IS CONVENIENCE THE WAY TO GO
:
UNRAVELING
CONSUMERS ATTRACTION TO VARIOUS SHARING
PLATFORMS
Msc in Business Administration-Marketing
University van Amsterdam
First Supervisor: Nicole Stofberg
June, 24 2016
Dukell Extra
11085436
2 Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Dukell Extra who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ………. p.5 2 Literature Review………. p.9 2.1 Sharing Economy ……… p. 2.2 Sharing Platform……… p.10 2.3 Motivation ……… p.11 2.4 Self-Construal ………. p.12 3 Theoretical Framework……… p.14 3.1 Conceptual Model………. p. 17 4 Methodology ………. p.18 4.1 Qualitative Design ……… p.19 4.2 Sample Selection ………. p. 21 5 Results ……… p. 22 5.1 Deductive Findings……… p. 23 5.2 Inductive Findings ………. p. 28 6 Discussion………. p. 29 7 Conclusion………. p. 34 8 References ……… p. 37 9 Appendixes………...……… p. 414 Abstract
The sharing economy is a new emerging market that is increasing in momentum as it progresses. In order for the sharing economy to grow, it needs to reach critical mass. Practitioners and research have argued that the best way for the sharing economy to keep expanding is by increasing the convenience. Previous research within the sharing economy has shown that consumers motivations differ for why the join the sharing economy. Since these differences exist, selling “convenience” to potential consumers may have unintended consequences. Although research has highlighted the difference in consumer’s motivation, the sharing economy literature is lacking in explaining why these difference exist. This paper using a qualitative approach, introduces self-construal theory to provide evidence that consumer
motivations and attraction to different sharing platforms are dependent on how they define themselves. The results of the study provide some proof that individuals with an interdependent self-construal are attracted more to social platforms rather than convenience platforms. In addition, the paper introduces two new barriers that prohibit potential consumers from participating within the sharing economy. Keywords: sharing economy, convenience, self-construal, social interaction
5
Introduction
The sharing economy is a new emerging market with the potential to disrupt previous ways of consumption. The sharing economy functions by redistributing underused assets to places where they are needed. In order for the sharing economy to operate efficiently and effectively, it needs to reach critical mass (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Although consumers interest in the sharing economy is increasing, actual usage is still low. In the US, approximately half of its’ (46%) consumers know about the sharing economy, but only 19% actually participate (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2015).
Practitioners see the urgency to draw in more non-participants and are increasing the “convenience factor” in order to tackle low participation numbers head on. In order to attract a larger audience, platforms are starting to move away from peer-to-peer transaction (P2P) to platforms that operate more as peer-to-business-to-peer transaction (P2B2P). This shift reduces the amount of time a transaction to take place and enhances the convenience for the parties involved (Van de Glind, 2015). For example, ParkFlyRent allows customers to park their car for free at the airport, while it is rented to another user and the profits are split with the car owner (Park Fly Rent, 2016). Since the intermediary handles the transaction between the peers
(without either party having to meet each other) convenience is greatly increased. In a busy world increasing convenience would seem to be a good thing, however as the previous example clearly demonstrates this comes at the expense of social interaction, which has traditionally been the hallmark of the sharing economy (Botsman, 2010; Van de Glind, 2015). To date, research has not analyzed the effect of augmenting “convenience” to potential consumers. To reach critical mass, more non users of the sharing economy need to be reached, yet there is little research done on non-users of the sharing economy.
There is some research that suggest that the nature of an exchange has important implications for how people expect others to behave and this in turn drives the reciprocity norms that govern the transaction (Bhardi &Eckhardt, 2012). A study by Bhadri and Eckhardt (2012) revealed that when consumers used the sharing platform Zipcar, users viewed the transaction
6 as more of a market exchange instead of a social exchange. Zipcar, which is a car sharing
service, is designed to be less hassle than a car rental service and reduce the impact of car pollution on the environment. According to the study, users were very impersonal when using the car sharing service and were motivated more by self-interest (it saves money) than by the common good of a more sustainable planet. This type of intermediary where social interactions are reduced, differs from sharing platforms where social interactions are at the core of the transaction.
Couchsurfing, an accommodation sharing platform, connects global travelers together from across the world. Members of the site, create profiles describing themselves to one another and are able to invite fellow members inside their home whenever they are in their city…for free. Participants are able to interact with each other on the platform and can converse between themselves before deciding if they will actually become a guest or host to one another (Couchsurfing). The platform incorporates member reviews into the system, which allows for transparency and creates trust (Rosen, Lafontaine, & Hendrickson, 2011).
The previous example illustrates the importance of social interactions in shaping behaviors within sharing communities. A study by Chi, Hsu, and Wang, (2006) also illustrates this importance within virtual communities; an increase in social interaction positively affected the quantity of information shared. With Zipcar, customers were more focused on the benefits they personally received and their motivations for engaging in the sharing platform were self-serving. In contrast, Couchsurfing members are pooled together as being socially motivated to help host and be guest in fellow travelers’ home.
Research within the sharing economy literature has revealed two things, consumers’ motivation differs and these motivations differ depending on whether a consumer is a user of the sharing economy or a provider in the sharing economy (Bocker, 2015; Hamari, Sjoklint, & Ukkonen, 2015; Van de Glind P, 2013; Schor, 2014). Providers of the sharing economy are more concerned with social and environmental factors, compared to users who are extrinsically motivated. Since the sustainability of sharing platforms depends on a good spread of users and providers this raises the question whether increasing “convenience” is the best way for the
7 sharing economy to reach critical mass. Although previous studies have focused on consumers’ motivation for engagement in the sharing economy the literature stops here. To address this gap, this paper will build on self-concept theory to demonstrate that “convenience” driven platforms do not uniformly satisfy everyone’s needs better, that an individual’s preference for convenience or social interactions depends on their self-construal.
