Social benefits vs. economic benefits of sharing and their effect on car owners' intention to participate in peer-to-peer carsharing

(1)

1

Social Benefits vs. Economic Benefits of Sharing and their

Effect on Car Owners’ Intention to Participate in

Peer-to-Peer Carsharing.

Master Thesis MSc Business Administration – track Marketing

Amsterdam Business School – University of Amsterdam

Anne Zijleman - 11411910 Final version master thesis 22-06-2018

(2)

(3)

3

List of Tables

Table 1. Overview of hypotheses………...28

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations……….34

Table 3. Correlation Matrix………43

Table 4. Correlation Matrix millennial sample………...46

Table 5. Mean Differences, SD Differences and Confidence intervals for comparison social positioning with economic positioning………...…47

Table 6. Coefficients and significance levels mediation effect for CS frame and Social motivation on Intention to participate……….50

Table 7. Effect size and significance levels mediation effect for CS frame and Social motivation on Intention to participate……….……….…..….50

Table 8. Coefficients and significance levels mediation effect for MP frame and Economic motivation on Intention to participate..………..……..…...51

Table 9. Effect size and significance levels mediation effect for CS frame and Social motivation on Intention to participate………..………..……..…...51

Table 10. Multiple Regression Analysis of Intention to participate predicted by Social and Economic motivation………..……..……...52

Table 11. Outcomes of the hypotheses………..……...56

Table 12. Correlation Matrix ≥40 years sample…...………..58

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual Model………..………28

Figure 2. Three-Path Mediation Model of CS frame and Social motivation on Intention to participate………...49

Figure 3. Three-Path Mediation Model of MP frame and Economic motivation on Intention to participate………...49

Figure 4. Three-Path Mediation Model of CS frame and Social motivation on Intention to participate for age group ≥40 years….………...59

Figure 5. Three-Path Mediation Model of MP frame and Economic motivation on Intention to participate for age group ≥40 years.………...59

(6)

6

Abstract

Carsharing is one of the central practices representing the fast-growing sharing economy. Despite

the benefits of carsharing, enticing consumers to share out their car is still challenging for

carsharing platforms. This research examines whether a shift in platform positioning could attract

more car owners. The current economic positioning – based on economic benefits of carsharing –

is challenged and compared with social positioning – based on social benefits of carsharing.

Building on the Relational Model Theory, this study argues that platform positioning affects how

consumers frame their relationship with other users on the platform. The triggered relational

model explains choices regarding sharing participation. A vignette experiment (N=201) is

conducted in collaboration with Dutch carsharing platform SnappCar. Through exposing

respondents to either social or economic positioning, it is examined what positioning leads to the

highest intention to participate as a provider in peer-to-peer carsharing. The perception of two

relational models (Communal Sharing and Market Pricing) and two types of motivation (social

and economic) were expected to mediate the effects of positioning on intention to participate in

carsharing. Results are based on the millennials (respondents <40 years) – since a significant

difference was detected between this group and the older respondents - and show that social

positioning results in a higher intention to participate, through the perception of a CS frame and

through social motivation. Economic positioning decreases intention to participate, through the

perception of a MP frame. This negative effect is dampened somewhat by an increased economic

motivation, however, economic motivation increases participation intention to a lesser extent than

social motivation. Therefore, this research concludes that social platform positioning is more

(7)

7 Concerning the older generation (≥40 years), platform positioning (either social or economic) does not result in a higher intention to participate.

Keywords: sharing economy, carsharing, relational model theory, sharing motivation, communal

(8)

8

1. Introduction

In this day and age of change and technological innovations, our consumption of cars is

changing. The value we attach to owning a car is decreasing, and a growing number of

consumers look for transportation solutions, rather than driving experiences (Nationwide, 2017).

Cargroup (2016) calls it a mobility evolution, which is moving towards a system that is less car-ownership centric and more ‘access’-centric. Studies with regard to the changing car industry

show interesting results: KpVV shows a considerable 23% increase in the amount of shared cars

in the Netherlands in 2017 alone (KpVV, 2017). 86% of these shared cars are used via a

peer-to-peer carsharing platform. A consumer survey of McKinsey (2016) indicates that 67% of the

consumers who do not use carsharing services currently, expect to start using it in the upcoming

two years. In a similar trend, Frost & Sullivan (2016) predict that the global carsharing market

will grow from over 7 million members in 2015 to 36 million members by 2025.

The growing popularity of carsharing reflects the new culture of sharing. The so-called

sharing economy is a relatively new socio-economic system, focused on collaborative

consumption (Matofska, 2016). Individuals nowadays share different kinds of possessions with

(unknown) others (Frenken & Schor, 2017). It is not limited to carsharing; the sharing economy

also includes practices as apartment-, tool- and clothes sharing (Böcker & Meelen, 2016).

The rise of the sharing economy is due to several reasons. Technological innovations have

enabled online sharing platforms to arise (Böcker & Meelen, 2016). These sharing platforms

serve as intermediaries that connect providers with users and facilitate peer-to-peer sharing

between them (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2016). Providers can offer their under-utilized

goods – e.g. a car which would otherwise stand still in front of the house – to other people in

(9)

9 Schor, 2017). This brings along economic benefits for providers and for borrowers, as they get

cheap access to goods, and will eventually result in a rise in income or consumer welfare

(Frenken & Schor, 2017).

Furthermore, there is a large-scale trend of sustainable living, which Gansky (2010) calls a “sustainability-driven zeitgeist” (Gansky, 2010, in Bucher, Fieseler, & Lutz, 2016). People

nowadays attach value to mindful consumption and ecological friendliness (Sheth, Sethia, &

Srinivas, 2011). Sharing fits in this trend. By consumers owning less and making use of products

that are idle, overconsumption can be reduced (Frenken & Schor, 2017). This contributes to a

more sustainable society (Botsman & Rogers,2010). Especially carsharing has large benefits for

the environment, as carsharing will result in less cars on the road, which results in a decrease in

CO2 emissions (Tyson, 2016).

Whilst economic, sustainable and societal reasons have been cited for the rise of the

sharing economy, scholars have yet to agree on the primary reason concerning why people are

attracted to and participate in sharing. There appears some consensus that when it comes to

carsharing, economic reasons are the primary driver to start sharing (e.g. Bardhi & Eckhardt,

2012; Hamari et al., 2016; Möhlman, 2015), an advice which practitioners have taken to heart.

