Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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

Is sharing up for sale? Monetary exchanges in the sharing economy T

Inken Küper, Laura Marie Edinger-Schons
University of Mannheim, Schloss, 68131 Mannheim, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Past research has neglected the question of whether different exchange mechanisms and consumption or service
Sharing economy contexts (CSCs) in the sharing economy may lead to different outcomes. The authors develop a novel theoretical
Social exchange theory framework that proposes that willingness to participate in the sharing economy will be lower if exchange me-
Relational models theory chanisms and CSCs do not match—that is, if monetary/social exchange mechanisms are applied in hedonic/
Exchange mechanisms
utilitarian CSCs, taking into account the moderating role of materialism. Moreover, the authors propose that in
Utilitarian/hedonic consumption or service
contexts
the sharing economy, monetary exchanges may cause a crowding-out of prosocial behaviors and that this effect
Materialism will be especially pronounced for highly materialistic individuals. They test their hypothesized framework in
three experimental studies that support the theorizing and provide results with important implications for the
design of sharing economy offers as well as for society.

1. Introduction
Continuously, new offers in the sharing economy are being devel-
oped, making exchanges easier, more convenient, and cheaper.
Interestingly, the exchanges within the sharing economy are everything
but homogeneous (Belk, 2010; Cheng, 2016; Scaraboto, 2015; Schor &
Fitzmaurice, 2015), encompassing exchange mechanisms that range
from conventional market exchanges involving negotiated prices to
exchanges that are based on gift-giving and reciprocity (Polanyi, 1944;
Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Scaraboto, 2015;
Sundararajan, 2019). In some cases, different exchange mechanisms are
used for the same commodity that is being exchanged. Airbnb and
Couchsurfing are illustrative examples: both platforms offer peer-to-
peer based sharing of accommodation. However, whereas Airbnb relies
on negotiated prices—a market-pricing mechanism—Couchsurfing is
based on social norms of gift-giving and reciprocity and no monetary
payment is involved.
Labeling market-pricing business models of the sharing economy
such as Airbnb as “sharing” has led to the question of whether such
activities should be referred to instead as “pseudo-sharing” (Belk,
2014b, p. 1596), because they are, more accurately, short-term rental
activities. Obviously, whereas sharing is a social practice, market-pri-
cing business models of the sharing economy belong to the realm of
market exchanges (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Eckhardt & Bardhi,
2016). A growing body of literature has studied the progressive blurring
of economic and social relationships and exchanges, noting the conflicts
that may occur if they overlap (Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2016; Heyman &
Ariely, 2004; Jenkins et al., 2014; McGraw & Tetlock, 2005; Scaraboto,
2015; Sundararajan, 2019), and explaining how we have moved from
having a market economy to being a market society (Sandel, 2012).
Social exchange theory (SET) (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) provides a
comprehensive account of the mismatches that can occur if economic
transactions take place in social relationships (e.g., paying a friend to
do a favor) or vice versa. We propose that a variety of exchange me-
chanisms (i.e., monetary vs. social) in combination with a variety of
consumption or service contexts (i.e., hedonic vs. utilitarian) (Dhar &
Wertenbroch, 2000) may cause such mismatches, which may then af-
fect consumers’ willingness to participate in the sharing economy, de-
pending on their level of materialism (Richins & Dawson, 1992). We
further propose that the application of monetary exchange mechanisms
in the sharing economy can erode social norms of sharing and that this
effect will be more pronounced for highly materialistic individuals.
In a first step, we conducted four focus group interviews to gain a
holistic understanding of potential users’ perceptions of monetary ex-
change mechanisms in the sharing economy and their categorization of
the exchange relationships as economic or social. The interviews reveal
that consumers perceive utilitarian consumption and service contexts
(CSCs), such as ride-sharing, as economic relationships in which
monetary exchange mechanisms are appropriate, but perceive hedonic
CSCs, such as sharing a dinner, as social relationships where social
exchange mechanisms are appropriate and monetary exchanges would
lead to a mismatch.
Drawing on the results of this qualitative study, and drawing from
social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005) as well as relational models theory (RMT) (Fiske, 1991, 1992;
Fiske & Haslam, 1997, 2005; Haslam & Fiske, 1999; Haslam, 2004), we

E-mail addresses: inken.blatt@bwl.uni-mannheim.de (I. Küper), schons@bwl.uni-mannheim.de (L.M. Edinger-Schons).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.020
Received 30 December 2018; Received in revised form 8 August 2020; Accepted 13 August 2020
Available online 03 September 2020
0148-2963/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons
derive a conceptual framework on individual reactions to varying ex-
change mechanisms in the sharing economy, depending on the type of
CSC and materialism. Specifically, we hypothesize that the willingness
to participate in the sharing economy depends on whether a match
exists between the respective exchange mechanism and the CSC.
Moreover, materialism as a trait has recently received widespread at-
tention in micro-level sharing economy research (e.g., Bucher, Fieseler,
& Lutz, 2016; Akbar, Mai, & Hoffmann, 2016; Davidson, Habibi, &
Laroche, 2018). We propose that the detrimental effects of mismatches
will be less pronounced for materialistic individuals. Over and above
these antecedents of willingness to participate, following Sandel
(2012), we hypothesize that participation in monetary exchanges in the
sharing economy may induce an erosion of social norms of sharing that
manifests as decreased prosocial behaviors, and that this effect will be
more pronounced for highly materialistic individuals.
To empirically test our theorized framework, we conduct three ex-
periments. The first 2 × 2 (i.e., monetary vs. social exchange me-
chanism; hedonic vs. utilitarian CSC) between-subjects scenario ex-
periment reveals that indeed, in line with our basic theorizing,
willingness to participate in a monetary exchange in the sharing
economy will be lower if the CSC is a hedonic one—that is, if a mis-
match exists between CSC and the exchange mechanism. In a second
scenario experiment, we extend these findings by delving into the
psychological mechanisms that mediate these effects. We find that a
monetary exchange mechanism leads to activation of market norms,
which increases the willingness to participate but that this process is
disrupted if the CSC is of a hedonic (versus utilitarian) type and, thus, a
mismatch exists. In line with our theorizing, we show that this mod-
erated mediation effect depends on the dispositional level of materi-
alism (i.e., moderated moderated mediation). Results indicate that for
highly materialistic individuals, the negative effect of a mismatch be-
tween the exchange mechanism and the service or consumption context
is weaker than for less materialistic persons. A third, single-factor (i.e.,
monetary vs. social exchange mechanism) between-subjects field ex-
periment reveals participants’ actual donation behavior and generates
support for the proposition that engaging in monetary exchanges in
situations that usually follow social norms of sharing (e.g., a swap
party) may crowd out highly materialistic participants’ prosocial be-
haviors (e.g., donations).
By being the first study to empirically analyze the differential effects
of varying exchange mechanisms and CSCs within the sharing economy,
our research makes several contributions. First, we reveal that in-
dividual consumers’ willingness to participate in the sharing economy
depends on both the exchange mechanism (i.e., monetary vs. social)
and the CSC (i.e., hedonic vs. utilitarian). This result significantly ex-
tends knowledge on micro-level effects in the sharing economy, an area
that has enjoyed comparatively little research attention (Bucher et al.,
2016; Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2016; Eckhardt et al., 2019). Our study
thereby represents an empirical test of the mismatches proposed in
conceptual papers on SET (e.g., Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), RMT
(Fiske, 1991, 1992; Fiske & Haslam, 1996; Haslam, 1994), and “pseudo-
sharing” in the sharing economy (Belk, 2014a; Habibi, Davidson, &
Laroche, 2016).
Second, our investigation contributes to the emerging stream of
research on of the role of materialism in the sharing economy (Bucher,
Fieseler, & Lutz, 2016; Akbar, Mai, & Hoffmann, 2016; Davidson,
Habibi, & Laroche, 2018). Specifically, we reveal that an individual’s
level of materialism is an important contingency factor that may ex-
plain variations in reactions to sharing economy offers. Third, the field
experiment produced seminal evidence for a potential crowding- out of
individuals’ willingness to donate if market reasoning is increasingly
introduced to spheres of life previously governed by non-market norms
(Sandel, 2012). This finding elicits a need for intensified research as it
has important implications for the potential societal consequences of
market-pricing exchange mechanisms in the sharing economy, an area
which has recently been identified as a research void and priority
224
Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234
(Eckhardt et al., 2019; Sundararajan, 2019).
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next sec-
tion provides a brief review of the literature on the sharing economy on
a macro- as well as a micro-level and identifies the research gaps this
study aims to address. Then, on the basis of the results of the focus
group interviews and drawing from existing theory, the research hy-
potheses are derived. The formal tests of these hypotheses are presented
in the section on empirical study, and results of the three experimental
studies are discussed in light of their implications.
