Differences in motivations between participants of different business
models in the sharing economy
and the influences of these motivations on cooperative and self-interested behaviours
Amsterdam, 16 July, 2016
Master’s Thesis Marketing
Business Administration
Supervisor: N. Stofberg
Academic year: 2016-2017
Semester 2, block 3
2
Statement of originality
This document is written by student Midas Snoek 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
Abstract
The long-term sustainability of the sharing economy depends on securing cooperation between users and providers over time. Users of the sharing economy that free-ride on the collaborative efforts of others will cause the fragile foundations on which sharing is built to collapse very quickly. No studies have looked at these (un)cooperative behaviours in the sharing economy before. This study looks at the influence of degree of interaction and the type of motivations on these behaviours. Six hypotheses were tested with a sample of 816 respondents from different sharing platforms. The results show that intrinsic motivations and degree of interaction positively influence cooperative behaviours, extrinsic motivations positively influence self-interested behaviours, participants of personal business models are more intrinsically motivated than participants of impersonal business models but not more extrinsically motivated and finally that age has a positive influence on cooperative behaviours and a negative influence on self-interested behaviours.
4 Content Abstract ... 3 Foreword ... 6 1. Introduction ... 7 2. Literature review ... 11
2.1 The sharing economy ... 11
2.3 Motivations in the sharing economy ... 14
2.3.1 Division of motives ... 15
2.3.2 The three main motives ... 17
2.3.3 Economic motives ... 17
2.3.4 Social motives ... 18
2.3.5 Environmental motives ... 19
2.4 The influence of motivations on behaviours ... 21
2.5 Research question ... 23
3. Theoretical framework ... 25
3.1 Cooperative and self-interested behaviours ... 25
3.2 Motivations ... 26
3.2.1 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations ... 27
3.3 Business model ... 28
4. Methodology ... 31
4.1 Design ... 31
4.2 Sample ... 32
4.3 Measurements ... 33
4.3.1 Independent variable: business model ... 33
4.3.2 Mediating variable: motivation ... 33
4.3.3 Dependent variable: cooperative behaviours ... 35
4.3.5 Dependent variable: self-interested behaviours ... 35
4.4 Control variables ... 36
4.5 Procedure ... 36
4.6 Analysis ... 37
5 5.1 Reliability ... 39 5.2 Correlations ... 39 5.3 Hypotheses ... 41 5.4 Mediation model 1 ... 43 5.5 Mediation model 2 ... 45 5.6 Extra analyses ... 46 6. Discussion ... 47 6.1 Summary of results ... 47
6.2 Unexpected results and alternative explanations ... 49
6.3 Contributions ... 50 6.4 Practical implications ... 51 6.5 Future research ... 52 6.6 Conclusion ... 53 6.7 Limitations ... 53 References ... 55 Appendix 1 ... 62
6
Foreword
I wrote this thesis for my Master Degree in Business Administration at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. While writing this thesis I got help from certain people which I would like to acknowledge here. First of all I would like to thank my supervisor, Nicole Stofberg, who helped me a great lot while writing this thesis. I would also like to thank the people of ShareNL and especially Pieter van de Glind who send me in the right direction regarding a topic in the sharing economy. Next I would like to thank my brother Lukas for helping me with my statistical analysis. Without your help my thesis would be a lot less interesting to read. And finally I would like to dedicate this thesis to my two good friends, Victor Trouw and Bart van Hattum, who despite losing their fathers during the finalizing stages of this thesis kept showing interest and kept supporting me.
I hope you enjoy reading my master thesis.
7
1. Introduction
Buying stuff you only use once or twice is something that might lie behind us in the not to near future. Nowadays you just ask neighbours you have not met yet, if you can borrow their drill, bike or even their caravan, using the internet. Modern technology has made it easier and easier to connect people so they can share underused assets. The resulting sharing economy is new, but is becoming bigger and bigger (Pwc, 2015). The sharing economy is defined by Botsman (2013) as: “An economic model based on sharing underutilized assets from spaces to skills to stuff for monetary or non-monetary benefits. It is largely focussed on P2P
marketplaces”. Examples of how the sharing economy is growing are easy to find. The two most valuable start-ups in the world are both sharing economy related companies, namely Uber and Airbnb (Spence, 2015). The sharing economy is now worth $15 billion per year globally according to a PwC 2015 rapport and is expected to even grow to $355 billion in ten years.
The sharing economy has a very obvious benefit: people can borrow what they normally have to buy. Not everybody needs to own a drill for example. Botsman and Roger (2010) found out that an average drill is only used for six to thirteen minutes in its lifetime. So sharing a drill with your neighbour benefits the environment because less waste is generated with manufacturing and consumption (Luchs, Naylor, Rose, Catlin, Gau, and Kapitan, 2015). Moreover the sharing economy not only profits the environment, but it is also good for peoples’ wallets (Sacks, 2011). An example of the financial impact the sharing economy can have on individuals is given by Airbnb on their website. Airbnb came out with data of house sharers in New York and stated that on average the New Yorkers that rented out their houses earned $5110 per year (Airbnb, 2015).
Research is very much fascinated by the idea of why peers start sharing their goods and services with relative strangers online (Grassmuck, 2012). So far, researchers have not
8 found consensus about the motivations of people to participate in the sharing economy. Some state that utilitarian or extrinsic motivations drive participation, while others state
environmental, social and intrinsic motivations as the main drivers of participation (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Bardhi, 2014; Ikkala and Lampinen, 2015; Prothero et al., 2011; Sacks et al., 2011). In their newest paper, Eckhardt and Bardhi (2016) firmly state that participants in the sharing economy are more interested in lower costs and convenience and not in creating new social relationships. Therefore they suggest that sharing start-ups will have to focus mainly on convenience and efficiency in order to create a competitive advantage (Eckhardt and Bardhi, 2016). A viewpoint which is also embraced by practitioners, who try to phase out personal contact as much as possible under the motto “convenience trumps everything” and personal interactions create hassle (Van de Glind, 2015).
This thesis asserts that the conclusion that utilitarian motives drive behaviours in the sharing economy does not apply to all cases, but rather that in different marketplaces, different motivations dominate. The sharing economy consists of a wide variety of
marketplaces ranging from services and goods and from assets shared freely to assets that are being rented out for a considerable fee. Take for example the case of Airbnb. Ikkala and Lampinen (2015) looked at the motives of people renting out their homes via Airbnb. They found that almost everyone saw the financial benefits as a nice extra but the financial motive was always supplementary to the social motive. Therefore, certainly for Airbnb focussing on utilitarian benefits to the exclusion of social gains may not necessarily allow them to stay ahead of its competition. According to Belk (2014) what distinguishes platforms such as Airbnb is that they are more personal than the Zipcar example on which many of the big scholars have built their quantitative case (e.g. Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Mohlmann, 2015). Since people on personal platforms engage in and are attracted by the idea of ‘social sharing’ one can question whether furthering ‘efficiency’ and ‘convenience’ by forsaking personal
9 elements is really the way to grow more personal platforms as scholars popularly propose and an ethos which practitioners now often embrace.
