not, the
arguments of looking to have one’s needs met in the quickest possible
way and without the burden of ownership (Moeller & Wittkowski, 2010;
Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012), can also be valid for SE. In fact, when
exploring the drivers for participating in SE in India, a collectivist cul­
ture, Davidson et al. (2018) identify convenience as a key motivator for
participating in this form of consumption. Both SE and CC allow in­
dividuals to access convenient processes of exchange of products and
services. Moreover, without the burden of ownership, the final stage of
consumption that corresponds to the disposal of products also becomes
more convenient than in traditional models of exchange. We argue that
convenience orientation is stronger in CC than in SE, which is the result
from the utilitarian and self-centered orientation that characterizes the
latter’s new mode of consumption (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Wang
et al., 2007). The latter form of consumption is expected to be less
centered on the self and more on altruism and the well-being of others
(Belk, 2007, 2010), with consumers being driven by acts of generosity
towards others.
H3: The perceived convenience benefit is a driver for consumers’
participation intention in a) sharing economy and b) collaborative
consumption, and c) this motivation is expected to be stronger for
collaborative consumption than for sharing economy.
Enjoyment has been identified as a key intrinsic driver for human
motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008), being associated with the concept of
perceived hedonic value (Wang et al., 2007). The authors describe
enjoyment as the feeling of having a purpose or enjoyment in the activity
itself. In studies related to knowledge sharing (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei,
2005), as well as to the usage of social networking services (Lin & Lu,
2011) enjoyment is identified as an important intrinsic motivation.
Enjoyment, which is characterized by fun, joy and excitement, also
shows a significant positive impact on the attitude and behavioral
intention to participate in CC (Hamari et al., 2015). Enjoyment has also
been identified as the core reason why in American culture, which is
characterized by individualism, consumers participate in SE services
such as Couchsurfing (Davidson et al., 2018).
We argue that enjoyment orientation is stronger in SE than in CC,
given that in the former, consumers are not looking for any sort of
compensation but instead for ways to generously help others (Belk,
130
Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137
2007) and to have good or joyful experiences (Davidson et al., 2018).
The logic underpinning CC resembles that of market exchange, which is
driven by utilitarianism and centeredness (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012),
instead of joyfulness or enjoyment.
H4: The perceived enjoyment benefit is a driver for consumers’
participation intention in a) sharing economy and b) collaborative
consumption, and c) this motivation is expected to be stronger for
sharing economy than for collaborative consumption.
Social and community intrinsic motivations are central to the new
modes of exchange (Botsman & Rogers, 2010), reflecting consumers’
social value (Gassenheimer et al., 1998), i.e., perceived potential for
creating and developing social connections with others. According to
Botsman and Rogers (2010), there is a restored belief in the importance
of community, where markets are more community-based and in­
teractions among individuals are valued. In both CC and SE, individuals
can meet up and have a certain level of interaction with the service host
(the host of Couchsurfing, in a SE context), or service provider (the
provider of an experience in Airbnb, in a CC context). For example,
Jung, Yoon, Kim, Park, Lee and Lee (2016) found human relationships as
the primary reason for the participation in Couchsurfing by the platform
users (i.e., a form of SE), and Böcker and Meelen (2017) found high
personal interaction playing a main role in meal sharing. Moreover,
Benoit et al. (2017) show that social orientation drives CC.
Both forms of exchange draw on mutualism (Scaraboto, 2015),
revealing how in both forms of consumption, exchanges presume mutual
benefit for the involved parties; however, this is stronger for SE than for
collaborative as in the latter consumers are more self-centered (Bardhi &
Eckhardt, 2012). Moreover, CC is guided by norms of negative reci­
procity (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012), associated with consumers’ oppor­
tunistic behaviors; consumers prioritize their own interests at the
sacrifice of those of others, and the transaction involves some type of
compensation or fee. That contrasts with the generosity, altruism and
love and caring logics underpinning SE (Belk, 2007, 2010), which never
implies compensation or fees. In this form of exchange, consumers do
not feel a sense of responsibility towards each other, given that the
nature of the exchange is mostly social. The SE is also highly personal
(Belk, 2007), reinforcing the community and social sense to it. We
therefore expect social orientation to be stronger in SE than in CC.
H5: The perceived social benefit is a driver for consumers’ partici­
pation intention in a) sharing economy and b) collaborative con­
sumption, and c) this motivation is expected to be stronger for
sharing economy than for collaborative consumption.
Environmental orientation is associated with sustainability value, “a
multidimensional construct made up of economic, socio-cultural, and
environmental dimensions” (Iniesta-Bonillo, Sánchez-Fernández, &
Jiménez-Castillo, 2016, p. 5002) that reflects consumers’ evaluation of
products and services in what concerns their impact on the environment
(Wang et al., 2019). Environmental orientation is traditionally associ­
ated with both SE and CC (Henrichs, 2013). Both types of exchange are
expected to have a positive impact on the environment, as they allow for
the re-usage of items, avoiding the need of producing new products, and
increasing the efficiency of goods; this is the case, for example, when a
spare underutilized asset is rented (i.e., a spare room rent in Airbnb).
Previous studies indicate that the weight of this orientation in compar­
ison with other ones is not the same for all sectors. For example, Böcker
and Meelen (2017) identified this reason being more strongly present in
car and ride sharing. Moreover, environmental orientation has been
found relevant for participating in these two modes of exchange, but not
as significant as other aspects such as enjoyment (Hamari et al., 2015),
and convenience (Moeller & Wittkowski, 2010).
In line with Botsman and Rogers (2010), environmental related as­
pects have been identified by Benoit et al. (2017) as one of the core
A. Luri Minami et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137

Table 5
Operationalization of variables and CFA loadings.
Construct Item Statement Loadings

Economic From Hamari et al. (2015)