Most carsharing initiatives - e.g. SnappCar, Getaround, MyWheels - appeal solely to monetary

advantages in an attempt to encourage people to share their car (SnappCar, 2018; Getaround, 2018; MyWheels, 2018). To illustrate, SnappCar emphasizes that you can earn €1.000 a year by

renting your car out (SnappCar, 2018). However, these marketing strategies have so far failed to

sufficiently entice consumers to start sharing their cars. This could be illustrated by a survey

among 1330 Dutch individuals that shows that only 25% of the respondents was willing to share

(10)

10 Interestingly, most studies that investigate consumers’ motivations to participate in

carsharing, look at business-to-consumer (B2C) models, in which the platform owns and

manages the cars. Examples of such platforms are Zipcar in the US and Greenwheels in the

Netherlands. Consumers rent cars directly from the platform, and do not meet other users. This

makes the carsharing scheme very anonymous and impersonal. A true ‘sharing experience’,

which is characterized as personal and social (Habibi, Kim, & Laroche, 2016), cannot be

delivered by these business models and neither do participants on such platforms expect a sharing

experience (Belk, 2014; Habibi et al., 2016). Consequently, convenience and utility are key.

Another school of sharing economy scholars that look at peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing

interactions, find instead that sociality is the key driver of sharing (e.g. Albinsson & Perara, 2012;

Bellotti et al., 2015; Bucher et al., 2016). In P2P sharing practices, such as SnappCar, users rent

cars directly from car owners, enabling people to connect with one another and to create feelings

of solidarity and bonding (Belk, 2007; Belk, 2010). It therefore could fulfill people’s desire to

foster community (Albinsson & Perara, 2012) and to experience a feeling of unity (Belk, 2010).

The social benefits that sharing brings along in P2P carsharing could thus be a stronger driver for

individuals to share their car with others, making sociality more important than utility. Therefore,

the current marketing techniques of carsharing platforms - namely a focus on economic

incentives - are challenged in this research.

Given the lack of attention to the social aspect in P2P carsharing, this thesis tries to fill the

research gap by investigating whether P2P carsharing platforms could mitigate barriers for car

owners to share out their car by switching their focus from economic benefits of carsharing to

social benefits of carsharing. In other words: whether a change in platform positioning would

(11)

11 influences users’ attitudes and behavior with regard to other users and the service itself

(Gorenflo, 2012), it is essential for sharing platforms to be aware of how different positioning

results in different participation intention among possible users.

This study will draw on the Relational Model Theory of Fiske (1991). According to this

theory, the positioning of a sharing platform delivers a specific relational value model. It leads

participants to frame their relationship with other participants according to one of the following

mental models: Market Pricing (MP), Communal Sharing (CS), Equality Matching (EM).

Whereas positioning based on economic benefits frames a MP relationship, is positioning based

on social and communal cues related to a CS relationship. The perceived relational model evokes

norms and behaviors which are appropriate for the specific situation (Fiske, 1992; Rai & Fiske,

2011). This study posits that socially positioned platforms send out a strong message that

participants act according to norms of CS, meaning that they are mindful of one another’s cars. In

contrast, economically positioned platforms send out norms of MP, meaning that people will act

to further their own personal interest (Fiske, 1992). Especially providers (owners of cars) will be

very sensitive to these cues, as they are most vulnerable to misbehavior by unknown others who

can access their car via the sharing platform (Hartl, Hofmann, & Kirchler, 2016; Schaefers,

Wittkowski, Benoit, & Ferraro, 2016).

Similarly, platform positioning evokes a particular type of motivation among possible

users (Habibi et al., 2016; Heyman & Ariely, 2004). When sending out cues that emphasize the

communal aspect and the importance of relational value in the sharing interaction, people are

likely to engage in the sharing practice with the goal of connecting with others and to derive

pleasure from it (Belk, 2014; Habibi et al., 2016), i.e. they are socially motivated. In contrast,

(12)

12 sharing interaction, and will be motivated by the economic benefits (Heyman & Ariely, 2004).

Since social motivation is associated with higher P2P sharing intentions than economic

motivation (Belotti et al., 2015; Bucher et al., 2016), this study argues that social positioning can

be more effective in encouraging car owners to share out their car than the current economic

positioning, by means of increasing social motivation.

Until now, most research with regard to what drives individuals to participate in sharing,

has focused on motivations of the users – the demand side – of the sharing economy (e.g. Bardhi

& Eckhardt, 2012; Möhlmann, 2015; Tussyadiah, 2015). Motivations of providers of goods - the

distribution side – has gotten less attention. However, as Victor van Tol, CEO of the Dutch carsharing platform SnappCar, indicates in the Guardian newspaper: “The most challenging thing

for sharing platforms, is to get car owners to share their cars” (Boztas, 2017). Thus, for platforms

it is valuable to have insight in what drives providers to share their car with others and how

platform positioning (based on social vs. economic benefits) influences the perceived relational

model that dictates how participants act and what choices they make regarding participation.

This research compares social platform positioning with economic platform positioning

and examines their influence on the perceived relational model, as well as how they affect social

and economic motivation. The research question which will be answered is as follows:

“To what extent does social (vs. economic) positioning of a carsharing platform lead to higher intentions among Dutch car owners to participate as a provider in peer-to-peer carsharing?”

This research question will be answered by means of the following sub-questions:

1. What is the effect of social (vs. economic) positioning on car owners’ intention to participate?

(13)

13

2. What is the mediating role of the perceived relational model on the relationship between platform positioning and car owners’ intention to participate?

3. What is the mediating role of sharing motivation on the relationship between platform positioning and car owners’ intention to participate?

4. What is the sequential mediating role of the perceived relational model and sharing motivation on the relationship between platform positioning and car owners’ intention to participate?

The research is in cooperation with SnappCar, a Dutch carsharing platform. The research

questions are answered by means of a vignette survey, for which two vignettes of the landing

page of the SnappCar website are created. Their effect on the perceived relational model, sharing

motivations and intention to participate is analyzed (N=201).

The findings contribute to academic research by comparing the effect of social and

economic positioning, based on positioning designs of a realistic P2P sharing platform.

Furthermore, by linking platform positioning to relational models and to motivations, this study

contributes to existing literature by explaining why different ways of positioning have different

effects on carsharing intentions. Regarding practical contributions: by having insight in what

positioning – whether it is social or economic – would lead to the highest participation, marketers

of carsharing platforms can design the platform in a way that attracts more car owners. This could

help them with the challenge of getting car owners to share their cars.