The focus on efficiency and convenience have caused a shift from the personal peer-to-peer (from now on P2P) business models to more market mediated and impersonal business models namely, peer-to-business-to-peer (from now on P2B2P) business models (Van de Glind, 2015). The newer P2B2P business models try to make sharing as easy as possible by facilitating the sharing. In Amsterdam people can choose a courier provided by PeerbyGo. PeerbyGo picks the wanted item up at the lender and brings it to the borrower (go.peerby, 2016) and thereby eliminating the personal interaction between participants. This makes sharing more convenient but also takes away the social component because borrower and lender do not meet in person anymore. This makes it less of a social transaction and more a commodity exchange (Belk, 2014). We are of the opinion that trying to further grow the social welfare by emphasizing monetary gains, is not without risk (Belk, 2014). Building on crowding theory, this thesis will investigate whether the shifting trend towards convenience and cost optimization in the sharing economy will diminish participants’ intrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivations have been linked to positive citizenship behaviours and putting in effort beyond what is required (Organ, 1988). Therefore such a crowding out effect of intrinsic motivations, in the face of monetary, impersonal compensation in a P2P context can carry very negative consequences, which have yet to be explored.
Research provides ample evidence that certain types of motivations lead to certain behaviours. When people are intrinsically motivated they do something because it is
inherently interesting or enjoyable as where extrinsically motivated people do something to attain some separable outcome (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In the face of monetary rewards people tend to lose the intrinsic motivations they had before (Deci, 1971). Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) stated in their study about Zipcar that users showed utilitarian, extrinsic
10 motivations which led to optimistic behaviours. This in contrast with what Ikkala and
Lampinen (2015) found in their study on why people share their houses on Airbnb. These contrasting findings solicit for further research.
This thesis will look at how motivations differ in P2P and P2B2P business models. We predict that contrary to P2P business models, where users are driven by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to participate, users of P2B2P business models will be driven to
participate there predominantly out of extrinsic motivations. Therefore my research question will be: Are participants of P2P business models more intrinsically motivated and less
extrinsically motivated than their peers in P2B2P business models and do these differences in motivations translate to differences in cooperation and self-interested behaviour?
11
2. Literature review
2.1 The sharing economy
Ownership has always been the dominant way of consumption in the western world (Walsh, 2011). Ownership was been preferred based on cultural values like perceived advantages of ownership over access and it being thought of as cheaper and a way of accumulating wealth (Snare, 1972). Nowadays people have different possibilities to acquire products, skills or services other than owning it (Bardhi, 2014). Due to the rise of social platforms, the economic crisis, environmental concerns and the fact that people are able to shift from one social
position to another make people more driven to share or borrow their products (Bardhi, 2014; Bauman, 2013). Those factors enables and motivate our generation to share instead of own. The sharing of products, skills and services happen in different ways. Through P2P business models, P2B2P business models and through collaborative lifestyles wherein people share and exchange less tangible assets like time, space and skills (Botsman and Rogers, 2010). This sharing of products and assets is facilitated by technology and called the sharing economy. The term sharing economy is often used in combination with collaborative consumption, collaborative economy, peer economy and on-demand economy (Botsman, 2015). Botsman (2015) defined the sharing economy as: “An economic system based on sharing underused assets or services, for free or a fee, directly from individuals”. A more elaborate and comprehensive definition is given by ShareNL, the Dutch knowledge centre which is focussed on the sharing economy. ShareNL (sharenl.nl) defines the sharing economy as follows: “In the sharing economy people consume, produce and trade products, knowledge, services and money, facilitated by peer-to-peer marketplaces, business-to-business
marketplaces and co-operations.
12 underused assets without transfer of ownership. Examples of platforms in the sharing
economy are Peerby for tools, Airbnb for accommodations and Snappcar for cars.
2.2 Different business models
Traditional business models in sharing contexts were based on contact and interaction between peers, a so called peer-to-peer (P2P) business model. Nowadays, with the
technological advancements and the belief that convenience is key, the social part of sharing threatens to phase out (Van de Glind, 2015). This results in another type of business models, namely the peer-to-business-to-peer business model (P2B2P). The main difference between P2P and P2B2P business models is the level of personal interaction between the lender and borrower. In P2P business models the borrower and lender are linked to each other online and, for example, later meet in person to exchange the products or service. In a P2B2P business model there is an intermediating company who facilitates the exchange by, for example, picking up the drill the borrower needs at the lenders house and delivering it at the borrowers house. In this case the social contact between the peers is cut out by a professional third party (Van de Glind, 2015. Such a model comes very close to a B2C model such as Car2go in Amsterdam.
B2C sharing has been around for longer. Museums and libraries are examples of more traditional business to consumer sharing contexts (Chen, 2009; Ozanne and Ballentine, 2010). So B2C sharing is not new but has taken flight due to the rise of modern technology (Bardhi, 2014). With Car2go in Amsterdam, for example, people can borrow cars which they booked through an online application (Car2Go). These business-to-consumer (B2C) sharing platforms are closely related to P2B2P sharing platforms because in both situations there is no or
13 it may negatively influence the sharing behaviours of participants.
Two pioneers in researching car sharing in a B2C context – and the dangers of no personal contact - are Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012). They analysed B2C sharing in their Zipcar study. They investigated what aspects were dominant in this typical business-to-consumer business model. They found that in the case of Zipcar there is a lack of identification, varying significance of use and sign value, a negative reciprocity and need for governance and final, a deterrence of brand community. Their work has been very influential but it is also suggested that B2C sharing is not part of the sharing economy because is not about sharing underused assets because the owner of the cars or other goods is an anonymous company, not another consumer (Meelen and Frenken, 2014). Meelen and Frenken (2014) clarify why certain companies are not part of the sharing economy with the example of UberPop. A service were people can sign up and become a taxi driver without a licence and drive people from A to B. This is no example of the sharing economy since no idle capacity is used. It would only be part of the sharing economy if the driver would already go from A to B and picked up extra people that also have to go to B (Meelen and Frenken, 2014).