2. Review of the literature
2.1. Outcomes of the sharing economy on a macro-level: Curse or blessing?
Although a vigorous discussion continues as to the definition of the
term “sharing economy,” and despite the fact that several overlapping
terms are still used more or less synonymously— “collaborative
economy,” “gig economy,” “collaborative consumption” (Martin, 2016;
Schor, 2014)—the sharing economy can be summarized as all activities
that include peer-to-peer based sharing of resources, often facilitated by
the internet (Acquier, Daudigeos, & Pinkse, 2017; Belk, 2014a;
Eckhardt et al., 2019; Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2016; Etter, Fieseler, &
Whelan, 2019). The term “sharing” generally excludes forms of ex-
change in which monetary prices are involved (Belk, 2014b). Sharing
can be considered as “the act and process of distributing what is ours to
others for their use and/or the act and process of receiving or taking
something from others for our use” (Belk, 2007, p. 126). Such sharing
represents a type of innate human behavior that is conceivably more
natural and has a much longer tradition than market exchanges
(Polanyi, 1944). Food sharing, particularly the allocation of meat from
large animals, has been an important element of foraging societies, and
mechanisms of sharing and reciprocity occur among toddlers (Levitt
et al., 1985). In contrast, sharing in the sharing economy has become
more strongly associated with large commercial platforms like Airbnb
and Uber, fueling discussion around so-called “pseudo-sharing” (Belk,
2014a; Habibi et al., 2016).
Further, economic, environmental, political, and social impacts of
the sharing economy are increasingly discussed in a critical way
(Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Dillahunt & Malone, 2015; John, 2017;
Martin, 2016; Schor, 2014; Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015). The sharing
economy was first seen as enriching society by enabling more efficient
use of resources, building social connections, and providing economic
benefits. However, recent criticism has characterized sharing as “lar-
gely based on evading regulations and breaking the law” (Baker, 2014).
The core questions are (1) What are the societal consequences of
business models like Airbnb and Uber? and (2) Could these disruptive
business models, instead of contributing to more sustainable forms of
business, be a Trojan horse of even more radical capitalist market lib-
eralism? On the positive side, such business models may lead to fa-
vorable outcomes: more efficient use of resources; cheaper prices for
consumers; freedom, empowerment, and enjoyment; trust-enhancing
effects; improved services; and increased economic activity and en-
trepreneurship (Avital et al., 2015). On the downside, critics warn
about several potentially detrimental impacts: destruction of existing
business models; unfair competition (regulation rules do not apply,
such as for fire safety, hygiene, licensing fees, insurance); endanger-
ment of equal access to living space and mobility; safety risks owing to
lack of insurance; undermining of employment laws; and benefiting
from tax loopholes (and thus reduced tax incomes for the state).
2.2. Micro-level research on the sharing economy
As research on individual micro-level outcomes of participating in
the sharing economy is still in its infancy, “surprisingly little is known
about the individuals who are at the heart of this phenomenon. What
motivates them to share their cars, apartments, gardens and bikes with
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons
strangers?” (Bucher et al., 2016, p. 317). Recent research has generated
first insights: individual participants in the sharing economy are de-
scribed as being motivated by economic, environmental, and social
factors (Hamari et al., 2015; Lamberton & Rose, 2012; Schor, 2014).
Economic factors relate to the fact that sharing economy business
models create new income-earning opportunities, in that people are
able to earn money easily by renting out spare bedrooms or cars or by
undertaking certain tasks. Furthermore, sharing economy platforms are
often cheaper than market alternatives. Thus, a person who is looking
for accommodation can save money by booking a room via Airbnb
rather than booking a hotel room (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014; Eckhardt
& Bardhi, 2016; Hamari et al., 2015). Economic factors are essentially
monetary motives—“I share because it is economically wise” (Bucher
et al., 2016, p. 318).
Environmental factors relate to a reduction in ecological impact and
a reduced demand for new goods. For example, “tool-sharing reduces
new tool purchases” (Schor, p. 6, 2014; Hamari et al., 2015). Although
no comprehensive studies have examined the real ecological impact of
the sharing economy (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015), many platforms
advertise themselves as green (Schor, 2014) and are driven by moral
motives—“I share because it is the right thing to do” (Bucher et al.,
2016, p. 319). Moral motives include all motives grounded in the no-
tion that sharing is a more meaningful, sustainable, and en-
vironmentally friendly alternative to ownership-based forms of access
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Botsman & Rogers, 2011; John, 2017). Re-
latedly, sharing has also been discussed as a new form of more “mindful
consumption” (Buczynski, 2013) or as “anti-consumption” (Ozanne &
Ballantine, 2010). Some participants “are ideologically committed to
concepts of sharing and collaborating, and many have critiques of
market provision” (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015, p. 414).
Social factors relate to the desire to increase social connections
(Hamari et al., 2015; Mannak et al., 2004), resulting in social-hedonic
motives—“I share to connect with others” (Bucher et al., 2016, p. 319).
In most cultures, sharing activities are social rituals, like sharing food
and drink, and form the cement of human social interactions (Belk,
2010; Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2016). As such, sharing “goes hand in hand
with trust and bonding” (Belk, 2010, p. 717).
2.3. Monetary versus non-monetary exchange mechanisms in the sharing
economy
Previous research has also shed light on different types of ex-
changes. In traditional exchanges, we rely almost entirely on money to
transact with each other. However, the sharing economy opens the door
to a wide variety of exchange mechanisms. SET proposes that ex-
changes can take various forms, from (1) pure gift-giving/altruism,
where an object is transferred from one individual to another without
the expectation of reciprocation, to (2) reciprocity, or the exchange of
goods between people who are bound with one another in non-market,
non-hierarchical relationships, and (3) market exchanges, in which the
prices of goods exchanged are determined by the law of supply and
demand (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Many of the business models
of the sharing economy are something in between gift-giving, re-
ciprocity and market exchange (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015;
Sundararajan, 2019).
Interestingly, in some cases, different exchange mechanisms can be
observed for an identical commodity. For instance, whereas through
Airbnb owners list their spare bedrooms or apartments for rent,
Couchsurfing allows people to offer their spare bed or improvised
sleeping arrangements to community members without monetary
compensation (although Couchsurfing switched from a non-profit
business model to a for-profit business model in 2010). Thus, while
both platforms offer sharing of accommodation, Airbnb relies on a
market-pricing mechanism and Couchsurfing is based on social norms
of gift-giving and reciprocity (Sundararajan, 2019).
Given the wide variety of exchange mechanisms currently in use in
225
Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234
the sharing economy, it is surprising that empirical research has ne-
glected the question of how these various mechanisms may affect
participation and sharing. An unaddressed question concerns the effects
of whether sharing platforms use money as a medium of exchange or
not (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015). An examination of car-sharing as
“access-based consumption” develops criteria that distinguish such
business models (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Eckhardt et al. 2019) and
suggests “market mediation” to refer to the varying degrees to which
business models rely on economic exchange as a central factor. A dis-
cussion of Airbnb and Couchsurfing asserts that “money profanes the
sharing transaction” and that “[w]here the main intent is to enjoy the
human interaction of sharing, any thoughts and mechanisms of com-
modity exchange become antithetical to what is going on—like offering
$5 for helping get my car started” (Belk, 2014a, p.19).
First evidence on the proportion of people who share in commercial
versus non-commercial contexts shows that the group of non-commer-
cial sharers is much smaller (only 29% of the sample) than that of
commercial sharers (Bucher et al., 2016). Other work offers a con-
tinuum of exchanges ranging from “pure sharing” (e.g., pooling re-
sources) to “pure exchange” (e.g., buying bread from store) along with
a method to calculate the “sharing score” of each practice (Habibi et al.,
2016). However, so far, no empirical studies have examined how
market-pricing mechanisms in the sharing economy affect willingness
to participate and sharing behaviors. This investigation addresses this
research gap.
Conceivably, the monetary exchanges in social relationships and
vice versa can lead to mismatches that may cause psychological injury
and perhaps even permanent damage to the relationship (Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005). This possibility is in line with recent applications of
relational models theory (Haslam & Fiske, 1999), in which conflicts
between social and market norms have been shown to lead to detri-
mental outcomes (e.g., Heyman & Ariely, 2004). Similarly, in the
sharing economy, the use of monetary exchange mechanisms in con-
sumption and service contexts that are categorized as hedonic or social
(e.g., as in the case of commercial dinner-sharing platforms) may result
in adverse reactions by participants. In contrast, the use of monetary
exchange mechanisms could be smoothly accepted and enhance will-
ingness to participate if the CSC is clearly categorized as a utilitarian or
economic one.