ECO1 I can save money if I use the [service used]. 0.7419
ECO2 Using the [service used] benefits me financially. 0.6849
ECO3 Using the [service used] can improve my economic situation. 0.6650
ECO4 Using the [service used] saves me time. 0.5278
Trend Orientation From So, Wo & Min (2018)
TRE1 The [service used] is a new fad I feel I should use. 0.6502
TRE2 People will see me as trendy if I use the [service used]. 0.7717
TRE3 Participating in the [service used] will present me as contemporary. 0.7639
TRE4 Using the [service used] is one way of showing that I follow current trends. 0.8468
Convenience From Colwell et al. (2008)
CON1 Using the [service used] I can obtain benefits with little effort. 0.7046
CON2 The [service used] solves needs. 0.7045
CON3 The time required to receive the benefits using the [service used] was reasonable. 0.6643
Enjoyment From Hamari et al. (2015)
ENJ1 I think the [service used] is enjoyable. 0.7531
ENJ2 I think the [service used] is exciting. 0.4897
ENJ3 I think the [service used] is fun. 0.6758
ENJ4 I think the [service used] is interesting. 0.7215
ENJ5 I think the [service used] is pleasant. 0.7511
Social and community From Mittendorf (2017)
SOC1 Using the [service used] is a good way to meet new people. 0.8113
SOC2 Through using the [service used], there is a good chance that I will meet like-minded people. 0.7273
SOC3 Using the [service used] makes me feel part of a community. 0.6694
SOC4 Using the [service used] is a good way to find company. 0.7174
SOC5 Using the [service used] allows me to belong to a group of people with similar interests. 0.7203
SOC6 Through using [service used], I can make nice acquaintances. 0.7866
SOC7 I value the social exchange with other users of the [service used]. 0.6559
Environmental From Hamari et al. (2015)
ENV1 The [service used] helps save natural resources. 0.8107
ENV2 The [service used] is a sustainable mode of consumption. 0.6984
ENV3 The [service used] is ecological. 0.8262
ENV4 The [service used] is efficient in terms of using energy. 0.6281
ENV5 The [service used] is environmentally friendly. 0.8163
Behavior intention From Hamari et al. (2015)
BEH1 All things considered, I expect to continue using the [service used] often in the future.
BEH2 I can see myself using the type of the [service used] more frequently in the future.
BEH3 I can see myself increasing the use of services like the [service used] activities if possible.
BEH4 It is likely that I will frequently participate in communities like the [service used] in the future.
Exchange mode Dummy variable − 1 if Sharing Economy and 0 if Collaborative Consumption
Control variables Gender, Age and Education treated as dummy variables

Source: The authors.

reasons why consumers participate in CC. On the other hand, ecologi­
cally conscious consumer behavior is influenced by psychographic
predictors, such as altruism (Straughan & Roberts, 1999), a predomi­
nant logic underpinning the SE (Belk, 2007). We posit that environ­
mental orientation is expected to drive participation in SE and CC, being
more predominant in the latter, as the result of altruism, generosity and
love and caring underlying exchange logics (Belk, 2007, 2010).
Resulting from the object-self relationships that characterize CC (Bardhi
& Eckardt, 2012), consumers are expected to be mostly concerned about
their self-interest and well-being rather than about the environment.
H6: The perceived environmental benefit is a driver for consumers’
participation intention in a) sharing economy and b) collaborative
consumption, and c) this motivation is expected to be stronger for
sharing economy than for collaborative consumption.
4. Methodology and research design
4.1. Data collection and operationalization of variables
The data set consisted of 400 users of different CC and SE services in a
South American country, more specifically, Brazil. We selected that
country given the growing popularity of SE and CC among Brazilian
service providers and consumers. In Brazil, by 2015, 7% of the popu­
lation had already participated in the so-called collaborative economy
(Market Analysis, 2015). Moreover, 79% of Brazilian consumers believe
that SE makes life easier, and 68% stated that they could participate in
this form of consumption before 2019 (SPC Brasil, 2017). Also, 89% of
consumers who had used some new mode of consumption, approved the
model (SPC Brasil, 2018). In one year (2018–2019), the number of
Brazilians willing to adopt CC in their daily life in the following two
years increased from 68% to 81% (CNDL/SPC Brasil, 2019). We only
included in the data respondents who had used, at least once, one of the
services mentioned at the beginning of the survey. Although many re­
spondents would know or had already heard about the services, having
the response based on the experience of people who actually used the
services allowed us to capture the reasons that actually drove the
respondent to use the service, instead of simply capturing their
perception of what could drive them to use the service.
The survey was applied to two groups. Group 1 included CC services,
and we provided Airbnb, and Uber as examples; Group 2 included SE
services, and we provided Couchsurfing, and FreeCycle as examples. The
aim of mentioning examples to each group of respondents was to make
sure they understood the type of service that they were going to be
enquired about. We felt that this was required, given the misconception
we found among consumers and researchers regarding the concepts of
CC and SE. To choose the examples provided for each form of con­
sumption, we used the website Collaborative Consumption (https://cons
umocolaborativo.cc/), which includes a list of different services of this
nature that can be found in Brazil (110 services in total). Drawing on the

131
A. Luri Minami et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137

Table 6
Demographic information by mode of exchange.
Sharing Economy Collaborative consumption Total

n % n % n %

Gender Female 90 45.0% 116 58.0% 206 51.5%

Male 110 55.0% 84 42.0% 194 48.5%
Age < 20 18 9.0% 22 11.0% 40 10.0%
20–25 74 37.0% 54 27.0% 128 32.0%
26–30 54 27.0% 47 23.5% 101 25.3%
> 30 54 27.0% 77 38.5% 131 32.8%
Education Lower than High School 117 58.5% 119 59.5% 236 59.0%
University degree incomplete 45 22.5% 28 14.0% 73 18.3%
University degree completed 38 19.0% 53 26.5% 91 22.8%

Source: The authors.