So, the impersonal B2C sharing is closely related to the upcoming P2B2P sharing and they differ from P2P sharing in that the first is not really sharing and that they are both impersonal. The ongoing shift to P2B2P sharing will have consequences for the behaviours portrayed in the sharing economy because it may provoke negative reciprocity. With negative reciprocity being behaviours that are self-focussed and towards maximizing the own utility (Sahlins, 1972). This is also what Rifkin (2000) found when looking at impersonal models of sharing.
The impersonal, market mediated forms of sharing, inhibit attachment of the object to the extended self because traditional reciprocal obligations and expectations are being
14 generally about giving back the kind of treatment that you received yourself (Sahlins, 1972). These behaviours are shown in more social forms of sharing. Forms were social transactions or exchanges are more prevalent like in the P2P business models. These social transactions or exchanges are defined by Homans (1961) as: “the exchange of activity, tangible or intangible,
and more or less rewarding or costly, between at least two parties”. Wherein costs are viewed
as foregone activities or opportunities. These social transactions are more about reciprocal behaviours because peoples’ focus is on social behaviour that may result in economic and social outcomes (Lambe, Wittmann and Spekman, 2001). This contrasts with were market mediated transactions are about: contractual relations. So when sharing is about a social transaction it is likely that more reciprocal behaviours are shown due to the social nature of these transaction. So the shift from the personal, more social, sharing between peers to more impersonal sharing through an intermediating company, can result in negative reciprocal behaviours as Bardhi and Eckhardt also found (2012).
To conclude, there are several business models in the current landscape of the sharing economy. The main difference is the level of market mediation. In the case of P2P business models there is a more social transaction taking place whereas in B2P business models there is a more market mediated transaction. Since there is evidence to suggest that individuals act more in their self-interest and less in the collective interest when market norms apply such as in a B2C context, this makes us question whether a shift within the P2P context to one in which a professional business acts as an intermediary is wise, which is the case in the P2B2P context.
2.3 Motivations in the sharing economy
The recent shift from P2P to P2B2P sharing is rooted in the neoclassical belief that ultimately people only participate in the sharing economy out of self-interest. Bardhi and Eckhardt
15 (2012) provide some evidence for this claim, as is discussed earlier. However, we assert that this claim is not generalizable to the entire sharing economy or even to all business models in it for two reasons. For starters, the study by Bardhi and Eckhardt focussed on users of the Zipcar platform. This is a typical example of a B2C business model wherein no actual sharing of underused assets take place between individuals but rather between a company and
individuals. As such, we cannot speak of sharing but rather of a new innovative way of short term rental. As ShareNL (sharenl.nl) state on their website, the sharing economy is between individuals and outside the sharing economy there is trade between individuals and
companies. When we do look at individual motivations in peer sharing platforms, an entirely different situation is portrayed. There is ample proof that whilst self-interested motivations do factor into the equation, social and environmental motivations come into play as well
(Tussyadiah, 2015; Ikkala and Lampinen, 2015; Bocker and Meelen, 2015). Sometimes they even take president over utilitarian reasons for participation when we move out of the realm of B2C context and into the one where consumers or peers share with one another (Ikkala and Lampinen, 2015). As will be elaborated in the next section.
2.3.1 Division of motives
After a short explanation about the differences between extrinsic and intrinsic, three main
motives will be described and will be categorized as either intrinsic or extrinsic and will be
linked to the business models that portray these motivations the most.
Motivations can be divided into two groups: intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. When people are intrinsically motivated they do something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable as where extrinsically motivated people do something to attain some separable outcome, for example money (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Lindenberg (2001) also states that there
16
conforming to norms. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can be linked to the two different
business models in the sharing economy through their type of transaction. Transactions in the P2P models are overall more social because of the interaction between peers. A popular example provided by Belk (2014) is couchsurfing, a highly personal platform where people can stay at each other’s homes for free. People join couchsurfing not for the extrinsic benefits but because they derive pleasure from it. Couchsurfing results in friendships that last beyond a single holiday and members have expressed feelings of warmth and generosity towards one another, which can be explain their loyalty towards one-another and the platform (Belk, 2014). Demonstrating that more social platforms result in more reciprocity and prosocial behaviours as explained before. This does not hold for sharing in P2P contexts were money is involved, for example Airbnb. In Airbnb an idle room or house is shared for money and social interaction, so a mix between a social and market transaction. This leads to feelings of
reciprocity being balanced with the presence of some feelings of community and bonding between hosts and guests (Habibi, Kim and Laroche, 2016). Transactions in P2B2P models are always market mediated and are therefore more characterized by contractual relations and the involvement of money resulting in motivations and behaviours that are self-regarding (Eckhardt and Bardhi, 2012).
Chen (2009) and Ozanne and Ballantine (2010) provide some empirical evidence for the assertion that social transaction contexts result in higher levels of prosocial motivations. Demonstrating again that in P2P sharing people are mainly intrinsically motivated and that social motivations are the main driver. This is backed by Simmel and Hughes (1949) who state that sociability is an intrinsically rewarding behaviour that has no ulterior end but satisfaction. Giesler (2006) also states that in not-for-profit types of sharing a sense of responsibility and reciprocity is present. In market transactions where money is more
17 predominantly involved, people will be more likely to show extrinsic motivations because of the external stimulus.
2.3.2 The three main motives
Whilst Bardhi and Eckhardt claim that there is only one motive in the sharing economy,
namely utilitarian or extrinsic motivations, several other studies have found other motivations
to drive sharing behaviours, namely social and environmental (Ikkala and Lampinen, 2015;
Tussyadiah, 2015; Bocker and Meelen, 2015). The three main motivations that drive sharing
behaviours namely economic, social and environmental will be discussed below.
2.3.3 Economic motives
As described above and generalized by Bardhi and Eckhardt, the economic motive of
participants of the sharing economy might be the most obvious one. By sharing underused
assets instead of buying them people save money or if they rent their goods or services out
they even earn money. This is also what Tussyadiah (2015) found in her study about travellers
and their motives to use P2P accommodation sharing platforms. Participants of her study
stated that they wanted quality accommodations for less money and found p2p
accommodation sharing an attractive way of obtaining this. That economic motivations can be
a reason to rent out your house was discovered by Ikkala and Lampinen (2015). They found
that for people renting out their house on Airbnb the secondary reason to do this was the
financial benefit which they saw as a nice extra. Bocker and Meelen (2015) looked at
motivations in different product categories and found that economic motivations are the main
driver when the concerned product was a drill, accommodation or tool.
To conclude, economic motivations are about an external outcome so it can be
18
the economic motivation is present. Research has not looked into the P2B2P model and their
motivations but since B2C sharing, as Bardhi and Eckhardt describe, is closely related to
P2B2P platforms, we assume that motivations in P2B2P are equal to those in the B2C sharing
context: economic.