Further, Sandel (2012) claims that monetary exchange mechanisms
play an increasing role in our modern societies (e.g., prison cell up-
grades, line-standing services, private military services), and that in
many cases, monetary incentives are used to solve social problems, as
when money is offered to female drug addicts to get sterilized or when
school kids are paid for reading books. He contends that we have drifted
from “having a market economy” to “being a market society,” and ar-
gues that putting a price on every human activity may erode certain
moral and civic goods worth caring about. Applying Sandel’s (2012)
basic logic to the sharing economy context, we could ask whether using
monetary exchange mechanisms in contexts in which people formerly
shared resources voluntarily may lead to a crowding-out of the intrinsic
motivation to help and a subsequent erosion of prosocial behaviors. In
our conceptual framework, we theorize how monetary exchanges in the
sharing economy affect both participation and prosocial behaviors.
2.4. Utilitarian versus hedonic CSCs
Consumer research has long distinguished between hedonic and
utilitarian products and services. Consumer behavior can be driven by
either hedonic or utilitarian considerations, which map onto in-
dependent components of evaluations and attitudes and enable people
to differentiate between products and services according to their he-
donic or utilitarian nature (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Voss,
Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003). Hedonic consumption is sensation-
driven and provides consumers with multi-sensory and emotive ex-
periences (e.g., theme parks, vacation resorts, nightclubs), whereas
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons
utilitarian consumption is focused on the functional aspects of products
and services and aims to solve practical problems (e.g., car repairs,
banking; Jiang & Wang, 2006). Typically, consumers’ evaluations of
hedonic products and services are based on the pleasure related to the
experience, whereas evaluations of utilitarian products and services are
based on instrumental utility (Batra & Ahtola, 1991).
In the sharing economy, consumption and service contexts lie on a
continuum of offers ranging from more hedonic (e.g., dinner-sharing,
swap parties) to more utilitarian (e.g., ride-sharing, tool-lending). Prior
research on the sharing economy has ignored the different effects of
these two fundamentally different types of consumption on participa-
tion and sharing. In our conceptual framework, we propose that con-
sumers’ reactions to monetary versus social exchange mechanisms de-
pend on the respective CSC (i.e., hedonic or utilitarian).
2.5. The role of materialism
The notions of consumerism, anti-consumption, and materialism
have been central to the public and academic debate around sharing in
recent years. Consumerism is typically described as a social and eco-
nomic order and ideology that encourages ever-increasing acquisition
of goods and services (Kasser & Kanner, 2004). The claim that western
societies are characterized by increasing consumerism is supported by
statistics showing that, for instance, the average size of the American
home has nearly tripled over the past 50 years.1
The importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions has
been referred to as materialism (Belk, 1985; Ger & Belk, 1990; Kilbourne
& Pickett, 2008; Richins & Dawson, 1992). Besides investigating cul-
tural and historical differences in the level of materialism, past research
has explored individual differences (Shrum et al., 2013) and considered
the striking range of consumption practices between, for example,
Buddhist monks and “shopaholics.” Materialism has been discussed as
having multiple sub-dimensions, with an early categorization proposing
three facets—possessiveness, non-generosity, and envy, (Belk, 1985). A
later approach suggested acquisition centrality, acquisition as the pur-
suit of happiness, and possession-defined success, with materialistic
individuals tending to value possessions and their acquisition more than
other life goals, to be self-centered, to pursue a life of material com-
plexity rather than simplicity, and to be less satisfied with their lot in
life (Richins & Dawson, 1992).
Very recently, research on individual behaviors in the sharing
economy has started to investigate the role of materialism. For instance,
individual consumers’ level of materialism has been identified as the
central determinant of the monetary motivation to participate in the
sharing economy (Bucher, Fieseler, & Lutz, 2016). Further, results of an
inquiry into how consumers who do not yet participate in the sharing
economy can be motivated to do so show that possessiveness is the
strongest inhibitor of participation (Akbar, Mai, & Hoffmann, 2016).
Additionally, a cross-cultural study showed that materialism enhanced
participation in the sharing economy by very different mechanisms. US
Americans sought transformative and hedonic experiences that were
expected to improve their self-image and well-being. For Indians, ma-
terialism led to participation via increased levels of perceived utility
(Davidson, Habibi, & Laroche, 2018). While this incipient research field
has provided valuable insights into the role of materialistic predis-
positions in the sharing economy, the interaction of such predisposi-
tions with varying exchange mechanisms and CSCs has so far been
neglected.
Thus, we derive our conceptual framework, which predicts in-
dividual consumers’ reactions to monetary versus social exchange me-
chanisms in the sharing economy, depending on hedonic versus utili-
tarian CSCs and consumers’ level of materialism. To first gain a deeper
understanding of consumers’ perceptions of exchange mechanisms as
1
https://tradingeconomics.com/.
226
Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234
well as consumption and service contexts in the sharing economy, we
conducted a series of four focus-group interviews. We then used the
insights gained in the focus group interviews to derive our hypotheses.
3. Qualitative study and derivation of hypotheses
We conducted four focus groups with five to seven participants
each, who varied regarding age and occupational status. The inter-
viewer first asked the participants how they would define the sharing
economy (Dürrenberger et al., 1999). The interviewer then asked the
participants what motives would lead them to participate, what atti-
tudes they have toward different exchange mechanisms, and whether
they considered these exchange mechanisms appropriate for different
CSCs and offers. We audio-recorded and transcribed all interviews.
3.1. Motives to participate in the sharing economy
In all four focus groups, participants had a good understanding of
what the term sharing economy means, could describe specific offers in
the sharing economy, and could report own experiences. In line with
the literature, participants in all four focus groups reported economic,
environmental/moral, and social motives for participating in the
sharing economy. However, participants considered environmental/
moral motives as least important and some participants even regarded
them as irrelevant.
Economic motives were named first and most prominently in all
four focus groups. Referring to offers in the sharing economy, one re-
spondent reported that
it is often cheaper. For example, if you think of Airbnb, it is of course
cheaper to have an apartment or room in a house of a private person than
to book a hotel room. Also ride-sharing is often cheaper than other forms
of transportation.
Interestingly, economic motives were most dominant in the case of
mobility related offers such as car-sharing, ride-sharing, or bike-
sharing, and these services were categorized as more utilitarian in
nature. The discussion in the focus groups indicated that in these kinds
of service contexts, interactions are guided more strongly by market
norms than by social norms. Besides monetary savings, convenience
was repeatedly stressed. For example,
We used Uber quite often in the US. It was very attractive, because it was
much cheaper than taking a taxi. And it was much faster. It was often the
case that within a minute someone stood there and gave you a ride while
you had to wait for over 20 minutes for a taxi. And you did not have to
have any cash either, you could just pay via the app.
In all groups, ecological motives formed another basis for partici-
pating in models of sharing. One respondent stated:
I think it is also an approach to promote sustainability, if you do not
always buy something new but just share things with others. Thus, fewer
products have to be created.
Another participant noted:
If you think of ride-sharing models then of course you might also be
incentivized by sustainability motives. For example, you could think it
would be good for the environment if we would share the ride instead of
driving separately.
However, in all four groups the discussion revealed that participants
saw sustainability-related motives as less important than economic
motives:
I would suggest that sustainability is less important than financial moti-
vations. I even believe that sustainability could be partially overestimated
as a motivation in the sharing economy.
One area of sharing in which the ecological or moral aspect seemed
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons
to be very important to participants, however, was the topic of sharing
leftover food instead of throwing it out.
Social motives for participation in the sharing economy were a topic
for discussion in all four focus groups. For instance, two respondents
commented:
I think that social factors also play an important role. If you look at
Couchsurfing, it’s actually less about finding a place to stay, because you
can usually find cheap offers in hostels. Rather, it’s about getting to know
a local resident with whom you can talk about the city, which also shows
you new places in the city and as a consequence, you have a very dif-
ferent experience during the journey than when you are alone in the
hotel. If you are new in a city it is nice to get connected and have a bit of
sociality, right?
Thus, areas in which social motives obviously play a very important
role are consumption and service contexts that are more hedonic in
nature, such as platforms for dinner-sharing. In such hedonic CSCs, the
relationship is social and the interactions are obviously guided by social
norms. These findings are very much in line with results from past
studies that propose that motives for participating in mobility-related
offers of the sharing economy are more economically related (e.g.,
Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012), whereas sharing a dinner is categorized as a
social practice (Belk, 2014a).
3.2. Perceptions of exchange mechanisms in the sharing economy
In all four focus groups, participants were aware that various ex-
change mechanisms are employed, and the topic came up naturally
from the discussion. Non-economic types of exchanges were referred to
as a “give and take,” evoking the notion of reciprocity. In general, the
discussion revealed that if the CSC is more utilitarian in nature, the
economic motive is dominant and offers like Airbnb, which use a
monetary exchange mechanism, are preferred. If the CSC is categorized
as hedonic, the social motive is dominant and offers like Couchsurfing,
which use a social exchange mechanism, are preferred.