Self-concept theory states that an individual’s perception of him/her self is shaped by social interaction and influences the behavior of the individual (Kinch 1963). Further research states, that the self has two different construals: an independent self-construal and an interdependent self-construal and these construals shapes the way a person defines him/her self in relations to others (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). A person with an independent self-construal is motivated by actions that express inner attributes, such as personal goals or emotions, whereas a person with an interdependent construal are motivated by connections and relationships (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). A study conducted by Cross, Hardin, and Gercek-Swing, (2010) revealed that in online communities, individuals whose self-construal was more interdependent had better social outcome expectations and higher engagement in online communities’ forums than individuals with a strong independent self-construal. Those who were more interdependent did not just participate within the online communities to seek information as a user, but also participated as a provider in sharing information with others. Individuals who were more independent participated within the online community forums only as a user to gain information for themselves. This highlights the importance for the sharing economy to appeal to individuals who enjoy the social interaction of the sharing economy and not just only to those who are motivated by self-interest. This paper asserts that sacrificing personal contact for the sake of convenience can result in negative consequence which practitioners and scholars have not fully considered to date.
This paper asserts that an individual’s self-construal is important in shaping consumer engagement within the sharing economy. The sharing economy is shaped by providers and users of the sharing economy. It is important to make sure that both parties are drawn in, and not just individuals who are interested in what is in it for them. This paper seeks to answer this question within the sharing economy topic:
8
How does an individuals’ self-construal influence their attraction for convenience or social sharing platforms within the sharing economy?
This self-construal concept holds theoretical and practical importance. The theoretical insights gained from this research can help enrich the sharing economy literature and provide a new perspective to researchers. This paper will be of practical relevance by testing if the
“convenience” is as attractive to potential consumers as practitioners believe.
This paper will focus on the influence of a person’s self-construal in determining the type of platforms potential providers and potential consumers of the sharing economy are attracted to within the sharing economy. This paper will use a qualitative approach which will allow for deeper insights as to what variables are of the most concern for each group. By not grouping potential consumers into one group, this paper hopes to give a better understanding as to how the sharing economy can gain critical mass by attracting both potential providers and users.
9
Literature Review
The following section provides a literature review of relevant work that has been explored for the shared economy. First, the reviewed literature will be used to shed light on the potential of the sharing economy in more detail. Next, research findings on consumers’ motivations within the sharing economy will be discussed followed by introducing self-construal literature to help build the theoretical foundation of this paper. Finally, the theoretical framework will be presented putting the purpose of this paper in context.
2.1 Sharing Economy
The sharing economy is expected to generate revenue of 335 billion dollars by the year 2025 ( PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2015). This mega trend has interested businesses, investors,
academic research, and consumers. The sharing economy is a term that has been used across different platforms to encompass a variety of different activities taking place. For the purpose of this paper, the sharing economy can be viewed as a peer-to-peer (P2P) activity that has an emphasis on having access to goods or services instead of ownership (Botsman, 2015). For example, instead of owning a car, one can rent or borrow a car for several hours from a willing participant. Or instead of buying something that you only need to use once, you can borrow it or rent it.
The rise of this new form of sharing can be credited to the advancement of technology where online platforms allow communication between several parties (Belk, 2014). Major success in the sharing economy can be seen with businesses’ such as AirBnB Uber and
CouchSurfing. Uber which started in 2009 is a car sharing service that is now valued at over 50 billion dollars and is available in over 60 countries (Levinson, 2015). Couchsurfing which started in 2004 now boasts over 4 million members worldwide and has over 400000 hosts who open up their homes to new surfers (Couchsurfing, 2016). The implication that consumers can share their goods or services and own less, has given supporters of the sharing economy hope that
10 this new trend can be a link to sustainable practices (Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Heinrichs, 2013; Luchs et al, 2011).
One of the important works of the sharing economy was brought forth by Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers in their book What’s mine is yours (Botsman and Rogers, 2010). The authors postulate that sustainability is an unintended consequence of collaborative
consumption. By consumers owning less and making use of products that are idle, consumers will reduce overconsumption. This belief that the sharing economy can help with sustainability is also shared by Heinrichs (2013), who states, “given its potential for contributing to
sustainable economy and society, inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability sciences should begin researching the sharing economy systematically (p.230).” One of the criteria for the sharing economy to work is that it needs to reach critical mass, critical mass means that there must be enough choice and convenience for individuals to feel satisfied compared to
conventional consumption (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Practitioners are focusing heavily on the “convenience” factor hoping to reach critical mass.
Platforms
In order for the sharing economy to reach critical mass, a new trend has emerged in which the platforms are shifting from peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms to peer-to-business-to peer (P2B2P) platforms (Van de Glind, 2015). In the original model (P2P), providers and users share a social interaction in meeting each other face to face. This type of transaction has a strong appeal for social activist that see the sharing economy as a pathway to a truly inclusive, fair and low impact economy (Schor 2014). However, in this new model, the social transaction is
eliminated. Think again of the example of ParkFlyRent, the user of the car never meets the original owner of the car, so there is no social interaction. This new trend has a similar design to product service systems, such as Zipcar. (Van de Glind, 2015). Many practitioners are focusing heavily on the “convenience” factor to reach critical mass, however, this shift can potentially attract only self-serving users and alienate consumers whose motivations differ.
11
2.2 Motivations
The sharing economy can be perceived from two viewpoints; a way to bring about sustainable practice, or a market for economic gain, perspectives that are quite different from each other (Martin, 2015). Research that previously focused on consumers’ involvement in the sharing economy reveals that consumer motivations can be intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated (Bhardi & Eckhardt, 2015; Hamari et al, 2015; Owyang, 2016; Van de Glind P. , 2013) Intrinsic motivation is defined as engaging in an activity because it is pleasurable or is of
interest. Extrinsic motivation is defined as engaging in an activity because of an expected outcome (Deci & Ryan 2000). A study conducted by Hamari, et al., (2015) revealed that engaging in collaborative consumption (CC) did not tie into sustainability as a motive for consumers unless a positive association between the two terms previously existed. Individuals who previously viewed sustainability as an important factor viewed the benefit of engaging in (CC) in regards to this internal motivation. This viewpoint did not hold for individuals who did not view sustainability as an important factor to participate in collaborative consumption. Subjects that participated in a questionnaire about collaborative consumption within the Dutch market also revealed mix motivations for engagement, their motivations ranged from practical, social, environmental, and financial to curiousness (Van de Glind, 2013). This research provides some evidence that potential consumers are not uniform in their motivations for joining the sharing economy. Whilst some consumers are driven by philosophical motivations to others the benefits are strictly instrumental: it provides a lucrative source of additional income.