2.3.4 Social motives
The second motive that has been found mostly is the social motive. Bocker and Meelen
(2015) found that social motivations were the main driver when the shared product was a
meal. They deemed the interaction between sharers and the more personal character of this
sector as the main reason for social motivations. Also Ikkala and Lampinen (2015) found
social motivations for participants. As described earlier, economic motivations are in play
when people rent out their house on Airbnb but research also found that the social motive was
not only present but also deemed more important than the economic motive (Ikkala and
Lampinen, 2015) which can be explained by the personal nature of this kind of sharing (Belk,
2014). The study of Tussyadiah (2015) also identified social motivations for people using
P2P accommodation sharing platforms. People in her study stated that the next to saving
money they also wanted to get to know and interact with locals as they stayed in their houses.
As previous research shows, the social motive mainly exists in the P2P business
model. Sociability is an intrinsically rewarding behaviour that has no ulterior end but
satisfaction and can therefore be categorized as an intrinsic motivation (Simmel and Hughes,
1949; Lindenberg, 2001). Although there is no evidence that the social motive is not existing
in the P2B2P model, Belk (2014) suggests that sociability is not a driver when people use a
business model were an intermediating company cuts out the social interaction between peers.
The social benefits of sharing are therefore not likely to be found in those business models.
19
been studied greatly. The act of sharing could stimulate cohesion in neighbourhoods and bring
people together (Agyman, Mclaren and Schaefer-Borrego, 2013). Research also suggests that
face-to-face sharing increases relationship building and social interaction between neighbours,
strangers and different ethnic groups. This eventually even leads to a decrease in isolation of
vulnerable population groups (Shinew, Glover and Parry, 2004). People in Oregon
experienced increased social interaction, improvements in mental health, increased social
capital and a stronger sense of community due to an increase in sharing facilities and activity
(Semenza and March, 2009). These benefits from sharing could be gone if there is no personal
contact when the sharing takes place.
To conclude, studies to date argue that economic motivations drive motivation in the
sharing economy. However these studies have focussed on a B2P context in which personal
contact is not present and people are not borrowing or sharing goods or services from each
other but rather an anonymous company. The anecdotal evidence in the P2P context shows
that whilst economic benefits are much appreciated ultimately social motivations trump
economic ones (Ikkala and Lampinen, 2015; Bocker and Meelen, 2015). Therefore this thesis
asserts that scholars should be careful to dismiss social motivations as secondary and be
careful to write off the conditions that make social gratification possible. However to date
there is no systematic study that compares platforms on the basis on their degree of personal
contact and this can account for mixed findings. To address this gap this thesis will do just
that and argue that the degree of personal contact is pivotal in whether social or economic
motivations dominate and that this in turn will influence behaviours.
2.3.5 Environmental motives
That sharing will benefit the environment is not hard to imagine. Environmental concerns
20
Environmental motivations to participate in the sharing economy are also found by other
several studies. In the P2P accommodation sharing study from Tussyadiah (2015) participants
explained that they wanted to reduce the impact they made on the environment by using
resources more responsibly. In this case, idle accommodation spaces from peers. Also in car
and ride sharing in the P2P context one of the reasons often stated is to decrease the stress on
the environment (Bocker and Meelen, 2015). Schaefers (2012) looked at motivations in car
sharing in a B2P context. He found that the environmental motive for people to participated in
car sharing represented their desire for more indirect benefits through car sharing although
this motive is not the primary reason to participate. His finding is backed by Burkhardt and
Millard-ball (2006) and Costain et. al. (2012). Schaefers (2012) indicates the environmental
motive as an altruistic and therefore intrinsic motivation.
To conclude, the environmental motive has been found in both the P2P and the P2B2P
(B2P) business models although it is more prevalent in the P2P context. The environmental
motive is an intrinsic motivation since it has an altruistic nature.
So, overall you could say that the intrinsic motivations namely social and environmental, are
mostly prevalent in the more social P2P business models. The extrinsic motivation is
portrayed in both business models but is represented stronger in the P2B2P business model.
Since the sharing economy is shifting from a P2P to a more P2B2P business model there will
also be a shift from more intrinsically motivated to more extrinsically motivated participants
(Van de Glind, 2015). Extrinsically motivated participants will be more likely to use the
P2B2P platforms as where intrinsically motivated participants will be more likely to use P2P
21
2.4 The influence of motivations on behaviours
Since sharing is a social dilemma it is important to find out how differently motivated participants behave in the sharing economy. According to Sahlins (1972) and Belk (2010) there are three types of reciprocity that can emerge when people exchange objects: balanced, generalized and negative reciprocity. Generalized reciprocity is about not expecting anything in return, balanced reciprocity is about having the expectation that an equal return will be given, and negative reciprocity is about exchanging goods or services in one’s self interest where one hopes to get more than is given (Sahlins, 1972). This thesis is interested in but in whether participants cooperate or act in their self-interest when they actively engage in the sharing economy. Cooperative behaviour is synonymous with generalized reciprocity since it entails behaving in a way that is costly to do but nothing is expected to get in return
(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, and Bachrach, 2000). Acting in self-interest is related to negative reciprocity since in both behaviours people try to maximize their own utility at the expense of others, which results in the tragedy of the commons whereby individuals act with communal goods only in their own self-interest (Hardin, 1968).
Many studies in the sharing economy to date (e.g. Mohlmann, 2015; Lamberton and Rose, 2012) look at behavioural outcomes such as satisfaction with the platform or intentions for future sharing, yet fail to incorporate actual user behaviours towards one-another. This is problematic because the sustainability of the sharing economy critically rests on overcoming free-rider problems and getting people to act cooperatively to another. We know from public goods dilemmas that if people act uncooperatively (i.e. in their self-interest) that this can cause the whole system to implode, yet no research in the P2P sharing economy has systematically examined behaviour, let alone what triggers (un)cooperative behaviours.
What we do know is speculation that the sharing economy is at risk of such self-interested behaviours. For example, Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) found that users engaged in
22 self-interested behaviours when using the B2C Zipcar platform. Users explained that they could just beat up the cars because it will be fixed after they are done using it and it would not be their concern anymore. In the case of Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) people showed self-centred and utilitarian motivations which eventually lead to the destructive behaviours. This thesis will investigate if certain motivations eventually lead to some kind of cooperative behaviours.
