The ‘money antagonism’ in collaborative consumption : a comparative study on the effect of a monetary fee on repetitive participation in consumer-to-consumer collaborative consumption : exploring the underlying cost-ben

(1)

The ‘money antagonism’

in collaborative consumption

A comparative study on the effect of a monetary fee on repetitive participation in consumer-to-consumer

collaborative consumption. Exploring the underlying cost-benefit analysis from a Social Exchange perspective.

Thesis MSc Business Administration, Entrepreneurship & Innovation Track Student: Martje Haverkamp - Student number: 11408162

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by student Martje Haverkamp 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)

Overview of figures and tables

Figure 1: Research model ... 15

Figure 2: Conceptual model 4 used for testing hypothesis 2 and 3 ... 35

Figure 3: Conceptual model 1 used for testing hypothesis 4, 5 and 6 ... 41

Figure 4: Research model including proven relationships (note: causality not proven) ... 43

Table 1: Constructs definitions and order of variables ... 16

Table 2: Overview of hypotheses ... 17

Table 3: Description of measurement scales ... 25

Table 4: Descriptive Data of the Sample (N = 1566) ... 27

Table 5: Descriptive data of transformed and dummy variables ... 29

Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations ... 32

Table 7: Hierarchical Regression Model of Intention to share again including C2C CC experience as a predictor .. 34

Table 8: Perceived social-hedonic benefit explaining the relationship between C2C CC experience and Intention to share again ... 37

Table 9: Perceived risk explaining the relationship between C2C CC experience and Intention to share again ... 39

(5)

Acknowledgements

With this thesis, I tick the last duty of my Master in Business Administration. You may know, that I instituted this study in order to broaden my knowledge about businesses, especially in terms of their missions. A couple of years ago, my career started in marketing and sales, confronting me with the fact that our economy is dominated by supporting the desire of ownership. The more stuff the better. In my job, I was supposed to thrive on this goal, however, inside me, negative feelings raised. Especially since producing and wasting goods is believed to be one of the biggest causes of earth pollution, I knew that owning a lot of stuff was not per se the future. Therefore, I committed myself to learn more about social entrepreneurship by following the Entrepreneurship & Innovation track. In order to learn more about new forms of consumption that move from desiring ownership, I decided to subscribe my master thesis to the field of collaborative consumption.

Due to an accident which caused me to be not able to properly walk for about six months (fortunately I could borrow someone’s crutches.. talking about collaborative consumption…), this thesis period did make me feel a lot more stressed and tired than I hoped for. However, luckily, my supervisor Alexander Alexiev had the calmness to reassure me, for which I would like to thank him a lot. Moreover, I would like to thank him for the clear guidance he gave me in doing this research and the fact that he was always there to answer my questions. Also, I would like to thank the CEO and employees of Peerby for giving me the opportunity (and help) to conduct my survey among the Peerby users. Additionally, I would like to thank my parents, friends and boyfriend for still loving me after weeks of no fun because I was chained to a library chair, and for helping me finishing my report properly by checking for errors and improvements. Last but not least, I want to thank Susan van Duren den Hollander for all the fun lunches and dinners at the Roeterseilandcampus.

(6)

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this research is to explore the effect of involving money in the

consumer-to-consumer (C2C) collaborative consumption (CC) process, on the repetitive participation as a supplier of collaborative consumed goods. Employing the Social Exchange Theory, the main gain (social-hedonic benefit) and the main cost (risk of product damage or loss) of C2C CC are examined as factors explaining a difference in intention to share again between pure sharers (no money involved) and pseudo-sharers (money involved).

Methodology A survey was conducted among the community of the Dutch sharing platform

Peerby (N=1566) among who during the last year, 1428 did share in a pure sharing setting and 138 did at least share once in a pseudo-sharing setting. Contribution Most studies in the field explored attitude towards sharing and the intention to share. Also, the grey field of different kinds of CC and different motivators for people to participate as a sharer (supplier) or user (demander) of the collaborative consumed goods would benefit from more distinction. This study shrinks the gap of knowledge about repetitive participation in specifically C2C CC as supplier, pointing out differences between a pure sharing and pseudo-sharing setting. Findings Results did not demonstrate that a monetary fee would make any difference in intention to share again, nor due to its influence on the perceived social-hedonic benefit or the perceived risk. However, pseudo-sharing seemed to be negatively related to one’s social-hedonic benefit as well as one’s perceived risk and both the benefit and cost are found to be significantly related to one’s intention to share again. Research implications and limitations Diverse theoretical and managerial implications are explained. Furthermore, several limitations and additional findings support for future research to further explore this ‘money-antagonism’ in repetitive collaborative consumption. Keywords: Collaborative Consumption, Pseudo-sharing,

(7)

Introduction

Millions of people are embracing the rising economy of collaborative consumption (CC), showing a shift from desiring product ownership, towards giving and gaining access to goods as books, cars, tools and even houses (McArthur, 2015; Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz, 2016; Gullstrand Edbring, Lehner & Mont, 2016). This new form of consumption requires changes in existing consumer habits. Especially in consumer-to-consumer CC, people are no longer exclusively using their own products but consume the usage of the possessions of strangers, and are sharing their own (Piscicelli, Cooper & Fisher, 2015). Over the last couple of years, several researchers explored the constructs determining the participation in CC. However, the grey field of different kinds of CC and the different motivators for people to participate as a sharer (supplier) or user (demander) of the collaborative consumed goods would benefit from more distinction (Belk, 2014; Habibi, Davidson & Laroche, 2017; Milanova & Maas, 2017). Differences in sharing design tend to explain differences in motives, reciprocity expectations and community bonds (Habibi, Davidson & Laroche, 2017; McArthur, 2015; Milanova & Maas, 2017). Specifically, a discrepancy seems to be present between participating in sharing goods for free (pure sharing) and sharing for a monetary fee (pseudo-sharing) (Belk, 2014; Habibi, Davidson & Laroche, 2017; Milanova & Maas, 2017). Moreover, little yet is known about the underlying constructs influencing repeated participation in collaborative consumption.