In addition to the previous findings mentioned above, consumers’ motivation also differs based on a consumer being a provider or a user of the sharing economy (Bocker & Meelen, 2015). Similarly, a study by Bellotti et al (2015), reveals that providers compared to users were more socially motivated for participating in the sharing economy. Moreover, users compared to providers sited the increase in value and convenience as their motivation for participating. These findings illustrate that difference in participants motivation extend to what role they play in the sharing economy i.e. provider or user. Although research has brought forth these difference in motivation, there is a lack of research as to why this is. This paper seeks to
12 implement self-construal theory to understand differences in consumers’ motivation and provide indicators to capture these differences.
Self-Construal
Since the introduction of self-construal by Markus & Kitayama (1991) research has explored how self-construal influences cognition, emotion, motivation and social behavior (Cross et al, 2010). A person with an independent self-construal places an emphasis on expressing him/her self and promoting his/her own goals. A person with an interdependent self-construal places an emphasis on relationships, fitting in and to be attentive to others feelings (Singelis, 1994).
Markus and Kitayama (1991) hypothesize that motivation for individuals differ depending on their self-construal. Individuals who are more interdependent derive their motivation from social goals compared to individuals who are more independent. In addition, depending on an individual self-construal, self-enhancement takes on different meanings. For example, independent self-construal tends to seek self-esteem by focusing on uniqueness which results in self-serving biases. This differs compared to interdependent individuals who gain self-esteem from fitting in. A study by Lee, Kim, & Kim (2012) confirm these findings, priming of interdependent individuals resulted in higher community engagement than the priming of independent individuals. Similar results also show that individuals who are more interdependent tend to enjoy social interaction more than independent individuals (Holland, Roeder, Rick B.van, Brandt, & Hannover, 2004; van Baarren et al, 2003).
This aligns with what Belk (2010) states as well. Sharing “out” a resource for economic interests preserves the self and does not expand the aggregate extended self. The aggregate extended self is seen as the individual identifying himself with the larger group, which more independent cultures exhibit. However, sharing “in” extends the self and expands the domain of common property which is seen in more interdependent cultures. Markus and Kitayama (1991) also state that Western and European cultures are more independent than Asian cultures. With this understanding, it is clear to see why more than half of (54%) Europeans are willing to rent their goods for pay (sharing out) but only 44% want to lease goods from others (sharing in). It’s evident that economic interest is a strong motivator for individuals to join the
13 sharing economy but in order for the sharing economy to be balanced, platforms must also appeal to individuals who are socially motivated.
With the insight from research conducted on self-construal, it is clear to see that a person’s self-construal influences their motivations and social behavior. The sharing economy needs to make sure that augmenting the “convenience” of joining the sharing economy will not just pool individuals who want to promote their own goals. By introducing this concept of self-construal into the sharing economy, platforms can have a better understanding on how to attract not only parties that are extrinsically motivated but also parties that are socially motivated.
14
Theoretical Framework
The following section describes the relevant concepts that will be used to help address the research questions.
As stated previously, the sharing economy needs to reach critical mass in order to operate effectively (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). To date, research has not focused on non-users of the sharing economy, who are vital to the success of the sharing economy. Previous research has discovered that motivations for consumers differ and this extends to a consumer being a potential provider or a potential user of the sharing economy (Bocker & Meelen, 2015). This paper intends to introduce self-construal theory to understand how selling “convenience” of the sharing economy, will influence motivation for both potential providers and potential users of the sharing economy.
To date, research has not fully tried to explain how the various sharing platforms are able to attract members whose motivations differ. A study conducted in self-construal research revealed that when individuals are exposed to behaviors that mimic their own, this exposure increases the frequency of that particular behavior (van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, de Bouter, & van Knippenberg, 2003). This insight explains the success of the platform of Couchsurfing. Since the platform appeals to individuals who are socially motivated and interested in helping each other, participants’ behaviors are conformed into being socially appropriate on the site.
Below the different concepts that will be incorporated in the conceptual model are presented, along with the various propositions.
Sharing Economy
The hallmark of the sharing economy is unlocking the value of underutilized assets through networks that foster belonging, collective accountability and benefits the community that is built (Botsman & Rogers 2010). Successful examples of the sharing economy include AirBnB, Couchsurfing, Task Rabbit etc. Providers of the sharing economy are consumers who offer these assets for free, of for a fee and enjoy the social and or economic benefits of engagement. Users
15 of the sharing economy enjoy the benefits of goods and services through having access to, instead of ownership of the goods. (Botsman, 2015)
Self-Construal
Self- construal is defined by how individuals define and give meaning to themselves in relation to others (Cross, Hardin, & Gercek-Swing, 2010). The term made famous by Markus and Kitayama (1991) incorporates two self-construals: independent and interdependent. A person with an independent self-construal places an emphasis on expressing themselves and
promoting their own goals. A person with an interdependent self-construal places an emphasis on relationships, fitting in and being attentive to others feelings.
An individuals’ self-construal should be a determining factor to explain which platforms potential users and potential providers select. Specifically, this paper posits that individuals with an interdependent self-construal are more likely to be attracted to platforms that are engaged in social interaction. Since an interdependent self-construal builds one’s self-esteem from the relationships it has with others, platforms such as these should be appealing.
Proposition one is as follows:
P1. Individuals who are interdependent will be more attracted to platforms that illustrate the benefit of social interaction
On the other hand, individuals with an independent self-construal are more likely to be attracted to convenience platforms that decrease social interaction and augments the idea of monetary rewards. Persons with a strong independent self-construal define themselves
separate from their social context so social connection platforms should not be more attractive to them. In addition, an independent self-construal maintains their self-esteem by being
different from others and promoting their own goals, so the convenience platform should be appealing. The self-construal scale developed by Singelis (1994) will be implemented within the interview to help rate whether a person is more independent or interdependent.
16
P2. Individuals who are independent will be more attracted to platforms that sell the convenience of the platform
Motivations
A qualitative study by Van de Glind (2013), highlighted that consumers who were extrinsically motivated to participate in the sharing economy, participated due to these reasons: it saved time, there was a financial gain and or a cost avoidance, all benefits which are self-serving. Consumers who were intrinsically motivated to participate in the sharing economy, were motivated due to these reasons: help and helping others is satisfying, sharing brings enjoyment and avoids unnecessary burden.