However, in line with the propositions of a potential mismatch of
monetary exchanges in social relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005), the discussion in all four focus groups indicated that participants
felt that monetary exchanges are not suitable in all CSCs. Instead,
supporting the assumptions of SET, participants felt that in hedonic
CSCs, which typically create social relationships, monetary payment
could be inappropriate or feel awkward. For instance, one respondent
expressed:
Couchsurfing is about interaction with the other person. Couchsurfing is
indeed a platform, but on the platform people are looking for social
exchanges and relationships. In my opinion, the social component should
be in the foreground and a monetary payment would be inappropriate.
Another participant stated:
At dinner together I think it’s more the social aspect that prevails. It’s
about sharing a dinner with another person. It would be inappropriate if
you had to pay for it.
On the other hand, referring to more utilitarian CSCs related to
mobility, one participant argued:
In car sharing I would really say “okay, we just share the costs.”
Transport from A to B is somehow an unavoidable evil, we have to put up
with that in order to somehow get to another city. In contrast, a dinner
together is a nice occasion, from which we have a social benefit.
The focus groups unanimously revealed that utilitarian CSCs are
perceived as commercial services in which monetary payment is the
right form of exchange (e.g., “ride-sharing is a service”) and hedonic
CSCs are perceived as social interactions in which monetary payment
would violate social norms (e.g., “at a shared dinner it would send out
the wrong signals if the host gets paid for it. This might lead to a
227
Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234
situation in which people don’t do it for the social interaction but to
make money and that would be a problem”).
This perception is very much in line with consumer research find-
ings that utilitarian services are purchased in a “work mentality”
(Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982) and are seen as “necessities” and
“something one has to get through,” whereas hedonic services offer
“fun and pleasure” (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994). Obviously, sharing
economy offers that are more utilitarian in nature create economic
relationships that aim to satisfy a functional need, whereas offers that
are more hedonic create social relationships that aim at entertainment
and emotional worth. This contrast resembles a dichotomy of human
relationships that has evolved based on Fiske’s RMT and that has re-
cently received increased research attention. Whereas Fiske developed
a typology of four relational models of communal sharing, authority
ranking, equality matching, and market pricing (e.g., Fiske, 1991, 1992;
Fiske & Haslam, 1996; Haslam & Fiske, 1999), recent contributions
have distinguished between just two general categories: economic and
social relationships (e.g., Heyman & Ariely, 2004). These two categories
of human relationships are guided by different norms of behavior, and
conflicts can arise if they mix (e.g., Tetlock, 2003).
Our basic proposition is that in the sharing economy, the type of
CSC (i.e., hedonic vs. utilitarian) activates different relationship norms
(i.e., social versus market norms) and that a (mis-)match between the
CSC and the respective exchange mechanism is an important determi-
nant of the willingness to participate. Thus, in line with our qualitative
results and the propositions of RMT and SET, we propose that will-
ingness to participate in the sharing economy will be lower if a mis-
match exists between the CSC and the exchange mechanism.
We propose that this effect can be traced back to norm activation
processes (Schwartz, 1970). The theory of norm activation proposes
that situational cues, which may be subconscious, activate different
norms of behavior. The varying types CSCs (i.e., hedonic vs. utilitarian)
can thus be expected to elicit very different norms of behavior. As the
respondents indicated in the interviews, hedonic services like dinner-
sharing will activate social norms of sharing whereas utilitarian services
like ride-sharing will activate market norms. If the exchange me-
chanism matches the CSC—for example, if a utilitarian service uses a
monetary exchange mechanism— market norms will be activated and
participants’ willingness to participate will be elevated. However, if the
exchange mechanism does not match the CSC—for example, if a
monetary exchange mechanism is applied in a hedonic CSC—the acti-
vation of market norms will be disrupted and subsequently the will-
ingness to participate will be reduced. Thus, we propose that monetary
exchange mechanisms enhance willingness to participate via an acti-
vation of market norms if the CSC is a utilitarian one—that is, if a match
exists (moderated mediation).
H1 (moderation). The type of CSC will moderate the effect of monetary
exchange mechanisms on willingness to participate in a way that the
effect of a monetary exchange mechanism will be less positive for
hedonic than for utilitarian CSCs.
H2a (moderated mediation). This interactive effect of exchange
mechanism and CSC on willingness to participate will be mediated by
the activation of market norms in a way that if monetary exchange
mechanisms are applied in hedonic CSCs, the activation of market
norms will be disrupted and subsequently lower the intention to
participate.
In the following, we hypothesize how the individual level of mate-
rialism moderates these moderated mediation effects in the form of a
three-way interaction or moderated moderated mediation. Drawing
from the conceptualizations of trait materialism (Belk, 1985; Richins &
Dawson, 1992), we propose that the reactions of potential users to
varying exchange mechanisms and CSCs in the sharing economy will
depend on the individual level of materialism. In a first step, we pro-
pose that materialistic individuals will have a higher level of activation
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons
of market norms, independent of the characteristics of the situation.
This expectation is supported by research on the trait of materialism,
which suggests that these individuals pursue happiness through ac-
quisition of material goods instead of, for example, through social re-
lationships (Richins & Dawson, 1992). Possessions and their acquisition
can assume a central role in these persons’ lives (Belk, 1985), and
“consumption for the sake of consumption becomes a fever that con-
sumes all the potential energy” (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton,
1978, p. 231). We deduce that these individuals will constantly ex-
perience a state of market norm activation, which will not be the case
for individuals with low levels of materialism.
In a second step, we propose that the moderated mediation hy-
pothesized in H2a—that is, that monetary exchange mechanisms in
hedonic CSCs will decrease consumers’ willingness to participate via a
reduction of market norm activation—will depend on the individual
level of materialism. More specifically, we assume that for highly ma-
terialistic individuals, the decreased activation of market norms caused
by a mismatch between the monetary exchange mechanism and the
hedonic service context will not be as pronounced as for low materi-
alists because they have high levels of market norm activation in-
dependent of the situational circumstances. As a consequence, the ne-
gative effect of mismatches on willingness to participate will be less
strong for this group of consumers. For consumers who have low levels
of materialism, however, the mismatch between a monetary exchange
mechanism and a hedonic CSC will lead to a more substantive decrease
in the activation of market norms, which subsequently translates into
eroded levels of willingness to participate.
H2b (moderated moderated mediation). The moderated mediation
hypothesized in H2a will depend on the individual level of
materialism. Specifically, the negative effect of monetary exchanges
in hedonic CSCs will be less pronounced for individuals with high levels
of materialism than for those with low levels of materialism.
3.3. Erosion of sharing
In the focus groups, participants explicitly discussed potential con-
flicts between social and market norms. In one focus group, for in-
stance, a respondent described the example of a friend helping with a
house move. The participant said it would feel strange to offer the
friend a monetary payment for the service and that he would rather buy
a present like a box of chocolate. Other focus group participants ex-
plicitly addressed the question of whether a monetary payment for such
services in social relationships could lead to a crowding-out of social
norms of helping (Frey & Jegen, 2001). One participant argued:
That could be a fundamental problem of the sharing economy. What
happens when people pay for such services? If we put a market price on
everything—will voluntary helping disappear? For example, neighbor-
hood services, the neighbor helps with the move or something. Does he
still do that if he could offer the same service on any website and get paid
for it?
Thus, if through the sharing economy monetary exchanges are in-
troduced into areas of life that were previously based on non-market
exchanges, this insertion may crowd out individuals’ intrinsic will-
ingness to help and share (Frey & Jegen, 2001; Sandel, 2012) because
individuals re-categorize social relationships as economic relationships
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Re-categorization might lead to an
activation of market norms instead of social norms (Heyman & Ariely,
2004), causing people to focus on their individual benefits and payoffs
instead of the collective benefits. We expect this focus on individual
benefits to lead to a reduced willingness to engage in prosocial beha-
viors.
As an example, a student might have occasionally offered a spare
room in his flat to visiting students because he enjoyed meeting new
people and exchanging stories and experiences. With the launch of
228
Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234
Airbnb, this student gives it a try and rents the spare room out for
money—re- categorizing the relationship with the visiting students as
an economic relationship guided by market norms. As a consequence,
willingness to offer the room for free in the future may decline. Thus,
we formally propose:
H3a. Participating in monetary exchanges in the sharing economy will
lead to a reduced willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors.
3.4. Moderating role of materialism
In line with the outlined characterization of materialistic in-
dividuals, we propose that materialists will react differently than non-
materialists to the introduction of monetary exchanges. Given that
materialists are prone to focus on acquisition of material goods and
their own self-benefits (Richins & Dawson, 1992), we propose that the
crowding-out of intrinsic prosocial behaviors will be significantly
stronger for high than for low materialists. Specifically, we propose that
the re-categorization of the relationship from social to economic and
the activation of market norms will more naturally happen for the high
materialists, who are predisposed to think according to this logic. More
formally:
H3b. Materialism will moderate the effect of monetary exchanges on
prosocial behaviors in a way that the reduction in prosocial behaviors
will be significantly stronger for individuals with a high level of
materialism than for those with a low level of materialism.