This study is structured as follows: the literature review provides an overview of the

sharing phenomenon and related constructs, resulting in the conceptual model and corresponding

hypotheses (chapter 2). In chapter 3 the research methods are discussed, followed by the results

(14)

14 contributions, limitations of the study and recommendations for future research. Finally, the

(15)

15

2. Literature review

2.1 Sharing economy

The sharing economy is a term that has been used in many contexts and across different

platforms. Platforms claim to be part of the sharing economy, because of the positive symbolic

value of sharing (Frenken & Schor, 2017). However, there are varying degrees of true sharing

characteristics in their nature. Frenken and Schor (2017) define the sharing economy as: “consumers granting each other temporary access to under-utilized physical assets (“idle

capacity”), possibly for money” (p.5). They mention four criteria for a platform to belong to the

sharing economy: it must involve a physical good, the access must be temporary, transaction

must be between consumers (peer-to-peer), and the good must be under-utilized. These criteria distinguish the sharing practices from “pseudo-sharing” practices, which use the vocabulary of

sharing but do officially not belong to the sharing economy (Belk, 2014).

A form of pseudo-sharing is a service whereby consumers do not use idle capacity, but

instead create new capacity (Frenken & Schor, 2017). Uber, a platform where anyone with a car

can serve as a taxi driver, is an example of such a pseudo-sharing practice. People can order an

Uber - a ride – which brings them to their destination. In this case, the Uber driver only makes the

ride because someone ordered it. This means there is no matter of an idle capacity (Meelen &

Frenken, 2015). Only when the driver would have made the specific trip anyway, the passengers

would have used some idle capacity. In this case the ride would be classified as a form of carsharing. However, this is not applicable for Uber, hence this ‘carsharing’ service, is often

(16)

16 Furthermore, within the sharing economy terminology there should be a distinction

between peer-to-peer sharing (P2P) and business-to-consumer sharing (B2C). According to

Frenken and Schor (2017), B2C sharing services are not part of the sharing economy, but of the

product-service economy. The company gives consumers access to a product, while the company

retains ownership of it. An example of a B2C model is Zipcar. Zipcar is a carsharing service,

whereby consumers get temporary access to cars owned by a company, in return for a

membership fee (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). As the providing party is a company, this car rental

service cannot be classified as part of the sharing economy.

Other authors who have contributed to disentangling the sharing vocabulary, are Habibi et

al. (2016). They propose a framework - the non-ownership collaborative consumption continuum

- to classify sharing economy practices based on their sharing and exchange characteristics. On

the left end of this continuum is pure sharing, which is characterized as nonreciprocal, social,

personal, dependent and irrelevant of money. Couchsurfing, a free house/apartment sharing

concept, is an example of a practice which belongs to the left side of the continuum (Habibi et al.,

2016). On the other end of the continuum is pure exchange, which is characterized as reciprocal,

monetary, impersonal and independent. The authors mention Zipcar as an example of a practice

on this side of the continuum. There are also practices which have characteristics of both sharing

and exchange, i.e. interpersonal, but money as an important motivator. Airbnb – a P2P

monetary-based house/apartment-sharing rental platform - is an example of a practice which falls in the

middle of the continuum (Habibi et al., 2016).

It turns out that the nature of the sharing practice determines consumers’ participation

motivations and behaviors (Habibi et al., 2016). For example, consumers have lower social

(17)

17 in a practice that falls on the exchange side of the continuum, compared to participation in a

practice which falls on the sharing side (Habibi et al., 2016). The authors argue that the more

exchange characteristics a practice has, the less relevant is sociality. To illustrate, renting a car

via Zipcar does not offer the social benefits that consumers experience and value in practices in

which they share possessions with peers (Habibi et al., 2016). This indicates that such practices

are contrasting to each other. Ironically, scholars generalize findings about B2C platforms to all

sharing practices. This explains the ambivalence in the sharing literature about the main driver for

sharing participation. Studies considering economic benefits as the main driver (e.g. Bardhi &

Eckhardt, 2012; Hamari et al., 2016; Möhlman, 2015), have focused on B2C platforms. Since

these platforms do not enable consumer interaction (Frenken & Schor, 2017), it makes sense that

monetary or convenience benefits are the main reason to use the service.

In contrast, on P2P platforms consumers rent possessions directly from each other, hence

there is interpersonal contact. It is likely that drivers which are less important on B2C platforms,

such as sociality, do play a role on P2P sharing platforms. According to Belk’s ‘sharing in’

principle, sharing can be understood as an expression of community in which actors engage out

of personal enjoyment (Belk, 2014). He defines it as “expanding the sphere of extended self by expanding the domain of common property” (Belk, 2010, p.726). Although sharing in usually

takes place between people who have a close relationship, “it can also include unseen online others who are part of a consumption community” (Belk, 2014, p.16). This makes sharing in

applicable to the P2P sharing context, in which members who belong to the same sharing

community can share possession with one another.

Sharing within a community produces a sense of joint ownership and leads people to act

(18)

18 respect for the shared resource and take care of it (Habibi et al., 2016). The personal relationships

between members and communal identity among them thus decreases misbehavior (Schaefers et

al., 2016). Since car owners are vulnerable to misbehavior when sharing out their car to others via

an online platform (Hartl et al, 2016), they will be more attracted to platforms in which

misbehavior is highly unlikely. Therefore, we stress the relevance of the social and communal

cues in platform positioning. This will portray the sharing practice as a community interaction,

similar to sharing in, including corresponding norms of de facto joint possessions (Belk, 2010),

and consequently encourage car owners to share their car on the platform. Studies confirm our

assumption by demonstrating that providers of goods are particularly attracted to sharing systems

where they can connect with other people (Belotti et al., 2015), and that the social aspect of

practices with a high degree of sharing attracts participants (Habibi et al., 2017). Accordingly, the

following hypothesis is formulated:

H1: Social positioning of a P2P carsharing platform is associated with a higher

intention to participate than economic positioning.

2.2 Relational Models Theory

To understand the relation between platform characteristics and sharing motivations and

behaviors, this study draws on the Relational Models Theory of Fiske (1991, 1992). This theory

posits that people (unconsciously) use relational models to comprehend, evaluate and construct

their social relationships (Haslam & Fiske, 1999). Each model represents a way in which humans

(19)

19 related to different norms, which are applicable in specific social situations (Fiske, 1992). These

norms lead in turn to specific motivations and behavior (Rai & Fiske, 2011).

The way sharing platforms position themselves, can influence how consumers frame the

sharing context and the relationship with other users (Gorenflo, 2012; Stofberg et al., 2017).

Three of the relational models introduced by Fiske (1991, 1992) are relevant in the sharing

context, namely: market pricing (MP), communal sharing (CS), equality matching (EM)1.

