Personality as a predictor of consumer’s attitude toward and intention to participate in Collaborative Consumption

Personality as a predictor of consumer’s attitude toward and

intention to participate in Collaborative Consumption.

Final version: 18/08/2017

Student: S.J. Barends 11384670

MSc. In Business Administration – Digital Business track Amsterdam Business School

Supervisor: Mr. J. L. Pletzer PhD Candidate

Jacobs University Bremen, Germany

2

Statement of Originality

Statement of originality

This document is written by Samuel Jan Barends who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Lack of technology efficacy ... 14

Conceptual model ... 16

Method ... 17

Results ... 19

Discussion ... 25

Limitations and future research ... 33

Conclusion ... 36

References ... 38

4

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of personality on attitude toward collaborative consumption (CC) and ultimately on intention to participate in CC. Much research has been done in the field of both personality and CC separately, but individual differences in the study of the drivers of CC have been neglected so far. One of these individual differences is personality. For this study, personality has been divided into the commonly used five dimensions (Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism). In order to answer the research question “What is the effect of personality on

attitude and participation intention to CC”, six hypotheses have been formulated: Hypothesis

1: Extraversion has correlates positively with Attitude toward CC, Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness has correlates positively with attitude toward CC, Hypothesis 3: Openness to experience correlates positively with Attitude toward CC, Hypothesis 4: Neuroticism correlates negatively with Attitude toward CC, Hypothesis 5: Lack of technology efficacy is expected to decrease the impact of personality on attitude toward CC and lastly Hypothesis 6: Attitude toward CC has a positive influence on intention to participate in CC. Data from 335 respondents was collected through a survey and results show that out of all Big Five dimensions, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience, have a significant positive correlation with attitude toward CC. Furthermore, attitude toward CC also significantly mediates the relationship between these three dimensions, and intention to participate in CC. This study contributes to current literature because it analyses individual differences in the study of drivers of CC. Furthermore, this study also contributes to practical implications. Through trait activation, companies can create trait-relevant situations and thereby activate traits. The activation of traits can then lead to interest from personality dimensions correlated to attitude toward CC.

5

Introduction

Data from Google Trends show that the term ‘Sharing Economy’ has increased significantly in popularity over the past three years. Companies like Uber and Airbnb are disrupting traditional industries and completely changing attitudes toward ownership (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). According to Chen (2009), possession is no longer the ultimate desire of consumers. Instead, consumers pool or share services or goods such as cars (Uber, BlaBlaCar) or accommodation (Airbnb). According to research by PricewaterhouseCoopers, sharing systems comprised a global revenue of roughly US$15 billion per year (Bothun & Lieberman, 2015), which is believed to grow to US$335 billion by 2025 (Marchi & Parekh, 2015).

These sharing systems are part of a construct called Collaborative Consumption (CC), meaning that people share personal goods or services with other people through a sharing platform, often against a fee. Much research has been done about the drivers of sharing economy (Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015; Tussyadiah, 2015; Owyang, 2013). People’s motivation to participate in CC could be driven by their perception about improving sustainability and their reputation (Heinrichs, 2013; Tussyadia, 2015). Research has shown that CC can also greatly benefit customers through economic, environmental and societal benefits (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015). By, for example, sharing a car instead of all passengers driving by themselves, fewer emission gasses are released, gasoline costs are lower per individual, and social interaction with others is encouraged.

However, as there are drivers of CC, there are also deterrents. Many models on the acceptance of technology are based on ease of use, complexity and trialability of the technology, which are considered important factors for users to participate in an online platform (Chong, Ooi, & Sohal, 2009). Because CC platforms are facilitated by Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Tussyadiah (2015) argues that lack of technology efficacy is the largest deterrent of consumers’ participation intention in CC. According to Devaraj and colleagues

6

(2008), some individuals could be affected by that deterrence and some not, based on their personality. Therefore, lack of technology efficacy could moderate the relationship between personality and attitude toward CC.

However, individual differences in the study of the drivers of participation have been neglected so far. One of those individual drivers is personality. To the best of my knowledge, no articles exist about how personality can be a predictor of intention to participate in and attitude to CC. People’s opinion and willingness to share private property with strangers is possibly dependent on their personality. Personality is most commonly assessed with the Big-Five personality traits, which are Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability (vs. Neuroticism) (Goldberg, 1993). Understanding the relationship between personality and intention to participate in CC can pose many advantages. For example, by knowing which people are more likely to participate in CC, corresponding companies can specifically target certain people to increase acquisition rates (Denny & Doyle, 2008).

This has led to the following research question:

7

This paper is structured as follows: first, relevant literature about CC, personality and lack of technology efficacy will be provided. These variables are explained and linked to each other. Building on these concepts, hypotheses will be formulated. Next, the data and research method will be explained. Afterwards, the results gathered from the research will be presented. Correlations and analyses of the hypotheses will be provided. Subsequently the results of the analyses will be discussed in light of previous research findings. Following the discussion, theoretical and practical implications will show how this research contributes to existing literature and how it can contribute to businesses and society. Naturally, this research has some limitations, which will be discussed after the implications, and from which future research ideas will be deduced. And lastly, a conclusion will briefly summarize the findings of this paper.

Collaborative Consumption

Although the concept of CC has been around for a long time (Felson & Spaeth, 1978), the implications and possibilities have evolved significantly over the past years. Advances in information and communication technologies have changed traditional market behaviours by enabling online CC which has been defined as: “The peer-to-peer-based activity of obtaining,

giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services” (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015, p. 2047). Owyang (2013) argues in a

market report that there are three market forces which led to the existence of Collaborative Economy: Societal, Economical and Technological. Societal market forces include increasing population density, drive for sustainability, desire for community and generational altruism. Economic drivers are monetize excess or idle inventory, increase financial flexibility, access over ownership and influx of venture capital funding. And lastly, technology drivers include social networking, mobile devices and platforms, and payment systems. Many researchers believe CC will be of great impact in the future and will help to solve environmental, economic,

8

and social problems (Belk, 2014; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015; Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016).