4. Empirical studies
To test our hypotheses, we conducted three experiments: two 2 × 2
between-subjects scenario experiments and one single-factor between-
subjects field experiment (N1 = 427; N2 = 208; N3 = 116). In studies 1
and 2, the two scenario experiments, we examined our first three pre-
dictions (H1, H2a, and H2b). In these experiments, we randomly as-
signed respondents to either a monetary or social exchange mechanism
(i.e., either a market-pricing mechanism was present or not). Further,
we used two hypothetical offers of the sharing economy that re-
presented the two types of CSC (i.e., hedonic vs. utilitarian).
In study 3, we examined our fourth and fifth predictions (H3a and
H3b). We used a single-factor between-subjects field experiment in
which either a monetary or social exchange mechanism was applied.
Participants organized swap parties and either swapped items using
negotiated monetary prices or exchanged items without any monetary
payment or direct reciprocation. Fig. 1 gives an overview of the three
studies.
4.1. Study 1
4.1.1. Design of study
We recruited 427 individuals through Prolific in May 2019 to
complete an online questionnaire in exchange for payment. The in-
dividuals were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions in our 2
(i.e., monetary vs. social exchange mechanism) × 2 (i.e., hedonic vs.
utilitarian service) between-subjects design. The different treatments
were integrated into the online questionnaire.
4.1.2. Data collection and procedure
We published a link to our online survey on Prolific. Once re-
spondents accessed the survey, they were first provided with a short
description of one of the two hypothetical offers that represented either
a hedonic service (i.e., a dinner-sharing platform) or a utilitarian ser-
vice (i.e., a ride-sharing platform). The choice of these offers was based
on the insights from the focus group interviews in which participants in
all four groups mentioned dinner-sharing as representative of a hedonic
CSC and ride-sharing as representative of a utilitarian CSC. All
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons
Fig. 1. Overview of studies.
treatment materials are included in Web Appendix A.
Participants in the hedonic service condition (i.e., the dinner-
sharing platform) were asked to imagine that they were currently
spending a weekend abroad (e.g., in Spain) and they wanted to try a
local dish. A friend introduced them to the dinner-sharing platform
Sharedine, where a local person would cook dinner for the individual
and other guests at the host’s home.
Respondents in the utilitarian service condition (i.e., the ride-
sharing platform) were asked to imagine that they were currently
spending a weekend abroad (e.g., Spain) and they wanted to do a day
trip to a different city by car (estimated travel time 1.5 h). A friend told
them about Sharide, an online ride-sharing platform in which a private
car owner would give an individual as well as other passengers a ride in
the driver’s car.
Furthermore, we provided information on the underlying exchange
mechanism (i.e., monetary vs. social exchange) in each of the offers. In
the monetary exchange conditions, participants were informed that the
dinner (ride) would cost $15 and that the dinner-sharing (car-sharing)
was based on monetary prices. The prices in dollars were adopted from
comparable offers of actual sharing economy offers (i.e., eatwith.com
and blablacar.com). In the social exchange mechanism conditions,
participants were notified that the dinner (ride) would be for free and
no payment would be involved. Participants were told that the dinner-
sharing (ride-sharing) was based on helping and sharing.
Finally, respondents were introduced to their potential host (dinner-
sharing) or driver (ride-sharing). After the respondents viewed the
treatment materials, they were asked to report their willingness to
participate in the respective offer. Subsequently, we measured the ex-
tent to which they categorized the CSC as hedonic or utilitarian and
whether they correctly understood the exchange mechanism to be ei-
ther monetary or social. At the end of the survey, respondents were
229
Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234
asked to provide their demographics.
4.1.3. Sample description
The sample consisted of 427 individuals living in the U.S (43.1%
male; mean age = 32.9 years, SD = 11.7), with 216 respondents in the
monetary exchange condition (Ndinner-sharing = 107; Nride-sharing = 109)
and 211 respondents in the social exchange condition (Ndinner-
sharing = 107; Nride-sharing = 104).
4.1.4. Measures and manipulation checks
To measure respondents’ willingness to participate, we developed a
multi-item scale composed of three items: “The likelihood that I will
make use of the service is high,” “I would consider participating in the
service,” and “The probability that I would consider participating in the
service is high.” The construct was measured on a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The measure showed ac-
ceptable reliability and validity. A complete list of items and scale
evaluation is provided in Web Appendix B.
To check whether the manipulation of the monetary versus social
exchange mechanism worked as intended, respondents were introduced
to the following two items: “The scenario worked on the basis of re-
ceiving a free service without paying anything,” and “The scenario
worked on the basis of paying a fee for the service.” Participants rated
the items on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
7 = strongly agree. We compared the means across groups using
ANOVAs and planned comparisons (Bonferoni post hoc tests) with IBM
SPSS Statistics Version 25. The results show that our manipulations
worked as intended. Respondents who were assigned to the monetary
exchange mechanism treatment in the ride-sharing group had a sig-
nificantly higher mean for the item “Paying a fee for the service” than
those who were assigned to the social exchange mechanism (Mmonetary
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234

exchange mechanism = 6.59; Msocial exchange mechanism = 1.85; (F (1,

212) = 1201.164, p = .000)). For the item “Receiving a free service
without paying anything,” participants in the social exchange condition
had significantly higher ratings than those in the monetary exchange
condition (Msocial exchange mechanism = 6.02; Mmonetary exchange me-
chanism = 1.38; (F (1, 212) = 428.135, p = .000)). Likewise, individuals
in the monetary exchange mechanism conditions in the dinner sharing
group rated the item “Paying a fee for the service” significantly higher
than those in the social exchange mechanism condition (Mmonetary ex-
change mechanism = 6.28; Msocial exchange mechanism = 2.20; (F (1,
211) = 276.231, p = .000)), whereas participants in the social ex-
change mechanism conditions evaluated the item “Receiving a free
service without paying anything” significantly higher than those who
were assigned to the monetary exchange mechanism (Msocial exchange
mechanism = 5.93; Mmonetary exchange mechanism = 1.49; (F (1,
211) = 472.624, p = .000)). Fig. 2. Study 1: Willingness to participate depending on type of exchange
We further measured respondents’ perceived type of CSC with a 7- mechanism and type of CSC.
point semantic differential scale adapted from Voss, Spangenberg, and
Grohmann (2003). We used five items that describe a hedonic CSC and
significantly negative interaction effect between the monetary (vs. so-
five items that reflect a utilitarian CSC. An example item for the hedonic
cial) exchange mechanism and the hedonic (vs. utilitarian) CSC on
CSC is “Using the service is … not fun (1) – fun (7).” A sample item for
willingness to participate (b = -1.08; p = .002). A decomposition of the
the utilitarian CSC is “Using the service is … ineffective (1) – effective
interaction into its simple effects shows that the effect of a monetary
(7).” The measures and results of the scale evaluation are provided in
(versus social) exchange mechanisms on willingness to participate is
Web Appendix B.
significantly negative for the hedonic CSC (b = -0.844; p = .001) and
Using these measures, we conducted a manipulation check for the
insignificant for the utilitarian CSC (b = 0.235; p = .327). Thus, the
type of CSC manipulation. We integrated the items to equally weighed
results of our first study fully support our theorizing in H1 concerning
indices to test for mean differences across groups. Using analysis of
the effect of varying types of exchange mechanisms and CSCs in sharing
variance (ANOVA), we found results indicating that respondents who
economy offers.
were exposed to the dinner-sharing treatment perceived the type of CSC
as significantly more hedonic than respondents who were in the ride-
sharing group (Mdinner-sharing = 5.57; Mride-sharing = 4.79; (F (1, 4.2. Study 2
425) = 35.467, p = .000)). In turn, respondents who were exposed to
the ride-sharing treatment perceived the type of CSC as significantly 4.2.1. Design of study
more utilitarian than respondents who were in the dinner-sharing group This second study examined the psychological mechanisms that
(Mride-sharing = 5.57; Mdinner-sharing = 5.04; (F (1, 425) = 21.528, mediate the effects found in the first study. Specifically, we tested for
p = .000). Thus, our results reveal that our treatments worked as in- the mediating role of an activation of market norms as well as the
tended. moderating role of the individual level of materialism. Identical to
study 1, we conducted an online scenario experiment with a 2 (i.e.,
4.1.5. Results monetary vs. social exchange mechanism) × 2 (i.e., hedonic vs. utili-
The results of a two-way ANOVA with type of exchange mechanism tarian CSC) between-subjects design. We used exactly the same treat-
and type of CSC dummies as the independent variables, and the will- ment materials as in study 1.