2.2.1 Market Pricing

Market pricing (MP) relationships are organized in terms of cost-benefit ratios and rational

calculations of efficiency and expected utility (Fiske & Haslam, 1999). Actors in MP

relationships see themselves as independent entities, competing for achievement. The ratio of the

cost-benefit analysis could be defined in for example monetary value, utility, efficiency or effort

(Fiske & Haslam, 2005).

MP leads to the norm of self-interested behaviour (Fiske, 1992). When a relationship is

framed as MP, the appropriate behaviour is trying to obtain the highest payoffs, while giving the

lowest contributions. So actors are only motivated to contribute if they will be personally

rewarded for doing so. To extend this to the sharing context: when adopting a MP frame, users of

sharing platforms aim to get the most out of the “sharing” practice for themselves. The social

aspect is unimportant and sharing will be purely about the transaction, with the goal to maximize one’s own benefits, whether this is money, utility or something else. This is similar to the ‘pure

1_{The fourth model is authority ranking (AR). AR focuses on asymmetry within relationships and is therefore not relevant in the sharing context.}

Since sharing platforms are decentralized and hierarchies do not play a role in peer-to-peer sharing, AR will not be taken into account in this research.

(20)

20 exchange’, described by Habibi et al. (2016). Also, MP could be linked to Belk’s principle of

‘sharing out’ (Belk, 2010), which he describes as self-interested-based sharing, which is “focused

on pragmatic and economic interests and preserves the self/other boundary” (Belk, 2010, p.726).

In other words, such a relationship is not about helping others or making human connections, but rather about maximizing one own’s profit (Stofberg et al., 2017).

A practical example of this is Zipcar. Interviews among Zipcar users indicate that they use

the service purely out of economic and convenience motivations, that they are not looking to

connect with other users and that they do not feel any responsibility towards Zipcar’s cars

(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). This clearly illustrates MP framing in the Zipcar community.

2.2.2 Communal Sharing

Communal sharing (CS) concerns an equivalence relation, in which people rely on something

they have in common (Fiske & Haslam, 2005). Actors adopting a CS frame see themselves and

their relational partners as community members who are undifferentiated. Unity, collective

identity, and kindness are central elements in this type of relationship (Sheppard & Sherman,

1998).

CS is linked to norms of generalized reciprocity, in which it is of no importance how

much everyone gives and receives (Fiske, 1991). When framing a relationship as CS, actors

contribute altruistically to the common good. Solidarity is a key principle (Haslam & Fiske,

1999), and the appropriate behaviour is to help others, regardless of personal rewards (Bridoux & Stoelhorst). This type of relationship is in line with Belk’s principle of ‘sharing in’ (Belk, 2010),

in which sharing is an expression of community, aimed at enabling others to enjoy the benefits of

(21)

21 frame, will freely share with other people who belong to the community, without expecting anything in return. It thus corresponds with ‘pure sharing’, as explained by Habibi et al. (2016).

A carsharing initiative that has truly fostered a communal feeling among its members is

the Swedish small-scale neighbourhood-based organization Majorna, as described by Belk

(2014). The 300 members do not just share cars with each other, but also share responsibility for

maintaining and washing the cars, and for organizational tasks such as new member acceptance

and insurance decisions. All members have a clear sense of attachment to the cars and to each

other, they feel responsible and they feel a sense of mutual identity (Belk, 2014). Hence, Majorna

is a sharing practice which has created a true CS relation among its members.

2.2.3 Equality Matching

Equality matching (EM) is a relationship focused on ‘balanced reciprocity’, i.e. there should be a

balance in what is given and received (Fiske, 1991). Contributions of the social actors should be identical, which characterizes a ‘tit-for-tat’ reciprocity. In EM relationships, actors are both

concerned with their personal welfare and with the welfare of other participants (Brickson, 2007).

In the EM model, the equality principle is most important and actors are motivated by

reciprocity and maintaining balance in the relationship (Fiske, 1992). Equal turns between the

actors are expected (Stofberg et al., 2017). With regard to the sharing context, when adopting an

EM frame, sharing can be considered as a fair exchange practice, in which the provider should get something in return from the user (“tit-for-tat”). In EM sharing practices, both the economic

and the non-economic benefits are of importance.

EM framing can be illustrated by BlaBlaCar, a ridesharing platform which connects car

drivers and passengers. Passenger who are heading in the same direction as the driver can join the

(22)

22 benefit a reason to use this service. In addition, sociality is also a reason to use BlaBlaCar, since

it enables personal interaction during a long ride, which people find enjoyable (Voermans, 2015).

EM sharing practices thus have characteristics of both sharing and exchange practices, and will

therefore fall in the middle of the sharing continuum of Habibi et al. (2016).

2.2.4 Positioning and relational models

The relational frame sharing participants allocate to their relationship with others on the platform

depends on how the platform positions itself (Stofberg et al., 2017). Research demonstrates that

monetary incentives activate a market-oriented context (Heyman & Ariely, 2004; Kouchaki,

Smith-Crowe, Brief, & Sousa, 2013), hence activate a MP frame. When a MP frame is adopted,

the focus lies on the economic value of the activity, rather than on the relational value

(Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999). As a consequence, norms and behaviors of an economic

exchange relationship are triggered (Heyman & Ariely, 2004; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999). This

means that self-interested behavior increases and cooperative behavior decreases (Kouchaki et

al., 2013; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999).

A platform communicating social benefits, such as community creation, activates a social

exchange context (Heyman & Ariely, 2004). The relational value derived from a social

positioning is high (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016; Stofberg et al., 2017). Both CS and EM frames

foster relational value (Stofberg et al., 2017). Although the economic value can be relevant in EM

relationships, since it is about reciprocity, the social and communal aspects are yet of importance,

given the genuine concern for the other’s welfare actors have in the relational model (Brickson,

2007). This could be illustrated by BlaBlaCar, as introduced in the previous paragraph (2.2.3), in

(23)

23 the frames CS and EM both as high relational value models, and will not make a further

distinction between them in our theoretical argumentation.

Studies show that when people derive relational value from an interaction, they are more

likely to participate and cooperate (Brickson, 2007; Harrison, Bosse & Phillips, 2010). To apply

this specifically to P2P sharing, frames with a higher level of relational value are more positively

related to sharing intentions (Stofberg et al., 2017). Similar to Belk’s sharing in principle with

corresponding norms of de facto joint possessions (Belk, 2010), frames with a high relational

value activate norms like kindness and solidarity (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016; Sheppard &

Sherman, 1998). Therefore, providers who perceive a sharing relation as CS/EM expect other users to act according to these norms, meaning that they take care of one another’s car. Thus, a

CS/EM frame decreases fear of misbehavior and increases trust in sharing peers (Schaefers,

2016). This increases car owners intention to participate (Hartl et al., 2015).