A difference can be made between providers and consumers of CC (Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016). Providers are the people who offer their good or service to be accessed by a consumer. The consumer is the person who gains access to the provider’s good or service. For example with Uber, the driver is the provider of CC and the person who requested a ride, is the consumer. This research will focus on the consumer side of CC. Furthermore, a clear distinction has to be made between two exchange categories of CC platforms, which refer to the type of ownership of goods and services. By mapping 254 CC platforms, Hamari and colleagues (2015) identify two exchange categories: ‘access over ownership’ and ‘transfer of ownership’. Access over ownership is the most common exchange mode and means that users of a CC platform can offer other users to share their goods or services for a limited amount of time. An example of an access over ownership platform is Airbnb where users can offer their accommodation to others when they are away from home themselves. Often these services are offered against a fee. Access over ownership is in line with theories stating that it is no longer a consumers ultimate desire to own goods but consumers are increasingly likely to access goods for a limited amount of time instead of buying them (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Transfer of ownership is when ownership of a product or service is transferred between one user to the other. This can be done in different ways such as donating, swapping or purchasing. The difference with traditional purchasing is that with CC, purchasing is done through a peer-to-peer platform. This study will focus on access over ownership because it is most commonly used.

There are several factors which determine an individual’s attitude toward CC and whether he or she is likely to participate in CC or not. One of the most discussed factors is trust (Ert, Fleischer, & Magen, 2016; Tussyadiah, 2015; Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016;

9

Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015) which can also be seen as a barrier to CC. Möhlmann (2015) even argues that CC is for a large part based on trust. Without mutual trust, CC could not exist because people would not be willing to participate. Higher levels of trust could possibly improve attitude toward CC and ultimately intention to participate in CC. For example, research has shown that consumers are more likely to book accommodation through Airbnb when the choice of listing includes a photo of the host (Ert, Fleischer, & Magen, 2016). This is because a photo positively affects consumer’s perceived trustworthiness even though they are not conscious of this effect themselves. Ert, Fleischer and Magen (2016) even state that in CC platforms like Airbnb, the consumer’s impression of the photo has a greater influence than the review scores of an accommodation. Other factors include perceived sustainability and enjoyment. As explained previously, CC can improve sustainability by, for example, sharing a car. Recent studies show an increasing interest in CC as a means of improving sustainability and a possibility to disrupt unsustainable processes of organizations in the current capitalistic economies (Martin, 2016). Research by Hamari and colleagues (2015) shows that perceived sustainability has a significant effect on predicting someone’s attitude to CC but not on intention to participate in CC whereas enjoyment has a significant effect on both attitude as well as intention. Furthermore, usage of internet is another important factor (Tussyadiah, 2015). As shown in the definition, CC platforms are coordinated through online services. Therefore, the degree to which an individual is comfortable with using online services, can influence his or her attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC. Lastly, determining factors which are often described include, amongst others: sense of community, social influences, economic benefits, and ease of use ( (Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016; Tussyadiah, 2015; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015).

What these three things have in common is that personality characteristics predict them, or, in other words, there are inter-individual differences in the importance of these

10

factors, for determining someone’s behaviour. Individuals who are conscientious are more likely to use the internet (Landers & Lounsbury, 2006), individuals who are agreeable or open to experience value sustainability more (Hirsh, 2014), and individuals with higher scores in extraversion, agreeableness or openness to experience are more likely to have higher levels of dispositional trust (Hiraishi, Yamagata, Shikishima, & Ando, 2008; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Lumsden & MacKay, 2006). Hence, individual personality differences are also likely to be important drivers of someone’s attitude and intention to participate in CC. In the following section, personality will be defined and afterwards described how personality affects an individual’s attitude toward CC.

Personality

Personality is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character” (Oxford, 2017)). There is almost an infinite amount of individual differences which make up one’s personality, yet many of these differences are not visible to the daily interactions between people (Goldberg, 1990). Many psychologists have studied personality and the various traits which can be measured. Seventy years ago, Catell (1947) identified at least twelve traits which were replicable. However, these were reduced by many researchers to five factors, also known as the big-five (Tupes & Christal, 1961). These five factors are: 1. Extraversion, 2. Agreeableness, 3. Conscientiousness, 4. Openness to experience, and 5. Neuroticism. Researchers claim that these five factors, in combination or individually, explains almost all variance in personality (Tupes & Christal, 1961).

Personality & CC

In the next section, expectations for the relationship between personality and CC will be outlined based on previous research.

11

Extraversion is measured as the degree to how outgoing or reserved someone is. Personalty traits which are often associated with extraversion are talkability, sociability, activeness and assertiveness (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Extraverts tend to like working with others due to their social and talkative nature, in contrast to introverts, who have a more quiet and private nature (McCrae & John, 1992). Several studies have examined how extraversion affects people’s willingness to collaborate (McLean & Pasupathi, 2006; Doucette, Nevins, & McDonough, 2005; Haberyan & Barnett, 2010). The results show that someone with high extraversion levels is more likely to choose working together with someone else rather than working alone. The reason for this is that extraverts are more willing to socialize and talk with others, which is required when collaborating. Furthermore, it is argued that trust toward strangers is controlled by extraversion (Hiraishi, Yamagata, Shikishima, & Ando, 2008). With trust being such an important factor to people’s attitude toward CC, extraverts will probably be more likely to participate.

Hypothesis 1: Extraversion correlates positively with Attitude toward CC.

The second dimension is known as agreeableness or likability. This dimension is associated with personality traits such as being soft-hearted, courteous, trusting and flexible (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Agreeableness is seen as the compassionate side of humans (Digman, 1990). Additionally, according to Mooradian et al. (2006) it is important to note the difference of interpretation of this personality factor. Where some researchers see this factor as someone being warm and happy other researchers regard as how compliant one is to another (Mooradian, Renzl, & Matzler, 2006). For this research, the degree of warmness and happiness is used. Agreeableness is often linked with sociability and work performance indicating people who score high on this factor have higher satisfaction in life and better performances due to better inter-personal relationships (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Due to the more trusting nature of agreeable people (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and better inter-personal

12

relationships with others (Asendorpf & Wilpers), it could indicate that people who score high on agreeableness are more likely to participate in CC platforms because it requires trust in the platform to be willing to participate (Tussyadiah, 2015). Agreeableness has also been associated with altruistic and sympathetic natured persons who want to help others (McCrae & John, 1992). Their more social nature results in agreeableness predicting higher successfulness in collaborations with others (Mooradian, Renzl, & Matzler, 2006). Furthermore, as mentioned before, one of the drivers of CC is sustainability. Due to their more compassionate and empathetic character, agreeable individuals have a higher interest in sustainability (Hirsh, 2014). Therefore, individuals scoring higher on agreeableness are expected to have more positive attitudes toward CC.

Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness correlates positively with attitude toward CC.

Openness to experience measures the degree of how curious or cautious one is. Traits which are associated with this factor are, for example, curiosity, intelligence, complexity and creativeness (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Research by Lumsden and Mackay (2006) shows that openness to experience has a positive effect on trust meaning that people who score higher on openness to experience are also more trusting. Trust is seen as one of the most important drivers of CC usage (Ert, Fleischer, & Magen, 2016; Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016) and therefore the trusting nature of people who score higher on openness to experience has a positive influence on their attitude toward CC. Furthermore, curiosity is one of the traits associated with openness to new experience. Curiosity has also been linked with higher development of learning and engagement in technology-pervasive environments (Arnone, Small, Chauncey, & McKenna, 2011). Since lack of technology efficacy is the largest deterrent of CC, people who are more willing to learn, will also be more likely to learn, or have learned, new technologies related to CC platforms. Furthermore, just like agreeableness, openness to experience is positively associated with concern for sustainability (Hirsh, 2014). This is because of their

13

greater cognitive abilities, openness to change, and value of aesthetics. It is therefore believed that these characteristics of openness to experience lead to a positive correlation with attitude toward CC.

Hypothesis 3: Openness to experience correlates positively with Attitude toward CC.

Conscientiousness measures how dependent someone is and is linked with personality traits such as organization, carefulness and responsibility which is contrasted with unreliability and negligence (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg, 1993). The fourth personality factor does not have much resemblance with CC and is therefore difficult to assess beforehand. One article indicates that conscientiousness has a negative relationship with internet usage and therefore people who score high on the corresponding traits use the internet less (Landers & Lounsbury, 2006). Because CC platforms require the use of internet, this could result in a negative influence with individuals scoring high on conscientiousness. Other research shows a positive relationship between conscientiousness and sharing due to the high self-interested nature of conscientous people (Matzler et al., 2008). This could lead to a positive relationship with CC because often collaborative services can save the user time and money or even make a living from it. However, just like agreeableness, there is not enough empirical research related to both CC and conscientiousness to clearly assess a relationship beforehand without further emperical research. Hence, this relationship will also be be examined exploratory.

The fifth and last factor is the dimension of Neuroticism which covers personality traits like anxiousness, depression, embarrassment and emotionality or on the contrast emotional stability (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg, 1993). Due to their stressfull and anxious personality, neuroticism has a negative relationship with technology acceptance meaning that people who score high on neuroticism are less likely to accept new technology (Devaraj et al., 2008). This is because neurotic people find new experiences, such as a new technology, threatening, which makes them stressed (Devaraj et al., 2008). Other research suggests

14

neuroticism also has a negative relationship with trust (Zhou & Lu, 2011). Since trust is such an important factor of CC usage intention (Tussyadiah, 2015), this would indicate that neuroticism has a negative relationship with individual’s attitude toward CC.

Hypothesis 4: Neuroticism correlates negatively with Attitude toward CC.

Lack of technology efficacy

Technologies, like online platforms, are becoming an increasingly important part of everyday life. However, new technologies are not always easy for everyone to adapt to. Models on the acceptance of technology are often based on ease of use, complexity and trialability of the technology (Chong, Ooi, & Sohal, 2009). Especially the perceived ease of use of technology is often used as an important factor of accepting new technologies. This perception has been described as the extent to how much effort a person believes is needed to using a new technology (Venkatesh, 2000). Therefore, the better someone’s efficacy with a new technology, the more likely is it that he/she will accept the technology and thereby have a more positive attitude toward the new technology.

Tussyadiah (2015) differentiates lack of trust in three different forms: lack of trust between consumer and provider, lack of trust in technology by users and lack of trust in a company. Tussyadiah (2015) argues the lack of trust in technology comes from a lack of technology efficacy. This means that a consumer is not able to produce a desired result because of technology which can be caused due to high complexity. From the results, it is concluded that lack of technology efficacy seems to be the major barrier, followed by lack of trust and lastly lack of economic benefits (Tussyadiah, 2015). Therefore, making sure the CC platform is easy to use and not creating a technology barrier is of great importance to increase the consumers’ attitude toward CC.

Multiple studies show that personality also has a correlation with technology acceptance (Svendsen et al., 2013; Devaraj et al., 2008). Tussyadiah (2015) argues that individuals are less

15

likely to participate in CC because they find the technology of online platforms too complex. The complexity of technology relates back to the Technology Acceptance Model, which measures user’s attitude toward using new technology through perceived usefullness and perceived ease of use. According to Svendsen and colleagues (2011), personality is indeed correlated with technology acceptance and thus, ultimately, with technology efficacy. They argue that extraversion and openness to experience have a positive relation with perceived ease of use of technology. Furthermore, other research has found that neuroticism is negatively assoicated with perceived usefulness of technology and agreeableness is positively associated with percieved usefulness of technology (Devaraj et al., 2008). This could indicate that lack of technology efficacy deters some individuals in their attitude toward CC, while it does not deter others, based on their personality. Because technology efficacy can be of such great impact to new technologies, or in this case CC platforms, this study will research the moderating role of lack of technology efficacy between personality and attitude toward CC.

Hypothesis 5: Personality is more weakly related to attitude toward CC for individuals with a lack of technology efficacy than individuals without a lack of technology efficacy.

Hamari et al. (2015) have already studied the relation between attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC. Their research suggests that attitude toward CC has a significant positive effect on intention to participate in CC (beta = 0.316, t = 3.342; p < 0.01). Therefore, their research is followed and a positive influence of attitude toward CC on intention to participate in CC is assumed.

