Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 158, Issue 3, pp 679–697 | Cite as

Understanding Collaborative Consumption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior with Value-Based Personal Norms

  • Daniel Roos
  • Rüdiger HahnEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Collaborative consumption is proposed as a potential step beyond unsustainable linear consumption patterns toward more sustainable consumption practices. Despite mounting interest in the topic, little is known about the determinants of this consumer behavior. We use an extended theory of planned behavior to examine the relative influence of consumers’ personal norms and the theory’s basic sociopsychological variables attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control on collaborative consumption. Moreover, we use this framework to examine consumers’ underlying value and belief structure regarding collaborative consumption. We measure these aspects for 224 consumers in a survey and then assess their self-reported collaborative consumption behavior in a second survey. Our structural model fits the data well. Collaborative consumption is more strongly—through intentions—influenced by personal norms and attitudes than by subjective norms. Personal norms to consume collaboratively are determined by consumers’ altruistic, biospheric, and egoistic value orientations. Cost savings, efficient use of resources, and community with others are found to be consumers’ attitudinal beliefs underlying collaborative consumption. We conclude that collaborative consumption can be pin-pointed neither as a mere form of economic exchange nor as a primarily normative form of sharing resources. Instead, collaborative consumption is determined by economic/egoistic (e.g., cost savings) and normative (e.g., altruistic and biospheric value orientations) motives. Implications for collaborative consumption research, the theory of planned behavior, and practitioners are discussed.