On the contrary, framing a relation as MP activates norms of self-interested behavior,

thereby increasing the chances that users do not fully take responsibility of the shared car, as

illustrated by the example of Zipcar users (paragraph 2.2.1). This makes car providers more

vulnerable to misbehavior by users who can access their car (Acquier, Daudigeos, & Pinkse,

2017; Schaefers et al., 2016) and thus explains why car owners feel more attracted to platforms

triggering a CS/EM frame than to platforms triggering a MP frame.

The determining role of platform positioning in relational framing can be illustrated by

an occurrence from sharing platform Couchsurfing (Mettavant, 2014). This non-commercial

platform serves as a social network community of travelers, who offer each other hospitality.

This indicates a CS relationship. When the platform got monetized in 2011 and the community’s

(24)

24 members was evoked. Charging money was not consistent with the relational frame they had

adopted (Belk, 2010). Couchsurfing had always been about connection, but now finding a free

place to stay became central. Current members were discouraged about using the platform, and

new members got attracted (Mettavant, 2014). This shows that a change in positioning, a switch

in focus from social exchange to economic exchange, changes the relational model that is

adopted by users and their attraction to the platform.

Based on the Relational Model Theory and the discussed findings, we argue that an

emphasis on the social aspect of sharing triggers a CS/EM frame, whereas an emphasis on the

economic aspect triggers a MP frame. Moreover, the perception of a CS/EM frame leads to a

higher intention to participate, compared to perceiving a MP frame. Accordingly, the following

hypothesis is formulated:

H2: The relationship between positioning and intention to participate is mediated by the

perceived relational model, such that social (economic) positioning is associated with a CS/EM (MP) frame, which leads to a higher (lower) intention to participate.

2.3 Motivations to engage in the sharing economy

For sharing platforms to be successful, it is important to know what motivates consumers to

participate in the sharing practice. Social motivation is demonstrated to be an essential motivation

for sharing participation (Albinsson & Perara, 2012; Bellotti et al., 2015; Bucher et al., 2016).

Feeling socially motivated to engage in sharing practices, means that people have the desire to

establish social contact, to create social bonds and to help others (Albinsson & Perara, 2012;

Wilhelms, Henkel, & Falk, 2017). This corresponds with the importance of relational value in

(25)

25 interact with others (Albisson & Perara, 2012; Bucher et al., 2016), they will feel more attracted

to platforms in which the relational value is high, i.e. platforms that trigger a CS/EM frame.

Interestingly, another school of literature argues that utilitarian motivation – i.e. sharing

for economic and/or convenience reasons - is what drives people to engage in sharing practices

(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Bellotti et al., 2015; Möhlmann, 2015), thereby contradicting the

importance of relational value in sharing. However, these research outcomes require a critical

view. They claim to have investigated sharing economy practices, while in reality they have

focused on B2C models (e.g. Zipcar and car2go). These platforms do not meet the criteria of the

sharing economy (since the transaction is not between consumers), hence they cannot be

classified as a sharing economy practice (Frenken & Schor, 2017). Nevertheless, findings of

those studies are often generalized to all forms of sharing, which therefore results in incorrect

conclusions about motivations to participate in P2Pcarsharing.

Given that ‘sharing’ in a B2C context is anonymous, impersonal and non-interactional,

B2C platforms are not able to deliver the social benefits and create the relational value for

members like P2P sharing platforms do (Habibi et al., 2016). Consequently, people do not expect

to derive much relational value from the transaction. Hence, they are not motivated to establish

and maintain connections with other people (Leary & Allen, 2011). Instead, they are driven by

other benefits the platform offers, such as convenience (Habibi et al., 2016). This explains the

high utilitarian motivation studies focused on B2C platforms find (e.g. Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012).

Since B2C and P2P platforms differ in nature – B2C platform have more exchange

characteristics whereas P2P platforms have more sharing characteristics (Habibi et al., 2016) –

we stress that findings of B2C platforms cannot be applied in the P2P sharing context. This

(26)

26 that connecting and interacting with others, the desire to foster community building and feeling

socially responsible seem to be drivers that play a crucial role among providers on sharing

platforms (e.g. Andreotti et al., 2017; Bellotti et al., 2015; Bucher et al., 2016). To illustrate this,

participants in the study of Albinsson and Perara (2012) explain their participation in sharing

practices by claiming that it helps them to feel more involved with others.

2.3.1 Positioning and sharing motivations

The motivation participants experience depends on the way a platform positions itself. Habibi et

al. (2016) have shown that a sharing practice with more exchange characteristics (such as a focus

on the monetary aspect) is linked to lower social motivation and higher economic motivation. A

sharing practice which contains more sharing characteristics (such as creating social links) is linked to higher social motivation and feelings of community. This is in line with Belk’s belief

that when people engage in real sharing, they derive pleasure from it (Belk, 2014). This relates to

intrinsic motivation, as described in the Self Determination Theory (SDT) of Deci and Ryan

(1985, 2000). Intrinsic motivation means that people are driven by their interest in the subject

matters or the pleasure they derive from it. The counterpart is extrinsic motivation, which means

being motivated by external incentives (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). Extrinsic motivation

corresponds to economic motivation.

It turns out that monetary incentives, can change intrinsic motivation to extrinsic

motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Heyman & Ariely, 2004). This is the so-called ‘crowding-out effect’ (Frey & Jegen, 2001). This indicates that an individual’s social motivation to engage

in sharing practices could be diminished when the focus of a sharing platform is on economic

benefits. The intrinsic motivation – i.e. sharing because of the enjoyment of social contact and

(27)

27 words, a focus on economic benefits can diminish the anticipated social motivation and increase

the economic motivation.

Based on this we argue that economic platform positioning is likely to trigger economic

motivation and social platform positioning will trigger social motivation. Motivation in turn

affects sharing behavior. For example, the enjoyment of helping others and connecting with

others leads to altruistic behavior and increases sharing participation (Bucher et al., 2016; Lin,

2007). On the contrary, reminders of gaining money (vs. nonmoney reminders) seem to reduce

helpfulness towards others (Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006). Since studies on P2P sharing indicate

social motivation as strongest driver (e.g. Andreotti et al., 2017; Bellotti et al., 2015; Bucher et

al., 2016), the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3: The relationship between positioning and intention to participate is mediated by

motivation, such that a social (economic) positioning is associated with social (economic) motivation, which leads to a higher (lower) intention to participate.

2.4 Interaction between perceived relational model and sharing motivation

Besides the mediating roles of perceived relational model and sharing motivation separately,

these two variables can also be linked to each other in explaining the relationship between

platform positioning and intention to participate in sharing.