Furthermore, another study also illustrated that motivations differed for providers and users of the sharing economy (Bellotti et al 2015). These differences occurred when it came to social connection, emphatic motivations and instrumental motivations. Providers compared with users, sited social connection and helping others as the reasons behind their motivation for participating in the sharing economy. However, users sited their motivation for engaging in the sharing economy as enjoying the benefit of increased convenience and increased value.
Based on the previous results, this paper posits that a person that has a stronger interdependent self-construal will most likely be a provider of the sharing economy. It is also projected that since users are more internally focused, a person with an independent construal will most likely be a user of the sharing economy. Moreover, since convenience platforms have decreased social interaction but augments the monetary gains of participating, these platforms should attract self-serving individuals but have a negative or neutral affect on socially
motivated individuals.
P3. Independent individuals are more inclined to be potential users of the sharing economy P4. Interdependent individuals are more inclined to be potential providers of the sharing economy
17
P5. Convenience will influence the likelihood that self-serving individuals are attracted to convenience platforms but will have neutral or negative effect for individuals who are socially motivated
Conceptual Model
The goal of this study is to have a better grasp on how different platform characteristics appeal to an individual’s self-construal. The model below highlights a framework that examines these factors and illustrates the propositions to be tested.
P1. Individuals who are interdependent will be more attracted to platforms that illustrate the benefit of social interaction
P2. Individuals who are independent will be more attracted to platforms that sell the convenience of the platform
P3. Interdependent individuals are more inclined to be potential providers of the sharing economy
P4. Independent individuals are more inclined to be potential users of the sharing economy P5. Convenience will influence the likelihood that self-serving individuals are attracted to convenience platforms but will have neutral or negative effect for individuals who are socially motivated
18
Methodology.
This following section describes the methodology used to answer the research question and test the hypothesis. A mixed methodology was implemented for the purpose of this study, below each method is explained in more detail.
Qualitative Method.
For the purpose of this study, a qualitative approach was the major component of this research. Since there is a lack of literature that focuses on non-participants of the sharing economy, conducting qualitative research would be beneficial in gathering new insights. A qualitative method of interviews was chosen to allow for more flexibility and place an emphasis on research context (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The design of this research follows a mixed
approach of inductive and deductive reasoning. The purpose of this study is not only to test the self-construal theory but to also gain as much insight from potential consumers as possible. This approach allows for the self-construal theory to be tested and also leaves space for emerging trends to be discovered.
Deductive reasoning occurs when data are analyzed based on previous theories (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The questions for the interviews were designed by using a deductive approach on previous research that had been conducted within the area of the sharing economy (question guide Appendix B). The questions were left open ended so that respondents could respond freely and new ideas or patterns cold be discovered which is the format of inductive reasoning (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). This mixed method allowed for a preset of codes to categorize the data to be collected but also gave liberty for new codes as the data revealed new information or trends. Figure 2 list some of the predetermined codes that were determined according to the literature review and the conceptual framework. In addition to the open-ended questions, respondents were shown three different vignettes that illustrated the different platforms within the sharing economy.
19 Figure 2: Predetermined Codes
Predetermined Codes used for Nvivo My Community Social Connections Helping Others Rent It Out Convenience Rent it Forward Vignette Design
Vignettes are carefully crafted descriptions of a person, object or situation (Atzmüller & Steiner, 2010). Implementing a vignette design will increase the rigor of the research and in turn, create high qualitative research (Tracy, 2010). This research implemented people paper vignettes which are best used to capture explicit responses to hypothetical situations (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). Each respondent was shown the same three vignettes and was are asked to pick the platform they would most likely join if they participated in the sharing economy. This method allows for each individual to make a comparison between the vignette and uncover
participants’ judgment process (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). Since the focus of the research is understanding if self-construal theory is a good indicator of a person attraction to various sharing platforms, the vignette designs are tailored to incorporate platforms that should appeal to individuals that have a strong interdependent or independent construal.
Vignette one, titled My Community was created after the original platform of the sharing economy (P2P) and spoke highly of the social benefits of one joining the community. Vignette two, titled Rent It Forward, was modeled after the traditional (P2P) platform but also
20 included the benefit of monetary incentives alongside the social benefits of the platform. Vignette three, titled Rent It Out, was modeled after the new trend of platforms shifting into (P2B2P) and draws on how convenience, decreased social interaction and monetary incentives (see appendix C for Vignette design ).
Scale Design
The final stage of the interview consisted of asking respondents to fill out the self-construal scale. The scale developed by Singelis (1994) was used to score each respondent independent and interdependent qualities. This scale is the most commonly used scale and serves as a basis for further scales (Cross et al 2010). The questionnaire consisted of 24 questions on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree 7= strongly agree). The reliability (Cronbach alpha) of the scale measures .74 for the interdependent scale and .70 for the
independent scale (Singelis, 1994). Twelve of the questions measured interdependent qualities and the other twelve questions measured independent qualities. A Sample of the
questionnaire is listed below (see appendix D for full questionnaire.)
Sample Self-Construal Scale
Independent Questions Interdependent Questions
Speaking up during a class is not a problem for me I respect people who are modest about themselves Having a lively imagination is important to me I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the
group I am in I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or
rewards
I often have the feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own
accomplishments
In order to reduce response bias to the questions, respondents were told that the interview was over and asked if they wouldn’t mind filling out a questionnaire to help someone else with their research. A folder was placed in front of the respondent with dummy
21 interviewer went back to reading the notes made during the interview or browsing the internet for the duration it took the respondents to fill out their questionnaire. After expressing
gratitude for taking the time to be interviewed to the respondent the interviewer attached the questionnaire to the participation agreement form (see Appendix A for participation form).
Sample Selection.