In this study, the constructs determining the repeated participation as a supplier in

consumer-to-consumer collaborative consumption are explored, looking out for differences

in a pure sharing versus a pseudo-sharing setting. Since the pure sharing side of the collaborative consumption continuum (Habibi, Kim & Laroche, 2016) shows rather characteristics of a social exchange than an economic one (Habibi, Kim & Laroche, 2016), participation needs to be explained by a cost-benefit analysis based on factors broader than

(8)

gaining or losing money or products. Therefore, in this study, in this study, the Social Exchange Theory (SET) is employed as a basis (Kim, Yoon & Hangjung, 2015). According to the SET, and confirmed by several studies in the field, the main gain people get from participating in consumer-to-consumer CC is pronounced in a ‘social-hedonic benefit’ (Belk, 2010; Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz, 2016; Gullstrand Edbring, Lehner & Mont, 2016; McArthur, 2015; Wilhelms, Henkel & Falk, 2017). The main cost of participating would regard people’s

perceived risk of their possessions getting damaged or lost (Gullstrand, Edbring, Lehner &

Mont, 2016; Kim, Yoon & Hangjung, 2015). However, when a collaborative consumption experience shows more characteristics of pseudo-sharing than of pure sharing, this cost-benefit analysis for participating tends to change. In other words: involving money in the sharing process would affect the perceived social-hedonic benefit and the perceived risk.

First, according to McArthur (2015) a monetary fee for sharing would have a negative influence on the main gain of sharing, since an economic exchange would decrease or even eliminate good feelings and the desire to socialize. Habibi, Davidson and Laroche (2017) state that this lower social-hedonic benefit on its turn negatively influences repeated participation in CC, which seems plausible considering Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016)’s finding that intention to share again was higher among people that were sharing for free than among sharers that were not. However, little is known about the actual effect of money on the perceived social-hedonic benefit in a consumer-to-consumer CC experience and the consequential intention to share again. Second, at the same time, involving money in the sharing process is believed to offer a way to lower the main cost of participating in collaborative consumption. Since the perceived risk of sharing is affected by trust in other people’s ways to deal with the stuff they borrow (Kim, Yoon & Hangjung, 2015) a payment for sharing could be seen as a kind of insurance to cover unforeseen repairing or replacement costs (Catulli, 2012; Molz, 2013; Weber, 2015). Nonetheless, almost no research is done on that side of the cost-benefit

(9)

analysis yet. Hence, a ‘money antagonism’ in terms of the cost-benefit analysis, predicting one’s intention to share (again) is left to analyze.

For the reasons explained in the above, the aim of this research is to further explore the effect of involving money in the consumer-to-consumer (C2C) collaborative consumption (CC) process, on the repetitive participation as a supplier of collaborative consumed goods. Employing the Social Exchange Theory, the main gain (social-hedonic benefit) and the main cost (risk of product damage or loss) of C2C CC are examined as factors explaining a difference in intention to share again between pure sharers (no monetary fee involved) and pseudo-sharers (a monetary fee involved). Within the scope of C2C sharing of consumer goods, the following research question is aimed to be answered: “What is the effect of a monetary fee

in collaborative consumption on the cost-benefit analysis predicting intention to share again?”

Most studies in the field explored focus on the relationship between sharing and the intention to share. Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen (2015) did explore the underlying constructs for continues participation in CC, however, their study did not make a distinction between suppliers and demanders of the collaborative consumed good. This study contributes to the literature by exploring the effect of an actual sharing experience on consumer’s intention to share again (as a supplier), explained by the perceived social hedonic-benefit and perceived risk. Furthermore, insights are given in to the influence of including money in a sharing process, on these cost-benefit constructs predicting intention to share again. By doing this research within the purview of Peerby (a Dutch concept facilitating the sharing of consumer goods), results will enrichen the literature on collaborative consumption in the context of C2C sharing (small) consumer goods, since most studies on the subject were done in the fields of sharing cars or houses (Ert, Fleischer & Magen, 2016; Habibi, Kim and Laroche, 2016; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015; Möhlmann, 2015). With this knowledge, entrepreneurs

(10)

managing or seeking to set-up businesses facilitating C2C CC will be able to sharpen their business models, favorable sharing experiences and marketing and community management strategies by sympathizing with the motivators and preferences of consumers willing to share their consumer goods.

First, an overview of the relevant literature is given, expounding the latest theories on collaborative consumption in terms of consumer behavior and explaining the scope of this research. Second, the research model and hypothesis tested in this study are described. Third, the methodology of the research is explained, covering the measurement scales used for the survey conducted among 2.051 users of the Dutch sharing platform Peerby. Fourth, the results are reported. In chapter 4 the characteristics of the sample are described. Chapter 5 provides an overview of the findings from testing the hypotheses. Last, in chapter 6, the findings are discussed in comparison to earlier research, followed by limitations and directions for further research. Finally, an overall conclusion is given, followed by the references and questionnaire (appendix) used for this research.

(11)

1. Theoretical background

In this chapter, an overview of the relevant literature is given, expounding the latest theories on collaborative consumption in terms of consumer behavior. In paragraph 1.1, collaborative consumption is defined, followed by an explanation of the scope of this research. Specifically, the type of participation and the kinds of collaborative consumption settings on which this research focuses, are described. In paragraph 1.2, earlier findings on the cost-benefit analysis for participating in collaborative consumption are expound, explaining the use of the Social Exchange Theory as a basis for this research.

1.1 Defining collaborative consumption and the scope of this research

Almost thirty years ago, collaborative consumption (CC) was already explored by researchers, referring to events like using a washing machine for family laundry, eating meals with friends, swapping goods at special swap markets, or borrowing your neighbor's drill (Felson & Spaeth, 1978; Sprang, 2016). Nowadays, scholars are using CC to define a much broader concept of sharing, as ICT and the internet enable the development of new ways for consumers to share goods and services with a community that spreads way beyond personal networks (Sprang, 2016; Tussyadiah, 2015). In most studies, the concept of CC is described as

“the activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services”, formulated by Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen in 2015 (p.1). Mostly, researchers are using collaborative consumption as an overall term to refer to a large pool of practical business model examples like Uber (renting out your car and yourself as a taxi driver), Airbnb (renting out your house), Zipcar (sharing a car, provided by Zipcar), Couchsurfing (let someone sleep on your couch) and Dutch examples as Peerby (renting or lending out consumer goods), Thuisafgehaald.nl (selling your redundant food) and Swapfiets (renting a bicycle, provided by Swapfiets). However, Möhlmann (2015) and Habibi,

(12)

Kim and Laroche (2016) pointed out that when studying people’s behavior in terms of collaborative consumption, it is important to make some distinctions in the field, since differences in business model design appear to influence outcomes.

First, it is important to distinguish CC in the consumer-to-consumer (C2C) setting from CC in the setting of business-to-consumer (B2C), since concepts facilitating consumers to access privately owned goods (C2C) and companies providing access to goods they remain the owner of (B2C) differ in terms of providers and consumers’ risks and gains (Manzini, Vezzoli & Clark, 2001; Möhlmann, 2015). Second, one should take a closer look at the degree of sharing actually involved in the customer experience, since this would help to understand the differences in motives, reciprocity expectations and community bonds (Belk, 2014; Habibi, Davidson & Laroche, 2017). In order to do so, Habibi, Kim & Laroche (2016) introduced a continuum of Non-ownership Collaborative Consumption, based on a study of Belk (2010), distinguishing pure sharing (e.g. pooling resources; which examples as Couchsurfing and lending out via Peerby come close to) from pure exchange (e.g. buying a bread from a store). Sharing designs with a dualistic nature, as sharing goods with an economic exchange involved, are termed ‘pseudo-sharing’ (Habibi, Davidson & Laroche, 2017).

In this study, the cost-benefit analysis of participating in C2C sharing consumer goods as a supplier is explored. The underlying constructs of intention to share own goods again with other consumers are compared between sharing in a pure sharing setting (sharing for free) and sharing in a pseudo-sharing setting (sharing for a monetary fee).

1.2 The theoretical framework: a Social Exchange based cost-benefit analysis

Whereas economic transactions are based on a simultaneous exchange of values perceived as equal, social transactions mostly emerge in a nonreciprocal way, or are based on future hope of reciprocation (Hemetsberger, 2002). From that perspective, the pure sharing side

(13)

of the collaborative consumption continuum rather shows characteristics of a social exchange than of an economic one. Within a social exchange, factors of costs and benefits cannot be diminished to a single quantitative exchange rate (Stafford, 2008). A cost-benefit analysis based on factors broader than gaining or losing money or products would explain the movement to choosing sharing and accessing over owning (Kim, Yoon & Hangjung, 2015). Therefore, the Social Exchange Theory (SET) is one of the main adopted theories to explain consumer behavior in the sharing economy (Chen, 2013; Kim, Yoon & Hangjung, 2015; Stafford, 2008).

According to the SET, the main value people gain from (pure) sharing can be pronounced in a social relationship (Belk, 2010). When looking into the latest research on the perceived benefits of suppliers in consumer-2-consumer collaborative consumption, one could indeed conclude that mainly social-hedonic motives, referring to accessing a community of like-minded people, the social needs for belonging and the fun aspects of CC, tend to stimulate people to share their goods with others (Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz, 2016; Gullstrand Edbring, Lehner & Mont, 2016; McArthur, 2015). As buying experiences tend to lead to more happiness than buying things and consequently social consumption leads to higher affective values, consumers are found to expecting the socialization and bonding aspects of sharing to increase their happiness, especially in a non-commercial sharing setting (Nicolao, Irwin & Goodman, 2009). Furthermore, as Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen (2015) did explore continuous use of CC, they state that enjoyment from the activity is a prominent predictor for participating in CC again.

On the other side of the analysis, the SET states the costs of sharing to be mainly pronounced in the perceived risk of sharing goods with others. As the costs in a social exchange concern the alternatives of the parties involved (Emerson, 1987), the costs of sharing goods concern the alternative that possessions are not used by another person. In other words:

(14)

suppliers’ costs are mostly related to the perceived risk of sharing, affected by their trust in other people’s way to deal with their possessions (Kim, Yoon & Hangjung, 2015). Looking into research on the subject, this perceived risk, defined as “the subjective expectation of a

loss” (Stone and Grønhaug, 1993 p. 42) is indeed causing one of the main hazards for

consumers to share their goods with other consumers, and is mainly pronounced in terms of consumers’ concern about the possibility that their product will be damaged or get lost (Baumeister,2014; Gullstrand Edbring, Lehner & Mont, 2016; Molz,2013; Weber, 2015).

However, in case a collaborative consumption concept shows more characteristics of pseudo-sharing than pure sharing, because people exchange money in order to share their goods, the cost-benefit analysis tends to change. On the one hand, the validity of the nonreciprocal relationship is stated to be affected (Habibi, Davidson & Laroche, 2017). According to Belk (2010) economic obligations may create commitments between people and are therefore usually not a good way to create social bonds. Involving money in the sharing process would therefore negatively influence the sense of community that emerges in sharing goods (Habibi, Davidson & Laroche, 2017; McArthur, 2015). Looking at the studies on motivators to share, conducted among users of concepts more on the exchange side of the non-ownership continuum, the economic gain tends to become a leading motivator to share (Ert, Fleischer & Magen, 2016; Habibi, Kim & Laroche, 2016; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015; Möhlmann, 2015). Confirming McArthur (2015)’s and Habibi, Davidson and Laroche (2017)’s motion, in those sharing situations, the social-hedonic benefit seems to be less pronounced (Belk, 2010; Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz, 2016; McArthur, 2015; Wilhelms, Henkel & Falk, 2017). This lower perceived social-hedonic benefit is stated to be not positive in terms of repeated collaborative consumption, as it would be related to a lower intention to share again (Habibi, Davidson and Laroche, 2017). This seems plausible considering Bucher, Fieseler and

(15)

Lutz (2016)’s finding that intention to share again was higher among people that were sharing for free than among the sharers that were not.

On the other hand, looking at the cost side of the analysis, the perceived risk of product damage or loss is joint with a financial risk of unexpected repair work or replacement (Baumeister, 2014; Molz, 2013; Weber, 2015). This is where the ‘money antagonism’ comes in, because from that perspective, involving money in the sharing process could be positive in terms of lowering consumers’ perceived risk of sharing. The payment for sharing which is present in a pseudo-sharing context could be seen as a sort of insurance covering the possibility that a good will return damaged, establishing a basis of trust, and with that lower the perceived risk in sharing and increase the intention to share (again) (Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz, 2016; Catulli, 2012; Molz, 2013; Weber, 2015).

For this study, the Social Exchange Theory is used as a theoretical framework to further explore the differences in cost-benefit analysis predicting one’s intention to share again after a pure sharing experience versus after a pseudo-sharing experience. In the next chapter, the research model and hypothesis are expand based on the research gaps found in the literature.

(16)

2. Research model and hypotheses

In this chapter, the gaps in the existing literature on repetitive participation in C2C collaborative consumption and the influence of a monetary fee in the sharing process on the intention to share again are further expound. As earlier described, based on the Social Exchange Theory, the main gain (social-hedonic benefit) and the main cost (risk of product damage or loss) of C2C CC are examined as factors explaining a difference in intention to share again between pure sharers (no monetary fee involved) and pseudo-sharers (a monetary fee involved). In Figure 1 the research model including the hypothesized relationships is illustrated. In Table 1 the used constructs are defined, Table 2 provides an overview of the hypotheses. Paragraph 2.1 to 2.4 further explain these hypotheses, that were tested in order to answer the main research question of this study: “What is the effect of a monetary fee in

collaborative consumption on the cost-benefit analysis predicting intention to share again?”

(17)

Table 1: Constructs definitions and order of variables

Construct Type of variable Definition Source

Experiencing C2C collaborative consumption

Independent

“the activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and

services, coordinated through community-based online services”

In this study: the activity of sharing

the access to consumer goods with other consumers, coordinated through community-based online

services

Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen (2015, p.1)

Intention to share

again Dependent

In this study: the intention to supply

goods for C2C collaborative consumption in the future

Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen (2015) Social-hedonic benefit

of CC

Mediator

“accessing a community of like-minded people, the social needs for belonging and the fun aspects of CC”

Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016), Gullstrand Edbring,

Lehner and Mont (2016) and McArthur (2014) Perceived risk of

product damage or loss Mediator

“the subjective expectation of a loss”

In this study: the subjective

expectation of a loss in terms of product loss or damage

Stone and Grønhaug (1993, p 42)

A monetary fee for sharing

Moderator In this study: referring to a form of

‘pseudo-sharing’; sharing consumer goods for a monetary fee.

Habibi, Davidson & Laroche (2017)

(18)

Table 2: Overview of hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: “There is a relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative consumption as a supplier and intention to share again.”

Hypothesis 2: “The relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative consumption and intention to share again is explained by the perceived social-hedonic benefit, in a way that higher perceived social-hedonic benefit is explaining

increased intention to share again.”

Hypothesis 3: “The relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative consumption and intention to share again is explained by the perceived risk of product damage or loss, in a way that higher perceived risk is explaining decreased

intention to share again.”

Hypothesis 4: “The relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative consumption as a supplier and intention to share again differs when there is a monetary fee involved in the sharing process.”

Hypothesis 5: “The relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative consumption as a supplier and perceived social-hedonic benefit is lower when there is a monetary fee involved in the C2C collaborative consumption process.”

Hypothesis 6: “The perceived risk of product damage or loss, in experiencing C2C collaborative

consumption as a supplier, is lower when there is a monetary fee involved in the C2C collaborative consumption process.”

2.1 A C2C collaborative consumption experience predicting intention to share again

Since most research in the field was done on attitude towards collaborative consumption and the motivators for people to share their goods (Ert, Fleischer & Magen, 2016; Habibi, Kim & Laroche, 2016; Möhlmann, 2015), little is known about consumers’ intention to share goods again after an actual sharing experience. Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen (2015) did explore continuous use of CC, however, they made no distinction between suppliers and demanders of the collaborative consumed good. Therefore, in this study, the relationship between

(19)

experiencing C2C CC as a supplier and the intention to share again as a supplier, is explored, formulated in hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship between experiencing consumer-to-consumer

(C2C) collaborative consumption as a supplier and intention to share again.

2.2 The underlying cost-benefit analysis predicting intention to share again

2.2.1 Social-hedonic benefit

As explained in the theoretical background section of this report (chapter 1), from a Social Exchange Theory perspective, the main value people gain from (pure) sharing can be pronounced in a social relationship (Belk, 2010). Confirming, social-hedonic motives tend to stimulate people to share their goods with others (Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz, 2016; Gullstrand Edbring, Lehner & Mont, 2016; McArthur, 2015). However, most studies considered attitude towards sharing and whereas Bucher, Fieseler & Lutz (2016) did look at intention to share, they did not consider the actual direct effect of perceived social-hedonic benefit from an actual sharing experience on intention to share again. Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen (2015) did explore continuous use of CC and state that enjoyment from the activity is a prominent predictor for participating in CC again, their research was not well defined in terms of differences between suppliers and demanders of the collaborative consumed good. Therefore, in this study, hypothesis 2 was explored.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative consumption

and intention to share again is explained by the perceived social-hedonic benefit in a way that higher perceived social-hedonic benefit is explaining increased intention to share again.

(20)

As explained in the theoretical background section of this report (chapter 1), from a Social Exchange Theory perspective, the main cost of participating in collaborative consumption regards the perceived risk of sharing, affected by one’s trust in other people’s way to deal with their possessions (Kim, Yoon & Hangjung, 2015). This perceived risk, defined as “the subjective expectation of a loss” (Stone and Grønhaug, 1993 p. 42) is causing one of the main hazards for consumers to share their goods with other consumers, and is mainly pronounced in terms of consumers’ concern about the possibility that their product will be damaged or get lost (Baumeister, 2014; Molz, 2013; Weber, 2015). However, no research is done on the influence of perceived risk on intention to share again. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was tested.

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative consumption

and intention to share again is explained by the perceived risk, in a way that higher perceived risk is explaining decreased intention to share again.

2.3 A monetary fee in C2C collaborative consumption affecting intention to share again

Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016) did study intention to share among people with C2C CC experience and found that this was higher among the group that was sharing for free (pure sharing) than among the sharers that were sharing in a pseudo-sharing context. This would imply that involving money in the C2C CC process is negatively influencing one’s intention to share again. However, since 71% of their respondents were sharing in a commercial setting, Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016) state that this result deserves a second look. In order to further explore the difference between pure sharers and pseudo-sharers, in terms of their intention to share again, in this study the influence of money on the direct relationship between C2C CC experience and intention to share again was tested. Therefore, hypothesis 4 was formulated.

(21)

as a supplier and intention to share again differs when there is a monetary fee involved in the sharing process.

2.4 The effect of a monetary fee in C2C CC on the cost-benefit analysis

As described earlier, the main gain (social-hedonic benefit) and the main cost (risk of product damage or loss) of C2C CC are examined as factors explaining intention to share again. A monetary fee is believed to negatively influence one’s perceived social-hedonic benefit and positively influence one’s perceived risk (as in lowering the perceived risk). Therefore, the perceived social-hedonic benefit and perceived risk are explored as the constructs being influenced by a monetary fee, consequently explaining differences in intention to share again between pure sharers (no monetary fee involved) and pseudo-sharers (a monetary fee involved).

2.4.1 Social-hedonic benefit

Whereas McArthur (2015) and Habibi, Kim and Laroche (2016) argue that an economic exchange would lower or even eliminate the sense of community and desire to socialize, eventually lowering one’s intention to share again, they did not look at the actual difference in perceived social-hedonic benefit from experiencing C2C collaborative consumption in a pure versus a pseudo-sharing setting. Also, Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016) argue that in practice, the distinction between pure sharing and pseudo-sharing in terms of perceived social-hedonic benefit is not present. However, they did find a lower intention to share again among pseudo-sharers, which could be explained by a lower perceived social-hedonic benefit (hypothesis 2). Therefore, hypothesis 5 was explored in this study.