Heyman and Ariely (2004) demonstrate by an experiment that when money is mentioned as a reward for the performance, participants’ motivation differ from when money does not play a

role. More specifically, money results in economic motivation to perform a task. The researchers

(28)

28 exchange relationship is triggered. In contrast, in case of no monetary incentive, a social

exchange relationship is triggered. Hence, effort stems from social motivation. This shows that

money can be a cue to the type of relationship individuals consider themselves in, which in turn

affects their motivation and their behavior (Heyman & Ariely, 2004).

Stofberg et al. (2017) show that social motivation is higher on a platform on which

relationships among users are perceived as CS/EM than on a platform that triggers a MP

relationship. On the other hand, individuals adopting a MP frame are more focused on economic

benefits of the activity (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999).

Based on these results, the following is hypothesized:

H4: The relationship between platform positioning and intention to participate is sequentially

mediated by the perceived relational model and sharing motivation, such that a social (economic) positioning is associated with a CS/EM (MP) frame and social (economic) motivation, which leads to a higher (lower) intention to participate.

2.5 Conceptual model and hypotheses

This study compares two different ways of positioning of a carsharing platform, and their effect on car owners’ intention to participate in carsharing. The positioning is based on either social

benefits of carsharing or on economic benefits. It is expected that a social positioning is related to

a higher intention to participate and that this relationship could be explained by the perceived

relational model, by the type of motivation and by an interdependent relationship between these

two variables. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model of this study. Table 1 presents an

(29)

29

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

Table 1.

(30)

30

3. Methodology

This chapter discusses the methodology applied in this research. First, the choice for carsharing

platform SnappCar is explained in paragraph 3.1. Paragraph 3.2 elaborates on the research

design. Then, paragraph 3.3 presents the measures used in this study. The performed pre-test is

discussed in paragraph 3.4, followed by the data collection procedure in paragraph 3.5.

Thereafter, paragraph 3.6 elaborates on the sample of this study, and finally the data analysis

process for testing the hypotheses is outlined in paragraph 3.7.

3.1 Choice for carsharing platform: SnappCar

In order to make the research come closest to reality as possible, it was desirable to work with

web designs of a real life carsharing platform. SnappCar was willing to participate in order to

find out how to stimulate car owners to share their car. Since SnappCar is a Dutch peer-to-peer

sharing platform on which people share their own car with other users, it was an appropriate

sharing platform for this research.

SnappCar is the biggest carsharing platform in the Netherlands and is expanding to other

European countries (Boztas, 2017). Currently, SnappCar’s platform positioning highlights the

economic benefits of carsharing. They are trying to attract car owners by means of the slogan: “Compensate your car costs and waste less at the same time”, and by emphasizing that car

owners can earn up to €1000 per year by sharing their car. The current economic positioning of

SnappCar provides this study with an opportunity, namely: to find out whether, in contrast, a

positioning focused on social benefits would lead to a higher intention to participate among car

owners. Hence, SnappCar is relevant to this research, and this research is also relevant to

(31)

31

3.2 Research Design

To test whether a) social positioning results in higher sharing intentions compared to economic

positioning, and b) this possible relation is mediated by the perceived relational model and by

motivation, this study has set up a vignette experiment, embedded in a survey. In a vignette

experiment, also known as a factorial survey (Aitking & Longford, 1986), short descriptions

about a situation are shown to respondents, whereafter judgments about the situation are evoked

(Atzmüller & Steiner, 2010). A vignette experiment enables manipulating and controlling the

independent variable, in order to test the hypotheses in a realistic manner (Aguinis & Bradley,

2014). Several studies show that vignette responses are closely related to how people respond in

real life situations (Finch, 1987; Hughes, 1998).

In this study, the independent variable, platform positioning, is manipulated. Two

vignettes of the SnappCar platform are created. In one vignette, SnappCar was portrayed as a

platform based on social benefits (social positioning), and in the other vignette SnappCar was

portrayed as a platform based on economic benefits (economic positioning). The development of

this manipulation will be further elaborated on in the next paragraph.

The study performs a between-subjects design with two treatments (social positioning vs.

economic positioning). A between-subjects design is chosen in order to avoid carryover effects

that possibly arise in a within-subjects design (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). Participants were

randomly allocated to one of the two vignettes. First of all, SnappCar was introduced to them.

They were informed that SnappCar is an online carsharing platform that enables consumers to

rent out their cars to other consumers. They observed the manipulated webpage of SnappCar for

at least 50 seconds. After these 50 seconds they could continue whenever they finished reading.

(32)

32 themselves in the hypothetical situation of renting out their car to others. However, if participants

who did not own a car started the survey, they were asked to imagine that they were a car owner.

3.3 Stimuli Development (pre-test)

Before the actual data collection, a pre-test is conducted in order to check whether the

manipulations of the SnappCar webpage are perceived as intended. In other words, the test had to

validate whether the social positioning triggers people to perceive SnappCar as a social exchange

platform (CS/EM) and whether the economic positioning triggers people to perceive SnappCar as

an economic exchange platform (MP).

Firstly, the two vignettes were created (see Appendix A). One vignette intended to

position SnappCar as a social platform (i.e. focused on social benefits), whereas the other one

intended to position SnappCar as an economic platform (i.e. focused on economic benefits). The

webpages were created in a similar form as the actual website of SnappCar, and the content was

based on the existing content of the website. Both vignettes consist of five components: a picture

with a slogan; three reasons why to choose SnappCar; an explanation of how SnappCar works;

reviews of SnappCar participants; and a section about renting out your car without concerns.

Based on recommendations of previous research, the social positioning condition had to

emphasize socialization, community building and had to avoid calculations or references to

money (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016; Habibi et al., 2017). In this condition, SnappCar is displayed

as a platform which is about helping neighbors and about contributing to a thriving local

community. Pictures used in the vignette show people who interact with one another, in order to evoke community feelings. Furthermore, terms like “neighbors” and “sharing” are used. The

(33)

33 neighbors move forward! Create the ultimate community feeling.” By stressing social cues, the

vignette attempted to display SnappCar as a social platform and to evoke a relational model

among participants in which relational value is important. This could either be CS or EM, as the

relational value component matters in both models (Fiske, 1991; Stofberg et al., 2017).

The economic positioning condition had to emphasize monetary benefits of sharing and

show calculations of how much to earn by renting out your car (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016;

Habibi et al., 2017). In this condition, SnappCar is displayed as a platform which is about

gaining money and improving your financial situation. The picture used in this vignette displays a car which is parked in a street and, and instead of sharing the term “renting” is used. The slogan

is: “Earning money with your car when you are not using it? Rent out your car via SnappCar and

earn up to €1000 per year.” By focusing on financial and utilitarian cues, the vignette attempted to display SnappCar as an economic platform and to trigger a MP relationship.