definitions put forward earlier for CC or SE, the services listed in the
website were first classified as either collaborative or sharing. Secondly,
we chose those services that presented the higher number of followers
on the website, i.e., the most popular. Whenever this information was
not available for a specific service, we accounted for the number of
followers on Facebook communities for each of the services listed.
We used existing validated scales for the operationalization of the
variables. Each construct included between three and seven items, and
all constructs were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, except for con­
venience (i.e., CON), which was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (see
Table 5). Given that the existing scales were in English, we proceeded to
a back-translation exercise; the original scales were translated into
Portuguese, the language used in the data collection, and this translation
was then back translated into English. A few small adjustments were
made to the Portuguese version to ensure accuracy of translation.
After conducting several pre-tests to double check that all items were
fully understood by the respondents, the questionnaire was rolled out in
April 2018 by a national market research company, using its database
that includes consumers across varied demographic profiles; in this data
collection platform, respondents are motivated to respond to surveys to
earn credits that can then be exchanged for products and services. The
items in the survey were displayed in a randomized manner to re­
spondents in order to avoid the possibility of detecting patterns between
measurement, as well as bias (Cook & Campbell, 1979).
We adopted a non-probabilistic and convenience sample. CC and SE
services were mainly used by a young age group and by users from
different socioeconomic statuses (Owyang, Samuel & Grenville, 2014).
Thus, we targeted mainly users that were 18 to 40 years old. As showed
in Table 6, most respondents (57.3%) were between 20 and 30 years old.
Furthermore, 51.5% were male and 59% had a high school diploma as
the highest level of education. We only included consumers from middle
class in order to control for socioeconomic aspects that could influence
the economic motivation to participate in the new modes of exchange.
4.2. Analytical approach
First of all, a descriptive statistical analysis was performed using
scores for each construct, evaluating averages, standard deviations and
correlations of constructs. Using the t-test at a 5% significance level, the
constructs of trend orientation, social and environmental motivations
showed statistical significant differences in comparison with the means
of SE and CC, thus presenting higher values for SE (see Table 7).
Table 7 presents the correlations between the variables. In line with
H1c, economic impact on participation behavioral intention seems to be
stronger in CC than in SE, while enjoyment, social orientation and
environmental based-benefits seem to have stronger impact on SE, in
line with H4c, H5c and H6c. There does not seem to be a significant dif­
ference between the two forms of consumption in what concerns trend
orientation or convenience, contradicting H2c and H3c.
The proposed model was tested using the structural equation
modeling (SEM), a multivariate technique for analyzing causal models
by examining a series of relationships simultaneously (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The SEM technique was used to test the
conceptual model considering a dummy variable (1 for SE and 0 for CC)

Table 7
Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation by mode of exchange.
Collaborative consumption Economic Trend Orientation Convenience Enjoyment Social Environmental Behavior Intention

Trend Orientation 0.52 1.00

Convenience 0.66 0.51 1.00
Enjoyment 0.68 0.65 0.67 1.00
Social 0.56 0.73 0.55 0.74 1.00
Environmental 0.58 0.60 0.51 0.68 0.74 1.00
Behavior Intention 0.70 0.51 0.54 0.72 0.64 0.57 1.00
Mean 5.56 4.72 4.13 5.44 5.06 5.09 5.55
Std. Dev. 1.14 1.52 0.75 1.07 1.30 1.32 1.22
Sharing economy Economic Trend Orientation Convenience Enjoyment Social Environmental Behavior Intention
Trend Orientation 0.58 1.00
Convenience 0.57 0.54 1.00
Enjoyment 0.72 0.59 0.53 1.00
Social 0.73 0.60 0.51 0.82 1.00
Environmental 0.65 0.56 0.51 0.62 0.67 1.00
Behavior Intention 0.67 0.50 0.53 0.79 0.77 0.70 1.00
Mean 5.59 5.02 4.06 5.64 5.51 5.59 5.51
Std. Dev. 1.03 1.39 0.73 1.07 1.10 1.14 1.18
t-test (p-value) 0.81 0.04** 0.30 0.07* <0.001*** <0.001*** 0.75

Notes: T-test compares the means of collaborative consumption and sharing economy. * significant at p < 0.1;
** significant at p < 0.05; *** significant at p < 0.01.
Source: The authors.