ingness to participate as the dependent variable, indicate that the
willingness to participate in the respective offer varies significantly 4.2.2. Data collection and sample
across the different experimental groups (F (423) = 6.060, p = .000). The sample consisted of 208 individuals recruited on Amazon
Specifically, as we predicted in H1, we find evidence for the mismatches MTurk who participated for payment. In total, 50.5% of the re-
proposed by SET. While in the hedonic CSC (i.e., the dinner-sharing), spondents were male and the average age of the participants was
respondents who were assigned to the social exchange mechanism were 35 years (SD = 11.34), with 99 participants in the monetary exchange
significantly more willing to participate in the dinner (Msocial ex- condition (Ndinner-sharing = 44; Nride-sharing = 55) and 109 participants
change = 5.11) than participants who were assigned to the monetary
in the social exchange condition (Ndinner-sharing = 63; Nride-sharing = 46).
exchange mechanism (Mmonetary exchange = 4.29; (F (1, 211) = 10.528,
p = .001), in the utilitarian CSC (i.e., the ride-sharing), willingness to 4.2.3. Measures
participate did not differ significantly across the two exchange me- We measured respondents’ willingness to participate, respondents’
chanisms (Mmonetary exchange = 5.2 vs. Msocial exchange = 4.9, F (1, perceived type of exchange mechanism, and respondents’ perceived
212) = 0.977, p = .324, see Fig. 2). This finding is especially sur- type of CSC using the same scales as in study 1. To measure the acti-
prising, since rational consumers should prefer a free ride-sharing ser- vation of market exchange norms, we developed four items based on
vice to a costly one. The fact that willingness to participate is not higher the work of Bock et al. (2005) and van der Heijden (2004). An example
in the social exchange group than in the monetary exchange group for item is “I can save money through participating in the dinner-sharing/
the ride-sharing offer (the directionality is opposite although the dif- ride-sharing service.” All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale,
ference is insignificant), thus provides first support for our mismatch ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. To measure
theorizing. materialism, we included all three sub-dimensions as proposed by
Furthermore, we ran a regression analysis using PROCESS macro for Richins and Dawson (1992): “acquisition centrality,” “acquisition as the
SPSS Release 3.3 (Model 1, Hayes, 2019) to formally test whether the pursuit of happiness,” and “possession defined success.” To obtain a
interaction between monetary versus social exchange and hedonic more concise measure, we chose to use only the non-reversed coded
versus utilitarian CSC on willingness to participate (as proposed in H1) items that had the strongest factor loadings in the original Richins and
is significant. We also included respondents’ age, gender, and monthly Dawson study (1992). The measures and results of the scale evaluation
net household income as control variables. The analysis reveals a are provided in Web Appendix B.

230
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons
4.2.4. Results
In study 2, we tested H2a and H2b. In a first step, to test H2a, we ran
a moderated mediation (Model 7) using Process macro for SPSS, using
the monetary exchange mechanism dummy as the independent vari-
able, the hedonic CSC dummy as moderator, activation of market norms
as mediator, and willingness to participate as the dependent variable. In
addition, we included respondents’ age, gender, and monthly net
household income as standard controls.
In line with H2a, the results reveal a significant and negative in-
teraction of the monetary exchange dummy with the hedonic CSC
dummy on market norm activation (b = -0.84; , p = .033). Specifically,
the effect of the monetary exchange mechanism on market norm acti-
vation is significantly negative for the hedonic CSC (b = -0.65;
p = .021) and insignificant for the utilitarian CSC (β = 0.20; p = .461).
While the direct effect of the monetary exchange mechanism on in-
tention to participate is insignificant (b = 0.08; p = .619), the indirect
effect via market norm activation is significant and negative for the
hedonic CSC (b = -0.31; [-0.67;-0.04]) and insignificant for the utili-
tarian CSC (b = 0.10; [-0.14; 0.40]). The index of moderated mediation
is significant (0.41; [0.04; 0.90]).
In a second step, we used a moderated moderated mediation ana-
lysis with the SPSS Process Macro (Model 11, 5000 bootstrap samples).
In this analysis, the monetary exchange mechanism dummy was the
independent variable, the hedonic CSC dummy and materialism were
the moderators, activation of market norms was the mediator, and
willingness to participate was the dependent variable. We again con-
trolled for respondents’ age, gender, and monthly net household income
as standard controls.
In line with H2b we find evidence of a moderated moderated
mediation. The results show a significant and positive three-way in-
teraction of the monetary exchange mechanism dummy, the hedonic
CSC, and the individual level of materialism via the activation of
market exchange norms on willingness to participate (index of mod-
erated moderated mediation = 0.55, CI [0.10, 1.12]). More precisely,
in the hedonic CSC condition, at a low level of materialism (one stan-
dard deviation below the mean), there is a negative indirect effect of
the monetary exchange mechanism on intention to participate via the
activation of market norms (effect = -0.58, CI [-1.16, -0.14]). Similarly,
at a medium level of materialism, the indirect effect of the monetary
exchange mechanism via market norm activation on intention to par-
ticipate is still negative and significant (effect = -0.36, CI [-0.73,
-0.08]). However, at high levels of materialism this negative indirect
effect turns insignificant (effect = -0.03, CI [-0.23, 0.19]).
The results of the moderated moderated mediation reveal that the
interactive effect of monetary exchange mechanism and hedonic CSC
decreases the willingness to participate via a disruption of market norm
activation. Further, the significant three-way interaction indicates that,
as predicted, this negative effect is less pronounced for consumers with
higher levels of materialism as compared to those with lower levels.
4.3. Confound checks
To test whether the two CSCs (i.e., ride-sharing vs. dinner-sharing)
were perceived as similar in their quality (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000;
Yang et al., 2005), valuation (Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol 2002), and
trust (Kennedy, Ferrell, & LeClair 2001), and to replicate the finding
from our qualitative study that social/monetary exchanges are seen as
more appropriate in hedonic/utilitarian CSCs, we collected additional
data. Participants were 205 US Americans (50.7% male; mean
age = 32.2 years (SD = 13.1)) who were recruited through Amazon
MTurk in February 2020, with 106 participants in the ride-sharing
condition and 99 participants in the dinner-sharing condition. As in the
previous studies, participants were first provided with a short descrip-
tion of one of the two hypothetical offers that represented either a
hedonic service (i.e., a dinner-sharing platform) or a utilitarian service
(i.e., a ride-sharing platform). We used exactly the same descriptions of
231
Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234
the offers as in studies 1 and 2.
We measured respondent’s perceived quality of the CSCs using the
item “The described online platform offers a high-quality service.”
Perceived valuation of the CSC was measured using the item “The de-
scribed service/event has a lot of value for me.” Furthermore, perceived
trust was measured using two items. An example item is “I believe that
the described platform is trustworthy.” All items were measured on a 7-
point Likert scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree. The
analysis reveals no significant differences in perceived quality, valua-
tion, and trust across the experimental groups. More specifically, re-
spondents perceived the quality (Mride-sharing = 5.3 vs. Mdinner-
sharing = 5.0; (F (1, 203) = 2.113, p = .148)), the value (Mride-
sharing = 5.3 vs. Mdinner-sharing = 5.0; (F (1, 203) = 1.774, p = .184)),
and trust of the services (Mride-sharing = 5.1 vs. Mdinner-sharing = 4.8; (F
(1, 203) = 2.469, p = .118)) similarly.
Furthermore, we used the additional data to support our findings
from the focus group interviews that in hedonic CSCs like dinner-
sharing, social exchanges are seen as more appropriate, whereas in
utilitarian CSCs like ride-sharing monetary exchanges are seen as more
naturally fitting. Respondents completed a three-item measure cap-
turing whether they found a monetary exchange mechanism appro-
priate (an example item is “the described event should be based on
monetary payment.”) and four items measuring whether they found a
social exchange suitable: “the described event should be based on
helping and sharing.” (all rated from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree). The multi-item scales were reduced to equally-weighted
indices for the analyses. We compared the means across groups using
ANOVAs. The results indicate that respondents perceived a monetary
exchange mechanism as significantly more adequate in the utilitarian
CSC condition compared to the hedonic CSC condition (Mride-
sharing = 5.8; Mdinner-sharing = 5.3; F (1, 203) = 6.816, p = .010).
Likewise, the social exchange mechanism was perceived as significantly
more fitting in the hedonic CSC condition than in the utilitarian CSC
condition (Mdinner-sharing = 3.7; Mride-sharing = 2.9; F (1, 203) = 13.629,
p = .000).
Thus, these results from our additional study underline our findings
from the focus group interviews. Respondents have the intuition that in
more hedonic CSCs, social exchange norms are suitable whereas in
more utilitarian CSCs, monetary exchanges are more adequate.
While these first studies were based on hypothetical scenarios of
sharing-economy internet platforms, the third study tested H3a and
H3b using the example of offline sharing practices—that is, swap par-
ties. A special strength of our third study is that, instead of merely
studying behavioral intentions, we observed participants’ real sharing
behaviors in this offline context.
