Investigating the disruptiveness of the sharing economy at the individual consumer level: How consumer reflexivity drives re-engagement in sharing

Abstract

The sharing economy represents an emerging technology-enabled socioeconomic system. Given its disruptive nature, the sharing economy not only challenges traditional marketing theories but also alters consumer norms and beliefs related to consumption concepts. Whether, when, and how the sharing economy transforms consumption remain important questions for managers to investigate. This study examines how sharing experiences influence consumers’ critical self-reflection and shape their intentions to re-engage in sharing practices. With data collected from two surveys and four experiments (including three pretests and one main study), we show that consumers’ perceived economic utility, social value, and sustainability potential in the sharing economy influence their intentions to re-engage in sharing practices, thus forming a loyal customer base. In addition, consumer reflexivity mediates this effect. We also show that past experience with business-to-consumer sharing practices moderates the proposed mediating effect. Overall, we demonstrate the disruptive impact of the sharing economy on individual consumers with meaningful managerial implications and contributions to marketing theories.

Introduction

The sharing economy represents an emerging technology-enabled socioeconomic system that provides consumers with temporary access to tangible and intangible resources without permanent ownership (Eckhardt et al., 2019), with reports estimating an increase in industry value from US$15 billion in 2014 to US$335 billion in 2025 (Tabcum, 2019). The popularity of new online sharing schemes (e.g., Uber, Airbnb, Turo) illustrates this rapid growth and the intensified interest of leading brands in launching diverse sharing options (e.g., on-demand mobility solutions provided by the joint venture of the BMW Group and Daimler AG for ride-hailing, car-sharing, parking, charging, and payment). This trend also coincides with consumers’ increasing preference for lifestyles empowered by on-demand products (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017).

From a managerial perspective, the sharing economy is a disruptive and revolutionary business model (Wallenstein & Shelat, 2017) that challenges the foundation of marketing theories centered on product ownership transactions between buyers and sellers. For firms, consumers’ active participation and collaboration in sharing practices¹ offer new ways for cocreation previously unavailable (Reynolds & Hyman, 2020). For consumers, the short-term and on-demand access solutions in an open sharing marketplace constitute distinct alternatives to existing “standardized and homogeneous products and services” (Parente et al., 2018, p. 53). According to a recent industry report, more than 25% of US consumers participated in the sharing economy in 2021 (Statista, 2020). As consumers develop greater knowledge and acceptance of short-term access solutions, firms must consider the pace of growth in the sharing economy and rethink their roles and business strategies to harness the value offered by sharing opportunities (Dellaert, 2019; Sundararajan, 2019). To do so, marketers need to better understand consumers’ continuous engagement in the sharing process. However, three important knowledge gaps remain in the sharing economy literature.

First, few studies have attempted to capture the disruptive impacts of sharing practices at the individual consumer level (Dellaert, 2019). Although sharing disrupts marketing beliefs and consumer behavior (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2010; Eckhardt et al., 2019), studies mainly focus on its effects at the macro level, considering society, the environment, and economic growth (e.g., Akbar et al., 2016; Frenken & Schor, 2017; Möhlmann, 2015; Zervas et al., 2017). Eckhardt et al. (2019) systematically discuss the disruptiveness of the sharing economy from three specific marketing aspects: institutions (e.g., consumers, firms, regulators), processes, and value creation. Specifically, the literature examining the transformative impact on consumers’ behavioral changes after participating in the sharing economy is inadequate (Lai & Ho, 2020; Roos & Hahn, 2019). Studies at the individual consumer level are necessary to understand the drivers of consumers’ engagement in sharing practices, intentions to forgo permanent ownership in favor of short-term access, and identification with sharing practices overall (Eckhardt et al., 2019).