132
A. Luri Minami et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137

and its interactions with the explanatory variables (constructs). From a
statistical perspective, the technique applied is similar to that of a multi-
group SEM analysis (MGA; Görz, Hildebrandt & Annacker 2000; Sauer &
Dick, 1993). We ran both analysis and results for the tested hypotheses
were, as expected, equivalent (note: multi-group SEM results are avail­
able upon request). To apply the structural equation modeling, a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to certify that each
construct (latent variable) was represented by the items, as showed by
the loadings in Table 5. According to Hair et al. (2010), loadings of ±
0.50 or higher are considered practicaly significant. As all item loadings
were above 0.49, we ensured adequate fit between the items and
correspondent latent variables.
4.3. Measurement and structural model
The measurement model was assessed by examining its validity and
reliability. Reliability is a measurement of the internal consistency of the
construct indicators, depicting the degree to which they “indicate” the
common latent construct (Hair et al., 2010, p. 612). To measure reli­
ability, we used three metrics: composite reliability, average variance
extracted (AVE) and Cronbach’s alpha. The composite reliability brings
the confidence that each individual indicator is consistent with in its
measurement and the threshold value acceptable is 0.7 (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). The AVE reflects the overall amount of variance in items
accounted for by the latent construct and the threshold value acceptable
is 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). And the Cronbach’s alpha is a reliability
coefficient that assesses the consistency of the entire scale, which has a
lower limit of 0.8 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
All the requirements stated above were fulfilled after running the
reliability analysis as the results obtained in the assessments were
Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.8997, composite reliability above 0.9672
and AVE above 0.8808. The sample size satisfies the typical use of
having a minimum of five respondents for each estimated parameter,
being recommended that a sample size for a multivariate analysis should
be higher than 200 (Hair et al., 2010). In order to evaluate the overall
model fit, goodness-of-fit measures are reported. The model’s normed fit
index (NFI) of 0.93 and the comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.95, both
indicate that our model fit is good (values above 0.9 – Bentler and
Bonett, 1980). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is
0.06, indicating a reasonable error of approximation (value below 0.08 –
Browne & Cudeck, 1992).
The structural model was analyzed using STATA (version 13.0). The
models for SE and CC were run in a single model by utilizing the mode of
exchange as a dummy variable (1 for SE and 0 for CC). The interaction
between the mode of exchange and each latent variable was included in
the final model to enable the comparison of the impact of each variable
in behavioral intention between SE and CC.
5. Results
Table 8 presents the results of the analysis. We tested for the impact
of specific extrinsic and intrinsic reasoning on the behavioral intention
of participating in SE and in CC. Results also showed the interaction
between the dummy variable and the latent variables, thus enabling the
assessment of the relevance of specific motivations to explain the
participation behavioral intention in either SE or CC. That is, if the co­
efficient was negative, then the variable and corresponding motivation
for participation intention had a stronger effect in CC, while a positive
coefficient indicated a stronger effect of the investigated motivation for
SE.
For the extrinsic motivations, the impact of economic benefit in
behavioral intention showed to be stronger in CC than in SE (β = –0.374,
p < .05). H1c was therefore supported. We also found a significant direct
effect of this economic benefit for CC (supporting H1b; β = – 0.480, p <
.01), and a non-significant impact for SE (H1a was not supported). The
result for the H2c on perceived trendiness was not significant, revealing
that trendiness is not a key reason to explain why consumers choose to
be more engaged with one form of consumption than the other. H2c was
therefore not supported. Nevertheless, we found a significant, yet
negative effect for SE (β = – 1.410, p < .05; H2a was not supported), and
a non-significant effect for CC (H2b was not supported). Finally, conve­
nience was found as having a stronger impact in behavioral intention for
SE than CC, supporting H3c (β = 0.271, p < .05). H3c was therefore not
supported. We also found a significant positive direct effect for SE
(supporting H3a; β = 0.168, p < .1), and a non-significant impact for CC
(H3b was not supported).
As for the intrinsic motivations, enjoyment showed a strong positive
effect for SE (β = 0.499, p < .01; H4a was supported), as well as CC β =

Table 8
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) results.
Sharing Economy Collaborative Economy Sharing versus Collaborative

Variable Coefficient Standard Coefficient Standard Coefficient Standard

error error error

Economic H1a 0.026 0.073 H1b 0.480*** 0.097 0.482** 0.082

Trend Orientation H2a – 0.141** 0.059 H2b 0.024 0.066 0.002 0.061
Convenience H3a 0.168* 0.094 H3b – 0.141 0.126 – 0.106 0.115
Enjoyment H4a 0.499*** 0.085 H4b 0.678*** 0.117 0.610** 0.095
Social H5a 0.290*** 0.089 H5b 0.100 0.072 0.118* 0.070
Environment H6a 0.324*** 0.062 H6b 0.011 0.060 – 0.018 0.057
Mode of Exchange (Sharing economy vs – 0.818* 0.433
Collaborative consumption)
Economic × Dummy Variable H1c – 0.374** 0.096
Trend Orientation × Dummy Variable H2c – 0.095 0.066
Convenience × Dummy Variable H3c 0.271** 0.141
Enjoyment × Dummy Variable H4c – 0.034 0.114
Social × Dummy Variable H5c 0.105 0.105
Environment × Dummy Variable H6c 0.331** 0.085
Control Variables:
Gender – 0.083 0.089 0.002 0.069 0.002 0.069
Age < 20 0.138 0.187 – 0.563*** 0.183 – 0.257 0.207
Age 20–25 0.058 0.129 – 0.002 0.137 0.016 0.188
Age 26–30 0.025 0.135 – 0.178 0.142 – 0.074 0.190
Education High School and below – 0.175 0.121 – 0.017 0.120 – 0.073 0.086
Education University degree 0.012 0.143 – 0.084 0.171 0.011 0.111

Notes:* significant at p < 0.1; ** significant at p < 0.05; *** significant at p < 0.01.
Source: The authors.