Motivations are linked to behaviours in a way that the former is driving the latter. Atkinson and Raphelson (1956, p.349) described this link as: “the behavioural tendency to do
something is a joint function of the strength of a particular motive and the strength of the expectancy that a particular act is instrumental to attainment of the goal of that motive”. So
certain motivations will lead to certain behaviours as previous research has found. The influences of motivations on behaviours in the sharing economy will be discussed below.
The two business models in the sharing economy are related to certain types of motivations as described earlier. Where participants in the impersonal (P2B2P) business model are more likely to have extrinsic motivations like saving money, participants in the personal (P2P) business model are more likely to have more dominant environmental and social motives. In the sharing economy, in models were money is not the main driver, Giesler (2006) found that sharing created a sense of responsibility and a need for reciprocity. This is another hint that in models where no money is involved a need for reciprocity is present.
Other research on behaviours in impersonal sharing business models suggests that because of market mediation people tend to show more opportunistic and self-serving
behaviours (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012). Bardhi and Eckhardt call these behaviours negative reciprocity behaviours. Researchers believe that these behaviours are shown because
extrinsically motivated people do not feel reciprocal obligations because these obligations are replaced by contractual settings (Rifkin, 2000). These contractual settings will make
23 participants more likely to engage in negative reciprocal behaviours since they will try to get the most value for the amount of money they paid. This is backed by Rifkin (2000) who states that contractual settings inhibit attachment to the product and that leads to less accountability and therefore more opportunistic behaviours which is the opposite of the responsible
behaviours shown in contexts where money is not the main driver (Giesler, 2006). So,
research so far hints in the direction that extrinsic motivations that are president in impersonal (P2B2P) forms of the sharing economy have influence on the negative reciprocity behaviours of the participants. For P2P business models, where both intrinsic motivations and extrinsic motivations can be president, it will come down to what kind of motivations are dominant. When the intrinsic motivations like the environmental and social motive are dominant the reciprocity behaviours will be more generalized.
To conclude, you could say that intrinsically motivated people will show more responsible and generalized reciprocal behaviours than people with extrinsic motivations. This because extrinsically motivated people do not feel reciprocal obligations because these are replaced by contractual settings. This has the effect that people do not attach to the product, which leads to less accountability and are therefore showing more opportunistic and self-interested behaviours (Rifkin, 2000).
2.5 Research question
So where Bardhi and Eckhardt generalize that utilitarian motivations are the main drivers of behaviours in the sharing economy, this study will look at how motivations differ in peer-to-peer and peer-to-peer-to-business-to-peer-to-peer business models. This study will also look at how these motivations influence cooperative and self-interested behaviours. Therefore the research question will be: Are participants of P2P business models more intrinsically motivated and less extrinsically motivated than their peers in P2B2P business models and do these
24 differences in motivations translate to differences in cooperative and self-interested
25
3. Theoretical framework
3.1 Cooperative and self-interested behaviours
The long-term sustainability of the sharing economy depends on securing cooperation between users and providers over time (Hartl, Hofmann and Kirchler 2015). If users of the sharing economy free-ride on the collaborative efforts of others this will cause the fragile foundations on which sharing is built to collapse very quickly (Hamari, Sjoklint and Ukkonen, 2015). Whether participants of the sharing economy cooperate or act in self-interest is a social dilemma since some will share altruistically and others will free-ride. If you put this in
another perspective, it is the personal interest opposed to the interest of the community (Dawes, 1980). There are also dark sides of the sharing economy. The New York Times (30-4-2014) stated that big problems can come from short-term rentals of apartments on Airbnb because that will make housing less affordable in big cities due to restricted supply. Also Brunning (2015) acknowledges a dark side of the sharing economy, stating that people might not take the same level of care as the owner of the product does.
According to Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) three types of reciprocity behaviours can be distinguished within the sharing economy based on Sahlins (1972). There is generalized, balanced and negative reciprocity. Generalized reciprocity is about not expecting anything in return (also called positive reciprocity), balanced reciprocity is about having the expectation that an equal return will be given (also called tit-for-tat), and negative reciprocity is about exchanging goods or services in one’s self interest where one hopes to get more than is given. Cooperative behaviours are synonymous with generalized reciprocity because they both are about behaving in a way that is costly to do when nothing is expected to get in return
(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, and Bachrach, 2000). Acting in self-interest is synonymous to negative reciprocity since in both behaviours people try to maximize their own utility which
26 outcome can become something known as the tragedy of the commons whereby individuals act with communal goods only in their own self-interest (Hardin, 1968).
So far, research has not looked into (un)cooperative behaviours and which factors influence them. This research expects, building on existing literature, that motivations will be strong drivers of these behaviours. So cooperative or self-interested behaviours will be influenced by the initial motivations participants have when they partake in any form of sharing facilitated by sharing platforms. Large bodies of research have proven that
motivations drive behaviours as Atkinson and Raphelson (1956) have been quoted before. Examples will be given in the next paragraph.
3.2 Motivations
There is evidence that suggests that whether motivations are social, environmental or self-interested has a strong influence on how cooperative participants act (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Hamari et al., 2015; Lauterbach, Truong, Shah and Adamic, 2009).
Participants of the study of Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) were motivated in an own-utility maximizing way which eventually led to opportunistic or differently put, self-interested behaviours like beating the hell out of the borrowed car. Another example comes from
couchsurfing, were people can sleep at a strangers house in exchange for sociability (Lauterbach et al., 2009). It shows that socially motivated people act in a non-selfish way. These people share their couch with a stranger and spent time with them, which is costly but it helps the other person. Finally, in the study of Hamari et al., (2015) they found that enjoyment (intrinsic) motivations and the ‘greenness’ of sharing were very good indicators of
behavioural intention to participate in the sharing economy.
This thesis posits that motivations are a key factor that drive cooperative behaviours and warrants further attention. More specifically this thesis aims to investigate which sharing
27 platform characteristics enhance the different intrinsic motivations versus the extrinsic
motivations and how these in turn impact the cooperative tendencies of participants.
3.2.1 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
Intrinsically motivated participants will show cooperative behaviour. Where Giesler (2006) states that in not-for-profit sharing contexts people felt obligatory feelings of cooperation and altruism, we suggest that this will hold for participants that are intrinsically motivated as well. Other examples come from studies related to organisational citizenship behaviour where researchers found that intrinsically motivated employees tend to show more organizational citizenship behaviours towards other people in their organisation (Becton, Giles & Schraeder, 2008). These organisational citizenship behaviours are individual behaviours that are
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988).