Second, despite its importance, few studies have systematically investigated consumers’ re-engagement (i.e., choosing the sharing practice again) in the sharing economy. Industry reports find that sharing participants show less brand loyalty and a greater willingness to switch their service providers (Hiebert, 2016). Therefore, re-engaging consumers² to build a loyal customer base poses a timely and critical managerial challenge for the long-term success of the sharing economy (Snipp, 2017). Firms must gain a better understanding of the psychological processes underlying consumer decision-making to develop strategies to successfully re-engage their customers in sharing practices. Studies show that drivers of general participation intentions for sharing schemes (e.g., environmental impact) do not determine future engagement (Möhlmann, 2015; Roos & Hahn, 2017, 2019), and the antecedents (e.g., social benefits) of re-engagement intention do not yield consistent findings (e.g., Möhlmann, 2015; Roos & Hahn, 2017, 2019; Yang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). Lawson et al. (2016) anecdotally suggest that consumer characteristics, such as materialism or environmental and economic consciousness, affect consumers’ loyalty to sharing activities. However, few studies identify the different drivers, processes, and contingent conditions for motivating current participants to re-engage in sharing activities (Bucher et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2017; Pinotti & Moretti, 2018).

Third, few studies capture how the distinct features of the sharing economy foster new experiences that may influence consumers’ future sharing commitments. Eckhardt et al. (2019) observe that new sharing experiences introduce a new set of critical factors that determine consumers’ continuous commitment to sharing practices. While recent service marketing studies show that platform responsiveness and reliability, as well as service quality and satisfaction, are positively associated with loyalty in sharing practices (Akhmedova et al., 2020; Huarng & Yu, 2019; Yang et al., 2017), these factors do not fully explain the relationship between the disruptiveness of sharing practices and consumers’ decision-making.

Overall, the knowledge gaps in the literature require new theoretical lenses and large-scale empirical studies to unpack the transformative nature of the sharing economy and its unique determinants (Akhmedova et al., 2020; Eckhardt et al., 2019). To illuminate these knowledge gaps, we introduce the concept of consumer reflexivity as a new crucial factor that helps explain why and how consumers’ sharing experiences transform their values, norms, and attitudes, in turn shaping their intentions to re-engage in sharing practices. Reflexivity refers to self-awareness of the world and the way self-identity is constructed when consumers encounter a new consumption experience (Akaka & Schau, 2019). Specifically, we conceptualize consumer reflexivity in the sharing economy as a state of critical self-reflection involving self-awareness, self-regulation, and identity construction. Lai and Ho (2020) show the importance of reflexivity in sharing practices. Roos and Hahn (2017, 2019) find that shared consumption experiences cause consumers to question their current value priorities (e.g., altruistic values, personal and subjective norms), leading to continuous attitudinal and behavioral changes. Lai and Ho (2020) also interviewed consumers who engaged in a sharing project and found that their commitment to behavioral changes could only be achieved through a process of self-reflection after participation. They argue that self-reflection gives consumers greater awareness of their own consumption behaviors and identification as changemakers in the marketplace; therefore, consumers are more motivated to commit to sharing practices. Although consumer studies recognize the crucial role of reflexivity in specific consumption contexts for life transitions (e.g., lifestyle changes after divorce) (Thompson et al., 2018) or progressive customer-centric consumption journeys in specific activities, such as surfing (Akaka & Schau, 2019; Schau & Akaka, 2021), few studies explicitly examine consumer reflexivity in more general consumption contexts. Therefore, we aim to advance the literature by exploring the effect of reflexivity on consumers’ commitment to sharing practices.

We propose that the level of consumer reflexivity increases when consumers juxtapose the distinct benefits of sharing for economic utility (i.e., flexibility and mobility), social value (i.e., social approval of sharing practices), and sustainability potential (i.e., saving natural resources, energy, and sustainability) with their beliefs formed by traditional ownership-based consumption models. We postulate that reflexivity, in turn, affects consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices. We further hypothesize that consumer reflexivity functions as a mediating mechanism between the perceived benefits of sharing practices and re-engagement intention, which are moderated by the type (i.e., business-to-consumer [B2C]) of sharing experience.

We use several empirical studies to test our assumptions. First, we use an online survey to develop and validate a three-dimensional measure (self-awareness, self-regulation, and identity construction) of consumer reflexivity. Second, we use a large-scale survey of consumers with sharing experiences to validate the existence and role of consumer reflexivity in a sharing context. To examine the robustness of our findings, additional analyses replicate our findings with an alternative outcome measure (i.e., future sharing intention) to rule out other mediators (i.e., materialism and private self-consciousness) and analyze the mediating effect of each consumer reflexivity subdimension. Finally, we use an experiment with concurrent double randomization designs to validate the proposed causal relationships and mediating mechanisms.

Taken together, our study extends the sharing economy literature in multiple ways. First, we use a new theoretical lens to investigate the relationship between consumers’ past experiences and their future commitment to sharing practices, which fills an important knowledge gap and demonstrates the disruptiveness of sharing practices on consumers at the individual level (Eckhardt et al., 2019). Our findings complement previous studies of general sharing intentions by focusing on the factors driving the re-engagement intention of existing users in the sharing economy (Hazée et al., 2017). Our results thus provide timely insights and address the crucial challenge of building loyalty within the sharing economy (Snipp, 2017).

Second, we identify consumer reflexivity as a crucial and understudied factor that connects consumers’ evaluations of the disruptiveness of sharing practices with their continuous commitment to participate in sharing practices. We respond to calls for the systematic investigation of socio-psychological effects (Roos & Hahn, 2017) and the identification of new factors underlying consumers’ decisions to choose a shared option (Eckhardt et al., 2019).

Third, our findings suggest that consumer reflexivity helps explain prior inconsistent findings on how social and environmental benefits motivate consumers to re-engage in sharing practices (e.g.,Barnes & Mattsson, 2017; Parguel et al., 2017; Roos & Hahn, 2017, 2019; Wilhelms et al., 2017). Specifically, we show that sharing benefits can boost consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices, but individual consumers must reflexively evaluate, internalize, and identify themselves with these benefits and goals of sharing practices. These findings lend support to Lai and Ho’s (2020) argument that ongoing behavioral changes, such as commitment to sharing, can only be achieved by reflecting on sharing experiences. Our results also offer important managerial guidance for current and future strategies to promote sharing schemes, which should consider highlighting social and environmental benefits rather than economic trade-offs for individual participants. Moreover, revealing the moderating effect of B2C sharing experiences advances the literature on communication strategies for consumer-to-consumer (C2C) sharing schemes (Costello & Reczek, 2020) and the framing strategies used to promote sharing schemes (Palgan et al., 2017).

Fourth, we answer the question of how consumers’ identity affects the sharing experience (Eckhardt et al., 2019) by showing that consumer reflexivity increases their identification with sharing practices rather than with the products or brands they access through these practices. Specifically, the meaningful relationship between consumers’ sharing experiences and their construction of a reflexive self can trigger identification with new consumption practices. Thus, we extend the sharing economy literature by illuminating how to redefine consumers’ sharing loyalty and overcome barriers to re-engage consumers in sharing (Akhmedova et al., 2020; Hazée et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017).

Theoretical framework

Sharing economy

The sharing economy continues to disrupt markets and consumers by connecting crowdsourced supplies of on-demand products and services with consumers who can access them temporally (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Reynolds-Pearson & Hyman, 2020). Reynolds-Pearson and Hyman (2020) argue that the disruptiveness of sharing practices in marketing increases the importance for every firm to explore strategies for engaging consumers in sharing practices.

Studies of consumers’ sharing intentions identify several antecedents, such as economic benefits (Milanova & Maas, 2017; Möhlmann, 2015; Tussyadiah, 2016), social and moral motivations (Lamberton & Rose, 2012; Styvén & Mariani, 2020), and environmental factors (Wilhelms et al., 2017). Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that perceived usefulness, safety benefits, responsibility avoidance, enjoyment, and satisfaction may play important explanatory roles (Barnes & Mattsson, 2017; Graul & Brough, 2021; Yang et al., 2017). However, drivers of general participation intentions (e.g., environmental impact) do not determine future engagement (Möhlmann, 2015), and the direct effects of factors on re-engagement intention, such as social benefits, may vary under different circumstances (Möhlmann, 2015; Yang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). Moreover, research reveals many unique barriers to consumers’ re-engagement in sharing (Hazée et al., 2017). Different drivers, processes, and contingent conditions motivate current participants to re-engage in sharing practices (Bucher et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2017; Pinotti & Moretti, 2018). These findings echo those of Eckhardt et al. (2019), who assert that the unique characteristics of the sharing economy introduce a new set of factors that affect consumers’ decision-making when products are accessed rather than owned. Thus, questions about whether, how, and when the sharing economy transforms consumers’ future sharing intentions should be examined carefully. Table 1 presents an overview of empirical studies on intentions to engage or re-engage in sharing practices.

Table 1 Summary of research on sharing intention or re-engagement intention

We illuminate the inconsistent findings in the literature by introducing the construct of consumer reflexivity to fully capture consumers’ re-engagement in sharing practices. Our study explores how consumers’ evaluations of disruptive sharing experiences increase their reflexivity, which in turn shapes their future commitment to sharing practices. Specifically, we propose that the perceived benefits of (1) economic utility, (2) social value, and (3) sustainability on sharing practices determine consumers’ perceived disruptiveness and trigger consumer reflexivity, which influences their intentions to re-engage in sharing practices and serves as a mediator in the chain relationship. The type of sharing experience (i.e., B2C) further moderates the mediating mechanism. Figure 1 summarizes our theoretical framework and hypotheses.

Fig. 1

Theoretical framework

Consumer reflexivity

Consumer reflexivity, the key construct in our framework, is a state in which consumers engage in self-conscious review, monitoring, and identity construction related to their consumption experiences (Thompson et al., 2018). Consumer reflexivity involves an active, thoughtful, and critical self-review process through which consumers come to self-question, discover, and eventually modify their consumption attitudes, values, norms, and behaviors. Reflexivity not only requires the recognition of dynamic and complex environments but also brings the possibility of future change (Akaka & Schau, 2019). As Schau and Akaka (2021, p. 9) observe, reflexivity “plays a central role in consumption journey progression because reflexivity triggers moments in which consumers make choices regarding practice maintenance or change.” These reflexive processes can be directed toward either the self as a whole or its constituent parts, including both internal (e.g., emotions, sensations) and external (e.g., social identity, possessions, abilities) consumption experiences (Rosenberg, 1990). Compared with simple reflections on experiences, Heidegger (1966, p. 36) argues that self-reflexivity entails understanding “the grounds of our thinking by opening ourselves to the hidden nature of truth.” Another core tenet of reflexivity is that people in a highly reflexive state tend to actively construct a coherent and reflexive self that adapts to the changing environment instead of passively accepting who they are (Mezirow, 2000). Moreover, reflexivity involves consumers’ ongoing engagement in practices and continuous efforts to align their identity with the sharing system to consume and cocreate value (Roos & Hahn, 2019).

While different disciplines debate the definitions of reflexivity, Mauthner and Doucet (2003, p. 416) note that “few researchers give reflexive accounts of data analysis or discuss how reflexivity can be operationalized.” Similarly, most consumer studies do not explicitly discuss the role of consumer reflexivity (Akaka & Schau, 2019). Discussions of reflexivity in sociology, psychology, and the consumer literature consistently indicate that reflexivity manifests itself in the creation of internal states of arousal involving self-consciousness (Grant et al., 2002; Nasby, 1989; Thompson et al., 2018), self-regulation (Grant et al., 2002; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998), and identity construction (Akaka & Schau, 2019; Barnett, 1997; Giddens, 1991; Glaser & Brunstein, 2007). Therefore, to capture the distinctive features of reflexivity, we conceptualize consumer reflexivity as a construct that includes three essential and interdependent dimensions: self-awareness, self-regulation, and identity construction.

Self-awareness can be directed at different domains of the self (Barnett, 1997), including overall psychological well-being (Dittmar & Drury, 2000) and specific aspects of self-identity and activities (Schön, 1987). Akaka and Schau (2019) note that reflexivity requires awareness of the self as well as recognition of the institution in which a person is embedded and its influence on his or her consumption experience. Therefore, self-awareness involves self-observation practices, such as consciously asking, “what am I thinking?” or “what am I doing?” (Giddens, 1991; Grant et al., 2002). Although humans are intrinsically curious about themselves and their relationships with others (McPherson, 2005), they tend to follow their preexisting attitudes and values in habitual consumption situations with little self-consciousness about how they make decisions and why they consume products and services (Thompson et al., 2018). Thus, self-awareness is more likely triggered by new experiences that sensitize them to assumptions about or limitations to their prior knowledge, resulting in mental conflicts (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017; Thompson et al., 2018). For example, Lai and Ho (2020) found that participants in a sharing program developed greater self-awareness of recycling when reevaluating their own practices, such as realizing that their previous perception of plastics as simply plastics was naive and simple.