Keywords

Collaborative consumption Sharing economy Theory of planned behavior Values Personal norms 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Both authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (2006). In Bielefeld, U. (Ed.), Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved January 05, 2015, from http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ikg/zick/ajzen%20construction%20a%20tpb%20questionnaire.pdf.
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 11, 303–315.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.Google Scholar
  8. Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.Google Scholar
  9. Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 607–627.Google Scholar
  10. Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 175–187.Google Scholar
  11. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881–898.Google Scholar
  12. Barnes, S. J., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 200–211.Google Scholar
  13. Belk, R. (2009). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715–734.Google Scholar
  14. Belk, R. (2014a). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in web 2.0. Anthropologist, 18(1), 7–23.Google Scholar
  15. Belk, R. (2014b). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600.Google Scholar
  16. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.Google Scholar
  17. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. London: Collins.Google Scholar
  18. Browne, K. A., & Cudeck, J. S. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing equation model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic application and programming for confirmatory factor analytic model. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: Consumer desires and value perceptions regarding contemporary art collection and exhibit visits. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 925–940.Google Scholar
  21. Cho, H.-C., & Abe, S. (2013). Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate? Journal of Business Research, 66, 1261–1266.Google Scholar
  22. Chow, G. (1960). The standard F test for the equality of two sets of coefficients in linear regression models. Econometrica, 28, 591–605.Google Scholar
  23. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.Google Scholar
  24. Clemons, E. (2008). How information changes consumer behavior and how consumer behavior determines corporate strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(2), 13–40.Google Scholar
  25. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.Google Scholar
  26. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429–1464.Google Scholar
  27. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quaterly, 13, 319–340.Google Scholar
  28. DHL. (2017). Sharing economy logistics. DHL trend reseach, May 2017. http://www.dhl.com/content/dam/downloads/g0/about_us/logistics_insights/DHLTrend_Report_Sharing_Economy.pdf. Retrieved August 1, 2017.
  29. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  30. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluation of structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.Google Scholar
  31. Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Portfolio Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(9), 2047–2059.Google Scholar
  33. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 163, 1243–1248.Google Scholar
  34. Head, K. J., & Noar, S. M. (2014). Facilitating progress in health behaviour theory development and modification: The reasoned action approach as a case study. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 34–52.Google Scholar
  35. Heinrichs, H. (2013). Sharing economy: A potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA, 22(4), 228–231.Google Scholar
  36. Homburg, C., & Baumgartner, H. (1995). Bewertung von Kausalmodelen. Marketing ZFP, 17(3), 162–176.Google Scholar
  37. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.Google Scholar
  38. John, N. A. (2013). Sharing, collaborative consumption and Web 2.0. Media@LSE Electronic Working Papers (Vol. 26, pp. 1–19).Google Scholar
  39. Kidwell, B., & Jewell, R. D. (2003). The moderated influence of internal control: An examination across health-related behaviors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 377–386.Google Scholar
  40. Kurland, N. B. (1995). Ethical intentions and the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 297–313.Google Scholar
  41. Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109–125.Google Scholar
  42. Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2013). Collaborative consumption: Towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources, 2, 184–203.Google Scholar
  43. Luchs, M., Naylor, R. W., Rose, R. L., Catlin, J. R., Gau, R., Kapitan, S., et al. (2011). Toward a sustainable marketplace: Expanding options and benefits for consumers. Journal of Research for Consumers, 19, 1–12.Google Scholar
  44. Manstead, A. S. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude–behavior relationship. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 11–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Möhlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14, 193–207.Google Scholar
  46. Mont, O. (2004). Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecologial Economics, 50, 135–153.Google Scholar
  47. Mont, O., & Heiskanen, E. (2015). Breaking the stalemate of sustainable consumption with industrial ecology and a circular economy. In L. A. Reisch & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable consumption (pp. 33–47). Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  48. Notani, A. S. (1998). Moderators of perceived behavioral control’s predictiveness in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(3), 247–271.Google Scholar
  49. O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.Google Scholar
  50. Ölander, F., & Thogersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behavior as a prerequesite for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18, 345–385.Google Scholar
  51. Owyang, J. (2013). The Collaborative Economy. New York: Altimeter Group.Google Scholar
  52. Ozanne, L. K., & Ballentine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 485–498.Google Scholar
  53. Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115–143.Google Scholar
  54. Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., & Fisher, T. (2015). The role of values in collaborative consumption: Insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.032.Google Scholar
  55. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J.-Y. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.Google Scholar
  56. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., et al. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.Google Scholar
  57. PwC. (2015). The sharing economy. Consumer intelligence series. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharing-economy.pdf. Retrieved August 1, 2017.
  58. PwC. (2016). The sharing economy grows up. How the UK has embraced the sharing economy. http://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/megatrends/collisions/sharingeconomy/outlook-for-the-sharing-economy-in-the-uk-2016.html. Retrieved August 1, 2017.
  59. Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Trade.Google Scholar
  60. Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., & Armitage, C. (2009). Expanding the affective and normative components of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2985–3019.Google Scholar
  61. Robert, I., Binninger, A.-S., Ourahmoune, N. (2014). La consommation collaborative, le versant encore équivoque de l’économie de la fonctionnalité. Développement durable et territoires, 5(1). https://developpementdurable.revues.org/pdf/10222. Retrieved August 13, 2017.
  62. Scaraboto, D. (2015). Selling, sharing, and everything in between: The hybrid economies of collaborative networks. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 152–176.Google Scholar
  63. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–46.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Manstead, A. S., Louis, W. R., Kotterman, D., & Wolfs, J. (2008). The attitude-behavior relationship in consumer conduct: The role of norms, past behavior, and self-identity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(3), 311–333.Google Scholar
  66. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of enviornmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.Google Scholar
  67. Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Research in Human Ecology, 6(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
  68. Swaim, J. A., Maloni, M. J., Napshin, S. A., & Henley, A. B. (2014). Influences on student intention and behavior toward environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 465–484.Google Scholar
  69. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding household garbage reduction behavior: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(2), 192–204.Google Scholar
  70. Thøgersen, J. (2006). Understanding repetitive travel mode choices in a stable context: A panel study approach. Transportation Research Part A, 40(8), 621–638.Google Scholar
  71. Thomas, V. (2003). Demand and dematerilization impacts pf second-hand markets. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 7(2), 65–78.Google Scholar
  72. Thomas, V. (2011). The environmental potential of reuse: An application to used books. Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, 6, 109–116.Google Scholar
  73. World Economic Forum Young Globald Leaders. (2013). Sharing economy working group: Position paper. The Forum of Young Global Leaders.Google Scholar
  74. Xiao, J. J., Tang, C., Serido, J., & Shim, S. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of risky credit behavior among college students. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 239–245.Google Scholar
  75. Yin, J., Qian, L., & Singhapakdi, A. (2016). Sharing sustainability: How values and ethics matter in consumers’ adoption of public bicycle-sharing scheme. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/210551-016-3043-8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hohenheim (570G)StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations