Collaborative consumption : understanding young consumers’ orientations through means-end chain analysis in the context of Airbnb

(1)

Collaborative Consumption

Understanding Young Consumers’ Orientations Through Means-End

Chain Analysis in the Context of Airbnb

Student: Sybille Preiss Student Number: 11087919 Date: 24 June, 2016

Education: MSc Business Administration, Marketing Track

Institution: University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Supervisor: Tom Paffen

(2)

Collaborative Consumption 1

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Sybille Preiss who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

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

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

(3)

Abstract

Collaborative consumption, which is defined as an emerging trend of renting, lending, swapping, sharing, bartering, and gifting, has been observed to be increasingly popular in recent years. While its media coverage is on the rise, the topic appears to be under-theorized in academic research at this point.

This study examines collaborative consumption from the viewpoint of young consumers in the context of the accommodation sharing platform Airbnb. Their innovation adoption behavior is argued to be influenced by the following aspects: perceived attributes of

innovation, personal values, social influence and critical market forces.

In order to understand the critical market forces, a literature review is conducted by the researcher. For the other elements, the study employs the means-end chain analysis and

laddering technique in order to uncover the underlying decision-relevant knowledge

organized in the respondents’ minds. The discrimination between users and non-users (or

adopters and non-adopters) uncovered motivational differences and allowed for a concrete

explanation of their behavior. As the laddering technique involves some practice, 4 pilot interviews have been conducted. Based on those interviews, an interview guide has been developed. Afterwards, 26 in-depth interviews, including 13 interviews with users and 13 with non-users, were conducted. Users predominantly internalized a number of values, namely being broadminded, having freedom of choice, having an exciting life, and enjoying

life. These values are primarily pursued in the private setting of the accommodation chosen,

which offers a personal, unique, and local experience. For non-users, the value of safety represents the most impending barrier to adoption. The concerns are based on the attributes of

renting from a stranger, negative Word of Mouth (WOM), and unusual booking process.

The empirical findings contribute to the recent stream of research that investigates collaborative consumption. Moreover, the results indicate various managerial implications for the design and management of sharing platforms as well as suggest directions for future research.

Keywords: Collaborative Consumption; Sharing; Accommodation Sharing; Airbnb; Means-End Chain; Laddering; Values

(4)

List of Abbreviations

C2C – Consumer-to-Consumer B2C – Business-to-Consumer WOM – Word of Mouth

(7)

Collaborative Consumption ii

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1. Overview of market forces ... 8

Figure 2. Value creation spheres ... 13

Figure 3. Outline of important aspects to be analyzed in this thesis ... 15

Figure 4. Theoretical model of Schwartz’s value conceptualization ... 20

Figure 5. Illustrative ladder ... 24

Figure 6. Legend of symbols used in hierarchical value map ... 31

Figure 7. Hierarchical value map of users ... 37

Figure 8. Hierarchical value map of non-users ... 42

Tables

Table 1. Forms of collaborative consumption ... 12

Table 2. Motivational types of values ... 19

Table 3. Attributes, consequences, and values of users ... 32

(8)

1 Introduction

“We see changes in consumer behavior and we see significant opportunity as that change occurs. We want to make sure we’re at the forefront of this.“ This is a statement by General Motors Co. President Dan Ammann after his organization expanded its core business by the car sharing service “Maven” (Welch, 2016). This quote demonstrates that consumer behavior is shifting. The concept of sharing is starting to gain popularity (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014). The ways in which individuals access, buy, and use products and services are changing. These new approaches towards the customer, in contrast to the traditional concept of ownership, represent wide-ranging business model innovations (Baumeister, Scherer, & Wangenheim, 2015).

In order to address these changes, new business models are developing and defining new approaches towards customers. Forms of cooperation, collectivism and community building are being refreshed into new and appealing networks, with the Internet linking individuals from all over the world (Matzler, Veider, & Kathan, 2015). These networks can be summarized under the term collaborative consumption, reintroduced in the cutting edge academic writing titled “What’s Mine is Yours” by the authors Botsman and Rogers (2011). One of the leading sharing models is the renting out of spare accommodations, with Airbnb as the most prominent example (“All eyes on the sharing economy”, 2013). Here, individuals can offer everything from a spare bed to a whole mansion to strangers. The online platform brings together supply and demand from all around the globe.

Articles with headlines such as “Today's Smart Choice: Don't Own. Share” (Walsh, 2011) or “Why The Collaborative Economy Is Changing Everything” (Morgan, 2014) inflate the current press and the topic also gained scholarly attention (Hellwig, Morhart, Girardin, & Hauser, 2015). However, due to its novelty, many questions remain unsolved.

(9)

Collaborative Consumption 2 Therefore, current research calls for in-depth exploration (Möhlmann, 2015). In that regard, it is the primary aim of this paper to obtain a better and more academic sound understanding of the innovation adoption of sharing platforms.

This introductory section will continue with the problem definition and research gap followed by the research question with the corresponding objectives. This section will be finalized with the course of investigation.

1.1 Problem Definition and Research Gap

Some research has been concerned with consumer motivations to participate in collaborative consumption (Edbring et al., 2015) but uncertainties remain (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015; Möhlmann, 2015). Most researchers limited themselves to the investigation of consumers who are already part of sharing (e.g., Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Schaefers, 2013; Möhlmann, 2015). However, to mainstream sharing it would be fundamental to create an integrative understanding why some people adopt this offering while others remain reluctant (Piscicelli, Cooper, & Fisher, 2015). In order to generate a complete understanding of the marketplace, research needs to address the totality of possible consumers (Hellwig et al., 2015). In addition, current research is insufficiently harmonized. Different streams of research in consumer behavior, marketing, transportation, or tourism regarding sharing evolved in isolation and need to become aligned in a more consistent way (Lamberton, 2016).

Besides, quite a large body of research tackles this topic with a quantitative approach (e.g. Möhlmann, 2015; Tussyadiah, 2015; Lamberton & Rose, 2012). Since the trend and its features are yet not fully understood, important elements could be left out and stay undetected while others are overemphasized. Quantitative approaches are also less applicable to gain in-depth knowledge. The author Tussyadiah (2015), for instance, argues that her quantitative study neglected factors such as enjoyment or legal concerns. Furthermore, Schaefers (2013)

(10)

Collaborative Consumption 3 reasons that econometric research fails to uncover non-observable variables that influence individuals, whereas exploratory research on consumer behavior can detect hidden variables like attitudes or values that can be beneficial for research and practice. Lastly, there are few studies that concern the perspective of young consumers (Edbring et al., 2015). Despite a rising practical importance, the current body of literature is yet limited in context, scope, and theoretical richness. The next section will carefully consider these issues and will apply them towards an integrated and valuable research question with the corresponding objectives.

1.2 Research Question and Objectives

In general, understanding why consumers adopt or not a new product or service, offers crucial insights for theory and practice. However, in the field of innovation adoption, Arts, Frambach, and Bijmolt (2011) argue that “consumers who walk the talk in surveys do not always walk

the walk when it comes to innovation adoption”. Keeping this in mind, this study has chosen

in-depth interviews of individuals who have either adopted the innovation or have not done so in order to present argumentations that underlie actual behavior in contrast to behavioral intentions.

Therefore, this study addresses the previously mentioned issues by exploring the marketplace logics of online collaborative consumption platforms from the eyes of the consumer, using deep-rooted theory from the fields of marketing and customer behavior. So far, no one has analyzed the drivers and barriers of young consumers in collaborative consumption simultaneously, adding the means-end chain theory to increase the theoretical richness and relevance for practitioners. Consequently, this study will elaborate on the following research question: What are young consumers’ motives and underlying values to engage in or refrain

from collaborative consumption, and how can research and practice alike relate these insights towards sharing systems?

(11)

Collaborative Consumption 4 This research question is built on the hypothesis that values are the underlying drivers of customers’ decision-making process. Upon this research question, more detailed sub-questions have been developed which represent the objectives of this study. To build a strong foundation for the empirical study, the first set of questions concern what has been developed in theory so far: (1) What is collaborative consumption? (2) Which general market developments could explain the positive attitude towards sharing? (3) What forms of collaborative consumption exist in order to correctly place the current study within the overall research? Furthermore, this paper aims at contributing to the understanding of customer choice behavior by answering the following questions: (4) What are the underlying motivational structures of users to engage in collaborative consumption? (5) What are the underlying motivational structures of non-users to refuse collaborative consumption? The final question strives to provide valuable implications: (6) How can the newly derived insights be employed in practice and research?

In the following pages, these questions will be tackled by employing a qualitative approach to uncover the complexities of sharing. In particular, sharing platforms can be regarded as innovations, as they alter the way people get products or services. Therefore, this paper seeks to contribute the understanding of innovation adoption in the context of sharing.

In order to grasp the complexities of customer decision-making processes and innovation adoption behavior, the means-end chain is especially well suited (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). This approach aims at uncovering the motivational structures of users and non-users not only by uncovering the perceived attributes of collaborative consumption in the context of Airbnb, social influences, and personal values but also by organizing each element into an hierarchical structure.

Thus, this approach is appropriate for gaining theoretical insights and practical implications alike, which is exactly what this paper is aiming for. In order to execute the means-end chain

(12)

Collaborative Consumption 5 analysis, in-depth laddering interviews are employed to uncover deep meanings contained in the narratives of the respondents.

All in all, the central intention of this study is to give directly applicable insights.

1.3 Course of Investigation

In order to provide quality and credibility, this paper is based on articles that are dominant and accepted in the field of interest. Preferably, frequently cited academic works with emphasis on milestone studies are employed to support and validate the argumentation. This paper covers central and leading journals, especially concerning the methodological framework.

The prominent articles in the field collaborative consumption are the works of Botsman and Rogers (2011), Belk (2010, 2014), and Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012). Concerning the means-end chain analysis, the works of Gutman (1982, 1984) as well as Reynolds and Gutman (1984, 1988) play a guiding role. Finally, the value conceptions from Schwartz (1992, 1994) serve as a conceptual guide to support the explanations of the findings.

The remainder of the paper is organized in the following manner. First, the literature on collaborative consumption will be reviewed to shed light on the status quo in terms of present academic research on collaborative consumption. Then, the methodological background will follow to serve as a basis for the preceding methodology, which will be constructed afterwards. Next, the research findings will be organized in motivational drivers and barriers. The study will then present the discussion followed by the implications, limitations, and avenues for future research. The concluding remarks will finalize the paper.

(13)

2 Definitions and Background of Collaborative Consumption

As collaborative consumption is a recent phenomenon, research is limited and the definition varies across the literature. This section aims at compiling the theoretical understanding in the attempt to grasp an overall understanding of the nature of sharing. It will start with general definitions followed by the key aspects behind the shift towards sharing and will end with an overview of the different forms of collaborative consumption.

2.1 Defining Collaborative Consumption

The concept of sharing is not new to us. It represents an elementary form of human behaviour. However, it has been widely ignored in academic research and is only recently receiving academic attention (Hellwig et al., 2015). In 1978, the authors Felson and Spaeth introduced the term collaborative consumption as “events in which one or more persons consume economic goods or services in the process of engaging in joint activities with one or more others” (p. 614). They considered activities such as sharing a car ride with a close friend or relative and not between complete strangers. It can be doubted that the authors foresaw to what extent and in what context the term would receive attention today.

Many years later, Botsman and Rogers (2011) have picked up the term collaborative consumption again and the concept is currently experiencing a form of renaissance. They describe collaborative consumption as an emerging trend of renting, lending, swapping, sharing, bartering, and gifting between individuals. The phenomenon promises to facilitate social, economic, and environmental benefits. Individuals can decide to participate as peer

provider, peer user, or both. The authors further claim that collaborative consumption is

“reinventing not only what we consume but how we consume” (p. xvi). Moreover, it offers an appealing alternative to ownership and traditional forms of consumption (Hamari et al., 2015).

(14)

Collaborative Consumption 7 Currently, there are large variations across theoretical research as to whether monetary transactions are an essential part of collaborative consumption or not (Hamari et al., 2015; Belk, 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2011). For instance, Belk (2014) elaborated on the definition of Botsman and Rogers (2011) by excluding activities that do not involve any compensation. The current theory employs diverse terms that refer to collaborative consumption or related concepts (Botsman, 2015). Most commonly, the terms collaborative consumption (Botsman & Rogers, 2011), sharing (Belk, 2010), and sharing economy (Hamari et al., 2015) are used interchangeably in the literature. Moreover, related but more explicit terms have been developed in the course of research such as access-based consumption (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012) and peer-to-peer renting (Philip, Ozanne, & Ballantine, 2015).

Predominantly, the authors Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) clearly distinguish access-based consumption from sharing and ownership. They define access-based consumption as market transactions in which individuals attain the benefits of using a product. However, no transfer of ownership or joint ownership takes place. Furthermore, the authors propose that this concept of consumption underlies the following dimensions: temporality, anonymity, market mediation, consumer involvement, type of accessed object, and political consumerism. Philip et al. (2015) discuss in their article the concept peer-to-peer renting. They describe this as a sub category of collaborative consumption. The particular form allows private people to “engage in the temporary disposition and acquisition of everyday items with peers via an online rental network” (p. 1310).

All in all, academic researchers utilized different terms while investigating sharing. This study will use the terms collaborative consumption and sharing interchangeably. Further, it will stick the definition of Botsman & Rogers (2011).

(15)

2.2 The Rise of Collaborative Consumption

This section refers to the changes in the market that are relevant when one aims at explaining the phenomena of collaborative consumption (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Overview of market forces

2.2.1 Collaborative Consumption as Technological Phenomenon

Preeminent literature widely suggests that collaborative consumption is largely based on the rise of the Internet. It has added a renewed meaning to the term sharing. In other words, the new popularity of sharing is somewhat a product of the Internet, and in particular the growth of Web 2.0 (Belk, 2014; Matzler et al., 2015; Hamari et al., 2015; Botsman & Rogers, 2011). The development goes alongside with the rapid technological advances in online platforms. These platforms simplify the communication between strangers because they represent the essential coordination providers of sharing services (Hamari et al., 2015). These platforms facilitate services that do not necessitate the individual to actually visit an organization in person (Walker, Craig-Lees, Hecker, & Francis, 2002). Thus, the Internet facilitates access to online platforms and development of online communities for minor transaction costs (Möhlmann, 2015; Harvey, Smith, & Golightly, 2014).

Social networks further promote the growth of online communities. They encourage individuals who are willing to share their belongings to connect with peers (Matzler et al., 2015). Numerous online platforms exist today where people can share their possessions, talent, or knowledge with strangers. Compared to traditional sharing between friends and

Technological factors Socioeconomic factors Collaborative Consumption

(16)

Collaborative Consumption 9 family, the scope has increased to potentially everyone who is willing to participate in the sharing community. Hamari et al. (2015) refer to the emergence of the commercial sharing as a technological phenomenon.

As a conclusion, the advances in online technologies enable sharing, and online communities are the coordination centres that add social dynamics to platforms. Sharing represents a

communal act as it generates a feeling of solidarity and attachment between individuals in

online networks (Belk, 2010).

2.2.2 Collaborative Consumption as Socio-Economic Phenomenon

The term socio-economic combines social and economic factors. A large number of researchers additionally recognized the financial crisis in 2008 as an important trigger to new modes of consumption and some researchers even position the financial crisis as the starting point of collaborative consumption (e.g., Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Albinsson & Perera, 2012). For example, the authors Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) argue that the rise in popularity of access-based consumption goes along with the global economic crisis. The crisis forced many individuals to reconsider their spending behavior. Former values and the concept of ownership have received a fresh thought.

Apart from the technological and economical aspects, many researchers suggest that the growth of collaborative consumption has been affected by changes in the society. Over the past years, consumption attitudes have shifted and consumers are increasingly concerned with the impact of their actions on the community and environment (Hamari et al., 2015; Albinsson & Perera, 2012; Pepper, Jackson, & Uzzell, 2009; McDonagh & Prothero, 2014). In this context, the authors Honkanen, Verplanken and Olsen (2006) argue that is interesting for research to understand the changes in individuals’ ethical beliefs. Consumer are paying increased attention to the topic sustainability and are aware of topics such as climate change, industrial pollution, and resource depletion within politics, businesses, and individuals. This

(17)

Collaborative Consumption 10 encouraged companies to reconsider their ecological footprint and other business practices (Albinson & Perera, 2012). Likewise, the growing awareness motivated theoretical research to study sustainability. Right now, the theory of sustainability is manifold. Lubin and Esty (2010) termed sustainability as a business megatrend reshaping all different kinds of businesses.

In addition, an increasing proportion of the population is experiencing limited space due to population density and urbanization. This opens new business opportunities for mobility systems. One prominent example is car sharing. Individuals that participate in car sharing realize the benefits of driving a car without actual obligations linked to car ownership (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Car sharing lowers the consumption of resources for new cars. Furthermore, the already limited space in metropolises is not further diminished (Firnkorn & Müller, 2012).

Finally, many individuals pay critical attention to the consequences of overconsumption such as resource depletion and environmental degradation (Sheth, Sethia, & Srinivas, 2010). These concerns are reflected in the behavioral attitude of anti-consumption. This term characterizes an emerging phenomenon in consumer culture. Cherrier (2009) argues that anti-consumption is an individual identity based on a specific social position, empowerment, and vision of society. In this context, sharing is a form of anti-consumption (Ozanne & Ballantine, 2010). Consumers that hold anti-consumption or sustainable consumption attitudes can decrease their overall consumption through the participation in sharing networks.

All in all, the current developments have a positive impact on the adaption of collaborative consumption in the society.

(18)

2.3 Forms of Collaborative Consumption

Some forms of sharing have experienced massive growth and gained popularity in research while others are still in the early beginnings (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). However, the different forms of collaborative consumption are often confused in literature and media (Botsman, 2015). In order to provide some clarity, different research streams in collaborative consumption will be organized in the following.

The authors Botsman and Rogers (2011) argue that each form of sharing varies in scale, maturity, and purpose. However, they identified fundamental patterns through which they distinguish three systems of collaborative consumption:

! Product service systems: Peers can rent products as “services” rather than buy them. This concept is particularly appealing because users can share underutilized resources with peers who currently need them.

! Redistribution markets: Instead of renting or lending, a transfer of ownership takes place, either in the form of swopping, gifting, or selling for cash.

! Collaborative lifestyles: Instead of products, peers exchange less tangible goods such as time, space, knowledge, or cash.

In this context, gifting can be considered as a special case of collaborative consumption. It might create a feeling of reciprocity because compared to common market trades the exchange is never balanced (Belk, 2010). Thus, one individual remains in debt of the other one. The unique feature of gifting is therefore that in such online communities one individual gives and the other one receives without giving anything in return (Krush, Pennington, Fowler, & Mittelstaedt, 2015).

In a different study, Hamari et al. (2015) mapped various collaborative consumption platforms. Their research suggests two main categories of collaborative consumption: access over ownership such as renting and lending and transfer of ownership such as swapping, donating, and reselling. Furthermore, they indicate that access over renting within the

(19)

Collaborative Consumption 12 category access over ownership represents the most frequent choice of collaborative consumption. Moreover, a platform can be allocated to more than one category. This is the case if the platform allows for different trading activities.

The trend of sharing first originated from consumer-to-consumer (C2C) networks. However, the concept of sharing has not stayed undetected by large organizations and business-to-consumer (B2C) networks are now developing as well. One prominent example is commercial car sharing. The empirical study of the author Möhlmann (2015) clearly distinguished between C2C and B2C networks. The author argues that while many similarities among different collaborative consumption platforms exist, it is also valuable to consider contextual differences. For example, individuals’ trust towards an online platform might vary across different collaborative consumption platforms.

In conclusion, in order to better understand how sharing is perceived by the consumer, uncovering similarities among different forms of sharing might be beneficial for academic research (Lamberton, 2016). However, research should also account for contextual differences so that unique information will not get lost. In Table 1 an overview of the present forms of collaborative consumption is given.

Table 1

Forms of collaborative consumption

Category Mode of exchange Trading activity Example platform

Product service

systems Access over ownership

P2P Renting Getaround.com C2P Renting Zipcar.com Lending Streetbank.com

Redistribution

markets Transfer of ownership

Swapping Swapstyle.com Gifting Freegive.co.uk Reselling Ebay.com

Collaborative lifestyle

Access over less tangible assets

Renting Airbnb.com Lending Couchsurfing.com

(20)

2.4 Spheres of Collaborative Consumption

In their research, Lovelock and Gummesson (2004) state that marketing exchanges can be distinguished into two broad categories: those that involve transfer of ownership and those that do not. Thus, they argue that traditional services show parallels to the newer forms of access and rental. They argue that the rental of or access to goods as well as time, labor, or space represent a form of service. In the context of service management, Grönroos and Voima (2013) offer a valuable paradigm concerning the value of services. They differentiate different spheres in order to depict that value is not only a product of the provider but that it is also dependent on the consumers. Based on their framework displayed in Figure 2, their theory is applied to the context of sharing.

Figure 2. Value creation spheres

Note: Adapted from Grönroos & Voima (2013, p. 141)

The provider sphere describes the output, meaning the product or service that is provided to the customer through the particular sharing platform. Traditionally, the role of the provider has been emphasized, meaning that the characteristics of the offering have been stressed as important. Within the joint sphere, there is interaction between the provider and customer. The customer can take the role of co-creator. However, this sphere is not necessarily part of

Provider sphere = Potential value Customer sphere = Real value Joint sphere = Real value

(21)

Collaborative Consumption 14 every collaborative consumption system. The last sphere, namely the customer sphere, describes how customers actually use and integrate the output based on their specific needs. And this sphere is proposed to be independent from the provider (Grönroos & Voima, 2013). Thus, it is important to consider that customers differ in their individual goals, which define how they perceive a certain service. In conclusion, the value of a certain service offering depends on the customers’ interpretations and interactions.

Against this background, the following takes a customer-grounded view. Therefore, rather than focusing on the shared offering or value proposition that is defined by the sharing platform, namely the potential value, the perspective of real value is taken. This means that value is argued to be a function of the customer experience and logic (Grönroos & Voima, 2013).

A well-established method to uncover how people make sense of products or services according to their own personal values is the means-end chain theory (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). This approach uncovers information that is based on the consumers’ interpretation of products in relation to their own personal values (Reynolds, Gengler, & Howard, 1995).

However, this approach not only allows for revealing values, but also reinforces insights into full meaning structures of customers (Botschen & Hemetsberger, 1998). In order to generate in-depth understanding, this approach will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. Thus, different theories, particularly from consumer behavior and marketing research, will be integrated into the topic of collaborative consumption. So far, this integration has been insufficient (Lamberton, 2016).

(22)

2.5 Innovation Adoption and Collaborative Consumption

As it has been already mentioned, sharing platforms can be regarded as innovations, as they modify the way people get products or services.

In general, Kim and Park (2011) argue that next to the basic characteristics of the offering, also personal characteristics as well as social influences represent crucial factors when it comes to the decision to experiencing an innovation or not. Putting customers in the center of attention, not the actual but the perceived attributes of the innovation are measured, following the argumentation of Rogers (1995). Again, this also reflects the goal to depict the real value. In addition to that, the previous literature review revealed that technological and socio-economic factors are widely claimed to explain to some extend the adoption of collaborative consumption platforms (e.g., Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Belk, 2014; Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012).

As a result, the following elements which are displayed in Figure 3 will be carefully considered throughout this research because they are likely to influence the innovation adoption behavior of consumers in collaborative consumption:

Figure 3. Outline of important aspects to be analyzed in this thesis

Note: Own elaboration based on Kim and Park (2011, p. 1191) which has been modified in regard to

Botsman & Rogers (2011), Belk (2014), and Bardhi & Eckhardt (2012) Perceived attributes of the

innovation Personal values

Social influence

Critical market forces

Consumer orientation/innovation adoption behavior

(23)

3 Methodological Background

This section will introduce the essential theory for the subsequent methodology and empirical study. It will start with a general discussion about the role of values in theory and practice. Then, the term value will be conceptualized. Finally, a systematic presentation of the means-end theory will be given.

3.1 Role of Values in Theory and Practice

Various practitioners and academic researchers have been showing interest in how values influence the individual decision-making (Allen, 2001; Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Lages, & Fernandes, 2005). Academic theory as well as business press emphasize that the concept of value is useful for business practice (Flint, Woodruff, & Gardial, 2002). Marketing practitioners consider values as critical indicators of consumers’ decision-making (Muller, 1991). It is said that values influence all types of decisions. They drive individuals towards specific behavior and explain why they buy or not buy (Sheth, Newmann, & Gross, 1991). In other words, individuals strive to satisfy their individual values and act accordingly (Vinson, Scott, & Lamont, 1977). Knowledge about consumers’ values increases the key understanding of researchers when they analyze consumer behavior. Marketing scholars widely agree that values explain consumers’ lifestyles and consumption activities (Muller, 1991). Therefore, values help to build a deeper understanding of customer behavior because individuals convert what they feel into what they buy or not buy (Doran, 2009).

Values define what kind of product attributes a person will seek in a product. Promising avenues to apply the knowledge of consumers’ value structures are market analysis, market segmentation, product planning, and promotional strategy (Vinson et al., 1977). Value concepts have proven to be a useful instrument for the development marketing strategies. They represent a principal management tool for creating and implementing strategies that aim

(24)

Collaborative Consumption 17 at delivering appropriate values to consumers. In particular, Woodruff (1997) argues that practitioners that incorporate values go beyond “attribute-based key buying criteria” (p. 143). The author claims that values drive decisions and influence how consumers will act in the marketplace.

In sum, the better the researchers or practitioners understand personal values which are involved in the decision-making process, the better they can influence consumers’ future purchasing decisions (Lages & Fernandes, 2005). In other words, managers can adapt sharing systems such that they fulfill customer expectations in a more convincing way.

In order to attain the benefits from value concepts, it is essential to examine the various value concepts. This will be discussed in the following.

3.2 Conceptualizing Values

The underlying conceptual approach to consumer values is complex and broad as well as entails different definitions (Gallarza & Saura, 2006). In general, the term value is employed in diverse contexts (Woodruff, 1997).

The author Zeithaml (1988, p. 14) specifies the term value from the perspective of the customer in terms of perceived value and defines it as “the consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given”. This quote reflects a widely cited definition of customer value. It takes a different viewpoint and distances itself from value definitions that simply indicate that values only represent a certain price-quality tradeoff (Oh, 2000). Moreover, the size of the value is determined by the customer and not by the seller. In a different stream of research, Woodruff (1997) specifies the concept of customer value and argues that it “is a customer's perceived preference for and evaluation of those product attributes, attribute performances, and consequences arising from use that facilitate (or block) achieving the customer's goals and purposes in use situations” (p.

(25)

Collaborative Consumption 18 142). The term customer value demonstrates subjective perceptions and not objective concepts.

In conclusion, next the concept of the real value, a wide range of other terms and definitions of value exist in the academic theory.

The concept of value plays a central role in the means-end chain theory. In this context, Rockeach (1972) established a value system consisting of 18 instrumental and 18 terminal values. He proposed that customers are concerned to achieve desired values, when making certain decisions. Some of the later means-end chain literature has been inspired by his terminology. Upon the work of Rokeach’s value system, Schwartz (1992, 1994) developed a different value theory. The author questioned the significance of the distinction between terminal and instrumental values (1994). Up until now, Schwartz’s work has been applied and validated by many researchers. Thus, this study will integrate Schwartz’s value concept (1992, 1994).

Throughout a far-reaching series of studies, Schwartz identified ten general value types: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security.

(26)

Collaborative Consumption 19 Table 2

Motivational types of values

Broad value Defining goal Example set of value items

Self-direction Independent thought and action - choosing,

creating, exploring

Creativity, freedom, choosing own goals, curious, independent

Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life A varied life, an exciting life,

daring

Hedonism Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself Pleasure, enjoying life,

self-indulgent

Achievement Personal success through demonstrating

competence according to social standards

Ambitious, successful, capable, influential

Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance

over people and resources Authority, wealth, social power

Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of

relationships, and of self

Social order, family security, national security, clean, reciprocation of favors

Conformity

Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms

Obedient, self-discipline, politeness, honoring parents and elders

Tradition

Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion provides

Respect for tradition, humble, devout, accepting my portion in life

Benevolence

Preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ‘in-group’)

Helpful, honest, forgiving, responsible, loyal, true friendship, mature love

Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for

nature

Broadminded, social justice, equality, world at peace, world of beauty, unity with nature, wisdom, protecting the environment

Note: Adapted from Schwartz (2012, pp. 3-4)

Moreover, Schwartz arranged values in a two-dimensional structure (1992, 1994). The structure is organized along two axes. The first axis describes enhancement versus self-transcendence. The second axis organizes openness to change versus conservation. Therefore, it is important where values are located in respect to others. In order to be more precise, values located next to each other are complementary, whereas values located 180 degrees from one another are pronounced as competing (see Figure 4).

(27)

Figure 4. Theoretical model of Schwartz’s value conceptualization Note: Adapted from Schwartz (1992, p. 14; 1994, p. 24)

3.3 Means-End Chain Analysis

While it is already beneficial for research to determine values, Kamakura and Novak (1992) argue that for values to become truly valuable in practice as well, they need to be enriched with additional information. The authors suggest the means-end analysis as it aligns values with product attributes or benefits. Particularly in consumer and marketing research, this model has become an accepted approach (Grunert & Grunert, 1995). It combines knowledge from the areas of marketing, psychology, and consumer research. The means-end model

Stimulation Self-Direction Universalism Benevolence Conformity Tradition Security Power Achievement Hedonism Openn ess t o Cha nge Se lf-Tr ans_cen de nc e Self-En hanc ement Con servat ion

(28)

Collaborative Consumption 21 implies that consumers’ buying behavior is influenced by how they cognitively relate a product or service to themselves (Mort & Rose, 2004). Thus, this approach enables theory and practice alike to uncover how concrete product attributes are internalized by consumers. In other words, it aims at revealing the personally involving meaning and relevance of products or services for customers (Reynolds et al., 1995).