Behaviours like altruism and courtesy are behaviours that are related to organisational citizenship behaviours directed at individuals (Williams and Anderson, 1991). So those behaviours only benefit others without the expectation of getting something back (Brief, 1986). Those behaviours are not only shown in organisations but also in the sharing economy. Examples come from Airbnb where hosts indicate in their profile that they are more than willing to do something extra to make guests feel at home or even showing guests around town (Airbnb.com/users/show/8445723). This also links cooperation with generalized reciprocity. Therefore we propose that intrinsically motivated participants are more likely to show cooperative behaviours.
So, intrinsic motivations are more likely to drive cooperative behaviours because these behaviours are costly to do and won’t appeal to extrinsically motivated people that are willing to maximize their own utility. Extrinsic motivations will only drive cooperative behaviours
28 when the cooperation will lead to an economically rational outcome (Declerck, Boone and Emonds, 2013). The examples given earlier also show the link between intrinsic motivations to more altruistic and cooperative behaviours and the link between extrinsic motivations and self-interested behaviours. Therefore the second and third hypothesis will be:
H1: Intrinsic motivations have a positive effect on cooperative behaviour
H2: Extrinsic motivations have a positive effect on self-interested behaviour
3.3 Business model
In P2P business models personal interaction is part of how the platform works. In P2B2P business models there is no such interaction since that interaction has been eliminated by an intermediating company. Therefore this thesis divides platforms in either category based on the level of personal interaction.
We suggest that participants in the two different types of business model will have different motivations. P2P business models are more social due to the interaction between peers and social motivations are intrinsic motivations. From prior research it is also known that in P2P business models the intrinsic environmental motive is often portrayed (Tussyadiah
(2015). Therefore we suggest that participants of P2P business models are more intrinsically
motivated than participants of the P2B2P business models.
The P2B2P business model is comparable to the anonymous B2C sharing wherein prior research has shown that mainly economic motivations are portrayed. In B2C sharing there is no contact between peers but rather between a company and a consumer. This has as a consequence that people portray more economic, extrinsic motivations. Since the P2B2P business models also lay off the interaction between peers and therefore make it more anonymous we suggest that in P2B2P business models participants are more extrinsically
29 motivated than participants of P2P business models. The third and fourth hypotheses will therefore be:
H3: Participants of P2P business models are more intrinsically motivated than participants of P2B2P business models
H4: Participants of P2B2P business models are more extrinsically motivated than participants of P2P business models
Whether participants of sharing platforms interact with each other will influence their behaviours. Participants that never meet each other will be less likely to show cooperative behaviours and be more likely to show self-interested behaviours. Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) already found that in anonymous forms of sharing people show self-interested behaviours.
Furthermore research also suggests that face-to-face sharing increases relationship building
(Shinew et al., 2004). It is not hard to understand that when peers have a stronger relationship
they would be more likely to show cooperative behaviours instead of self-interested
behaviours. This is also backed by Fehr, Fischbacher and Gächter (2002) who state that if
there is a chance of repeated interactions even self-interested people will show cooperative
behaviours despite short-run cheating incentives. In other words, when participants interact
with other participants they are more likely to not behave in self-interested ways because
future interactions may be harmed by initial self-interested behaviours. This backs our next
two hypotheses that the degree of personal interaction will positively impact cooperative
behaviours and will negatively impact self-interested behaviours. Therefore the final two
hypotheses are:
H5: The degree of personal interaction between participants will have a positive impact on cooperative behaviours shown by participants
30
H6: The degree of personal interaction between participants will have a negative impact on self-interested behaviours shown by participants
Figure 1: conceptual model of key variables and hypotheses.
H1: Intrinsic motivations have a positive effect on cooperation behaviours
H2: Extrinsic motivations have a positive effect on self-interested behaviours
H3: Participants of P2P are more intrinsically motivated than participants of P2B2P business models
H4: Participants of P2B2P business models are more extrinsically motivated than participants of P2P business models
H5: The degree of personal interaction between participants will have a positive impact on cooperative behaviours shown by participants
H6: The degree of personal interaction between participants will have a negative impact on self-interested behaviours shown by participants
31
4. Methodology
In this section the research plan will be discussed. First of all the design of this study will be discussed. Second the sample will be described and some descriptive data will be given. Third the measurements and how they were developed will be debated. Fourth and finally the procedure and analyses will be discussed.
4.1 Design
For this research a survey is used in order to collect data needed to test the hypotheses. Data is collected in only one ways, so it is a mono method study. We choose for a survey because they work best when standardized questions are used that are likely to be interpreted the same by all respondents (Robson, 2011). A survey is the best suitable data collection method since it is for a master thesis. This means that time, finance and effort are not widely present. Surveys are a quick and affordable way to reach a lot of respondents which are needed to provide reliable results (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). A survey also provides standardised and consistent questions for all respondents as named earlier. This has as a consequence that answers of different respondents can be compared and that this can happen in a reliable way. The surveys are self-completed and web-based using the program Survey Monkey. Self-completed surveys are less likely to be answered to please the researcher or because the respondents believe that certain answers are socially desirable (Dillan, 2009). This makes the answers given by respondents more reliable and a better reflection of reality.
The survey is a co-creation of four master students, our supervisor and ShareNL. The survey will also be used for research by ShareNL. All items in the survey have been translated from English scales to Dutch scales and are made applicable for the sharing economy. All scales have been coded in a way that all items are formulated in the same direction. So there is
32 no negation in items. This helps respondents not to misinterpret the statements because
negation can cause confusion while reading (Swain, Weathers, and Niedrich 2008).
Since research in the sharing economy is fairly new, not all scales existed. To validate the self-made scales and whether they translated well to the sharing economy, a pretest was conducted. Results of the pretest will be discussed in the paragraphs of the individual measurements.
4.2 Sample
Respondents in this study needed to be Dutch speaking participants of the sharing economy. To reach people that meet these conditions the network of ShareNL was used. ShareNL, the Dutch knowledge centre of the sharing economy, has an extensive network consisting of sharing platforms within the Netherlands. It was tried to obtain an as large sample as possible to make the results better generalizable. To stimulate people to fill in the survey an Ipad mini was used as an incentive. One Ipad mini was promised to be raffled between respondents. Eventually, data was used from respondents from Peerby, Thuisafgehaald and the general sharing economy monitor which was shared with all sharing platforms. The survey shared by Peerby was completely filled in 512 times, the survey shared by Thuisafgehaald was
completely filled in 174 times and the general sharing economy monitor was completely filled in 130 times. Overall the three surveys had a completion rate of 62.72%.