For the purpose of this research, non-respondents were selected based on purposive sampling and snowballing sampling. Purposive sampling is used when the researcher needs to select certain individuals who will meet certain criteria in order to answer the research question (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). This type of sampling was used since the focus of the study was on non-participants of the sharing economy. The best way to determine individuals who did not participate within sharing platforms before was directly asking a person if they used such platforms such as Air BnB Uber, Couchsurfing, Blabla car etc. Once an individual responded that they have not participated in the sharing economy and agreed to be interviewed snowballing sampling was also used. Snowballing sampling is a technique used when it’s difficult for you to identify members of the target audience to be interviewed (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Once one target member is identified other target members are identified by earlier target members, i.e. do you know of anyone who hasn’t participated in the sharing economy and will they be willing to be interviewed. In total 11 people were interviewed for data collection with interviews lasting around 15 minutes each. According to Guest et al, (2006), saturation for interviews can occur as quickly as six interviews. Saturation occurs once no new themes, patterns or ideas are revealed from the respondents being interviewed. Saturation occurred after the seventh interview. The interviews occurred within a one-month period and took place at cafes, the living space of someone’s home, and on the university campus.
22
Results.
This section of the paper is divided into three sections. The first section explains how the data was analyzed. The second section explains the deductive results. The third section explains the inductive results.
Analysis of the data.
Upon completion of the interviews, Nvivo software was used to help analyze the data. Nvivo is a software mostly used to help categorize large chunks of qualitative data. The first step was transcribing the interviews in Nvivo, next predetermined codes based on the literature
(deductive reasoning) was imputed into the system. After each interview was transcribed, any information that matched the predetermined codes were highlighted. Information that could not be linked to a predetermined code was then linked to a new code (inductive reasoning). In order to assure that important information was not left out, the codes were compared to the notes made on the interview guide sheet. Data that were most relevant to each vignette design were then grouped together. This allows the researcher to look for similarities and difference within groups and to compare the difference across the three vignette based groups.
In order to measure each respondent’s score, the instructions given by Singelis (1994), The
Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals were followed. The
questionnaire consisted of 24 questions on a 7-point Likert scale. Twelve questions measured interdependent qualities and the other twelve questions measured independent qualities. In order to calculate the score for each respondent, points were added up for the interdependent and independent question separately, which then were divided by twelve. Each respondent received a set of scores, one that measured their interdependent self and one that measured their independent self. The score that is the highest is seen as the dominant construal in a person (Singelis, 1994).
23 1Table 1: results of Self-Construal Scale
Table 2: Demographics
1 The reliability for the independent and interdependent scale was .62 and .73 respectively. The independent scale
24
Deductive Findings
This section reviews the hypothesis of the conceptual framework. The results of the questionnaire are also included in this section see Table 1 and 2 for an overview.
Firstly, this research hypothesized that individuals who were more interdependent would be attracted to platforms that highlight the benefit of the social interaction one gains from participating within the community(P1) and that they would more likely enter as a provider than a user (P3).
Out of the eleven respondents interviewed, three respondents scored high on
interdependence. Two, of the three respondents, did select platforms that incorporated social connections as a benefit from participating in the platform, lending support to proposition one. Of the two respondents that did choose the social interaction platform, one stated she would be a user and the other stated he would be both a provider and a user, thus giving partial supported to proposition 3. The excerpt below provides evidence that the motives behind their selection were socially motivated. Respondent 10 explained that he picked Rent it Forward because “the personal touch is nice… it is placed in a broader context in which people serve one
another.” Similarly, Respondent 3 explained that she picked this platform because “it’s still sort of personal.”
Secondly, this research paper hypothesized that individuals who scored higher on independence would be more attracted to convenience platforms (P2) and that these individuals would more likely enter as a user instead of a provider (P4).
Out of the eleven interviews, eight people scored high on independence. Interestingly, out of these respondents, only one respondent opted for the convenience platform, all other participations preferred the social platform instead. The respondent who did pick the
convenience platform also stated that they would be a provider instead of a user. Hence, Proposition two and four are not supported. The motivation Respondent 5 gave for joining as a
25 provider is as follows “I think I would be more of a provider because it’s a good way to earn
some money...but maybe as I start using it occasionally I might use it myself I don’t exclude that possibility but I would start out as a provider.”
Finally, this paper hypothesized that the convenience platform would increase the attraction for self-serving individuals but will have neutral or negative effect for individuals who are socially motivated (P5).
Only two respondents stated they would pick the convenience platform if they were to join the sharing economy. Respondent four and Respondent five both shared a self-serving focus as to why they picked the convenience platform, thus proposition five is supported. The respondents cited convenience, earning money, as well as the guarantee for their items to be returned in proper order as their reasoning for joining such platform. Here are some examples:
convenience Resp.5 I like the fact that I don't have to bring the equipment to the person
who has to rent it. that would save me a lot of time
Guarantee Resp. 5 I’m earning money and I also have an insurance that it would be returned properly
Resp. 4 because the company provides me insurance
Internal focus Resp. 5 when I decide to do this I am the one who is deciding to rent it out
and I know the possible consequences… it would be a more conscious decision renting out your stuff.
Resp. 4: I could be a provider as well but for things that are not important to me but why a user, because I don’t really like the idea that my stuff is used by strangers someone that I don’t know
Helping others & Social Connection
Helping others and Social Connections were themes that emerged from the data and were also incorporated into the conceptual framework. Each theme was referenced 10 times each. These themes were linked mostly to respondents who had chosen one of the social platforms. When
26 respondents were asked how they felt when they lent out their items in the past, similar
responses emerged. Respondent 10 explained that “it’s pleasurable, it gives you the impression
that you helped someone with it.” Respondent 1 also gave a similar response “I would feel good about helping someone out.”
When respondents were asked for their reasoning for choosing one of the social platforms, the answers were in regard to building a connection with new people. Below are examples of what the respondents stated.
I think knowing those people and getting to share things with them it creates a stronger bond with the community and individuals together
Respondent 2
if you rent you can meet up with someone and you get a chance to know someone new and I like to meet people
Respondent 8
27
Inductive Findings
This section lists the most relevant findings that came up during the interview process. The results for each theme is listed below.
Independence
This theme came up frequently during the interviews and revolved around an individuals’ tendency to prefer to do things for themselves, rather than relying on someone else. This theme appeared for both groups, those individuals who scored high for independence and interdependence. When respondents were asked questions in regards to items they may have borrowed in the past, similar responses were given. Below are excerpts from the respondents
“I like to do things for myself like take care of it myself”
respondent 3
“I really don’t like to bother people with things I believe that I should solve myself”
respondent 5
“actually, I don’t ask for stuff from my family or friends pretty independent if there is something that I need I just make sure that I fix it by myself”
respondent 8
28 During the interview process, respondents were asked to describe themselves in their own words and were also asked if they saw themselves as extroverted introverted shy etc., seven of the respondents stated that they were extroverted. Interestingly those candidates who stated that they saw themselves as extroverted all scored high for independence. A further analysis will be given in the discussion section.