Self-regulation can be extensive and may cover all domains of consumption beliefs and behaviors, including continuously evaluating past performance, monitoring strategies in decision-making, forming attitudes, and enforcing behavioral change (Hirschman, 1992). Self-regulation is an inseparable component of consumer reflexivity because it transfers self-awareness into psychological and behavioral adaptation (Schippers et al., 2003), which differs from simple reflection. Self-regulation formulates motives, dictates self-efficacy, and controls anxious states (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008); it helps consumers realize how their consumption desires and behaviors might be driven by their biased individualist or social values in the marketplace. Therefore, self-regulation works with self-awareness to enable consumers to reflexively modulate their thought, affect, behavior, or attention across various consumption situations (Karoly, 1993). In addition, self-regulation is crucial to the development and maintenance of a coherent and reflexive self-identity and manifests among participants in the sharing economy. For example, Lai and Ho (2020) show that consumers deliberately attempt to refrain from repeating their previous consumption behaviors (e.g., purchasing items with excessive packaging) after joining a sharing economy project. Indeed, continuous engagement in sharing practices requires consumers to self-regulate and forgo the short-term pleasure of exclusive ownership in the interest of other benefits or long-term sharing goals (Eckhardt et al., 2019).

Identity construction involves finding the authentic self and achieving fulfillment by creating a personal belief and value system that guides lifestyles and behaviors and facilitates the development of an integrated and dynamic understanding of one’s experiences (Giddens, 1991; Mezirow, 2000). Identity construction is the most distinctive and essential component of consumer reflexivity, which is primarily directed at transforming consumers’ experiences into a coherent narrative of personal identity and managing contradictions that might threaten the integrity or authenticity of the self (Thompson et al., 2018). Whereas self-awareness and self-regulation are internalized mechanisms facilitating reflection, identity construction taps into the purpose of reflection (Grant et al., 2002)—that is, anchoring oneself in transitions from old to new consumption practices or integrating selected aspects of the old self into a new identity (Barnett, 1997). Therefore, identity construction is a component of consumer reflexivity that drives attitudinal and behavioral changes, facilitating consumers’ continuous engagement in new practices over extended periods (Akaka & Schau, 2019).

Effect of the perceived benefits of sharing practices on consumer reflexivity

In general, reflexivity increases when people have greater accessibility to the diversification of new options and lifestyles, which also increases their uncertainties and doubts in late modernity³ (Giddens, 1991). Prior studies suggest that consumer reflexivity is triggered by discontinuities in lifestyle and consumption routines when consumers experience disruption in their naturalized ideologies (e.g., subcultural consumption resisting social stress, stigmatization, or market determination; Firat & Venkatesh, 1995), lifestyle displacement or loss of performative capacities (e.g., life after divorce; Thompson et al., 2018), and threats to ontological security (e.g., crisis events, such as breast cancer diagnosis; Pavia & Mason, 2004; Phipps & Ozanne, 2017). Therefore, consumers’ regular and daily routines are unlikely to trigger reflexivity because “reflection is not only unnecessary but may even be unwelcomed given the widely accepted and efficient practical understandings” (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017, p. 368). From a sociological perspective, Giddens (1991) argues that reflexivity manifests at the individual level when people have greater accessibility to new and diverse options and lifestyles that increase their uncertainties and doubts in late modernity. Sociologists also suggest that reflexivity increases when individuals recognize their position within the broader socio-organizational context, the influential forces and processes, and their alternative options and power of change (Sol et al., 2018). Akaka and Schau (2019) further observe that reflexivity in the consumption journeys requires the recognition of the dynamic and complex consumption environment, awareness of alternative options distinctive from the daily routines, and the commitment to specific practices and social connections (e.g., subcultures of consumption) that depart from the mainstream or past consumption activities.