(22)

as a supplier and perceived social-hedonic benefit is lower when there is a monetary fee involved in the C2C collaborative consumption process.

2.4.2 Perceived risk

In contrast, research suggests that including a monetary fee in the sharing process (referring to as ‘pseudo-sharing’) could be positive in terms of lowering consumers’ perceived risk of sharing goods. A payment for sharing could be seen as a kind of insurance for the possibility that a good will return damaged, establishing a basis of trust, and with that lower the perceived risk in sharing and increase the intention to share (again) (Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz, 2016; Catulli, 2012; Molz, 2013; Weber, 2015). Nonetheless, the relationship between a monetary fee for sharing and perceived risk of product damage or loss did not yet get specific attention from researchers, leaving much more to find out about the negative as well as the positive role of money in the sharing context. Therefore, hypothesis 6 was explored.

Hypothesis 6: The perceived risk of product damage or loss, in experiencing C2C

collaborative consumption as a supplier, is lower when there is a monetary fee involved in the C2C collaborative consumption process.

In the next chapters, the research conducted in order to examine hypothesis 1 to 6, is explained.

(23)

3. Methodology

In this chapter, the methodology used for this research is described. In paragraph 3.1, a general explanation of the research method is given. Paragraph 3.2 provides more information about the used sampling technique. Paragraph 3.3 describes the items used to measure the studied constructs.

3.1 General methodology

For this study, research was done in the context of C2C sharing of consumer goods via Peerby, a Dutch platform that facilitates people to share consumer goods with others. For example, via Peerby, goods like barbecues, tents, drills, ladders, laptop adapters, games, bicycles and irons are shared. A quantitative, descriptive research was carried out using a cross-sectional, quasi-experimental survey design (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). After conducting a pilot, the survey was administered online, inviting Peerby suppliers by sending out an official Peerby email. The Peerby community counts over 250.000 members from hundreds of cities across the globe, but mostly from the Netherlands (Peerby, 2018). Until the end of 2017 people who were searching for something they needed could upload a request on the Peerby platform, which was send out to their neighbours, who at their turn could answer with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ , all based on lending out (so in a pure sharing context). At PeerbyGO, people could upload goods for rent (so share in a pseudo-sharing context). At the beginning of 2018, Peerby released a new platform at which the two communities come together and everyone can upload items that they want to share, with or without asking a monetary fee in return.

(24)

3.2 Sample

The population of this study consist of all people who at least once had the intent to share a consumer good in the context of C2C CC, coordinated through community-based online services. A non-probability convenience sample was taken by categorizing the group of people who had the intention to share a consumer good via Peerby in a pure sharing and pseudo-sharing setting (not mutually exclusive). The sample group was segmented within Peerby’s online system, using the filter ‘answered yes’ on a request of a neighbour searching for something and the filter of ‘uploaded an item’. The amount of people who answered ‘yes’ on a request of a neighbour searching for something at least once - from the beginning of Peerby until May 2018 - consists of around 38.000 members. The amount of people who uploaded an item for rent (on PeerbyGO) or for lend (from the launch of the new platform until May 2018) is 4.000. The overlap between those groups counts for 1.300, so a total of (38.000 + 4.000 - 1.300 =) 40.700. Thus, in total, 40.700 people were addressed. With a response rate of about 5%, 2051 people participated in the survey,among who 361 people did not had any C2C CC experience over the last year and were therefore left out the analysis. 1428 people only had C2C CC experiences in the pure sharing context and 138 people did have at least one C2C CC experience in the pseudo-setting context (see paragraph 4.1).

3.3 Measures

Respondents were asked to answer questions about their gender (nominal variable), age (ratio variable) and income (ordinal variable). To make a distinction between people who did not have a recent sharing experience, people who did have a recent commercial experience and people who did have a recent non-commercial experience, respondents were asked to mark the frequency of loaning out goods and renting out goods via Peerby over the last year, just as Park and Kim (2003) did on purchase behavior. To measure the other constructs in the model, the

(25)

following existing and validated items were used, measured on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”) on an interval level; Perceived social-hedonic benefit was measured with 6 items of Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016)’s scale including “Through sharing, there is a good chance that I will meet like-minded people”, Perceived risk (of product damage or loss) was measured with 4 items of Malhotra, Sung and Agarwal (2004)’s scale including “It could be risky to provide consumer goods for sharing, as my products could be damaged or get lost”. Intention to share again was measured with 4 items of Bhattacherjee (2001)’s scale including “All things considered, I expect to continue collaborative consumption often in the future”, as used by Hamari, Sjöklint, and Ukkonen (2015) (see Table 2). By using the translation-back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980), all items were translated in Dutch. Additionally, all were adapted to the context of this research. The full questionnaire is described in appendix I.

(26)

Table 3: Description of measurement scales

Variable Item code Adapted item Original item Source

Perceived risk (of product damage/loss)

RiskDL1 In general, it would be risky to provide consumer goods for sharing, as in that my

products could be damaged or get lost.

In general, it would be risky to give the information to online

companies

Malhotra, Sung and Agarwal

(2004) RiskDL2 I do consider a high potential loss (in terms

of my goods to get lost or damaged) when sharing them with others.

There would be high potential for loss associated with giving (the

information) to online firms.

(2004) RiskDL3 There would be too much uncertainty

associated with sharing my goods with other consumers, since my products could

be damaged or get lost.

There would be too much uncertainty associated with giving

(the information) to online firms.

(2004)

RiskDL4 Sharing my goods with others would involve many unexpected problems in

terms of product damage or loss.

Providing online firms with (the information) would involve many

unexpected problems.

(2004)

Perceived

social-hedonic benefit Hedonic1 Social- chance that I will meet like-minded people. Through sharing my stuff, there is a good Through sharing, there is a good chance that I will meet like-minded people.

Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016)

Social-Hedonic2 Sharing stuff is fun. Sharing is fun. Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016)

Social-Hedonic3 Sharing my stuff makes me feel part of a community. Sharing makes me feel part of a community. Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016)

Social-Hedonic4 Sharing a good way to find company. Sharing a good way to find company. Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016)

Social-Hedonic5 I share my stuff because it is an adventure. I share because it is an adventure. Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016)

Social-Hedonic6 Sharing my stuff is a good way to meet new people. Sharing is a good way to meet new people. Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz (2016)

Intention to share

again Intention1 All things considered, I expect to continue to share my goods often in the future. All things considered, I expect to continue collaborative consumption often in the future.

Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen

(2015) Intention2 I can see myself engaging in sharing my

goods more frequently in the future. collaborative consumption more I can see myself engaging in frequently in the future.

(2015) Intention3 I can see myself sharing my goods more

often in the future, if possible. I can see myself increasing my collaborative consumption activities if possible.

(2015) Intention4 It is likely that in the future, I will frequently

participate in a community that is sharing goods.

It is likely that I will frequently participate in collaborative consumption communities in the

future.

(27)

4. Data

In this chapter, the data used for the analysis are portrayed. In paragraph 4.1, the descriptive data of the sample is given. Paragraph 4.2 provides an overview of the reliability of the scales, the problematic variables that were transformed as well as the variables that were used for controlling and comparing. Paragraph 4.3 shows the overall correlations, already providing some information for testing the hypotheses.

4.1 Descriptive data of the sample

As described before, in total, 2051 people who are familiar with sharing consumer goods, participated in the survey. Of them, 361 did not have a C2C collaborative consumption experience (as a supplier of the good), at least not in the last year. As in this study, intention to share again was explored, this group was left out of the analysis. After filtering out another 122 cases that did not finish the survey and 2 extreme outliers out, a dataset of 1566 cases was left to analyze. 53,60% of those respondents is female, 45.70% is male and a small group of 0.70% did not want to specify its gender. The age of the group is normally distributed with an average of 51,5 (≈ 51,44). 16,2% did not want to tell something about his or her income, but the rest did, showing an average income of around €1000 and €2999 a month. Out of the 1566 people, 1428 did at least lend one item out during the last year (pure sharers) but did not rent out anything in that period. 138 respondents did rent out a consumer good to another consumer at least once (pseudo-sharers), among 117 did also had a pure sharing experience (see Table 4). When asking the respondents to range their main reason to share goods, most people (approximately 85%) listed “Because I want to help my neighbours”, “Because sharing goods is good for our planet” and “Because I think it’s fun” as their top 3 reasons to lend or rent out their goods to other consumers.

(28)

Table 4: Descriptive Data of the Sample (N = 1566) Frequency in % Gender Male 715 45,7 Female 840 53,6 Not disclosed 11 ,7 Age

Mean = 51,44 Min = 13 Max = 100

< 20 2 ,2 20-30 6,1 31-40 15,9 41-50 20,7 51-60 32,9 >60 24,2 Income

AOW (approx. €780 net a month) 130 8,3

€0 - €999 net a month 138 8,8

€1000 - €1999 net a month 342 21,8

€2000 - €2999 net a month (median & modus)

424 27,1

€3000 - €3999 net a month 178 11,4

> €4000 net a month 100 6,4

Not disclosed 254 16,2

Did only lend out

(pure sharers)

did only share in a pure sharing setting, at least one time during the last year

1428 91,2

Did rent out

(pseudo-sharers) did at least one time share in a pseudo-sharing setting (with a monetary fee involved), during the last year * * of them, did also had at last one pure sharing experience

138 *117

8,8 * 7,1

(29)

4.2 Variables and measurements

4.2.1. Reliability of scales

The three main constructs used in this study are Social-hedonic benefit (SocHed), Perceived risk (Risk) and Intention to share again (Int). To check on the reliability, a factor analysis was done on those three scales. As a result, the pattern matrix revealed that item SocHed_2 ‘Sharing stuff is fun’ was not measuring social-hedonic benefit but relied more on intention to share again (however still not that much 0.33). Therefore, SocHed_2 was left out of the analysis. By doing so, all three constructs showed sufficient reliability (Cronbach's alpha >0.74). Scale means were computed and coded as SocHed, Risk and INT.

4.2.2. Skewness and Kurtosis

The variables SocHed, Risk and Int were normally distributed. However, the item measuring the amount of sharing experiences (Lend_Rent: Skew 8,88, Kurt 106,83) was found to be positively skewed and having a high kurtosis. This was not surprising, since both items measuring the amount of C2C CC experience (in a pseudo-sharing and pure sharing context) had a score of >= 0 with no limit on the right side. Therefore, the variable was transformed into a dummy with a logarithmic scale; LN_Lend_Rent (Skew 1,25, Kurt 2,14).Now, skewness and kurtosis were okay, and as the sample was way over 200, the risk of a substantial difference in the analysis was limited (Field, 2009; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

4.2.3. Control and comparing variables

To compare the groups of people with pseudo-sharing experience to the ones with only pure sharing experience, the dummy variable ‘Pseudo-sharers’ was computed with 1 for people who at least once rented out something last year and 0 for people who did only (at least once) lend out something. As controlling variables, age, gender and income were used. Gender was measured by asking to choose for Man, Women or ‘Different or not want to specify’. To use it

(30)

for the analysis, the variable was transformed into a dummy (Woman) with 1 for being a woman and 0 for being not a woman. Income was measured by asking to choose for one of the intervals of €999 (from 0 to more than €4000), the option of AOW or the option ‘don’t like to share’. To use this variable for the analysis, it was transformed into a new variable (Income) grouping AOW together with the interval of ‘€0 - €999’ and ‘don’t like to share’ with the median/modus group (€2000 - €2999) (see table 5).

Table 5: Descriptive data of transformed and dummy variables

Frequency in %

Woman Woman 840 53,6

Not a woman 726 46,6

Income

€0 - €999 net a month, including ‘AOW’ 268 17,1

€1000 - €1999 net a month 342 21,8

€2000 - €2999 net a month

(median & modus) including ‘don’t like to share’

678 43,3

€3000 - €3999 net a month 178 11,4

> €4000 net a month 100 6,4

Pseudo-sharers

Did have a pseudo-sharing experience * of them, also had a pure sharing experience

138 * 117

8,8 * 7,1 Did not have a pseudo-sharing experience 1428 91,2

(31)

4.3 Correlation matrix

In Table 6, an overview of the Pearson Correlation between the variables in this study is given, including control variables (woman, age and income), the independent variable (Lend_Rent: a recent sharing experience), the mediating as well as independent variables (perceived social-hedonic benefit and perceived risk), the moderating variable (the dummy for a monetary fee for sharing ‘Pseudo-sharers’) and the dependent variable (intention to share again). This Pearson Correlation analysis showed significant correlations between several variables, however, most of them were low (around .1) or medium strong (around .3) (Cohen, 1988). In the following, the relevant relationships are described.