Consequently, research seeks with this model to uncover how customers’ choices of a service or product, the means, enable them to reach a desired end state, the end. In other words, this model unrolls how a product or service facilitates consumers to achieve preferred end states (Gutman, 1982) and ultimately represents a structured map of consumers’ product knowledge (Reynolds et al., 1995). Therefore, in order to establish a psychological relationship between a product or service and the consumer’s self; managers benefit from knowing the values of their target customers and how they are related to the product attributes (Walker & Olson, 1991; Reynolds et al., 1995).

In order to point the purpose of the means-end model out, the author Gutman (1982) provides an illustrative example. A customer articulates that a certain piece of clothing has been chosen in order to “look well-dressed”. However, this criterion does not reveal why the respondent desires to look well-dressed. With a means-end analysis, it can be exposed why the consumer chose to look in such a way. In general, consumers can be driven by diverse motivations. For instance, the underlying purpose could be to look attractive, neat, trendy, or successful. Therefore, it is beneficial for the planning and designing of a product or service offering to gain deep insights into consumers’ motivations in order to communicate the offering to target consumers in an appealing manner (Vriens & Hofstede, 2000). As a result, by applying the means-end analysis the researcher does not only uncover relevant decision criteria, but also reveals why these criteria are important for the specific decision maker (Olson & Reynolds, 2001).

(29)

Collaborative Consumption 22 3.3.1 The Underlying Means-End Model

The means-end model represents the individual translations of attributes into consequences and values (Reynolds & Gutman, 1984). The linkages between the different elements of the chain can be described as mental connections (Reynolds et al., 1995). The attributes are connected to the features of a certain product or service and represent the means. The values and consequences represent the desired end which is the underlying motive that customers seek to satisfy by consuming the product or service. The linkages or associations are placed in a hierarchical order within the chain and the means-end chain model incorporates different levels of abstraction. The chain starts with the most concrete concepts or levels and ends with most abstract ones. In other words, the chain starts with physical properties of a product and ends with personal values (Reynolds & Gutman, 1984). Conceptualizing these elements into different levels of abstraction is necessary in order to organize customers’ decision-making structures (Reynolds & Gutman, 1984). The following represents a simple means-end chain (Olson & Reynolds, 2001):

Attributes ! Consequences ! Values

Some researchers extended this simple chain to a four-level model (Olson & Reynolds, 2001). Thereby, theory distinguishes between functional consequences and psychosocial

consequences. These two types vary in their level of concreteness and abstractness.

Functional consequences are rather concrete, whereas psychosocial consequences can be positioned as more abstract on the hierarchy continuum (Reynolds et al., 1995).

3.3.2 Laddering Interviews

In order to uncover the hierarchical value chains, the laddering technique describes the most common method (Botschen & Hemetsberger, 1998). Laddering describes an interviewing technique and such interviews are performed in a one-to-one setting and represent in-depth discussions. Laddering is further considered as a semi-structured interviewing method. It has

(30)

Collaborative Consumption 23 a definite structure with standard probing questions. This setting allows the respondents to answer freely. During the interview, the researcher aims at discovering the attributes associated with a certain product or service. Next, the researcher wants to understand how the interviewee translates the mentioned attributes into meaningful associations with regard to the self (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). To achieve this goal, probing questions such as “why is that important to you” are typically employed to move beyond attributes and functional consequences. Therefore, certain questions are employed to elicit the different elements (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).

Furthermore, elements are sequentially elicited in order to place the attributes, consequences, and values during the interview in a hierarchical order. Starting with a particular attribute, the interviewer directs the respondent to reveal why a certain attribute is valued and thus personally involving. Therefore, the interviewer needs to motivate the respondent during the laddering interview to critically reflect linkages between the different levels of abstraction. Each answer serves as a starting point for the next question. Accordingly, the researcher moves up the ladders of the means-end chain until the respective value is uncovered. Then, the researcher begins to discuss a different attribute and the probing starts all over again. More to the point, laddering interviews take a motivational perspective as they ask respondents to reveal personal motivations (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). The process ends when the interview saturated such that the respondent does not express any new information. Saturation indicates that the means-end model of the specific participant is completed.

(31)

Collaborative Consumption 24 “It is good for your personal

freedom. [...] Different choices are really good, because you are free to

decide what you are doing.

Freedom of choice Value

“I have more money to do some

stuff.” More money available for other activities

“I save money over Airbnb” Save money Consequences

“Hotels are more expensive.” _{Spend less than for hotel}

“It is cheaper.” Reasonable Price Attribute

Figure 5. Illustrative ladder

Note: The first column shows quotes that refer to the interview respondent A (see Appendix 2). The

second column shows the corresponding ladders labeled by the researcher. The last column depicts the corresponding type of ladder.

Current theory classified different elicitation techniques. There are two general types of laddering. First, soft laddering describes a technique which allows for fluent speech of the respondent. The interviewer does not restrict the respondent and creates the ladders after the conversation. In contrast, hard laddering produces ladders in a sequential manner. Accordingly, answers are elicited one by one, moving strictly from concrete to abstract levels. This technique involves no personal interviews (Grunert, Beckmann, & Sørensen, 2001; Grunert & Grunert, 1995; Phillips & Reynolds, 2009). The data is collected through self-administered questionnaires as either paper-and-pencil version (e.g., Botschen & Hemetsberger, 1998) or on the computer. The choice between both involves a tradeoff. Soft laddering increases the richness of information and includes precious insights, whereas hard

(32)

Collaborative Consumption 25 laddering avoids interviewer bias as well as inconsistences during the interview and it is more cost efficient (Grunert & Grunert, 1995; Gengler & Reynolds, 1995).