To summarize: the pre-test attempted to check whether the social positioning could be

linked to a perceiving carsharing as a social exchange, in which a CS/EM frame was triggered

and whether economic positioning could be linked to perceiving carsharing as an economic

exchange, in which a MP frame was triggered. 46 respondents were randomly assigned to one of

the two conditions. After being exposed to the SnappCar webpage, they were shown three

descriptions of sharing platforms. They were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale (1= not at

all, 7 = very much) how applicable the description was to the condition they had seen. They had

to judge to following descriptions: “A platform on which transactions are characterized by a high

degree of generosity. On this platform people have the feeling they belong to the same group and

people have a lot in common.” (CS); “An online sharing platform that arranges transactions on

(34)

34 terms of the benefits that everyone gets from the platform (money or things).” (EM); “An online

sharing platform that arranges transactions based on 'you get out of it what you put into it.' People

on this platform believe that you are entitled to a good return on what you put into the platform

(money or things). A bit like a business relationship.” (MP). Furthermore, in order to attain extra

insights in whether the manipulations worked, the respondents were asked in an open question

what they thought would be the main reason why car owners would be attracted to the platform.

Finally, to anticipate on the final data results, the pre-test also investigated participants’

participation intentions. This is measured by five items on a 7-point Likert scale (1. Strongly

disagree – 7. Strongly agree). The following paragraph will elaborate on this construct. Appendix

B presents the complete survey questionnaire of the pre-test.

3.3.1 Results pre-test

The results of the pre-test are presented in Table 2. The results show that the two different

conditions are linked to a different relational model. The social positioning is significantly

correlated to the description of a CS relationship (r=.647, p<.001), and the economic positioning

is significantly related to the description of a MP relationship (r=-.548 p<.01). Thus, the

respondents were able to recognize that the social positioning displayed SnappCar as social

exchange, whereas the economic positioning displayed SnappCar as a monetary exchange. This

means that the manipulations of the SnappCar webpage can be used in this study. The credibility

of the vignettes was rated rather high (M=5.20, SD=1.24), with no significant differences

between the groups (F(1,44)=.125, p=.726).

Furthermore, the results show that both positioning is directly correlated to intention to

participate (r=.585, p<.001), indicating that respondents in the social positioning condition scored

(35)

35 Besides, both CS and MP are related to intention to participate: CS shows a positive correlation

(r=.512, p<.01) and MP shows a negative correlation (r=-.373, p<.01). These outcomes give us

ground to proceed the research with the vignettes from the pre-test.

Table 2.

Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Positioning (ref=economic pos.) 0.5 0.5 - 2. CS 3.63 1.60 .647*** - 3. EM 5.15 1.15 -.133 -.053 - 4. MP 4.93 1.32 -.548** -.516** .05 - 5. Intention to participate 4.24 1.18 .585*** .512** -.019 -.373* * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 (2-tailed). N = 46 3.4 Measures

A survey has been created to measure the dependent variable intention to participate and the

mediators perceived relational model and motivation. Besides, the survey enabled the collection

of information about demographics of the respondents and multiple control variables. The survey

is fully written in Dutch, to enable the respondents to participate in their first language. This

could decrease the risk of misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the questions (Fricker &

Schonlau, 2002). Existing constructs, previously applied in other sharing economy studies, are

used to measure the variables. Using these existing constructs, it is attempted to ensure the

(36)

36 context and in particular to SnappCar. Items were translated to Dutch. Afterwards, the

translations were back-translated by a third person, to ensure that the Dutch items were similar to

the original English version. Back-translation is a widely applied, reliable technique for the

translation of scales in academic research (Brislin, 1970).

Below, the constructs used for each variable are outlined. An overview of all measures

can be found in Appendix C. The survey questionnaire can be found in Appendix D.

Intention to participate

The dependent variable intention to participate is measured by four items on a 7-point Likert

scale (1. Strongly disagree – 7. Strongly agree). Two scales from previous studies were combined

in order to ensure that this variable is measured correctly. Two of the three items from a scale

originally used by Pavlou and Gefen (2004) are adopted. These are combined with a 2-item scale from White, MacDonald and Ellard (2012). An example of one of the items is “If I would have

the possibility, I would consider sharing my car through SnappCar in the future”. A factor

analysis shows the combined scale is measuring one factor. The Cronbach’s alpha of the

measures is α=.964 , and thus confirms the internal consistency.

Perceived Relational Model

To measure the perceived relational models, a relational model description of Haslam and Fiske

(1999) is used. As in the pre-test, three types of models are described, and each type corresponds

to a specific model (CS, MP, EM). Respondents are asked to what extent each of the description

fits to SnappCar as a sharing platform, based on the vignette they have been shown. This was

tested on a 7-point Likert scale (1. Not at all – 7. To a great extent). The following descriptions are used: Type 1 (CS): “An online platform on which transactions are characterized by a high

(37)

37 degree of generosity. On this platform people have the feeling they belong to the same group and

people have a lot in common.” Type 2 (EM): “An online sharing platform that arranges

transactions on the basis of equality and reciprocity. People on this platform try to keep a healthy balance in terms of the benefits that everyone gets from the platform.” Type 3 (MP): “An online

sharing platform that serves as a commercial marketplace. Transactions are arranged based on

'you get out of it what you put into it.' People on this platform believe that you are entitled to a

good return on your car. A bit like a business relationship.”

Sharing motivations

Social motivation is measured with four items adopted from Paul et al. (2009). An example of an item is: “I would rent out my car via SnappCar, because it creates a feeling of attachment with

other members on the platform”. All items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1. Strongly

disagree – 7. Strongly agree). The scale proved reliable (α=.864). Economic motivation is

measured with a four-item scale adopted from Hamari et al. (2016), previously used by Stofberg et al. (2017). An example of an item is: “I would rent out my car via SnappCar, because it will

benefit me financially”. The reliability could be improved by dropping the fourth item (“I would

rent out my car via SnappCar, because it will save me time”), which led to a final Cronbach’s

alpha of α=.830.