The survey was done by 63% women and 37% men. The average age of respondents was 46 years old and the oldest respondent was 94 years old. Of the respondents 42% had a HBO degree, 37.4% had an University degree, 10.2% had a MBO degree and the rest of the sample had finished high school, primary school or had a different degree. The sample consisted of 92.4% Dutch people, 1.2% Surinam and Indonesian people, 0.1% Turkish and Antillean people and 5% stated a different ethnicity. Most respondents, 29.5%, earned less
33 than €1500,- per month. 24.9% of the respondents earned between €1501,- and €2500,- a month, 20.6% earned between €2501,- and €3500,-. The rest of the sample earned €4501,- or more a month.
4.3 Measurements
In this study there are two dependent variables, one mediating variable and there is one independent variable. A pretest was done to test the reliability of the scales. The pretest was completed by 49 respondents. The variables and their measurement will be described below starting with the independent variable and the mediating variable and followed by the dependent variable. All translations of the items can be found in appendix 1.
4.3.1 Independent variable: business model
The distinction between P2P and P2B2P is determined by the degree of personal interaction between peers. In P2P business models peers are required to meet in person to exchange the product or service. In P2B2P business models this personal interaction between peers is facilitated by a company, so there is no interaction between peers in this business model. The degree of interaction was measured with one item. The item states: “How often do you meet
other members of the platform in person to complete a transaction?”. The item was measured
on a six point scale ranging from (1) never to (6) always, with an option to indicate ‘does not apply’.
4.3.2 Mediating variable: motivation
The mediating variable, motivation, was measured with nine items. All motivation scales and the scales they are based on will be discussed below. The survey first states: I became a
34 member of ‘most used platform’ because… Respondents then saw the nine items. For this thesis only three motivations are relevant: social, economic and environmental. All items were measured with a seven-point Likert scale. Scales ranged from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. A high score means that the respondent felt that this statement reflected his motive to join a platform. A low score means that the respondent felt that this statement did not reflected his motive to join a platform. No items had to be recoded for the three
motivations.
The social motive was measured with four items developed by Paul, Hennig-Thurau, Gremler, Gwinner and Wiertz (2009). An example item is: ‘… it allows me to have enjoyable
interactions with the employees or other customers.’ To make it fit the sharing economy
employees or other customers has been translated to other members of the platform. No items have been deleted after the pretest since the internal consistency for the scale was acceptable (alpha = .776).
The economic motive was measured with three items. Two items were developed by Paul et al., (2009) and one has been developed by Hamari et al., (2015). An example item is: ‘… it saves me money’. The pretest showed that the scale was not reliable (alpha = .444). Therefore the scale was changed to exactly match the scale of Hamari et al. (2015). This holds that the economic motive now consisted out of four items. In the study of Hamari et al., the economic motivation scale had an Chronbach’s alpha of .724 which is not recommended but since their scale passed all of the validity and reliability tests no validity issues were expected.
The environmental motive was measured with two items. The items were developed by Hamari et al., (2015). An example item is: ‘…it helps me to save natural resources’. The internal consistency for the scale in the pretest was acceptable (alpha =.779). By accident one of the items was deleted when creating the final survey so the final survey unfortunately only contained one item to measure environmental motivations of participants.
35
4.3.3 Dependent variable: cooperative behaviours
No scale had been developed to measure cooperative behaviours in the sharing economy. Therefore a new scale has been developed. The scale is a derivative of organisational
citizenship behaviour - individual (OCBI) scales since those behaviours translate easily to the sharing economy as is explained earlier. First a list of all possibly relevant behaviours of OCBI had been created and judged by experts (employees of shareNL). The list consisted of 37 items of which 24 eventually made it into the pretest after expert judgement of the
behaviours. The final scale consisted of 21 items, twelve of those measured cooperative behaviour and nine of those measured self-interested behaviour.
The cooperative behaviour scale contains items from four different studies, namely Lee and Allen (2002), Williams and Anderson (1991), Podsakoff, Ahearne and MacKenzie (1997) and McNeely and McGlin (1994). An example item of the positive reciprocity scale is: ‘Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her.’ Respondents indicated the extent to which they endorsed each statement using a seven-point Likert type scale. Scales ranged from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. The internal consistency for the scale in the pretest was good (alpha = .849).
4.3.5 Dependent variable: self-interested behaviours
The self-interested behaviour scale has been created with the use of items from three different studies, namely Spector, Fox, Penny, Buursema, Goh and Kessler (2006), Peterson (2004) and Bennet and Robinson (2000). An example item of the negative reciprocity scale is: ‘Lying to
conceal ones error.’ Respondents indicated the extent to which they endorsed each statement
using a five-point scale. Scales ranged from (1) never to (5) always. No items needed to be recoded and the internal consistency for the scale in the pretest was poor (alpha = .529). After
36 the pretest three items were deleted to increase the Cronbach’s alpha to .545. These items were deleted since all 49 respondents of the pretest filled in ‘never’ as their answer.
4.4 Control variables
This thesis will make use of three control variables: the highest level of education, age and income. The level of education and income will both have a positive influence on cooperative behaviours since people with more income are less likely to partake in the sharing economy for economic reasons and will therefore show more cooperative behaviours and less self-interested behaviours. Age will influence behaviours of participants in a way that older people are more likely to show cooperative behaviours while younger people are more likely to show more self-interested behaviours (Gutiérrez-Roig, Gracia-Lázaro, Perelló, Moreno and
Sánchez, 2014).
4.5 Procedure
The survey was a collective effort of three master students, our supervisor and employees of ShareNL. The behavioural scales were created by the team of shareNL and our supervisor and were pretested as a collective effort. In order to collect respondents the network of ShareNL was used. The survey, accompanied by a letter, was send to sharing platforms who were able to share the survey under their users. By doing it like this, we assured that respondents were actually users of sharing platforms. The data has been collected in a time frame of four and a half weeks. Some platforms did not send out the survey sooner than the last week of the data collection.
Since no effort had to be put in to collect respondents for this thesis, we were asked to provide ShareNL and our supervisor with respondent for their non-participants survey. Since their research was likely to be published, a representative sample of non-participants of the
37 Netherlands was desired. In order to collect a representative sample of the Netherlands, a collective effort was put in to collect email addresses from Dutch speaking people from all over the Netherlands. For this I approached approximately 1000 people in different ways. Some email addresses were collected on the streets, some were collected through social media and emails and others were collected by handing out small pieces of paper that included the link to the survey for people who did not want to give their email address.
The survey started with a general statement which contains a short introduction, the incentive that can be won (an Ipad Mini), the statement that there are no right or wrong answers and that the survey is completely anonymous.