16

Conceptual model

17

Method

The population researched in this study is anyone with access to the internet, which is a requirement to make use of CC platforms. The survey (appendix 14) was distributed online through Social Media and via e-mail. Since many of the platforms require a minimum age of 18, any response of a younger respondent was removed. Due to the large possible population and unknown sampling frame, a non-probability convenience sampling method was used. In total, 335 participants filled in the questionnaire of which 258 completed it. Because the survey was mainly distributed through Facebook, it was difficult to predict the response rate since it was an open message to my connections. These connections will also be asked to share the survey, increasing the difficulty to assess the amount of people reached. The questionnaire starts with asking the respondents their demographics such as Sex, Age, Educational Background and Nationality. The other constructs will be measured with questionnaires used in the following scientific articles:

For all dimensions of ‘Personality’ (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness to experience, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism), the Big Five Inventory was used (John & Srivastava, 1999). All Cronbach alphas are between 0.70 and 0.87. The response options range from 1 “disagree strongly” to 5 “agree strongly”. For each item, the participant has to answer the question: ‘I see myself as someone who..’

The first dimension, extraversion, has eight items. An example of an item is: ‘Is talkative’ and ‘Is reserved’. The second dimension, agreeableness, has nine items. An example of an item is: ‘Tends to find fault with others’ and ‘Is helpful and unselfish with others’. The third dimension, conscientiousness, has nine items. An example of an item is: ‘Does a thorough job’ and ‘Can be somewhat careless’. The fourth dimension, neuroticism, has eight items. An example of an item is: ‘Is depressed, blue’ and ‘Is relaxed, handles stress well’. And the last

18

dimension, openness to experience, has ten items. An example of an item is: ‘Is original, comes up with new ideas’ and ‘Is curious about many different things’.

For both the structures ‘Attitude toward CC’ and ‘Intention to participate in CC’, the article by Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen (2015) was used. ‘Attitude toward CC’ (Cronbach alpha = 0.858) contains five items. An example of an item is: ‘All things considered, I find participating in CC to be a wise move.’ and ‘CC is a better mode of consumption than selling and buying individually.’. ‘Intention to Participate in CC’ (Cronbach alpha = 0.863) contains four items and an example of an item is: ‘All things considered, I expect to continue CC often in the future.’ and ‘It is likely that I will frequently participate in CC communities in the future.’. All items for both constructs are measured with a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

And lastly, for ‘Lack of Technology Efficacy’, the article by Barbeite and Weiss (2004) was used. For this construct (Cronbach alpha = 0.85), the article provides seventeen items using a 5-point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items were adjusted to ‘technology’ instead of ‘computer’ because in the article by Tussyadiah (2015) it states that Lack of Technology Efficacy is the biggest deterrence of CC usage. An example of an item is: ‘I find working with digital technology very easy.’ and ‘Digital technology jargon baffles me.’.

For the data analysis, first the correlations were measured (Appendix 2). Afterwards, the mediating effect of attitude toward CC between all five personality factors and intention to participate in CC was computed (Appendices 3-7). Next, a moderated mediation analysis was performed on the significant correlations between personality and attitude toward CC (Appendices 8-10). And lastly, two hierarchical multiple regression models were computed. One for personality predicting attitude toward CC (Appendix 11) and one for personality predicting intention to participate in CC (Appendix 12).

19

Results

First, correlation analyses were conducted (appendix 2). Openness to experience (r = 0.252; p < 0.01), extraversion (r = 0.145; p < 0.05), and agreeableness (r = 0.213; p < 0.01) were significantly, positively correlated with attitude toward CC, but conscientiousness (r = -0.069; p > 0.05) and neuroticism (r = 0.035; p > 0.05) showed no relationship with attitude toward CC. Additionally, openness to experience (r = 0.226; p < 0.01), conscientiousness (r = -0.145; p < 0.05), extraversion (r = 0.141; p < 0.05) and agreeableness (r = 0.199; p < 0.01) were significantly, positively correlated with intention to participate in CC, but neuroticism (r = 0.088; p > 0.05) was not. And lastly, attitude toward CC was significantly positively correlated with intention to participate in CC (r = 0.810; p < 0.01).

From these results we can already see that extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience are positively correlated with attitude toward CC and therefore hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are supported. Hypothesis 4 however, which stated that neuroticism would correlate negatively with attitude toward CC, is not supported. Furthermore, the relationship between conscientiousness and attitude toward CC was examined exploratory. From the results we can see that, just like neuroticism, statistical evidence does not show a relationship between this personality dimension and attitude toward CC.

Mediations (appendices 3-7)

Next the mediating effect of attitude toward CC between all five personality dimensions and intention to participate in CC was examined using ‘process’ by Hayes (2012). For the mediations, the direct and indirect effect of all five personality dimensions separately on intention to participate in CC were analysed with attitude toward CC as the mediator. For a mediation table, please see appendix 13.

20 Extraversion (appendix 3)

The total effect of extraversion on intention to participate in CC is 0.272. Because it is positive, individuals with higher scores on extraversion have a higher intent to participate in CC. This total effect of extraversion is statistically significant different from zero (t = 2.283; p < 0.05; 95% confidence interval from 0.037 to 0.506). The direct effect of extraversion on intention to participate in CC is 0.047 when adding attitude toward CC as a mediator in the model. This direct effect of extraversion nonsignificant (t = 0.664; p > 0.05; 95% confidence interval from -0.093 to 0.188). The indirect effect of extraversion on intention to participate in CC via attitude toward CC is 0.225 (95% confidence interval from 0.041 to 0.414). Extraversion has a statistically significant indirect effect because the 95% confidence interval is entirely above zero. Because the direct effect of extraversion on intention to participate in CC is nonsignificant and the indirect effect is significant, full mediation is ascertained.

Agreeableness (appendix 4)

The total effect of agreeableness on intention to participate in CC is 0.418. Because it is positive, the individual with a higher score in agreeableness is more likely to participate in CC. Just like extraversion, the total effect of agreeableness is statistically significant different from zero (t = 3.243; p < 0.05; 95% confidence interval from 0.164 to 0.671). The direct effect of agreeableness on intention to participate in CC when adding attitude toward CC as a mediator in the model is 0.057 and is not different from zero but is nonsignificant (t = 0.726; p > 0.05; 95% confidence interval from -0.098 to 0.213). The indirect effect of agreeableness on intention to participate in CC is 0.361 (95% confidence interval from 0.173 to 0.547) which is statistically significant because the confidence interval is entirely above zero (0.173 to 0.547). Because the direct effect of agreeableness on intention to

21

participate in CC is nonsignificant and the indirect effect is significant, full mediation is assumed.

Conscientiousness (appendix 5)

` The total effect of conscientiousness on intention to participate in CC is -0.296 and this effect is statistically significant (t = 2.347; p < 0.05; 95% confidence interval from 0.544 to -0.048). The direct effect of conscientiousness on intention to participate in CC when adding attitude toward CC as a mediator in the model is -0.182 and it is also statistically significant (t = -2.461; p < 0.05; 95% confidence interval from -0.329 to -0.036). The indirect effect of conscientiousness on intention to participate in CC via attitude toward CC is -0.113, which is statistically nonsignificant because the interval is not entirely above or below zero (95% confidence interval from -0.326 to 0.096). Because the direct effect of conscientiousness on intention to participate in CC is significant but the indirect effect is nonsignificant, no mediation is found.

Neuroticism (appendix 6)

The total effect of neuroticism on intention to participate in CC is 0.139, but this is not statistically significant (t = 1.406; p > 0.05; 95% confidence interval from -0.056 to 0.334). The direct effect of neuroticism on intention to participate in CC is 0.094 and is also nonsignificant (t = 1.614; p > 0.05; 95% confidence interval from -0.021 to 0.208). The indirect effect of neuroticism on intention to participate in CC is 0.045 (95% confidence interval from -0.115 to 0.199). Neuroticism does not have a statistically significant indirect effect because the confidence interval includes zero (-0.115 to 0.199). Because all the effects of neuroticism are nonsignificant, no mediation is taking place.

22 Openness to experience (appendix 7)

The total effect of openness to experience on intention to participate in CC is 0.541 and this is statistically significant (t = 3.706; p < 0.05; 95% confidence interval from 0.254 to 0.828). The direct effect of openness to experience on intention to participate in CC when adding attitude toward CC as a mediator in the model is 0.054. The direct effect of openness to experience is nonsignificant (t = 0.5966; p > 0.05; 95% confidence interval from -0.125 to 0.233). The indirect effect of openness to experience on intention to participate in CC via attitude toward CC is 0.487 (95% confidence interval from 0.233 to 0.729) and this is statistically significant because the confidence interval is entirely above zero (0.233 to 0.729). Because the direct effect of openness to experience on intention to participate in CC is nonsignificant but the indirect effect is significant, full mediation is found.

Moderated mediation (appendices 8-10)

Lastly, a moderated mediation analysis was performed to examine the moderating effect of lack of technology efficacy on the mediating effect of attitude toward CC between the three personality dimensions that showed a significant mediation in the step before; extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience, and intention to participate in CC. Just like for the mediations, all analyses were on a 5000 bootstrap 95% confidence interval. For this analysis

‘process’ by Hayes (2012) was again used.

The results show there is no statistical evidence of a moderated mediation taking place

between any of the three personality dimensions and attitude toward CC. Extraversion (t = -0.194; p > 0.05) had an effect of -0.027, agreeableness (t = -1.234; p > 0.05) had an effect of -0.189, and openness to experience (t = -0.4049; p > 0.05) had an effect of -0.043 but all relationships were nonsignificant. In other words, lack of technology efficacy did not significantly affect the three personality dimensions in their attitude toward CC.

23 Hierarchical multiple regressions

While it was not included in the hypotheses, it is still interesting to examine how much variance all five personality dimensions combined explain in attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC.

Personality predicting attitude toward CC (appendix 11)

Therefore, a hierarchical multiple regression model was computed to examine to what degree the same five personality dimensions can predict an individual’s attitude toward CC. The analysis concluded that this model was statistically significant F (5.252) = 7.119; p < 0.001 and it explained 12.4% of variance in an individual’s attitude toward CC. Two out of the five predictor variables were statistically significant with agreeableness scoring the highest Beta value (β = 0.400; p < 0.05), followed by openness to experience (β = 0.388; p < 0.05). The other three personality dimensions, extraversion (β = 0.178; p > 0.05), conscientiousness (β = -0.195;

p > 0.05), and neuroticism (β = 0.172; p > 0.05) were statistically nonsignificant. Personality predicting intention to participate in CC (appendix 12)

Another hierarchical multiple regression model was computed to explore to what degree the five personality dimensions; Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism can predict an individual’s intention to participate in CC. The analyses resulted that this model was also statistically significant F (5.252) = 8.551; p < 0.001 and it explained 14.5% of variance in an individual’s intention to participate in CC. In this model, all five personality dimensions were statistically significant, with again agreeableness scoring the highest Beta value (β = 0.515; p < 0.001), followed by openness to experience (β = 0.377; p < 0.05), neuroticism (β = 0.271; p < 0.05), extraversion (β = 0.259; p < 0.05), and conscientiousness (β = -0.378; p < 0.05).

24 Attitude toward CC predicting intention to participate in CC

As noted above, attitude and intention correlated quite highly with each other (r = 0.810; p < .001).

For an overview of the hypotheses, please look at appendix 1.

Figure 1. Results of conceptual model

25

Discussion

The main finding of this study, mainly based on the five personality dimensions as described by Goldberg (1993) and research by Hamari and colleagues (2015) about individual’s attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC, is that from the five personality dimensions; extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, only extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience have a significant correlation with attitude toward CC. Even though no previous research has studied this relationship, these results are in line with results from several studies about characteristics of the five dimensions compared to characteristics of CC. Besides the direct relationships of the five personality dimensions on attitude toward CC, this study also found significant evidence that attitude toward CC fully mediates the relationship between the three dimensions, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience, and intention to participate in CC. Lastly, this study has found that lack of technology only significantly moderates the mediating relationship of neuroticism and attitude toward CC between the relationship of neuroticism and intention to participate in CC. However, as mentioned in the results, neuroticism does not have a significant relationship with attitude toward CC and therefore this finding is irrelevant. To answer the research question “What is the effect of personality on attitude and participation

intention to CC?”, these findings will be discussed in further detail below.

Extraversion. This research shows that extraversion has a significant positive

relationship with attitude toward CC. This is in line with several other researchers, who argue that extraverts are more likely to collaborate with other individuals (McLean & Pasupathi, 2006; Doucette, Nevins, & McDonough, 2005; Haberyan & Barnett, 2010). Furthermore, researchers argue extraversion controls an individual’s trust toward a stranger (Hiraishi, Yamagata, Shikishima, & Ando, 2008). Both collaborating and trust are important factors of CC and can therefore explain the positive influence of extraversion on attitude toward CC. However,

26

contradicting these theories, one could also argue that individuals who score low on extraversion would benefit from CC platforms because they can avoid interacting with people. For example, instead of going to a hotel with many guests, introverts can book a room via AirBnB for themselves without having to talk to receptionists. Next to that, researchers found that extraversion had the second lowest association with sustainability (Hirsh, 2014), which is also an important factor of CC. Although there are some theories contradicting a positive relationship between extraversion and attitude toward CC, much research is in line with the positive correlation this study has found.

Agreeableness. The analysis proved agreeableness has a significant, positive influence

on an individual’s attitude toward CC. This was as expected because previous research suggests more agreeable individuals have better inter-personal relationships (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), which are an important part of the collaborative aspect of CC. Furthermore, agreeableness has been positively linked with trust (Barrick & Mount, 1991), which is also an important factor of CC (Tussyadiah, 2015). And lastly, higher scores of agreeableness are positively related to altruism and sympathy (McCrae & John, 1992). These traits give agreeable individuals a higher sense of helping others and as mentioned before, CC benefits all users. Instead of using CC only for themselves, individuals scoring high on agreeableness will do it for other people and also for the environment (Hirsh, 2014). However, research by Landers and Lounsbury (2006) has shown that agreeableness has a negative relationship with internet usage. This would be in contrast to the positive relationship this study has found because CC platforms require the use of internet. This is because agreeable individuals prefer to interact face-to-face, instead over the internet. Since the used definition of CC states that CC platforms are online, the use of internet is an important factor. However, just like extraversion, there are many more theories which argue for a positive relationship rather than a negative relationship.

27 Openness to experience. Just like extraversion and agreeableness, openness to

experience has a significant, positive relationship with attitude toward CC. Again trust plays an important factor. Due to their curious and intelligent nature (Barrick & Mount, 1991), individuals with a higher level of openness to experience are also more trusting (Lumsden & Mackay, 2006). Not only trust, but also a higher development of learning and engagement contributes to a positive influence on attitude toward CC. The concept of CC is still fairly new and lack of technology efficacy is seen as the largest deterrent of these sharing systems (Tussyadiah, 2015). Therefore, individuals who are higher developed in learning and engagement of new experiences, such as CC and technology, will also have a more positive attitude toward CC because they are more willing to learn and engage in this new way of consumption. Next to that, being open to experience has also shown higher care for sustainability (Hirsh, 2014) and further builds on the positive relationship. To my knowledge, no research can be found which shows a direct negative influence of openness to experience on attitude toward CC. This is probably because individuals who score high on this dimension, are open minded and are willing to consider new ideas (Matzler et al. 2008).

Conscientiousness. The fourth dimension, conscientiousness, has a nonsignificant

relationship with attitude toward CC. Reason for this could be that this dimension does not have much resemblance with CC. Conscientiousness has been associated with carefulness, organization and responsibility (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg, 1993). Arguments can be found for both a positive and negative relationship with attitude toward CC. Research by Landers and Lounsbury (2006) argues that conscientious individuals are less fond of the internet. Because CC platforms require usage of internet, this could indicate a negative influence on attitude toward CC. However, on the other side, conscientiousness has been positively associated with sharing (Matzler et al., 2008). The reason for this positive association is because conscientious individuals have a high self-interest. CC has proven to be able to save

28

time and money by sharing services and goods (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015). Nevertheless, because the results are nonsignificant, no conclusion can be drawn.

Neuroticism. Just like conscientiousness, neuroticism has a nonsignificant relationship

with attitude toward CC. Neuroticism has been negatively linked with trust (Zhou & Lu, 2011) and acceptance of new technologies (Devaraj et al., 2008). Because trust is an important factor of CC (Ert, Fleischer, & Magen, 2016; Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016) and it is still seen as a relatively new market behaviour based on technological advances (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015), prior to this research it was expected neuroticism would have a negative influence on CC. Also, because trust and technology acceptance are two important factors of CC (Tussyadiah, 2015), it was expected to have a significant influence on attitude toward CC. A reason for this could be that neuroticism is associated with generally negative feelings such as depression, anxiousness and stress. From the results we can see that the mean neuroticism is 2.630, on a 1 (emotional stability) to 5 (neuroticism) scale. That shows that the average participant does not agree that he or she is neurotic. However, just like conscientiousness, no conclusions can be drawn because there was a nonsignificant correlation.

Moderated mediation effect. This study did not only research the effect of personality

on attitude toward CC and ultimately intention to participate in CC, but also the moderating effect of lack of technology efficacy on the relationship between three personality dimensions and intention to participate in CC, mediated by attitude toward CC. According to Tussyadiah (2015), lack of technology efficacy is the largest barrier of individuals to make use of CC platforms. Ease of use, complexity and trialability of technology are often described as the three most important factors of technology acceptance (Chong, Ooi, & Sohal, 2009). Because only extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience had a significant relationship with attitude toward CC, only these three dimensions were researched further. From the results we can see that none of these dimensions was significantly moderated by lack of technology. There

29

could be several reasons for this. The mean age group of the participants is 4.12 (Appendix 2). Age group 4 is between 25 and 34 years old. This means they belong to the ‘Millennials’, who, according to Google Consumer Barometer, don’t go online but live online (Google, 2017). They are born with the current technologies and are therefore often experienced with it. The mean lack of technology efficacy was 2.030 (Appendix 2) on a 5-point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This means that on average, the participants disagreed that they have a technology efficacy resulting in a lack of participants with a technology efficacy.

Attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC. Hamari et al. (2015) had

already researched the relationship between attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC. They concluded there was a significant positive relationship which is in line with the results from this research (r = 0.684; p < 0.001). However, something to consider is that the correlation between these two variables was by far the highest of this research (r = 0.810). Some participants might therefore not have interpreted the two variables as different from each other. However, eyeing conscientiousness, the results show that there is significant relationship between this personality dimension and intention to participate in CC but a nonsignificant relation with attitude toward CC. This indicates that, at least individuals of this personality dimension, interpreted the two variables differently. Nevertheless, based on the findings of this research and the research by Hamari et al. (2015), it is evident there is a significant positive relation between attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC.

Accordingly, to answer the research question, it can be concluded that personality does indeed have an effect on attitude toward CC and ultimately intention to participate in CC. From the Big Five personality traits, there is significant evidence that extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience positively influence an individual’s attitude toward CC. Furthermore, there is significant evidence that attitude toward CC positively correlates with intention to participate in CC. However, here it is important to note that this correlation was 0.810, by far

30

the highest correlation of this research. Therefore, participants might have interpreted the two CC variables as the same, as explained above. And lastly, there is significant evidence that attitude toward CC positively mediates the relationship between extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience, and intention to participate in CC.

Theoretical implications

Much research has been conducted on the drivers and advantages of CC (Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015; Tussyadiah, 2015; Owyang, 2013). However, little to none research has been conducted on the individual differences in the study of the drivers of CC platforms. This paper has researched which personalities are more likely to make use of said platforms and tried to fill that knowledge gap. The results show that there are three personality dimensions; extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience, which positively influence attitude toward CC and also, mediated by attitude toward CC, positively influence intention to participate in CC. Additionally, the moderating effect of lack of technology efficacy on the relationship between personality and intention to participate in CC, mediated by attitude toward CC, has been researched. This study shows that neuroticism is the only personality dimension which is significantly moderated by lack of technology efficacy.

Because there was no previous study which conducted similar research, it is difficult to establish theoretical implications. This study builds on theories about the big five personality dimensions and tried to link them attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC. One result that is in accordance with previous research, is that there is a significant positive relationship between attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015). However, because so little research has been conducted in this field, the questionnaires of these two variables might not be optimal yet and therefore they might have been regarded as the same by some participants, as mentioned before. Furthermore, this study

31

found different correlations with the five personality dimensions and attitude toward CC. That shows that these dimensions are separable and not the same, which is in accordance with other research about personality (Goldberg, 1993; Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Practical implications

Nowadays, the amount of collaborating services is increasing. It is disrupting traditional market forces and the way consumers think about possession of goods and services. Also, due to the benefits to sustainability, governments and companies are increasingly interested in CC platforms. By finding an answer to how personality affects participation intention and attitude toward CC, corresponding companies can improve their performances by adjusting their services to fit customer needs. The results indicate that extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience have a significant positive influence on attitude toward CC. Therefore, by studying how consumers with related personalities behave, it is possible to target these individuals and thereby increase acquisition rates of CC platforms. Not only can companies benefit from this research, also consumers and many other people since researchers believe CC can positively influence environmental, economic and social problems. A better understanding of the topic can lead to improved economies, better sustainability and improvements to society (Belk, 2014; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015; Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Gimpel, 2016).

A theory which can be used to put these results into practice, is the trait activation theory (Tett & Guterman, 2000). Each of the Big Five personality dimensions has been associated with certain personality traits. These traits make up how we behave. However, for example, individuals who score high on agreeableness, do not always behave according to traits linked to agreeableness, but only in certain situations. Trait activation theory suggests that “the

behavioral expression of a trait requires arousal of that trait by trait-relevant situational cues.”

(Tett & Gutermann, 2000, p. 398). Simply said: certain trait-relevant situations activate the associating trait. When using the results of this study in practice, this theory needs to be kept in

32

mind. For example, the results show that extraversion has a significantly positive relationship with attitude toward CC and extraverts are known to be sociable. If a new CC platform company wants to promote their service to extraverts, they need to activate traits related to extraversion. Field marketing would in this case be a good example because extraverts are more likely to talk face-to-face compared to introverts. Research has found that personality is used by companies to predict behaviour of consumers (Endler & Rosenstein, 1997). Azzadina and colleagues (2012) agree on this and argue that personality types have an influence on the marketing mix (product, price, place and promotion). Their results show that sociable and empathic individuals regarded price and product as the most important factors in their purchasing decision. Conscientious and warm-hearted individuals regarded just the price as the most important factor. And individuals who rely more on hunches and are more orderly also regarded the price as the most important factor in their purchasing decision. An example of a marketing strategy is that a CC company could sell a membership of their platform by approaching consumers on the street. Because extraversion is significantly correlated to attitude toward CC, face-to-face marketing is good to attract extraverts. Also, because extraverts are related to sociable and empathic personalities, the CC company should focus their talk on the product (e.g. by explaining all the benefits) and on the price (e.g. by offering a discount).

Another implication of this study is that attitude toward CC significantly mediates the relationship between extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience, and intention to participate in CC. Therefore, companies should focus on improving the attitude toward CC by for example educating individuals about the benefits and possibilities of CC platforms. Ultimately, if the attitude toward CC under these individuals improves, they will also increase their intention to participate in CC. Thus, improved attitude toward CC can lead to more customers.

33

Limitations and future research

This study has researched the effect of personality on attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC. However, a number of limitations exist. First, even though the five dimensions of personality are often used, a limitation of this measurement is that the dimensions are measured through self-assessment. Individuals might evaluate themselves differently than they really are or how others perceive them. For example, an individual might think he/she is very sociable and would therefore score high on extraversion but others might find this individual quiet. Furthermore, the items of the personality questionnaire are relative and time-bound. If an individual had a bad year where he/she required some time alone but over the past weeks started to open up, he/she might believe to be sociable but that is compared to the time before. Compared to others, this individual might still be unsociable. Thus, even though one might rate themselves high on a certain dimension, there is no comparison with others and the meaning of certain traits, such as sociable, can have different meanings to different individuals. Future studies should do the same research but, instead of a survey, make use of other research methods, such as an experiment. That way, the researcher can compare a group of individuals with each other and make an analysis based on those findings.

Second, as an example of CC platforms only Uber and AirBnB were named in the survey. This can affect perceptions because these two companies are the largest examples at the moment. Because Uber and AirBnB are already well-known, individuals will have more trust in these companies because they know who they are dealing with. A new CC platform still has to prove itself which could lead to different results. Also, some personality dimensions might be more willing to engage with new and unknown companies. Therefore, if other, less known examples were used, it would be important to keep in mind that it could affect the results. Additionally, Uber is in the transportation and AirBnB in the accommodation sector. When conducting a similar research, it is important to keep in mind that other sectors might find

34

different results. Because CC requires the sharing of products or services, an individual might be more likely to share their house or car than something more personal, such as clothes or jewellery. Future studies should do a similar research but then use smaller, unknown, or even fictive companies. Brand recognition might play an important factor. Furthermore, future studies should research different sectors. Sectors such as household items/services could find completely different results.

Third, because CC is still a fairly new concept, many individuals might not exactly understand what it is (even though it was briefly explained in the survey). Also, no distinction was made between users who have and users who do not have experience with CC platforms. Because it is new, it automatically plays a role in the personality dimensions. It is evident that more individuals who score on openness to experience, are more likely to try something new. However, in a few years, CC might have become the norm. When it is more known, it might be less exciting for users, leading to different results. Also, the concepts of, for example, being sociable are changing. Nowadays, a large population communicates through devices such as smartphone, compared to earlier years where individuals would communicate mainly face-to-face. Does talking through text messages make you social? The answer to this question is first of all changing but also different for different individuals. Future studies should do the same research but then in a few years. By then, CC might have become the norm, or it might have completely disappeared. However, comparing results with then and now might lead to interesting results.

Fourth, attitude toward CC had a correlation of 0.810 with intention to participate in CC which might show that individuals did not perceive the two questions as compellingly different. This limitation has already been discussed in the discussion section. The high correlation is definitely something to keep in mind. Future research should create different items for either one of the variables, to make a more clear distinction between the two.

35

And fifth, because this is a correlational design, it is not possible to establish causality. Therefore, this research has only found associations between relationships but that does not mean there is causal relationship. Extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience might have a significant, positive relationship with attitude toward CC but it is not known whether the dimensions caused attitude toward CC, the other way around or maybe even a third, confounding variable. Also, correlational research may limit the generality of the results. The participants of this study were all contacted online, which can have different results than if participants were contacted through different means. Thus, these findings can differ for different populations or situations. Future studies should do a causal research. With a causal research, one can look into the reasons for certain results. Also, a different population and means of contact can result in different outcomes.

36

Conclusion

The main goal of this study was to find an answer to the question: “What is the effect of

personality on attitude and participation intention to CC?”. Personality has been divided into

five dimension (Openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism). No previous studies had researched this relation before. However, personality traits corresponding to the five dimensions were compared with attitude toward CC and intention to participate in CC.

Previous research suggests openness to experience has a positive influence on intention to participate in CC due to higher levels of trust (Lumsden & Mackay, 2006) and curiosity (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Conscientiousness does not have much resemblance with CC and is therefore further researched in this paper. Extraversion is also expected to positively influence intention to participate in CC because extraverts tend be social and trusting toward others, both needed when collaborating (McLean & Pasupathi, 2006; Doucette, Nevins, & McDonough, 2005; Haberyan & Barnett, 2010). Agreeableness is likewise expected to positively influence intention to participate in CC because agreeable individuals tend to have better inter-personal relationships with others (Asendorpf & Wilpers) and a high trusting nature (Barrick & Mount, 1991). And lastly, neuroticism is the only dimension which is expected to negatively influence intention to participate in CC. Individuals with high scores in neuroticism are less likely to accept new technologies (Devaraj et al., 2008), such as CC platforms. They are also distrusting in strangers (Zhou & Lu, 2011), which does not benefit participation intention in CC.

In order to find an answer to this question and the hypotheses, a survey is used. 335 responses were recorded through social media platforms and email. The recorded data is then analysed to find the answers. The results show that only three dimensions had a significant influence on attitude toward CC, namely extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience. All three dimensions had a positive influence. Furthermore, all of these three

37

dimensions were also significantly mediated by attitude toward CC, in their relationship with intention to participate in CC. And lastly, a moderated mediation analysis was performed to see whether lack of technology efficacy moderates the relationship between the three significant personality dimensions and attitude toward CC. The results show that there is no significant moderation for any of these dimensions.

No prior studies have researched these relations and thereby this study contributes to the current theories. Furthermore, companies can benefit from the results of this study because through the trait activation theory, companies know which traits they have to activate in order to increase the attitude toward CC of individuals. Thereby, they can improve their customer acquisition which is supported by theories about how personality can be targeted in marketing.

38

References

Arnone, M. P., Small, R. V., Chauncey, S. A., & McKenna, H. P. (2011). Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: a new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 181-198.

Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1531.

Azzadina, I., H. A., & Sianipar, C. P. (2012). Understanding relationship between personality types, Marketing-mix factors, and purchasing decisions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 352-357.

Barbeite, F. G., & Weiss, E. M. (2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an internet sample: testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behaviour 20, 1-15.

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 881-898.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 1-26.

Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 6.

Bothun, D., & Lieberman, M. (2015, April). The sharing economy. Retrieved from PWC: http://www.pwc.com/CISsharing

Catell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation And Clarification Of Primary Personality Factors. Psychometrika , 197-220.

Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and Access: Consumer Desires and Value Perceptions Regarding Contemporary Art Collection and Exhibit Visits. Journal of Consumer Research, 925-940. Chong, A. Y., Ooi, K. B., & Sohal, A. (2009). The relationship between supply chain factors and

adoption of e-collaboration tools: an empirical examination. . International Journal of Production Economics, 150-160.

Denny, K., & Doyle, O. (2008). Political interest, cognitive ability and personality: Determinants of voter turnout in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 38.2, 291-310.

Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008). How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use. Information Systems Research 19:1, 93-105. Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008). Research note—how does personality matter?

Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research, 93-105.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of psychology, 417-440.

Doucette, W. R., Nevins, J., & McDonough, R. P. (2005). Factors affecting collaborative care between pharmacists and physicians. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 565-578.