133
A. Luri Minami et al.
0.678, p < .01; H4b was supported). Yet, we found a non-significant
difference between the two forms of exchange. H4c was therefore not
supported. We also did not find a significant difference between the two
forms of consumption nor regarding the impact on behavioral intention
for social orientation (H5c was not supported). Social orientation showed
nevertheless a positive and significant impact on SE, supporting H5a (β
= 0.290, p < .01), and a non-significant effect on CC (H5b was not
supported). Finally, the impact of perceived environmental benefit
showed a stronger effect for SE than CC (β = 0.331, p < .05), confirming
H6c. A significant positive effect was also found for SE (β = 0.324, p <
.01; H6a was supported), but the effect was non-significant for CC (H6b
was not supported). Finally, with exception of the variable age for CC
(consumers below 20 years old show a lower intention to use CC than
consumers above 20; β = -0.563, p < .01), none of the control variables
(i.e., gender, age and education) showed significant impact on partici­
pation behavioral intention.
6. Discussion and contributions
SE and CC are two modes of exchange that have revolutionized the
way consumers access products and services (Benoit et al., 2017; Eck­
hardt et al., 2019; Matzler et al., 2015). As with other new forms of
consumption that have emerged over the last years, despite potential
obstacles to their implementation and adoption (e.g., Hazée, Delcourt, &
Van Vaerenbergh, 2017; Meuter, Ostrom, Bitner, & Roundtree, 2003),
with SE and CC consumers can avoid the burden of ownership and
related hazards and responsibilities that result from ownership, trans­
ferring the risk to the service providers (Schaefers, Lawson, & Kukar-
Kinney, 2016). Notwithstanding being considerably different in pur­
pose and underlying predominant logics of market-based exchange, the
two concepts have been used interchangeably in the literature as well as
by consumers and service providers. Moreover, despite their growth in
the economy and the increasing attention they have been receiving from
research (e.g., Belk et al., 2019; Eckhardt et al., 2019; Perren & Kozinets,
2018), there is still limited knowledge regarding the motivations that
lead consumers to want to take part in these sharing and collaborative
movements. Gaining this knowledge is critical to better understand
consumers’ decision-making processes in such contexts, which have not
yet been fully explored, as well as to contribute to a better informed
discussion around SE and CC (e.g., Benoit et al., 2017; Dellaert, 2019;
Eckhardt et al., 2019). Drawing on the literature review, we put forward
comprehensive, yet parsimonious, definitions for each form of con­
sumption, and investigate the differences in participation drivers for SE
or CC. To achieve this objective, we put forward a motivational model
rooted in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci,
2000) and SE and CC’s underlying predominant logics (Scaraboto,
2015), and test it by using the SEM technique on a database of 400 re­
spondents who have at some point in their lives participated in both
types of consumption.
We found that SE is mostly driven by intrinsic reasons, namely
enjoyment, social and environmental orientation, which are associated
with different forms of perceived value, i.e., hedonic, social and sus­
tainability (Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2007; Gassenheimer
et al., 1998). This is not surprising as the predominant logic underpin­
ning SE consists of love and caring, generosity and altruism that are
associated with social and environmental motivations (Belk, 2007,
2010), reflecting consumers’ concern for the well-being of others. In this
form of consumption, consumers are not looking for any sort of
compensation; they are looking instead and mostly for ways to gener­
ously help others (Belk, 2007). This helps to explain the non-significant
impact of the economic reason, as well as the negative effect of trend
orientation on consumers’ participation in SE. Despite this predominant
altruistic approach, the positive significant impact of enjoyment moti­
vation on this form of consumption shows that these consumers are also
concerned about having a positive experience.
On the other hand, CC is driven by the search for economic benefits,
134
Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137
a form of utilitarian value (Wang et al., 2007). This reflects how this
form of consumption is self-centered (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012), guided
by norms of negative reciprocity (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012), associated
with consumers’ opportunistic behaviors and the search for some form
of compensation, resembling a form of marketing exchange. One inter­
esting and not expected result was the negative, yet non-significant ef­
fect of convenience on the motivation to participate in CC. This reflects
how participants in CC would not mind owning the good or taking more
time to utilize the good or service, as long as there are economic benefits
(Albinsson & Perera, 2012; Böcker & Meelen, 2017). Moreover, despite
the considerably vast literature on trend orientation (e.g., Moeller &
Wittkowski, 2010), we found a positive but non-significant impact on
CC. This was quite surprising as the concept of trend orientation is
associated with power and reputation that are aligned with CC’s un­
derlying logic of object-self relationship (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). We
conclude that in terms of external rewards, CC participants are in fact
looking for economic benefits, costs or money savings (Hamari et al.,
2015), instead of other types of status reinforcing mechanisms. In line
with Hamari et al. (2015), enjoyment orientation was also found to be a
significant driver for this form of consumption. This is in line with the
self-centered approach discussed regarding the economic motivation,
given that as a form of hedonic value (Wang et al., 2007), when looking
for enjoyment consumers are also taking care of their own satisfaction
and positive customer experience.
When comparing the two forms of consumption, as part of con­
sumers’ extrinsic motivations, perceived economic benefits were, as
expected, found to have a stronger impact on their participation
behavioral intention for CC than for SE. These findings can be explained
by the fact that this mode of exchange always involves some type of
compensation, either monetary or non-monetary, bringing a pricing and
utilitarian perspective to all goods and services that are exchanged in
this market (Wertenbroch, Soman, & Chattopadhyay, 2007). The con­
sumer might therefore create a different level of expectation regarding
the perceived benefit, thus having a cost-benefit equation that is harder
to be met than in SE (Brandstätter & Brandstätter, 1996; Wertenbroch
et al., 2007).
Another interesting finding is that, differently from expected, con­
venience benefits showed a stronger effect on behavioral intention in SE
than in CC. The existing literature is not clear regarding the relative
expected impact of this aspect on each mode of exchange (Moeller &
Wittkowski, 2010). The findings reinforce the idea that SE is perceived
as a route to simplify processes, as it does not involve market-exchange
based mechanisms or any form of compensation, also reflecting a handy
way of getting access to more resources efficiently (Davidson et al.,
2018). Therefore, this form of utilitarian value is prevalent in SE and not
in CC. Finally, we also found a strong interest by this group of SE con­
sumers regarding environmental benefits resulting from the usage of SE
platforms. This finding reflects this generation’s potential interest in
more social and environmental related causes (Hume, 2010). Interest­
ingly, previous studies did not find the environment aspect to signifi­
cantly impact on behavioral intention (Böcker & Meelen, 2017; Hamari
et al., 2015). However, those studies were limited to a specific service as
an object of study, while in our study we took a more comprehensive
view of this type of exchange. Besides being a significant motivation for
engaging in both modes of exchange, they were found having different
effects for those modes. Differently from what we expected, trendiness,
enjoyment and social benefits were not found to have a significant
impact on consumers’ choice when comparing the willingness to
participate in either form of consumption. It is worth mentioning that