No Need.
More than half of the respondents (54 %) mentioned this topic when discussing the sharing economy. This theme emerged as an answer to why respondents had not participated in the sharing economy to date. Respondents all cited similar responses, below are some of the respondents answers.
“but I really haven’t got into that situation where I need to
make use of such platform” Respondent 11
“I didn’t actually really need It” Respondent 8
“umm because there are other alternatives” Respondent 2
I know it’s there I think I’m not using it because I see that as a tool for people to connect with each other I don’t think I need that because I approach people anyways so I think that’s why I
29
Discussion
Although previous research revealed that consumers have different motivations for
participating in the sharing economy, there is a lack of literature as to why these differences occur. This paper sought to understand these differences by introducing self-concept theory into the sharing economy literature. The approach in this study was to use self-concept theory as an indicator to determine whether individuals would have a preference for convenience or social interaction platforms.
Deductive Discussion
To begin, this study shows that the application of self-construal theory as an indicator for participants’ motivation and attraction to various sharing platforms is partially supported. Proposition one (P1) which stated that individuals high on interdependence would opt for social platforms was partially supported. However, proposition two (P2), that individuals high on independence would opt for convenience platforms was not supported.
A study conducted by Kim, Kim, & Nam (2010), using self-construal as an indicator of motivations and satisfaction also produced similar results. The self-construal theory did support the hypothesis that participants high on interdependence would be more socially motivated to engage in social networking sites; however, it did not support the hypothesis that participants with a high independence would have other nonsocial motivations to engage in the site. Contrary to the hypothesis, individuals who were high on autonomy and independence still were socially motivated as well.
In order to find an explanation for the results above, a closer look at self-construal theory can be insightful. A person with an independent view of self, is motivated by actions that allow expression of self-defining attributes (e.g. caring and sociable), whereas a person with an interdependent view is motivated by actions that enhance or foster one's relatedness or connection to others. On the surface, such actions could look similar but the source of the motivation is different (Markus and Kitayma,1991). The participants who scored high on
30 independence and also picked the social platform vignettes as their choice, could have done so for self-serving reasons; it allows them to express that they are sociable and in doing so they are still focused on their own inner needs, without really being concerned about the welfare of others. In contrast, participants who were on high on interdependence and picked the social vignette platforms could have done so so solely for the relationship involved and the
connection they would feel with others. This closer look may help explain why those individuals who score high on independence still picked the social sharing platform.
In addition, to gain a better understanding as to why (P2) ,(P3) and (P4) were not supported, another looked at the data was executed. Four of the respondents with dominant independent self-construals’ also had high interdependent scores, even higher than those individuals who were labeled as having a dominant interdependent self-construal. This may explain why those with dominant independent self-construal still had a preference for social sharing platforms. Singelis (1994) states that interdependent and independent self-construal is two separate factors that both need consideration. Therefore, although an individual has a dominant self-construal, the lesser construal still has an influencing role on the individual.
Convenience vs. Social Platforms
Within the sharing economy, practitioners are shifting to (P2B2P) platforms in hope that an increase in convenience will attract more consumers, however since consumers’ motives differ as to why they participate within the sharing economy, this new trend may not prove fruitful (Owyang, 2015; Van de Glind, 2015).
The support of proposition 5 sheds light as to why this new shift could be problematic. Individuals who were attracted to the convenience platform were motivated by what they could get out of it. If these (P2B2P) platforms are to become mainstream it could pool together a large amount of individuals who are self-focused and not willing to work together for the collective good. The findings by Utz, (2004) exemplifies this concern, when individuals’ self-construal were temporarily primed, individuals high on independence were significantly less cooperative in social dilemmas than individuals who were high on interdependence.
31 Although practitioners think they should increase convenience in order to increase participation it may be more effective if practitioners focus on augmenting the social
connections instead. The results from this study reveal that nine out of 11 potential consumers would join a sharing platform that incorporated social connection elements as part of its design rather than a convenience platform. When respondents provided their reasoning as to why they would join one of the sharing platforms, social connections were always mentioned. This basic desire to want to build connections is affirmed by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow theory of motivation states that humans have basic needs that must be met, once the lowest goal is obtained then a person is in pursuit of the next goal. This need to build connections is the third goal is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and categorized as the need for affectionate relations with people in general or for a place in his or her group (Maslow, 1943).
Inductive Discussion
One of the goals of this study was to understand if potential consumers had other important factors that prevented them from participating in the sharing economy. One benefit of the qualitative design was that respondents were able to give their own response, allowing for rich
contextual data (Tracy, 2010). Two important themes emerged from the data set that are important to mention, the first of which is independence.
When respondents were asked question about what items they had borrowed from others in the past or how they felt about borrowing, most respondents gave similar responses, that either they preferred to figure things out themselves or they didn’t like asking others for things they think they should have themselves. Previous research has looked into convenience, trust and even monetary incentives as ways to reach more consumers (Bhardi, 2012; Hartl, 2015). However, to date research has not looked at the strong desire for individuals to be independent as a barrier that needs to be overcome. Consumers may not be joining the sharing economy as quickly as expected due to this need to be self-sufficient. In order for this barrier to be addressed the sharing economy has to think of creative ways to change the mindsets of large populations. Interesting research would be to look into the effect of increasing social norms about borrowing and lending various items. One study illustrated that normative
32 behavior increased among participants when they were exposed to a model of norm-relevant action or used self-focusing techniques to highlight normative behavior (Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000). This suggests, that measure can be taken to help reduce the negative association non-participants may have of borrowing items within the sharing economy if illustrations of normative behavior are given.
The second theme which emerged from the data set, was in regard to respondents not seeing a need to participate in the sharing economy. This theme is an important barrier that must be overcome if the sharing economy is to reach critical mass. Botsman and Rogers (2010 ) state that in order for the sharing economy to reach critical mass there must be enough choice and convenience for individuals to feel satisfied compared to conventional consumption. It is clear from the results that consumers still find other conventional enterprises more appealing than that of the sharing economy.