First, intention to share again (Int) and the amount of (recent) C2C CC experiences appears to be correlated with an effect of .16 on a .01 significance level. This could imply that the more C2C CC experiences, the higher one’s intention to share again. However, the relationship could also be true in reverse, implying that the higher one’s intention to share again, the higher one’s amount of C2C CC experiences. In paragraph 5.1, this relationship is further explored. Second, in line with hypothesis 2, perceived social-hedonic benefit (SocHed) shows a significant (p<.01) correlation with intention to share again (Int) with a medium high effect of .27, implying that a higher perceived social-hedonic benefit is related to an increased intention to share again. Also, perceived risk (Risk) seems to be significantly (p<.01) correlated to intention to share again (Int) with a medium high effect of -.27. This effect implies that a higher perceived risk is related to a lower intention to share again, which is in line with hypothesis 3. Remarkably, C2C CC experience is found to be significantly correlated with perceived risk with an effect of -.08. This could imply that C2C CC experience lowers the perceived risk or that lower perceived risk is explaining an increased C2C CC experience. A C2C CC experience and its relationship with social-hedonic benefit as well as with perceived risk is further explored in paragraph 5.2. Fourth, intention to share again (Int) tends to be

(32)

slightly positively correlated with involving a monetary fee in the C2C CC process (pseudo-sharing), nonetheless this correlation is not significant. In order to explore hypothesis 4, the relationship is further tested in paragraph 5.3. Fifth, involving a monetary fee in the C2C CC process (pseudo-sharing) seems to be slightly negatively correlated to the perceived social-hedonic benefit (SocHed). This could imply that pseudo-sharing experiences lead to lower hedonic benefit, which is in line with hypothesis 5. Or it could be that lower social-hedonic benefit explains (more) pseudo-sharing experiences. Yet, the correlation is not significant. In paragraph 5.5 hypothesis 5 is further explored. Sixth, contradictory to hypothesis 6, pseudo-sharing seems to be slightly positively correlated to perceived risk. This could imply that a monetary fee in the sharing process leads to a higher perceived risk of sharing. However, it could also mean that people perceiving a higher risk in sharing rather choose for pseudo-sharing than pure pseudo-sharing. Yet, the correlation found is not significant and the difference in perceived risk in context of a pseudo-sharing versus a pure sharing experience are further explored in chapter 5.5. Lastly, the variable woman is with a small effect (.11, p<.01) correlated to intention to share again, implying women to have a higher intention to share again. The variable age is with a small effect (-.11, p<.01) correlated to intention to share again, which argues older people to have a lower intention to share again.

(33)

Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations

Variables Mean SD Women Age Income Sharing

experience Pseudo- sharing Int SocHed Risk

Woman .535 .4988 - Age 51.44 12.677 -.129** - Income 2.681 1.0821 -.210** -.121** - Sharing experience 1.493 .7340 -.005 -.091** -.007 - Pseudo- sharing .088 .2836 -.077** -.004 -.010 .200** - Int 3.707 .6735 .113** -.109** -.014 .161** .029 (.826) SocHed 2.938 .6278 -.016 .027 -.085** .024 -.003 .267** (.740) Risk 2.654 .6486 -.039 -.066** -.058* -.082** .046 -.270** -.066** (.794)

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

(34)

5. Results

In this chapter, the results of testing hypothesis 1 to 6 are reported, followed by short conclusions. In Table 10, an overview of the supported and not supported hypothesis is given. Figure 4 shows the research model with the proven relationships. In chapter 6, conclusions are further explained within the context of the existing literature on consumer behavior in collaborative consumption.

5.1 A C2C collaborative consumption experience predicting intention to share again (H1)

To test the direct effect of a collaborative consumption experience on intention to share again, a linear regression analysis was performed, controlling for age, gender and income. As summarized in Table 7, at first, the predictors Woman (to control for gender), Age (to control for age) and Income (to control for income) were entered. Together, those factors appeared to explain 2% of the variance (R2_{) in intention to share again, on a <.001 significance level. This}

implies that 98% of the variance is explained by other factors.As a second step, the logarithmic measurement of C2C CC experience was added, increasing R2 _{to 0.04 on a <.001 significance}

level, showing that C2C CC experience explains another 2,3% of the variance in intention to share again. With a standardized Beta of .15 (p<.001), the results imply that if a person’s amount of C2C CC experiences increases with one data point (on the logarithmic scale), intention to share again increases for .15 (on a 5-point Likert scale, e.g. from “agree” to “totally agree”). Since C2C CC experience shows the biggest Standardized Beta value, one could say that out of the four predictors, the C2C CC experience has the most effect on intention to share again. However, still another 95,70% is explained by other factors. Taken together the significant correlation between a C2C collaborative consumption experience and intention to share again (.16, p<.01) and the outcome of the linear regression (Beta .15, p<.001), one could conclude that there is indeed a relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative

(35)

consumption and intention to share again, confirming hypothesis 1. However, the relationship is medium high (<.30) (Cohen, 1988). Moreover, causality cannot be proven since a cross-sectional quasi-experimental survey design was used to collect the data (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). In other words: it could be that increased C2C collaborative consumption experience is leading to a higher intention to share again or that a higher intention to share again is explaining an increased experience of C2C collaborative consumption.

What does mean regarding the research question? The amount of C2C CC

experience is positively related to one’s intention to share again. This implies that C2C CC experiences are supporting one to share again. However, causality could not be proven, so it could also be that higher intention to share again is explaining increased C2C CC experience. Yet, as there is a relationship, the influence of C2C CC experience on intention to share again is worth to further explore. It could be that, as suggested in the theoretical framework, C2C CC experience is affecting one’s suggested main gain (social-hedonic benefit) and cost (risk of product damage or loss) of sharing goods with others, which influences one’s intention to share again.

Table 7: Hierarchical Regression Model of Intention to share again including C2C CC experience as a predictor

R Adj. R2 _R2 _change _B _SE _{Standardized B} _t

Step 1 .148 .020** .022** Women .135 .035 .100** 3.846 Age -.005 .001 -.097** -3.805 Income - .003 .016 -.004 -.168 Step 2 .213 .043** .023** Women .139 .035 .103** 4.022 Age -.004 .001 -.082* -3.249 Income .000 .016 -.001 -.030 C2C CC experience .141 .023 .154** 6.191 Statistical significance: *p <.01; **p <.001

(36)

5.2 The underlying cost-benefit analysis predicting intention to share again (H2 and H3)

To test if the theoretical main cost (risk of product damage or loss) (Kim, Yoon & Hangjung, 2015) and the main benefit of collaborative consumption (social-hedonic benefit) (Belk, 2010; Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz, 2016; Gullstrand Edbring, Lehner & Mont, 2016; McArthur, 2015) are explaining the relationship between C2C CC experience and intention to share again, two mediation tests were processed. In order to do so, again a ‘Process’ test was employed (Hayes, 2013), now using conceptual diagram model 4 (see Figure 2). In both tests the total effect found implies that two respondents who differ by one unit on the logarithmic scale of C2C CC experience are estimated to differ by .15 unites on the 5-point Likert scale of intention to share again (see Table 8 and 9). In other words: people with relatively more C2C CC experience report higher intention to share again, which was also found when testing hypothesis 1.