one possible explanation for the non-significant results found for social
benefits is that the sense of belonging to a group with the same interest
seemed to be an important factor for respondents in our sample, which
was highly represented by young people up to the age of 25.
A. Luri Minami et al.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
Firstly, this study proposes and tests a motivational model of new
modes of exchange entrenched in self-determination theory (Deci &
Ryan, 2008) and SE and CC’s underlying predominant logics (Scaraboto,
2015). Previous motivational studies focused on one single type of new
modes of exchange or more generally in sharing (see for example Böcker
& Meelen, 2017; Milanova & Maas 2017), not considering a clear dif­
ferentiation between SE and CC. We contribute to the better under­
standing of the reasons that drive the participation of consumers in these
two specific new modes of exchange. Secondly, we show the importance
of clearly differentiating and analyzing separately SE and CC related
phenomena, which has not been the current practice in the field (Bardhi
& Eckhardt, 2012; Böcker & Meelen, 2017; Botsman & Rogers, 2010;
Hamari et al., 2015). This is relevant given that the forecast is that more
businesses, or products and services of both SE and CC will emerge in the
near future (Botsman & Rogers, 2010) and both researchers and prac­
titioners have been disregarding the differences between them. Thirdly,
we contribute to the field of research with regards to new modes of
exchange by putting forward a clear and comprehensive, yet parsimo­
nious, theory-driven conceptualization for each type of exchange. The
concepts have been used interchangeably, raising questions regarding
the validity of some of the discussions that have been taking place in the
literature (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Lam­
berton & Rose, 2012; Scaraboto, 2015). Finally, consumer behavior
intention is analyzed by comparing two new modes of exchange,
providing an empirical base to understand differences in the behavioral
intention of engaging in such modes of consumption.
6.2. Managerial contributions
This study makes important contributions to management, namely
for managers who want to start a new business or are already doing
businesses in SE or CC. Results show that specific intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations are relevant for either SE and CC. These can be used by firms
in their positioning and marketing efforts to attract new consumers, as
well as to consolidate businesses with the existing ones. The theory-
driven and comprehensive conceptualization provided herein,
together with the results from the motivational construct, can be used by
managers to clarify the nature of their business and to have a clearer
picture of consumers’ motivations to participate. More specifically,
while being part of a SE can be seen as socially desirable (Belk, 2014),
our study shows that firms in the CC market such as Airbnb services
should focus their marketing efforts mostly on their underlying eco­
nomic benefits, exploring the opportunities they provide consumers
with (e.g., money savings). This aspect is more relevant for the will­
ingness to participate in CC than in SE. Differently from what we ex­
pected, trendiness and novelty aspects of consumption do not appear to
create a competitive advantage for firms under this market logic. Thus,
CC firms are not advised to spend resources communicating this benefit,
nor to position themselves as trendy.
On the other hand, in the SE market, while consumers are strongly
driven by finding fulfillment in the activity itself (Ryan & Deci 2000), we
only found environmental orientation to be statistically different be­
tween the CC and SE. Thus, this feature can be used to provide a
competitive advantage to the SE firm when compared with an alterna­
tive CC form of exchange. We conclude that, counterintuitively to the
literature and the idea that all intrinsic reasons could be used to
differentiate SE from CC, companies will not benefit from exploring a
specific altruistic purpose or value proposition in their communication
as consumers do not seem to value this identification to justify the choice
for SE in detriment of CC. Besides being driven by environmental prin­
ciples, consumers participating in SE are also looking for convenience
more than in CC. Therefore, forms of utilitarian value and underlying
financial benefits can be more important in SE than in CC (Wang et al.,
2007). These two features should be used by SE businesses to create a
135
Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137
clear differentiation from CC.
7. Limitations and future research opportunities
Finally, there are limitations to this study, and thus, opportunities for
further research. Firstly, this research intended to examine the differ­
ences in consumers’ motivations to use services or products classified as
SE or CC. However, we understand that each mode of consumption holds
a variety of types of businesses that can drive different motivations and
behaviors, as demonstrated by Böcker and Meelen (2017), who identi­
fied different markets to base their studies and found different results for
each market. Further research should investigate this further by, for
example, researching if within SE, there are motivations to use services
that have a digital platform involved (e.g., Tem Açúcar), versus others
that do not (e.g. friends sharing home appliances).
Secondly, this research considered participants of CC or SE plat­
forms, with no distinction between consumer and provider of such ser­
vices. This could be addressed in a future research, given that it could
help companies in these forms of businesses to develop a sense of what
the providers of the platforms feel attracted to (e.g., Bucher et al., 2016),
being then able to develop more directed marketing stimuli not only to
users but also to those providers. Benoit et al. (2017) provided a theo­
retical characterization for CC of the different motivations between
consumer and provider, and our suggestion is to take this further by
doing the same for SE and empirically identifying the differences in both
consumers and providers’ engagement. Thirdly, while our focus relied
on identifying consumers’ motivations to participate in SE or in CC
related services, and main differences between them, future research
could go beyond, and include a more granulated level of analysis by
considering different segments of consumers according to their
approach to consumption (see, for example, Hellwig et al., 2015).
Fourthly, in this study we only considered the behavioral intention,
not capturing the attitude or the actual behavior of the respondent. It
would be interesting to understand if there is a gap between behavioral
intention and attitude and the actual behavior in both SE and CC, as
found by Hamari et al. (2015) for CC. Fifthly, we only considered re­
spondents who had already used at least one of the modes of exchange.
Understanding the perception of non-users could bring managerial
benefits to help companies attract those consumers who have not yet
been converted. Finally, future studies could consider further sources of
motivation beyond intrinsic and extrinsic ones traditionally considered
in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci 2000), such as prosocial
motivation, i.e., one’s desire to benefit other people (Ryan & Connell,
1989). Prosocial motivation has been investigated in the field of orga­
nizational behavior (e.g., Grant 2007), and hardly in combination with
extrinsic or intrinsic motivations (for exceptions, see Bastons, Mas &
Rey, 2017; Grant, 2008). Incorporating this motivation in future studies
could contribute to further understanding consumer behavior in the
context of new forms of exchange. In sum, although we believe this
study makes important theoretical and managerial contributions, it is
not meant to be comprehensive, but rather to open avenues for future
research on this topic instead. Further studies could further contribute to
understand the diverse facets of CC and SE, which have already changed
the behavior of consumers all over the world. Future research is there­
fore suggested for further knowledge development on the topic,
including respondents from other countries with diverse cultural fea­
tures and underlying ideologies, which are also expected to have an
impact on the drivers for the new modes of exchange (see, for example,
Davidson et al., 2018).
References
Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century:
Building community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(4),
303–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1389.
A. Luri Minami et al.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1974). Marketing as an Organized Behavioral System of Exchange: A
comprehensive and analytic structure for interpreting behavior in marketing
relationships. Journal of marketing, 38(4), 77–81.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access based consumption: The case of car sharing.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1086/666376.
Bastons, M., Mas, M., & Rey, C. (2017). Pro-stakeholders motivation: Uncovering a new
source of motivation for business companies. Journal of Management and
Organization, 23(5), 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.14.
Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own? The ANNALS of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 611 (May 2007), 126–140. Doi: 10.1177/
0002716206298483.
Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734. https://doi.org/
10.1086/612649.
Belk, R. (2013). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption
online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2013.10.001.
Belk, R. (2014). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in web 2.0. Anthropologist, 18(1), 7–23.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1630.3842.
Belk, R. W., Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2019). Introduction to the Handbook of the
Sharing Economy: the paradox of the sharing economy. In Handbook of the Sharing
Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
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.
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems - CHI ’15, (October), 1085–1094. Doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702272.
Benkler, Y. (2004). Sharing nicely: On shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a
modality of economic production. Yale Law Journal, 114(2), 273–358.
Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. (2017). A triadic
framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources &
capabilities of actors. Journal of Business Research, 79(May), 219–227. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.004.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.
Böcker, L., & Meelen, T. (2017). Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing
motivations for intended sharing economy participation. Environmental Innovation
and Societal Transitions, 23, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.004.
Botsman, R. (2013). Fast Company: The sharing economy lacks a shared definition.
Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-
lacks-a-shared-definition.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is Yours: The rise of collaborative
consumption ((1st ed.).). HarperCollins Publishers.
Brandstätter, E., & Brandstätter, H. (1996). What’s money worth? Determinants of the
subjective value of money. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(4), 443–464. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(96)00019-0.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological
Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0049124192021002005.
Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., & Lutz, C. (2016). What’s mine is yours (for a nominal fee)–
Exploring the spectrum of utilitarian to altruistic motives for Internet-mediated
sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2016.04.002.
Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: Consumer desires and value perceptions
regarding contemporary art collection and exhibit visits. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35(6), 925–940. https://doi.org/10.1086/593699.
CNDL/SPC Brasil, http://cdljp.com.br/oito-em-cada-dez-brasileiros-estao-dispostos-a-
adotar-mais-praticas-de-consumo-colaborativo-revela-estudo-cndlspc-brasil/, 2019
Accessed July 2020.
Colwell, S. R., Aung, M., Kanetkar, V., & Holden, A. L. (2008). Toward a measure of
service convenience: Multiple-item scale development and empirical test. Journal of
Services Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040810862895.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for
field settings. Houghton Mifflin.
Davidson, A., Habibi, M. R., & Laroche, M. (2018). Materialism and the sharing economy:
A cross-cultural study of American and Indian consumers. Journal of Business
Research, 82, 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.045.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0012801.
Dellaert, B. G. (2019). The consumer production journey: Marketing to consumers as co-
producers in the sharing economy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47
(2), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0607-4.
Eckhardt, G. M., Houston, M. B., Jiang, B., Lamberton, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Zervas, G.
(2019). Marketing in the sharing economy. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 5–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919861929.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980.
Gallagher, L. (2017). Airbnb’s profits to top $3 billion by 2020. Retrieved from http://
fortune.com/2017/02/15/airbnb-profits/.
Gassenheimer, J. B., Houston, F. S., & Davis, J. C. (1998). The role of economic value,
social value, and perceptions of fairness in interorganizational relationship retention
decisions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 322–337. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0092070398264005.
136
Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137
Görz, N., Hildebrandt, L., & Annacker, D. (2000). Analyzing multigroup data with
structural equation models. In Classification and Information Processing at the Turn of
the Millennium (pp. 312–319). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational
synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial
difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amr.2007.24351328.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
((7th Ed.).). Pearson New International Edition.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why People
participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.
Hazée, S., Delcourt, C., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2017). Burdens of access: Understanding
customer barriers and barrier-attenuating practices in access-based services. Journal
of Service Research, 20(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517712877.
Hellwig, K., Morhart, F., Girardin, F., & Hauser, M. (2015). Exploring different types of
sharing: A proposed segmentation of the market for “sharing” businesses. Psychology
and Marketing, 32(9), 891–906. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20825.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Henning, V., & Sattler, H. (2007). Consumer file sharing of motion
pictures. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.4.001.
Henrichs, H. (2013). Sharing Economy: A potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA
- Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 22(4), 228–231.
Hume, M. (2010). Compassion without action: Examining the young consumers
consumption and attitude to sustainable consumption. Journal of World Business, 45
(4), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.007.
Iniesta-Bonillo, M. A., Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Jiménez-Castillo, D. (2016).
Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist
destinations. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5002–5007. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071.
John, N. A. (2012). Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New Media and
Society, 15(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812450684.
Jung, J., Yoon, S., Kim, S., Park, S., Lee, K., & Lee, U. (2016). Social or financial goals?
Comparative analysis of user behaviors in Couchsurfing and Airbnb. CHI Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2857–2863. https://doi.org/
10.1145/2851581.2892328.
Kahn, B. E. (1995). Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services. An integrative
review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2(3), 139–148. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0969-6989(95)00038-0.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation, 29(1), 113–143. Doi: 10.2307/
25148670.