Lastly, triadic sorting and free elicitation represent two different interview styles. The authors Reynolds and Gutman (1988) denote that triadic sorting involves three types of products or services during the laddering interview. Comparing the product or service of interest with two other types aims at eliciting differences and creating a wide-ranging discussion with the interviewee. This technique facilitates that the respondent thinks more extensively and elicits more responses. In contrast, free elicitation would mean that only the product or service at hand would be discussed during the interview.

3.3.3 Hierarchical Value Map

The hierarchical value map represents a visual representation of the aggregated ladders established during the interviews (Reynolds & Gutman, 1984). In order to reduce the complexity, the researcher can introduce a cutoff level. To examine a value map, one might start at the bottom (attributes) and trace the path up to the top (values). Chains starting with different attributes can feed into the same value. Each path represents a so-called perceptual segment (Reynolds & Gutman, 1984; Walker & Olson, 1991).

(33)

4 Study Context

This study limited its scope to the accommodation sharing platform Airbnb. The platform refers to the category collaborative lifestyle (see Table 1). It is an exemplar online platform where the workings of collaborative consumption can be examined. The choice of context has certain implications for the study. The study can benefit from academic research in tourism in order to enrich current knowledge. Over the past years, researchers in tourism have been increasingly attracted to value conceptions (Gallarza & Saura, 2006). It is proposed that values determine a traveller’s choice of accommodation. Accordingly, Muller (1991) argues that individuals evaluate travel alternatives according to their inherent values which are reflected in the attributes of offerings. In addition, Airbnb itself attracted some researchers in the field of tourism (e.g., Tussyadiah, 2015; Guttentag, 2015).

In 2008, the website www.airbnb.com was born. The online platform allows peers to book or rent out space. The website is modern and simply designed. In order to use the service, potential guests are required to create a profile. Hosts provide information about their space through pictures and descriptions. Guests can communicate easily with hosts through the website’s technological infrastructure. The website also administers payments online. According to the website, Airbnb has already offered over 60,000,000 guests an accommodation in over 34,000 cities and 191 countries (Airbnb, n.d.).

Trust is in this context an especially important aspect. In order to build trust, a review mechanism is available (Guttentag, 2015). The authors Botsman and Rogers (2011) argue that space sharing has existed in small villages on a face-to-face base in the early days. However, the Internet is reviving this activity and broadening the scale to basically everyone around the globe. Internet technologies are rebuilding communities and enabling people to connect with each other. The online platform Airbnb can be described as a product of these developments.

(34)

5 Methodology

This research utilized a qualitative and exploratory approach to gain thorough knowledge of the underlying issue. The methodology was selected because it facilitates a deep and rich understanding of the topic and allows for flexibility (Yin, 2013). The authors Braun and Clarke (2013) argue that qualitative research enables (1) getting people’s own framing rather than having items pre-framed, (2) attaining a deeper and multi-faceted understanding of phenomena, and (3) extending the scope of information as unexpected results could arise that might have been lost while using quantitative methods. In the following, the sampling, data analysis, and data collection will be explained in detail.

5.1 Sampling

The respondents were carefully selected, as they had to fulfill certain criteria. Thus, they were identified using purposive sampling (Saunders & Lewis, 2012) as this type of sampling allows the researcher to handpick the respondents. The sample was stratified in a manner consistent with control criteria regarding specific demographics and characteristics. First, the participants were selected according to their age. As has been already mentioned, there is little research about young consumers in the context of collaborative consumption (Edbring et al., 2015). At the same time, young consumers make up a large proportion of the overall business and are very active with a significant impact on the market (Noble, Haytko, & Phillips, 2009). In addition, forming a group of similar age is likely to decrease the number of diverse elements mentioned by the respondents during the interviews (Grunert et al., 2001). In other words, the interview data is likely to saturate earlier as if a broader age group would have been considered. As this research pursues to give a precise presentation of consumers’ decision making but is limited in resources, this certain decision of sampling helps to meet the high demand for quality while requiring less resources. In order to meet a further criterion, the respondents had to be familiar with the online platform Airbnb.

(35)

Collaborative Consumption 28 Next, the sample was composed of users and non-users. Respondents who booked a room through Airbnb within the last year were defined as users, and respondents were classified as non-users when they had considered the platform Airbnb but decided to book through a traditional travel agency.

All in all, the configuration of the sample was grounded by an extended literature review concerning previous means-end chain studies. The resulting sample of 30 respondents (including respondents from pilot interviews) was between the ages 19 and 30, mixed genders, and multi-cultural. Additionally, the respondents were either current university students, young professionals with academic background, or employees without any university degree.

A full description of the respondents can be found in Appendix 2.

5.2 Data Collection

Prior to the interview, the qualified respondents were informed about what to expect during the meeting. They were advised to allow twenty-five minutes for the interview. The researcher also granted them anonymity in the thesis. The semi-structured interviews were conducted either in person or through Skype. The interview process followed the soft laddering technique and employed triadic sorting. In conclusion, the process strictly adhered to the previously established methodology.

The first four interviews were set up as pilot interviews. These interviews had the purpose of uncovering what types of questions will be answerable by the respondents as well as helped to overcome insecurities and inconsistencies of the interviewer while conducting interview (Reynolds, Dethloff, & Westberg, 2001). Moreover, clear guidelines for laddering interviews were missing. In addition, laddering interviews are generally limited to a certain set of questions; however, the interviewer cannot pre-build a chronologically ordered interview

(36)

Collaborative Consumption 29 guide because each question depends on the preceding response. Therefore, related literature suggests that an experienced interviewer should conduct the interview (Veludo-de-Oliveira, Ikeda, & Campomar, 2006).

The resulting pilot interviews increased the comfort of interviewer with this technique and offered additional insights. First, the respondents were not familiar to the laddering technique and struggled at first with the question “Why is that important for you?”. However, starting with more general questions helped to create an open atmosphere compared to starting right away with the study context. Therefore, the first questions asked about travelling in general. Interviewees developed a narrative style that they mostly kept in the later stages of the interview. The introduction also made the respondents reflect on what travelling means for them and encouraged them to add their personal interpretations to the answers. Instead of asking continuously “Why is that important for you?” or “What are the consequences?” the participants felt especially confident to answer the question “Could you elaborate on this?”. Afterwards, the researcher created an interview guide based on the pilot interviews (see Appendix 1).

The subsequent 26 interviews followed the interview guide. At the start of each interview, the researcher briefly introduced herself and the research topic. Additionally, all participants agreed to tape recording of the interview. Afterwards, the interviewees were requested to give a brief introduction about themselves. Then, the interviewees were asked about their previous travel experience and how important travelling is to them. After all these points have been covered, the actual laddering interview started.

It is suggested in the literature that the researcher has collected enough data when a point of saturation is reached (Schaefers, 2013). Saturation implies that the collected data is of adequate depth and additional interviews could only yield marginal information (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Thus, 13 interviews had been conducted with users and 13 with non-users.

(37)

5.3 Data Analysis

All interviews are recorded and transcribed. The transcribing procedure required several weeks before the actual analysis and coding of the interviews took place. Initially, the two sets of respondents, users and non-users, were analyzed and reported separately. After the analysis of both was completed, the groups were compared in regard of the most striking findings.

The analysis process was set up as follows: The researcher started the analysis with the identification the diverse of aspects mentioned by the respondents. Then, each element was related to its specific level on the means-end chain. Similar aspects on the same level of abstraction were combined to decrease the number of chains and create a more comprehensive matrix. The procedure represented an iterative approach. In the end, two hierarchical value maps have been created concerning users and non-users respectively.

To guarantee reliability during the coding process of the empirical study, one person alone performed the coding. Also each interview was conducted in an equal manner, which was insured by the interview guide. In terms of validity, the findings were compared with contradictory and similar literature during the discussion (Braun & Clarke, 2013). In summary, this study represents an exploratory investigation and is appropriate for gaining insights into areas for which little empirical evidence exists. However, this study does not offer any quantitative conclusions about the overall population due to the small size of the sample.

(38)

6 Findings

In the following, the main results of the interviews will be depicted in detail. First, specific information concerning the structure of the hierarchical value map will be provided in order to allow the reader to retrace the findings. Afterwards, the results for both groups of respondents will be presented.

6.1 Outline Hierarchical Value Map

During the analysis of the various elements from the laddering interviews, a legend of symbols has been established for the hierarchical value maps (see Figure 6). This specification of the different elements supports the visualization of the results. Moreover, a cutoff level of 3 has been introduced to reduce the complexity of the maps. Therefore, each element that has been mentioned less than three times has been excluded from the outset.

Figure 6. Legend of symbols used in hierarchical value map

Value Value Value Consequence Attribute Associated up to 5 times Associated 6 times and more Associated up to 5 times Associated up to 6-11 times

(39)

Collaborative Consumption 32 The researcher defined the attributes and consequences merely in regard to the narratives of the interviewees. Whereas, most of the terms that were used to label values followed Schwartz’s terminology (see Table 2). The value of economy is related to the consequence of saving money; and it addresses the ability of individuals to reduce their travelling expenses. Thus, individuals that internalized this value like the idea of reduced spending. Lastly, the value of society describes a feeling of responsibility towards society and the care for others.

6.2 Exploring Users: Mapping Motivational Drivers

The results of the interviews suggest that the following six attributes are particularly relevant when it comes to the decision to book a room through the accommodation sharing platform Airbnb: great variety of offers, central location, reasonable price, private setting, positive WOM, and professional website. The values addressed by the attributes are freedom of choice, economy, broadminded, exciting life, enjoying life, curiosity, and safety. A full overview is given in Table 3.

Table 3

Attributes, consequences, and values of users

Attributes Consequences Values

A1 Great variety of offers A2 Central location A3 Reasonable price A4 Private setting A5 Positive WOM A6 Professional website

C1 Important places are close C2 Flexibility

C3 More money available for other activities C4 Save money

C5 Opportunity to prepare food in kitchen C6 Personal and individual furnishings C7 Not busy with other tourists C8 Social interaction with locals

C9 Unique insights into other peoples’ lives C11 Learn more about local culture

C12 No standardized holiday C13 Feel-good atmosphere C14 Get insider tips C15 Visit special places

C16 Simple and personalized booking process C17 See host profiles with ratings/pictures C18 Overcome skepticism

C19 Feeling comfortable to book room

V1 Freedom of choice V2 Economy V3 Broadminded V4 Exciting life V5 Enjoying life V6 Safety V7 Curiosity

(40)

Collaborative Consumption 33 First of all, a number of respondents indicated that they value the variety of offers on the website. They reasoned that the large selection of accommodations enables them to find a room with the appropriate price and size as well gives the choice of living alone or together with a host. It is important for users to be able to choose among numerous options, as this increases the value of freedom of choice.

“You have a lot of choices, like a single room or flat and the prices. There are low prices and high prices. You can just decide and I think that is really good.” (Respondent A)

The second attribute that is evident in the narratives of the respondents is the desire to stay in a good location. For most individuals the location plays a major role within the booking process and Airbnb offers a great deal of good located places. Staying in a central accommodation implies that attractive places such as sights, restaurants, and shopping opportunities are nearby. Moreover, a central location provides flexibility. Travelers can be more spontaneous during the day since they can easily return to the accommodation at any time during day.

“If you are in the city, you can go shopping and back, go in the restaurant and go back. But if you are outside the city center, you have to stay in the city for the whole day and if you go back, you would not return to the city.” (Respondent B)

Next, many respondents mentioned that the price of the accommodation plays a central role when taking a decision. Airbnb offers reasonably priced accommodations and represents a good alternative to hostels and hostels. Saving money is again important for respondents. In this context, some respondents stated that their desire to save money is related to the core value economy.

“I think that I have had very, very cheap Airbnbs and there is a really, really good price. I always look for the price.” (Respondent H)

In addition, some other respondents mentioned that they do not fancy traveling at low cost. They just want to have more money available to spend on other things. As conclusion, they like to save money on the accommodation in order to have more money to spend on

Collaborative consumption : understanding young consumers’ orientations through means-end chain analysis in the context of Airbnb