Lastly, a noteworthy point that surfaced from the data is in regards to the personality traits of the respondents. Out of the 11 respondents interviewed, seven of the respondents stated that they viewed themselves as being extroverted when asked to describe their personality. Of those who stated they were mostly extroverted, 100% of the respondents also scored high on independence. Extroversion, as defined by the “Big Five” personality traits is defined as being talkative, friendly, fun-loving assertive and sociable (Robert and Costa, 1987). This could be an attributing factor to explain why those who were high on independence still opted for social platforms instead of the convenience platforms, further research is needed to determine if a relationship exists.
Limitations
First, one of the limitations of qualitative research is that the results cannot be generalized due to the small sample size, however, these results lay a framework for new research.
Second, another limitation that emerged was the reliability score for the independent scale. The reliability score (Cronbach alpha) for the independent scale received a score of .62, which is less than the reported reliability score of the original scale (Singelis, 1994). There is no
33 certainty if the difference in reliability score affected the results of those respondents that scored high on independence. Second, the small sample of respondents that scored high on interdependence must be considered. Even though Western and European countries tend to have individuals who score high on independence Markus and Kitayama (1991) state that an individual view of self is not just explained by general cultural schemata. Still, conducting research with a larger sample size can increase the probability of an even distribution of respondents that have high interdependent and high independent construal.
Thirdly, within research, response bias must also be taken into consideration. Although the scale was placed at the end of the interview to reduce this bias, respondents may not have answered truthfully. Additionally, response bias could have occurred within the vignette segment of the interview. Although these questions were of a hypothetical nature,
respondents may have been self-conscious of their answer. Moreover, since vignette designs are of hypothetical nature results are not conclusive of actual behavior (Aguinis and Bradley, 2014).
34
Conclusion
The purpose of this thesis was to address this research question: How does an individuals’ self-construal influence his/her attraction to convenience or sharing platforms within the sharing economy? Although research within the sharing economy stated that consumers’ motivations differed, there was a lack of literature providing insight as to why these difference existed (Eckhart, 2012; Hamari, 2015; Van de Glind, 2013). This paper introduced self-construal theory to highlight that an individuals’ preference for convenience or social platforms is dependent on their self-construal.
As stated in the discussion, propositions two, three and four were not supported. Although both independent and interdependent individuals both opted for social platforms, the underlying motivations may stem from two different needs. The use of the self-construal scale to determine an individuals’ stronger dominant construal was necessary for the purpose of this research, yet consideration should also be given to the less dominant construal as well.
Practitioners believe that an increase in convenience will help attract more consumers to participate in the sharing economy, yet there is a lack of evidence that this is the best way. The results of the study support self-construal theory as an indicator for what type of platforms potential consumers are attracted to. This is in regard to individuals who score high on
interdependence. Moreover, the results of the study prove that convenience platforms only attract self-serving individuals, not individuals who are socially motivated. In addition, the inductive results of the study suggest that the sharing economy has additional barriers to overcome in order to win over non-participants. The sharing economy needs to present itself as an important alternative to potential consumers and it also has to overcome cultural norms of a society being trained to be extremely independent. This statement does not suggest that being independent is in any way a negative aspect, instead, this statement is reflective of the
35 These findings above add insight into the sharing economy topic both theoretically and
practically.
First, the result of this study has a theoretical significance. This study takes the first step into examining indicators, that can explain consumers’ preference for different sharing
platforms, and how this shapes an individuals’ motivation. This paper also adds dimension to the debate behind why consumers participate in the sharing economy. There is a divide as to whether consumers participate within the sharing economy for self-serving needs or altruistic motivations. Some scholars site utilitarian motivations (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Owyang, 2016) while other site altruistic motivations (Botsman and Roger, 2010; Bocker and Meelen, 2015). The results from this study support that consumers’ motivation for participating in the sharing economy can be self-serving or social.
Secondly, the result of this study has practical relevance. Practitioners believe that an increase in convenience will draw more participation into the sharing economy, however, the results from this study highlight that potential consumers are mostly attracted to social platforms. When respondents were asked to pick between (P2P) platforms and (P2B2P)
platforms more than half of the respondents (81%) opted for (P2P) platforms that didn’t include a middle man. Practitioners should carefully consider if selling “convenience” is the best way attract potential consumers. Additionally, this paper explores two other barriers (independence and need) that prevent potential consumers from joining the sharing economy.
Finally, the findings of can be a starting point for future research. Although the focus of this study was to examine non-participants of the sharing economy, research can also apply self-construal theory to individuals who are already participating in the sharing economy. This can lead to interesting findings by exploring the difference among consumers who participate in various platforms within the sharing economy. In addition, research can also begin to explore other scales that may explain consumers’ preference for particular sharing platforms, such as McCrae and Costa (1997) Big Five personality scale. The direction for future research should not just focus on consumers’ motivations for participating in the sharing economy but also on exploring indicators that can explain these motivations.
37
References
Aguinis, H. & Bradley, K. (2014). Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
Atzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology.
Bardhi, F. & Eckhardt, G. (2012). Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881-898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/666376
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2015). The Sharing Economy Isn’t about Sharing at All.Harvard Business Review,39(4), 881-98.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal Of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001
Bellotti, V., Ambard, A., Turner, D., Gossmann, C., Demkova, K., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). A muddle of models of motivation for using peer-to-peer economy systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1085-1094). ACM.
Bocker, L., & Meelen, T. (2015). Motivations for participating in different forms of the sharing economy. ESCP Conference, (pp. 1-13). Paris.
Botsman, R. (2015). Defining The Sharing Economy: What Is Collaborative Consumption--And What Isn't?. Co.Exist. Retrieved 22 June 2016, from http://www.fastcoexist.com/3046119/defining-the-sharing-economy-what-is-collaborative-consumption-and-what-isnt
Botsman, R. & Rogers, R. (2010). What's mine is yours. New York: Harper Business.