Figure 2: Conceptual model 4 used for testing hypothesis 2 and 3

In hypothesis 2 “The relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative consumption

and intention to share again is explained by the perceived social-hedonic benefit, in a way that higher perceived social-hedonic benefit is explaining increased intention to share again,” was

explored. For M, perceived social-hedonic benefit (SocHed) was used, for X the logarithmic measure of C2C collaborative consumption experience and for Y the intention to share again (Int). As summarized in Table 8, the mediation test implies that participants who have relatively more C2C collaborative consumption experience, perceive relatively slightly higher

(37)

significant positive relationship found between perceived social-hedonic benefit and intention to share again. The results (b1 = .29, p<.001) imply that respondents with the same level of C2C CC experience but that differ by one unit in their level of perceived social-hedonic benefit (on a 5-point Likert scale, e.g. “agree” versus “totally agree”) are estimated to differ by .29 units in their intention to share again (on the same 5-point Likert scale). In other words: the perceived social-hedonic benefit is significantly positively related to intention to share again, supporting the relationship between social-hedonic benefit intention to share again described in hypothesis 2. The direct effect tested (c1’ = .14, p<.001) implies that two respondents that differ by one unit on the logarithmic scale of C2C CC experience, but who perceive the same level of social-hedonic benefit, are estimated to differ by .14 units in their intention to share again. This shows evidence for C2C CC experience influencing intention to share again independent of its effect on perceived social-hedonic benefit. The indirect effect shows that two respondents who differ by one unit on the logarithmic scale of C2C CC experience are estimated to differ by approximately .01 in their intention to share again as a result of the tendencies in perceived social-hedonic benefit. However, the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect based on 5000 bootstrap samples was not above zero (-.0092 to .0267), showing a possibility that it could be 0 as well. Therefore, hypothesis 2 could not be proven.

What does mean regarding the research question? The amount C2C CC experience

is not significantly affecting one’s perceived social-hedonic benefit. This implies that the perceived social-hedonic benefit is relatively stable and not dependent of the amount of times someone had supplied a good for C2C CC. However, it could still be that differences in sharing setting (pure versus pseudo) are affecting one’s perceived social-hedonic benefit. This could be consequently affecting one’s intention to share again, since the relationship between perceived

(38)

social-hedonic benefit and intention to share again is significantly proven (however not causally proven).

Table 8: Perceived social-hedonic benefit explaining the relationship between C2C CC experience and Intention to share again

Consequent

SocHed (M) Intention to share (Y)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

C2C CC experience (X) a1 .0203 .0216 >.05 c1’ .1418 .0221 <.001

SocHed (M) - - - b1 .2826 .0258 <.001

i1 i2

R2 _{= .0006} _R2 _{= .0952}

F (1.1564) = .8794 p >.05 F (2,1563.) = 82.23, p<.001

Effect SE p LLCI ULCI

Direct effect c1’ .1418 .0221 <.001

Total effect c1 .1475 .0229 <.001

Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

Indirect effect

a1b1 .0057 .0062 -..0092 .0267

In hypothesis 3: “The relationship between experiencing C2C collaborative

consumption and intention to share again is explained by the perceived risk, in a way that higher perceived risk will decrease intention to share again,” was explored. For M, perceived

(39)

risk (Risk) was used, for X the logarithmic measure of C2C collaborative consumption experience and for Y the intention to share again (Int). As summarized in Table 9, the mediation test implies that participants who have relatively more C2C collaborative consumption experience, perceive significantly relatively lower risk (a1 = -.07). In other words: a C2C CC experience could be positively influencing one’s perceived risk, however, causality could not be proven. The opposite, lower perceived risk explaining an increased C2C CC experience could also hold true. Additionally, the results imply that respondents with the same level of C2C CC experience but that differ by one unit in their level of perceived risk (on a 5-point Likert scale, e.g. “agree” versus “totally agree”) are estimated to differ by -.27 units in their intention to share again (on the same 5-point Likert scale) (b1 = -.27, p<.001). In other words: the perceived risk is significantly negatively related to intention to share again, which already proves the relationship between perceived risk and intention to share again described in hypothesis 3. The direct effect tested (c1’ = .13, p<.001) implies that two respondents that differ by one unit on the logarithmic scale of C2C CC experience, but who perceive the same level of risk, are estimated to differ by .13 units in their intention to share again. This shows again evidence for C2C CC experience influencing intention to share again independent of its effect on perceived social-hedonic benefit. The bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect (ab = .0194) based on 5000 bootstrap samples was entirely above zero (.0063 to .0339), implying tendency for those who experience C2C CC to perceive lower risk of product damage or loss, which in turn translates into an increased intention to share again. Therefore, the results support hypothesis 3 in a way that C2C CC experience tends to lower the perceived risk of product damage loss in C2C CC, consequently increasing one’s intention to share again.

What does mean regarding the research question? The amount of C2C CC

(40)

that experiencing more C2C CC as a supplier is lowering one’s perceived risk that a possession will get damaged or lost during the C2C CC process. However, causality is not proven, which means that it could also a lower perceived risk is explaining increased C2C CC experience. Nonetheless, as a lowered perceived risk is found to be significantly related to higher intention to share again, the influence of money in the C2C CC process on the perceived risk and consequential intention to share again, is still valuable to explore.

Table 9: Perceived risk explaining the relationship between C2C CC experience and Intention to share again

Consequent

Risk (M) Intention to share (Y)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

C2C CC experience (X) a1 -.0723 .0223 <.01 c1’ .1282 .0222 <.001

Risk (M) - - - b1 -.2681 .0251 <.001

i1 i2

R2 _{= .0067} _R2 _{= .021}

F (1.1564) = 10.5406 p <.01 F (2,1563.) = 79/2358, p<.001

Effect SE p LLCI ULCI

Direct effect c1’ .1282 .0222 <.001

Total effect c1 .1475 .0229 <.001

Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

Indirect effect

The ‘money antagonism’ in collaborative consumption : a comparative study on the effect of a monetary fee on repetitive participation in consumer-to-consumer collaborative consumption : exploring the underlying cost-ben