Kumar, V., Lahiri, A., & Dogan, O. B. (2018). A strategic framework for a profitable
business model in the sharing economy. Industrial Marketing Management, 69,
147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.021.
Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for
understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of
Marketing, 76(4), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0368.
Lindemberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos, 54(2–3), 317–342.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6435.00156.
Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study
integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009.
Market Analysis. (2015). O consumo colaborativo e o consumidor brasileiro. Retried
from http://marketanalysis.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2015-Market-
Analysis-O-consumo-colaborativo-e-o-consumidor-brasileiro.pdf.
Matzler, K., Veider, V., & Kathan, W. (2015). Adapting to the sharing economy. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 56(2), 71. http://mitsmr.com/1uOYM6F.
Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., & Roundtree, R. (2003). The influence of
technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies.
Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 899–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963
(01)00276-4.
Milanova, V., & Maas, P. (2017). Sharing intangibles: Uncovering individual motives for
engagement in a sharing service setting. Journal of Business Research, 75, 159–171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.002.
Mittendorf, C. (2017). What matters most on non-monetary Sharing Economy platforms?
social motives vs. financial motives (pretest). In Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems (PACIS). Association For Information Systems.
Morganosky, M. (1986). Cost-versus convenience-oriented consumers: Demographic,
lifestyle, and value perspectives. Psychology and Marketing, 3(1), 35–46. https://doi.
org/10.1002/mar.4220030104.
Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: Reasons for preferring
renting. Managing Service Quality, 20(2), 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09604521011027598.
Owyang, J., Samuel, A., & Greenville, A. (2014). Sharing is the new buying. Vision
Critical/Crowd Companies. Retrieved from http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/.
Perren, R., & Kozinets, R. V. (2018). Lateral exchange markets: How social platforms
operate in a networked economy. Journal of Marketing, 82(1), 20–36. https://doi.
org/10.1509/jm.14.0250.
Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business
Review, 76(4), 97–105.
Price, J. A. (1975). Sharing: The integration of intimate economies sharing.
Anthropologica, 17(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/25604933.
A. Luri Minami et al.
PWC Report (2019). The sharing economy. Consumer Intelligence Series. https://www.
pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-
the-sharing-economy.pdf, Accessed April 2019.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(5), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55
(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68.
Sauer, P. L. & Dick, A. (1993). Using Moderator Variables in Structural Equation Models,
in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 20, eds. Leigh McAlister and
Michael L. Rothschild, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 636-
640.
Scaraboto, D. (2015). Selling, sharing, and everything in between: The hybrid economies
of collaborative networks. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), 152–176. https://
doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv004.
Schaefers, T., Lawson, S. J., & Kukar-Kinney, M. (2016). How the burdens of ownership
promote consumer usage of access-based services. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 569–577.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9366-x.
Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-
centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1),
21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0216-3.
SPC Brasil. https://www.spcbrasil.org.br/pesquisas Accessed November 2018.
Straughan, R., & Roberts, J. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at
green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16
(6), 558–575. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769910297506.
So, K. K. F., Oh, H., & Min, S. (2018). Motivations and constraints of Airbnb consumers:
Findings from a mixed-methods approach. Tourism Management, 67, 224–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.009.
Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-
based capitalism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Torrent-Sellens, J. (2019). Collaborative Behavior and the Sharing Economy: Pan-
European Evidence for a New Economic Approach. In Strategy and Behaviors in the
Digital Economy. IntechOpen, p. 1-19.
Wang, L. C., Baker, J., Wagner, J. A., & Wakefield, K. (2007). Can a retail web site be
social? Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.71.3.143.
Wang, Y., Xiang, D., Yang, Z., & Ma, S. S. (2019). Unraveling customer sustainable
consumption behaviors in sharing economy: A socio-economic approach based on
social exchange theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 869–879. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.139.
137
Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 124–137
Wertenbroch, K., Soman, D., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2007). On the perceived value of
money: The reference dependence of currency numerosity effects. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1086/513041.
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2017). The rise of the sharing economy:
Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Journal of Marketing Research,
54(5), 687–705. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0204.
Adriana Luri Minami is an MSc Scholar in Business Administration with a double degree
from Insper (Brazil) and NOVA School Business and Economics (Portugal). She received
her bachelor degree in Business Administration from Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV-
EAESP, Brazil), where she graduated with honors. She holds experience in Finance,
Commercial and Operations, having worked with companies in the Energy, Healthcare and
Real Estate sectors. Her current research interests are in the area of consumer behavior,
collaborative economics, sharing economy and services marketing.
Carla Ramos is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Insper, Brazil. She holds a Ph.D. in
Marketing from the School of Management of the University of Bath (United Kingdom),
and an MSc in Management with specialization in Marketing from the School of Economics
of the University of Porto (Portugal). In 2008, she became Post-Doctoral Research Fellow
in Marketing in a joint project between the School of Economics of the University of Porto
(Portugal), and the IMP Group at the Manchester Business School (MBS) at the University
of Manchester (United Kingdom). Her research interests are in the areas of business-to-
business (B2B) marketing and industrial networks, consumer behavior, services market­
ing, sales force, cognition and entrepreneurship. Amongst other journals, she has pub­
lished her work in the International Journal of Research in Marketing, Industrial
Marketing Management, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management and the
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing.
Adriana Bruscato Bortoluzzo is a Doctor of Statistics from the University of São Paulo
(USP) and a Master and Bachelor of Statistics from the same university. She joined Insper
in Brazil in 1999, and is currently Associate Professor at this institution. She also works as a
consultant, specializing in statistics for organizations in a variety of industries. She has
published her academic research in Brazilian and international journals, such as Emerging
Markets Finance & Trade and Journal of Applied Statistics. Her research is currently
devoted to analyses of Brazilian and cross-border mergers and acquisitions in Brazil,
estimation of cost of capital and optimization of the capital structure of companies in
Brazil, as well as various topics in the field of Applied Statistics. She also collaborates with
projects from such different fields as marketing, organizational behavior and others in the
areas of management and economics.