4.4. Study 3
4.4.1. Design of study
We conducted a single-factor between-subjects field experiment
(N = 116; monetary vs. social exchange mechanism). A team of 16
student assistants helped to conduct the field experiment. They were
asked to organize “swap parties” with small groups of friends of five to
six people. The data were collected through two questionnaires—an
online survey that was sent to the participants a week prior to the event
and one paper and pencil survey filled out at the end of each swap
party.
4.4.2. Data collection and procedure
The student assistants were randomly allocated (by drawing lots) to
organize a swap party that was either based on negotiating monetary
prices for the items or in which participants just brought items that the
others could freely choose to take home without any negotiation or
monetary payment. At the end of the swap parties, the assistants asked
the participants whether they would be willing to donate the leftover
items for a good cause (i.e., the German Red Cross). This willingness to
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234

donate as a prosocial behavior represents our central dependent vari-

able.

4.4.3. Sample description and measures

The total sample consisted of 116 participants (28.4% male; mean
age = 25.5 years, SD = 4.3) who took part in the swap parties. In total,
21 swap parties were organized (Nmonetary exchange = 10; Nsocial ex-
change = 11). We measured materialism in t1 and our dependent vari-
able as well as our control variables in t2. For the measurement of re-
spondents’ willingness to share leftover items, which represents our
dependent variable, we used a binary single-item question: “Have you
decided to donate the leftover items?” measured as yes or no. We
measured materialism using the same scale as in study 2. In addition,
we measured participants’ perceived atmosphere at the swap parties
using a three-item measure. An example item is “I enjoyed the atmo-
sphere at the event.” Furthermore, we measured participants’ general Fig. 3a. Study 3: Willingness to donate depending on type of exchange me-
attitude toward consumption using a three-item measure based on chanism and level of materialism.
Ozanne and Ballantine (2010)’s conceptualization of anti-consumption.
A sample item is “In our western consumer societies, we have way too interaction between monetary exchange mechanism and individuals’
many things.” We measured both constructs on a 7-point Likert scale materialistic traits on willingness to donate (b = -0.975, 95% CI
with the endpoints of the scale labeled as I do not agree at all and I fully [-1.774, -0.1753], t = -2.389, p = .017; β = -0.0729, p = .001).
agree. Finally, we measured participants’ perceived quality of the items To gain a deeper understanding of the interaction, we conducted a
that they brought to the event. The measurement and scale evaluation floodlight analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique in SPSS
for all scales are provided in Web Appendix B. PROCESS. Results reveal that the effect of a monetary exchange me-
Participants’ perception of the atmosphere at the event and their chanism on willingness to donate is insignificant for low levels of ma-
attitude toward consumption were included in the analysis as control terialism but turns significant and negative for higher levels of mate-
variables. Results remain stable with and without inclusion of these rialism (above values of 3.29). Further, the analysis indicates that with
controls. We also included respondents’ age, gender, and monthly net increasing levels of materialism, the negative effect becomes stronger.
household income as standard controls. Additional analyses revealed Fig. 3b illustrates the results.
that none of these variables interacted with the treatment variables. We To summarize, in line with H3b, our results indicate that the
also checked whether controlling for the nested structure of the data crowding-out of the willingness to donate caused by the monetary ex-
(individuals are nested in parties) would make a difference. For this change is more pronounced the higher respondents score on the trait of
purpose, we ran fixed-effects regressions and included dummy variables materialism. Interestingly, we find a significant crowding-out for only
for 20 swap parties. The effects of these dummy variables were insig- the part of the sample that can be classified as highly materialistic.
nificant. Thus, this study generates tentative support for the proposition that
participating in monetary exchanges in the sharing economy may
4.4.4. Results crowd out materialistic individuals’ prosocial behaviors.
As a first step, we analyzed the effect of the experimental treatment We wondered whether participants, being aware of the exchange
on willingness to share leftover items using a cross-tabulation analysis. mechanisms before the event, decided to bring items of higher quality if
The results show that, in line with our theorizing, the willingness to they were invited to a swap party that used a monetary exchange me-
donate leftover items was significantly higher in the social exchange chanism. Conceivably, if they knew that prices would be negotiated and
group than in the monetary exchange group (75.8% vs. 48.1%, x2 (1, they would receive a monetary payment for their items, they would be
N = 116) = 9.465, p = .002), providing convergent support for H3a. more willing to bring high-quality products. This, in turn, might explain
Furthermore, as proposed in H3b, we expect the effect of the ex- why they would be less willing to donate the leftover items after the
change mechanism to also differ for high and low materialists. To de- party and thus might be a confounding factor in our study. To exclude
scriptively explore the moderating role of materialism, we partitioned
the sample using a median split into high and low materialists (the
median in the sample is 3.56). The results of this descriptive analysis
are displayed in Fig. 3a.
We find a significant difference in the willingness to donate leftover
items across the groups. The figure illustrates that for low materialists,
the percentage of respondents who were willing to donate the leftover
items does not differ between the monetary and the social exchange
group. However, for the high materialists, an interesting difference in
the willingness to donate can be observed between the groups. While
80.8% of the high materialists in the social exchange group were
willing to share the leftover items, only 36.7% were willing to do so in
the monetary exchange group.
To formally test H3b, we used SPSS PROCESS. We included in-
dividuals’ willingness to donate as our dependent variable. As in-
dependent variables, we included a dummy for monetary exchange (1
for monetary exchange, 0 for social exchange) and an equally weighted
index of all materialism items. We controlled for individuals’ perception
of the atmosphere at the swap parties, individuals’ general attitude
towards consumption and, respondents’ age, gender, and monthly net
household income. The regression analysis reveals a significant Fig. 3b. Study 3: Floodlight analyses.

232
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons
this possibility, we tested whether the experimental group (i.e.,
monetary vs. social exchange) had a significant effect on participants’
perceptions of the quality of the items brought. Although the difference
was small, the effect was significant. However, it was opposite to what
we expected: the perceived quality of items brought was significantly
higher in the social exchange group than in the monetary exchange
group (Msocial exchange = 4.63, Mmonetary exchange = 4.02; p = .027). Still,
in both groups the means were above the scale midpoint of 4 and
controlling for the quality did not affect the model results. Thus, we
expect that this was not a confounding factor in our experiment.
5. General discussion
In our studies, we find interesting evidence for the assumption that
monetary exchanges in the sharing economy may lead to very different
outcomes than social exchanges. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that a
match between exchange mechanisms and consumption and service
contexts is an important determinant of willingness to participate in the
sharing economy, especially for individuals with a low level of mate-
rialism. Study 3 reveals that participation in monetary exchanges in the
sharing economy may lead to decreased prosocial behaviors, especially
for highly materialistic individuals.
Our results generate four key conceptual contributions. First, our
work contributes to micro-level research on the sharing economy.
Specifically, our results suggest that individuals’ willingness to parti-
cipate in the sharing economy will increase if a match occurs between
type of exchange mechanism and CSC. Individuals who participate in
monetary exchanges in hedonic CSCs will be less willing to participate
in such offers owing to a disruption of market norm activation.
Second, we contribute to the research on RMT (Fiske, 1991, 1992;
Fiske & Haslam, 1997, 2005; Haslam & Fiske, 1999). The results of our
focus group interviews as well as our results from studies 1 and 2 reveal
that consumers’ perceptions of CSC as hedonic versus utilitarian de-
termine their perceptions of the relationship as either social or eco-
nomic. This finding is an interesting and previously unaddressed topic.
Future research could take this study as a starting point and explore in
more depth how consumers perceive the consumption and service
contexts that are created in the sharing economy. Obviously, the
boundaries between utilitarian and hedonic consumption and service
contexts increasingly blur and their intersection provides potential for
conflict but also for meaningful research that can help us to understand
how people make sense of their environments.
Third, our findings provide an empirical test of the matches or
mismatches between monetary and social exchange mechanisms and
hedonic and utilitarian consumption and service contexts in line with
SET (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Such mismatches obviously play
an important role in the sharing economy. Our first study generates
evidence for such effects and indicates that individuals might try to
avoid situations of mismatches (e.g., by reducing their willingness to
participate). Future research should explore the psychological me-
chanisms underlying these findings. Potential avenues to follow include
the explicit measurement of disfluencies caused by mismatches, the
seeking of an understanding of a potential (re-)categorization of re-
lationships according to exchange mechanisms, and other cognitive and
emotional reactions to these conflicts. Further, it would be interesting
investigate the processes of self-selection that may take place. Which
consumers would choose to participate in business models such as
Airbnb and which ones would go for Couchsurfing? Which individual
difference factors characterize these potentially different segments of
users?