Chiu, C., Hsu, M., & Wang, E. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001
38 Cross, S., Hardin, E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2010). The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal. Personality And Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142-179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868310373752
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, n/a-n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552
Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., & Kirchler, E. (2016). Do we need rules for “what's mine is yours”? Governance in collaborative consumption communities. Journal Of Business Research, 69(8), 2756-2763.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.011
Heinrichs, H. (2013). Sharing Econonmy: A Potential New Pathway to Sustainability. GAIA, 22(4), 228-231.
Holland, R., Roeder, U., Rick B.van, B., Brandt, A., & Hannover, B. (2004). Don't Stand So Close to Me: The Effects of Self-Construal on Interpersonal Closeness. Psychological Science, 15(4), 237-242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00658.x
Kallgren, C., Reno, R., & Cialdini, R. (2000). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: When Norms Do and Do not Affect Behavior. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610009
Kim, J., Kim, M., & Nam, Y. (2010). An Analysis of Self-Construals, Motivations, Facebook Use, and User Satisfaction. International Journal Of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(11-12), 1077-1099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2010.516726
Lee, D., Kim, H., & Kim, J. (2012). The role of self-construal in consumers’ electronic word of mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites: A social cognitive approach. Computers In Human Behavior, 28(3), 1054-1062. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.009
Levinson, P. (2015, october 15). 3 reasons why Uber will win in the end. Retrieved from Business Insider: http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-uber-will-win-in-the-end-2015-10?r=US&IR=T
39 Luchs, M., Naylor, R. W., Rose, R. L., Catlin, J. R., Gau, R., Kapitan, S., ... & Subrahmanyan, S. (2011). Toward a sustainable marketplace: Expanding options and benefits for consumers. Journal of Research for Consumers, (19), 1.
Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224
Martin, C. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?. Ecological Economics, 121, 149-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American psychologist, 52(5), 509.
Nielsen. (2014). Global Consumers Embrace the Sharing Economy. Retrieved January 30, 2016, from http://www.nielsen.com/lb/en/press-room/2014/global-consumers-embrace-the-share-economy.html
Owyang, J. (2016). Sharing is the New Buying: How to Win in the Collaborative Economy. Slideshare.net. Retrieved 22 June 2016, from
http://www.slideshare.net/jeremiah_owyang/sharingnewbuying
Park Fly Rent. (2016, february 16). Park Fly Rent: the rental car revolution. Retrieved from Park Fly Rent: https://www.parkflyrent.com/
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. (2015). Delaware: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Retrieved from
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharing-economy.pdf
Rosen, D., Lafontaine, P., & Hendrickson, B. (2011). CouchSurfing: Belonging and trust in a globally cooperative online social network. New Media & Society, 13(6), 981-998.
40 Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Saunders, M. & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business and management. Harlow, Essex: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Schor, J. (2016). Debating the Sharing Economy. Greattransition.org. Retrieved 24 June 2016, from http://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy#endnote_11
Schutzer, D. (2014). CTO Corner: Sharing Economy - Financial Services Roundtable. Financial Services Roundtable. Retrieved 24 January 2016, from http://fsroundtable.org/cto-corner-sharing-economy/
Singelis, T. (1994). The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014
Tracy, S. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight "Big-Tent" Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Utz, S. (2004). Self-Construal and Cooperation: Is the Interdependent Self More Cooperative Than the Independent Self?. Self And Identity, 3(3), 177-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000001
van Baaren, R., Maddux, W., Chartrand, T., de Bouter, C., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-construals. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 84(5), 1093-1102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1093
Van de Glind, P. (2013). Slide Share. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from
http://www.slideshare.net/Pieter1987/master-thesis-sdeg-pieter-van-de-glind-3845494-the-consumer-potential-of-collaborative-consumption-august-2013
Van de Glind, P. (2015, June 1). Collaborative Consumption. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/2015/06/01/the-rise-of-the-peer-to-business-to-peer-marketplace/
41
APPENDIX A
Thank you for taking time to be interviewed for the purpose of collecting data for my master thesis. To ensure that you are in agreement with the interview process please review the content below and sign the form
I agree to participate in an interview to discuss the sharing economy. I understand that my voice and/or image may be recorded during the session for follow-up analysis and viewing by the master student and student supervisor. I understand that the recordings of my voice and/or image will not be publicly broadcast and all demographic information will be kept confidential and not released. I agree that all comments made during the interview can be used for research purposes only. I understand if I have any question I can contact the master student at dukell.ex@gmail.com
I acknowledge and agree that I will keep confidential all information discussed during this session.
Name____________________________________________________
Sign ____________________________________________________
Date of birth _______________________________________________
42
APPENDIX B
Question Guide Opening of interview:
Today we are going to be discussing sharing platforms and the likelihood of you using such platforms. Sharing platforms such as AirBnB, and Uber connect regular people like you and me together in order to exchange information, product and services sometimes with a monetary donation or free. In the
exchange someone is the provider (the person offering services) and the user (the person using the service). For example, if I needed to locate someone that can let me borrow or rent a power drill I can use one of these platforms to find someone who is willing to let me borrow one from them. Does that makes sense? Just to make sure you have not used one of these platforms before….correct?
Ok great
So lets start by telling me a little about yourself. (base question)
What do you like to do for fun?(base question)
How would you describe yourself?
Name some things that make you happy and why? (tie into motivation)
Let us discuss family for a second
So sharing differs for everyone, tell me about the items you are use to sharing with family or friends or borrowing from family and friends (question ties into culture)?
Can you explain to me how you feel about sharing such items? (motivation)
What are some items that you would not be willing to share? ( link to independent or interdependent also to possessiveness)
Some scholar believe the benefit of the sharing economy is that it will reduce over consuming items that we typically can share for example a power drill or a garden hose…
Can you name some items that you think are better to own yourself than to share? (self construal)
Can you name some items that are better to share than to own? Vignette
Ok so now I am going to ask you to read a paper about different platforms of the sharing economy (Vignette)
What platform would you choose?
Would you like to be a provider a user or both? Why?
What type of items might you borrow or lend out
As of now you have not actually participated in these sharing platforms why do you think that is? What aspect would you say about the sharing economy makes you more likely to join the sharing economy?( Link to convenience, social, economic)
Do you have any friends that use these platforms that you know of? This concludes the interview do you have any questions
Oh by the way would you mind filling out this brief survey, to help another thesis project out. Self construal scale.