Control variables

Former research has demonstrated that platform positioning does not have the same effect for all

individuals (Böcker & Meelen, 2017; Hellwig, 2015), but could differ based on demographic

factors and personal characteristics. Therefore, the results of this study are controlled for the

(38)

38 variables are likely to have an influence on interest in the sharing economy and on sharing

behavior (e.g. Adreotti et al., 2017; Newcom, 2017). For example, previous research has shown

that women are more socially driven (Hellwig et al., 2015). Hence, it is likely that the effect of

social vs. economic platform positioning differs for men and women. Besides, lower-income

groups value economic benefits more than higher-income groups (Böcker & Meelen, 2017). Kats

(2017) argues that millennials are more likely to participate in sharing than older generations. An

explanation for this is that older generations feel les secure to share their possessions with others

(Andreotti et al., 2017). Finally, since the sharing economy is mainly an urban phenomenon

(Davidson & Infranca, 2016) and carsharing services particularly operate in big cities (Bouwman,

2017), it is likely that urban residents are more aware of carsharing than people in rural areas. It

turns out that awareness of the sharing economy contributes to a higher willingness to share

(Andreotti et al, 2017). Hence, residency is also used as a control variable.

Age is measured on a ratio scale, as an open-ended question. Gender is measured on a

nominal scale, with three options (man/woman/other). Residency is measured with seven options

(Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Den Haag, other city within Randstad, other city outside

Randstad, village). Level of education is measured as an ordinal variable with seven answering

options (high school, MBO, HBO, WO Bachelor, WO Master, PhD, other). Income is measured

with five options (less than 1500, 1500-3500, 3500-5500, more than 5500, prefer not to say).

Finally, car possession is measured as a nominal variable, whereby respondents could choose between “yes” and “no”.

Credibility and believability

The believability and credibility of the vignettes are checked with two questions on a 7-point

(39)

39 situation described above” and “I found scenario of me being a car owner of a car which stands

still often, realistic”. The means for these variables are respectively M=5.33 (SD=1.38) and

M=5.38 (SD=1.13). This indicates that it was relatively easy for respondents to place themselves

into our hypothetical situation. Scores do not significantly differ across the two conditions, as

shown by an Independent Samples T-Test: credibility has a t-value of t(199)=.068, p=.946; and

believability has a t-value of t(199)=-1.866, p=.064. This shows that there are no problems

regarding the credibility and believability that would harm the analysis.

3.5 Data Collection Procedure

The data for this research is collected both online and offline, by means of convenience and

snowball sampling. The survey is shared on social media (Facebook and Linkedin) and e-mailed

to relatives and friends, who are asked to send it to others. Furthermore, we approached people at

public locations, such as sport clubs. The ones who indicated that they were willing to fill in the

survey, were asked for their e-mailaddress and received the survey by e-mail.

3.6 Sample

The sample of this study consists of 201 respondents, from which 44.8% males and 55.2%

females. The variety of age among the respondents is wide, ranging from 18 to 73 (M=33.81,

SD=14.08). Most respondents are highly educated: 47.2% holds a University degree (WO

Bachelor, Master or PhD) and 36.8% has an Applied Sciences degree (HBO). Only a small

amount of respondents is low educated: 8% completed only high school and 6.5% has a MBO

degree. The majority of the respondents has an income between 1500 and 3500 euros a month

(45.8%). The second biggest group has an income of less than 1500 euros a month (26.4%). The

(40)

40 students who have participated in the survey, who do not have a (fulltime) job. 11.4% of the

sample earns 3500 to 5500 euros a month, and the smallest group earns more than 5500 euros a

month (7%). The other 9.5% chose not to tell their salary (“prefer not to say”). Furthermore,

88.6% of the respondents lives in an urban area (25.4% in Amsterdam, 18.9% in Utrecht, 3.5% in

Rotterdam, 3% in Den Haag, 28.9% in another city in the Randstad, 9% in a city outside of the

Randstad). The remaining 11.4% lives in a village. As the research targeted car owners, they

form the majority of the sample (73.6%). The other 26.4% had to imagine they own a car.

However, given the high credibility and believability scores (see section 3.4), it is expected that

this have not caused significant changes in the data.

3.7 Data analysis

The data have been exported from Qualtrics to SPSS 24. A total amount of 276 people

participated in the survey. The completion rate of the survey was 72.83% and respondents who

did not complete the full survey were deleted from the sample. This led to a final sample of

N=201.

The categorical variables have been turned into dummy variables. Further, the items

measuring intention to participate, social motivation and economic motivation were checked on

their reliability (α>.07) and combined into variables.

The dependent variable intention to participate and the mediators (CS, EM, MP, social

motivation, economic motivation) are tested on their normal distribution. Skewness and Kurtosis

tests show that not all mediation variables are normally distributed. However, given the sample

size (>40), this is not expected to cause major problems (Pallant, 2007). Appendix E gives an

(41)

41 Finally, several tests were conducted on the prepared data. A correlation matrix gives

insight in how the variables are related to each other and could check once again whether the

manipulations worked. The hypotheses are tested by regression analyses through the SPSS

extension PROCESS (Hayes, Preacher, & Myers, 2011). This approach tests the indirect effect

between the independent and the dependent variable through the mediators and enables to isolate

the indirect effects of both mediators through 95% bias corrected bootstrapped confidence

intervals (Hayes et al., 2017). Two models are tested: the effect of social positioning on intention

to participate, mediated by CS/EM and social motivation, and the effect of economic positioning

on intention to participate, mediated by MP and economic motivation. Afterwards, these the

(42)

42

4. Results

This chapter presents an overview of the results of the data analysis. The correlation matrix in

paragraph 4.1 gives insight in the relation between all variables and gives us reason for an

additional analysis of the sample, which is elaborated on in paragraph 4.2. Paragraph 4.3 presents

the outcomes of the independent samples t-tests, that prove the different effects of the two

positioning conditions on the analyzed variables. Then, the relationship between the independent

and the dependent variable is presented in paragraph 4.4, as well as the sequential mediation.

Finally, paragraph 4.5 compares the results with the results of the group that is chosen to exclude

from the hypotheses testing, to give ground for the separation.

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 3 presents the Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson correlations between the

dependent-, independent-, mediation- and control variables. It illustrates that there is no direct

correlation between positioning and intention to participate (r=.085, p=.232). This is not in line

with the theoretical framework. However, as predicted by the literature, positioning is

significantly correlated with the relational models. Whereas positioning positively correlates with

CS (r=.159, p<.05), it negatively correlates with MP (r=-.362, p<.001). This indicates that social

positioning is associated with CS and economic positioning is associated with MP. This confirms

that the manipulations have worked: the two vignettes have been interpreted as intended. Similar

to the pre-test, positioning does not correlate with the EM model. For this reason, this study will

only use CS as a social exchange/high relational value model and will not use EM in the further

Social benefits vs. economic benefits of sharing and their effect on car owners' intention to participate in peer-to-peer carsharing