Fourth, we contribute to research on the role of the trait of mate-
rialism. Our first two studies reveal that the positive effects of matches
between exchange mechanisms and consumption and service contexts
are less pronounced for highly materialistic individuals owing to a
notoriously high activation of market norms in these individuals. This
result contributes not only to our understanding of individual
233
Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234
differences in consumers in the sharing economy, but to the knowledge
about materialistic individuals in general. Further, our third study re-
veals that high and low materialists have very different reactions when
engaging in monetary exchanges in the sharing economy context. While
for high materialists the monetary exchange reduced their prosocial
behavior, this was not the case for those respondents with low levels of
materialism. Follow-up studies should seek to understand the psycho-
logical mechanisms that are at work here. Sensemaking theory (Weick,
1995) could provide an interesting perspective: which rationales do
high versus low materialists apply to make sense of varying exchange
mechanisms, and how does this application affect their prosocial be-
haviors in the longer run?
Our three studies also have implications for entrepreneurs and
managers in the sharing economy. Practitioners need to remember that
offers in the sharing economy must be designed with great caution.
More specifically, the exchange mechanisms applied in the business
models have to match the motives and the underlying relationship
expectations of potential users and participants. It is crucial for en-
trepreneurs and managers to understand that if the combination of type
of exchange mechanism and type of consumption and service context is
not carefully considered, a mismatch might occur, potentially leading
to decreased willingness to participate in the newly developed business
model.
Study 3 generates results that have potential societal consequences.
Findings suggest that for groups of consumers who are highly materi-
alistic, engaging in monetary exchanges in the sharing economy might
reduce their subsequent willingness to share resources with others. We
therefore have to ask whether the use of market-pricing business
models in the sharing economy will lead to a subsequent erosion of
helping and sharing. In other words, will Sandel’s claim that we have
moved from “having a market economy” to “being a market society”
prove true?
Further research is needed to better understand these issues. While
we were able to observe real behavior in our second study, the study
featured only one very specific social practice—a swap party. Future
research should replicate the findings using varying practices, and, if
possible, in longitudinal settings that could capture a potential erosion
of social norms over time.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and paradoxes of the sharing
economy: An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125,
1–10.
Akbar, P., Mai, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2016). When do materialistic consumers join com-
mercial sharing systems. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4215–4224.
Avital, M., Carroll, J. M., Hjalmarsson, A., Levina, N., Malhotra, A., & Sundarajan, A.
(2015). The sharing economy: Friend or foe? In Proceedings of the 36th International
Conference on Information Systems. Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic
and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Baker, D. (2014). Don’t buy the ‘sharing economy’ hype: Aibnb and Uber are facilitating
ripoffs. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/
27/airbnb-uber-taxes-regulation (accessed September 10, 2017).
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of con-
sumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170.
I. Küper and L.M. Edinger-Schons
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12(3), 265–280.
Belk, R. W. (2007). Why not share rather than own? The ANNALS of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 126–140.
Belk, R. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734.
Belk, R. W. (2014a). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in web 2.0. Anthropologist, 18(1),
7–23.
Belk, R. W. (2014b). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption
online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Bock, G., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y., & Lee, J. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consump-
tion. New York: HarperCollins.
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.
Buczynski, B. (2013). Sharing is good: How to save money, time and resources through col-
laborative consumption. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.
Cheng, M. (2016). Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 60–70.
Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing
economy. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 279–296.
Cronin, J. J., Jr, Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,
value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service en-
vironments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1978). The meaning of things: Domestic
symbols and the self. Cambridge: University Press.
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.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian
goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.
Dillahunt, T. A., & Malone A. R. (2015). The promise of the sharing economy among
disadvantaged communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2285–2294). Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dürrenberger, G., Kastenholz, H., & Behringer, J. (1999). Integrated assessment focus
groups: Bridging the gap between science and policy? Science and Public Policy, 26(5),
341–349.
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.
Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2016). The Relationship between Access Practices and
Economic Systems. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(2), 210–225.
Etter, M., Fieseler, C., & Whelan, G. (2019). Sharing Economy, Sharing Responsibility?
Corporate Social Responsibility in the Digital Age. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(4),
935–942.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations.
New York: Free Press.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified
theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723.
Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. (1996). Social cognition is thinking about relationships. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 5(5), 143–148.
Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. (1997). The structure of social substitutions: A test of relational
models theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(6), 725–729.
Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. (2005). The four basic social bonds: Structures for coordinating
interaction. In M. Baldwin (Ed.). Interpersonal Cognition (pp. 267–298). New York:
The Guilford Press.
Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivational interactions: Effects on behaviour. Annales
d'Economie et de Statistique, 63, 131–153.
Ger, G., & Belk, R. W. (1990). Measuring and comparing materialism cross-culturally.
Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 186–192.
Habibi, M. R., Davidson, A., & Laroche, M. (2016). What managers should know about the
sharing economy. Business Horizons, 60(1), 113–121.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people par-
ticipate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059.
Haslam, N. (1994). Categories of social relationship. Cognition, 53(1), 59–90.
Haslam, N. (2004). Relational models theory: A contemporary overview. Hove, UK:
Psychology Press.
Haslam, N., & Fiske, A. P. (1999). Relational models theory: A confirmatory factor ana-
lysis. Personal Relationships, 6(2), 241–250.
Heyman, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for payment: A tale of two markets. Psychological
Science, 15(11), 787–793.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption:
Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140.
Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M., & Scullion, R. (2014). The messy social lives of objects: Inter-
personal borrowing and the ambiguity of possession and ownership. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 13(2), 131–139.
Jiang, Y., & Wang, C. L. (2006). The impact of affect on service quality and satisfaction:
The moderation of service contexts. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(4), 212–218.
234
Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 223–234
John, N. A. (2017). The age of sharing. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Kasser, T. E., & Kanner, A. D. (2004). Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a
good life in a materialistic world. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kennedy, M. S., Ferrell, L. K., & LeClair, D. T. (2001). Consumers’ trust of salesperson and
manufacturer: An empirical study. Journal of Business Research, 51(1), 73–86.
Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs,
concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61,
885–893.
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.
Levitt, M. J., Weber, R. A., Clark, M. C., & McDonnell, P. (1985). Reciprocity of exchange
in toddler sharing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 122–123.
Mannak, R., de Ridder, H., & Keyson, D. V. (2004). The human side of sharing in peer-to-peer
networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Union symposium on ambient intelligence.
Martin, C. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish
form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics, 12, 149–159.
McGraw, A. P., & Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the
acceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 2–15.
Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An
examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9(6), 485–498.
Polanyi, R. (1944). The great transformation: Economic and political origins of our time.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and
its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(3), 303–316.
Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can't buy: The moral limits of markets. Straus and Giroux,
New York: Farrar.
Schor, J. B. (2014). Debating the sharing economy. Great Transition Initiative. http://
www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy (accessed
October 5, 2017).
Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (2015). Collaborating and connecting: The emergence of
the sharing economy. In L. A. Reisch, & J. Thøgersen (Eds.). Handbook of research on
sustainable consumption (pp. 410–425). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited.
Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Elicitation of moral obligation and self-sacrificing behavior: An
experimental study of volunteering to be a bone marrow donor. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 15(4), 283–293.
Scaraboto, D. (2015). Selling, sharing, and everything in between: The hybrid economies
of collaborative networks. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), 152–176.
Shrum, L. J., Wong, N., Arif, F., Chugani, S. K., Gunz, A., Lowrey, T. M., et al. (2013).
Reconceptualizing materialism as identity goal pursuits: Functions, processes, and
consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1179–1185.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in
relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37.
Sundararajan, A. (2019). Commentary: The twilight of brand and consumerism? Digital
trust, cultural meaning, and the quest for connection in the sharing economy. Journal
of Marketing, 83(5), 32–35.
Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3),
310–320.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage.
Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Development and validation of an in-
strument to measure user perceived service quality of information presenting web
portals. Information & Management, 42(4), 575–589.
Inken Küper is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Mannheim, Germany. She holds a
Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration from the University of
Bochum, Germany. Her research focuses on behavioral appeals and sharing-based busi-
ness models. She studies in how far marketing strategies and business models of the future
can increase individuals’ sustainable behavior using qualitative and quantitative methods.
Laura Marie Edinger-Schons is Professor of Sustainable Business at the University of
Mannheim. In her research she focuses on the question how organizations (from for profit
to non-profit) can contribute to sustainable development as defined in the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals. Her work has been published in renowned academic
journals including Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, and Journal of Business Ethics.
She received the Overall Best Paper Award at the 2014 Winter AMA, was voted into the
Top Ten Junior Academics 2015 (by Zeit and academics), and received the German
Science Award 2016 for the Best Collaboration with Private Business. For her teaching,
she received the AACSB Innovations that Inspire Award 2017. For her habilitation thesis
she received the Wolfgang-Ritter Award 2017, the Roman Herzog Research Award 2018
as well as the Max Weber Award for Business Ethics 2018. In 2019, she was voted into the
Top 40 under 40 by the magazine Capital.