4.6 Analysis
This study looks at the effects that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations have on cooperative and self-interested behaviours in the sharing economy. This study will also examine the
differences in motivations in two different business models in the sharing economy. All hypothesis will be tested while controlling for age, income and education. To test hypothesis 1, intrinsic motivations have a positive effect on cooperative behaviours, a regression analysis will be conducted. The plan to test this hypothesis was to calculate the total of intrinsic
motivations, environmental and social, reported by respondents. Unfortunately the
environmental scale was changed in the final survey and therefore only social motivations will represent intrinsic motivations.
For hypothesis 2, extrinsic motivations have a positive effect on self-interested behaviours, a regression analysis will be conducted like the one done for hypothesis 1.
For hypothesis 3, participants in P2P business models are more intrinsically motivated than participants of P2B2P business models, an analysis of variance (ANCOVA) will be conducted. For this hypothesis to be tested the intrinsic motivations reported by respondents
38 in both business models will be compared. For this to be possible the mean of the intrinsic motivations of respondents of the P2P business model will be compared to the mean intrinsic motivations of respondents of the P2B2P business model. To make a distinction between P2P and P2B2P business models, the degree of interaction was measured. For respondents
answering the interaction scale with not applicable, never, almost never and sometimes a variable was created to indicate them as participants of P2B2P business models. For respondents answering the interaction scale with often, very often or always a variable was created to indicate them as participants of P2P business models.
For hypothesis 4, participants in P2B2P business models are more extrinsically motivated than participants of P2P business models, an analysis of variance (ANCOVA) will be conducted. For this hypothesis to be tested the extrinsic motivations (economic) reported by respondents in both business models will be compared. For this to be possible the mean of the extrinsic motivations of respondents of the P2B2P business model will be compared to the mean extrinsic motivations of respondents of P2P business model.
Hypothesis 5, the degree of personal interaction between participants will have a positive impact on cooperative behaviours shown by participants, will be tested with a correlation analysis. For this analysis the normal scale of interaction will be used.
Hypothesis 6, the degree of personal interaction between participants will have a negative impact on self-interested behaviours shown by participants, will be tested with a correlation analysis. For this analysis the normal scale of interaction will be used.
39
5. Results
5.1 Reliability
To test whether the measurements mentioned earlier can be used for a regression analyses a reliability analysis is conducted. Table 1 shows the Cronbach’s alpha of the items on the diagonal. Since degree of interaction, age, income and education are scales only measured with one item no Cronbach’s alpha is given. The cooperative behaviour scale has high reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha = .806. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). Also, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted.
The self-interested behaviour scale has a questionable reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha = .600. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that two items do not have a good correlation with the total score. One item has therefore been deleted to increase the
Cronbach’s alpha to .712. This Cronbach’s alpha is acceptable and therefore no more items have been deleted.
The economic motivations scale has a questionable reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha = .674. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that one item does not have a good correlation with the total score. Therefore that item has been deleted to increase the Cronbach’s alpha to .727. This Cronbach’s alpha is acceptable.
The social motivations scale has high reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha = .808. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale. Also, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted.
5.2 Correlations
40 correlation coefficients are shown in table 1 and will be discussed shortly.
Cooperative behaviours correlate positively with interaction and social motivations and do not correlate with other variables. This correlation was expected because of the social nature of the three variables.
Self-interested behaviours correlate positively with economic motivations and negatively with age. The first is expected because of the self-maximizing utility that both variables have in common. That age and self-interested behaviours correlate negatively confirms what Gutiérrez-Roig et al., (2014) also found.
Interaction positively correlates with social motivations, cooperative behaviours and education while it negatively correlates with age. The correlation of interaction, cooperative behaviours and social motivations was expected because of the social nature of both. The correlation between education and interaction shows that highly educated participants are likely to interact with their peers when partaking in the sharing economy. The negative correlation between interaction and age shows that older participants are less likely to interact with their peers when sharing.
Social motivations correlate positively with cooperative behaviours, interaction and economic motivations. The correlation between the first three is expected and can be
explained by the social nature of all three variables. The correlation between social
motivations and economic motivations shows that both types of motivations are likely to be present when participants partake in the sharing economy.
Economic motivations correlate positively with self-interested behaviours and social motivations while it negatively correlates with age and income. The latter correlation shows that the older participants are and the more they earn the less they show economic motivations to partake in the sharing economy.
41
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the key- and control variables
(Cronbach’s alpha’s on the diagonal)
5.3 Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1, intrinsic motivations have a positive effect on cooperative behaviours, was tested by doing a regression analysis between the intrinsic motivation social and the
dependent variable cooperative behaviour while controlling for age, income and education. A significant positive standardized regression coefficient was found: β=.453 (p<.0001, R² = .201) confirming the hypothesis. The control variables did not have a significant effect on cooperative behaviour.
Hypothesis 2, extrinsic motivations have a positive effect on self-interested behaviours, was tested by doing a regression analysis between the extrinsic motivation economic and the dependent variable self-interested behaviour while controlling for age, income and education. A significant positive standardized regression coefficient was found:
42 a significant negative effect on self-interested behaviour (β= -.111, p<.05).
Hypothesis 3, participants in P2P business models are more intrinsically motivated than participants of P2B2P business models, was tested by doing an ANCOVA analysis (analysis of covariance). In the analysis three covariates (or control variables) were included: age, income and education. The differences in intrinsic motivations were significant in the different business models (p<.0001, F=29.887) confirming the hypothesis. Participants of P2P business models (M=5.033, SE=.056) were found to be more intrinsically motivated than their peers in the P2B2P business models (M=4.567, SE=.063). Age (p<.05, F=6.672) has a significant effect as well but the differences in intrinsic motivations are still significantly different.
Hypothesis 4, participants in P2B2P business models are more extrinsically motivated than participants of P2P business models, was also tested by doing an ANCOVA analysis. In the analysis three covariates were included: age, income and education. The differences in extrinsic motivations were not significant in the different business models (ns, F=1.384). The participants of P2P business models (M=4.1667, SE=.068) are even slightly more extrinsically motivated than their counterparts in P2B2P business models (M=4.047, SE=.075). Income (p<.05, F=4.287) and age (p<0.01, F=6.797) bot significantly impact extrinsic motivations.
Hypothesis 5, the degree of personal interaction between participants will have a positive impact on cooperative behaviours shown by participants, was tested by doing a regression analysis while controlling for age, income and education. A significant positive standardized regression coefficient was found β=.284 (p<.0001, R² = .078) confirming the hypothesis. The control variables did not have a significant effect on cooperative behaviours.
Hypothesis 6, the degree of personal interaction between participants will have a negative impact on self-interested behaviours shown by participants, was tested by doing a regression analysis while controlling for age, income and education. A not-significant