Following these arguments, we propose that the sharing economy triggers consumer reflexivity for four major reasons. First, participation in the sharing economy helps consumers both recognize and pursue alternative lifestyles with reduced centrality of materialistic ownership and possession, which shifts their consumption focus to flexible, adaptable, and detached consumption experiences (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017). Second, uncertainty, conflicts, and doubts might occur when consumers participate in sharing practices and compare them with traditional purchase options. These conflicts might be further complicated or amplified by the possible gap between consumers’ expected (based on their prior knowledge) and perceived (based on their actual experience) benefits of the sharing economy. Third, research suggests that participation in the sharing economy creates tension between traditional marketplaces, which impose the essential meaning of consumption through product ownership, and consumers, who desire freedom of choice in their consumption experiences instead of owning products (Belk, 2014). Fourth, the sharing economy offers new mechanisms by which interconnected consumers, consumer providers, and communities can collaborate and create new consumption values in ways previously unavailable to the participating parties (Reynolds-Pearson & Hyman, 2020) and also disrupts conventional provision of services (Acquier et al., 2017). Therefore, sharing practices bring transformations that can “shape and transform what consumers value, how they consume, the nature of marketplace artifacts and institutions, and consumer identity” (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017, p. 583).

Moreover, the sharing economy may both reconcile and increase conflicts within consumers’ changing lifestyles. Consumers can reduce their excessive consumption but also satisfy their consumption desires, which are amplified by aggressive marketing promotions that define a good life by having possessions (Niezgoda & Kowalska, 2020). For example, research indicates that the sharing economy nurtures a new materialism culture that evolves from a mere static vision provided by the ownership of goods to a hybrid model seeking accumulation of experiences for the enjoyment of material goods with intangible assets, such as social relations, environment improvement, and social justice (del Mar Alonso-Almeida et al., 2020). del Mar Alonso-Almeida et al. (2020, p. 3) also suggest that consumers’ new materialism with social awareness “has an emotional component that depends on the good, the moment, the place, the intensity, and other elements that convert each of them into a meaningful experience for the person.” These tensions have become more vital and globally represented from the rapid growth of the sharing economy worldwide. Indeed, many sharing schemes highlight the unique promises of economic utility (i.e., flexibility and mobility), social value (i.e., bonding with other like-minded participants), and sustainability potential (i.e., saving natural resources and being sustainable) compared with traditional marketplaces. The greater the differences consumers perceive between sharing practices and traditional ownership-based consumption, the more they might self-question and critically reflect on their previous consumption behaviors and experiences, triggering deeper levels of reorganization and restructuring in their beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors. Thus, we propose that consumers’ experiences with and resulting perceptions of the benefits of sharing practices determine their level of consumer reflexivity.

First, the perceived economic utility of sharing practices includes monetary gains and cost savings, which is a salient motivator driving people to participate in the sharing economy (e.g., Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015; Milanova & Maas, 2017). These benefits break through the limitations of traditional centralized economic institutions by offering decentralized sharing schemes and granting temporal, broader, and cheaper accessibility to underused assets in a loosely connected but large network (Acquier et al., 2017). These unique on-demand economic advantages liberate consumers from the burden of ownership, which constrains what and how they consume (Belk, 2014). Sharing practices are economically affordable, which enables consumers to immediately access a greater variety of products and services, in addition to their fluid pursuit of various lifestyle choices (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017). These distinguishable economic utilities help consumers not only rationalize their choices but also realize the advantages of flexibility, mobility, and storage, which traditional ownership concepts cannot fulfill (Lamberton & Rose, 2012). Therefore, the higher the economic utility consumers perceive in sharing practices, the sharper the contrast to conventional consumption. Consumers may question the centrality of possessions and traditional marketplace behavior, which triggers consumer reflexivity through the activation of their “reflexive self” via awareness, regulation, and identity construction. Therefore, we propose a positive association between the perceived economic utility of sharing practices and consumer reflexivity.

The social value of sharing practices refers to the related subjective norms and social approval (Roos & Hahn, 2017), in addition to the communal sense of belonging (Philip et al., 2015), another important social value compared with traditional rental programs (Davidson et al., 2018). These benefits highlight the meaningful collaboration, social bonding, and shared consumption experiences among participants in sharing practices beyond the commoditized transactional relationship between sellers (firms) and buyers (customers), which is strictly defined and controlled in traditional markets and economic hierarchies (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017). Although the relationships in most sharing schemes, including C2C sharing (e.g., Uber and Airbnb), are defined by economic interests, consumers nonetheless appreciate the linking value of the products that help them connect with others. These relationships include the social approval consumers and suppliers receive by participating in the sharing economy, particularly in C2C sharing schemes. Research suggests that sharing practices create a shift from simpler person–thing bonds to more complex person–thing–person relationships in which the desire for and value derived from the interpersonal connection complement the consumption value of product ownership (Sundararajan, 2019). Therefore, the sharing economy promotes a new hybrid exchange relationship that intertwines market and commercial logic with social interests (Scaraboto, 2015), which has the potential for social transformation (Lai & Ho, 2020). Acquier et al. (2017) note that the sharing economy involves a post-market, post-bureaucratic, and ideological dimension of initiatives that help realize strong emancipatory ideals for consumers. Therefore, sharing practices provide distinct social values, as reflected by the symbolic consideration of relationship building and the sense of being “the right thing to do” in social transformation (Lai & Ho, 2020), creating another salient contrast to the traditional transaction-based relationship. Therefore, we propose that perceived social benefits trigger consumers’ reflection by increasing their awareness of and identification with sharing practices.

Perceived sustainability potential tends to be the most critical and unique contribution of sharing, and it connects those who are aspired with conserve resources (Tussyadiah, 2016). Sustainability reflects an innovative way of consumption that optimizes the use of resources and grants people temporary access to products and services without increasing production or waste. The sharing of underused resources is a means of addressing hyper-consumption and environmental problems (Lai & Ho, 2020). Research has criticized current economic business models for their negative effects on consumerism and excessive use of resources, which lead to current and future environmental problems (Barnes & Mattsson, 2017). By contrast, sharing practices promote a more flexible, mobile, and adaptable lifestyle requiring fewer material possessions (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017). Thus, sustainability potential is the core promise of the sharing economy, which departs from traditional business models (e.g., Hamari et al., 2016; Tussyadiah, 2016). The sharing economy encourages socially responsible and environmentally friendly consumption of resources (Acquier et al., 2017); therefore, sustainability is likely to give consumers new knowledge and self-awareness. Consumers may question their current consumption patterns and, in response, attempt to reduce their environmental pollution and refrain from consumption waste, in addition to identifying with their new role in the marketplace (Barnes & Mattsson, 2017). A recent study on consumers who participated in a sharing project on recycling proves their increased self-awareness, self-regulation, and identification with sustainable consumption (Lai & Ho, 2020). Therefore, we propose that the higher the perceived sustainability potential of sharing schemes, the higher the level of consumer reflexivity. Thus:

H1

The perceived (a) economic utility, (b) social value, and (c) sustainability potential of a sharing scheme (vs. traditional ownership-based consumption) has a positive effect on consumer reflexivity.

Effect of consumer reflexivity on consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices

Consumer reflexivity describes a state of critical self-exploration. Specifically, self-awareness, self-regulation, and identity construction of consumer reflexivity can have a substantial role in guiding consumers’ attitudes and behavioral changes (McPherson, 2005). Researchers suggest that reflexivity is an important mechanism accounting for purposeful engagement in a new practice by constructing new values, norms, and self-identities (e.g., Archer, 2010; Giddens, 1991). Specifically, reflexivity enables consumers to adopt new social roles and positions, in addition to developing meaningful relationships and values in their consumption journey (Akaka & Schau, 2019). In addition, Akaka and Schau (2019, p. 501) argue that “reflexivity incites the continuation of value creation through the repeated and progressive (i.e., movement from one state to another) engagement of a practice.” According to our conceptualization, consumers with higher reflexivity tend to be more self-aware of their current consumption experience, more self-regulated in their future consumption choices, and more dedicated to identity construction by changing their consumption behaviors. Indeed, Lai and Ho (2020) show that reflexivity on personal consumption behaviors is essential for both individual and structural changes in sharing practices. With reflexivity, consumers may be able to balance their materialistic consumption needs and the construction of their reflexive and emancipatory “ideal self” (Thompson et al., 2018), which further reconstructs their consumption habits and behaviors during sharing practices (Lai & Ho, 2020). Similarly, we argue that consumers’ reflections lead to a better understanding of their ownership-based consumption experiences and the incorporation of the sharing goals into their consumption values, norms, and self-identity. These changes may in turn increase their likelihood of engaging in sharing practices that are coherent with their restructured identity. We find initial support for this proposed relationship from the findings of Roos and Hahn’s (2017) longitudinal surveys: participation in shared consumption leads to subsequent changes as consumers develop favorable attitudes toward and subjective and personal norms with shared consumption, which facilitates the sustainability of the sharing economy over time. Therefore, we consider sharing practices a disruptive mode of consumption that becomes more appealing after consumers evaluate and reflect on their distinctive economic, social, and sustainability benefits compared with traditional consumption. Consumers who experience reflexivity in their consumption patterns might prefer more flexible, detached sharing options because these alleviate the constraints of materialist possessions (e.g., the burden of possessing and maintaining fixed assets), as sharing practices offer more opportunities to redefine and explore their own lifestyles. Thus:

H2

Consumer reflexivity has a positive effect on consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices.

Mediating effect of consumer reflexivity

In the previous sections, we theorized how perceived economic utility, social value, and sustainability potential of the sharing economy may trigger consumer reflexivity and, in turn, how consumer reflexivity leads to consumers’ future sharing intentions. For consumers who consume underutilized and shared resources, we propose that consumer reflexivity plays a significant mediating role in connecting the perceived benefits of sharing practices with their intentions to re-engage in sharing practices. Research notes that consumers’ self-reflection helps attenuate the psychological and functional barriers to re-engaging in sharing practices (Hazée et al., 2017). Being reflexive allows consumers to perceive a greater sense of bonding, relevance, and identification with the unique benefits provided by distinctive consumption alternatives, reducing the psychological barriers to adopting sharing practices (Fritze et al., 2020). Hazée et al. (2017, p. 10) find that consumers are more likely to “voluntarily remember specific advantages associated with the service by undertaking rational thinking” when they compare older consumption options with newer alternatives. This process may also rationalize and legitimize the selection of access-based and dematerialized sharing options while modifying consumers’ predispositions or desires (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017). From our initial exploration and evidence, we propose that internalizing the economic, social, and sustainability promises of sharing practices into their own value systems and reflexive self-journeys is crucial for consumers. Given the positive associations between the perceived benefits of sharing practices and consumer reflexivity and between consumer reflexivity and future intentions to re-engage in sharing practices, we propose the following:

H3

Consumer reflexivity mediates the positive effect of perceived (a) economic utility, (b) social value, and (c) sustainability potential on consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices.

Moderating effect of B2C sharing experiences

Assets in the sharing economy can be either predominantly provided and owned by a company (i.e., B2C sharing), as illustrated by car-sharing through DriveNow or Car2Go, or predominantly provided and owned by individual consumers (i.e., C2C sharing), as illustrated by car-sharing through Turo, Lyft, or Uber and accommodation sharing through Airbnb. For example, Möhlmann (2015) finds that consumers consider different benefits when evaluating their satisfaction with B2C or C2C sharing schemes and deciding whether to choose these options again. Therefore, we must consider the types of sharing practices consumers use when evaluating the effects of their perceived benefits on consumer reflexivity (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Parente et al., 2018). Specifically, C2C sharing schemes enable service providers to act as microentrepreneurs by connecting them with users through mediating online platforms (Kumar et al., 2018). Recent research shows that consumers tend to adopt an empathy lens and have a favorable evaluation of their consumption experiences (e.g., more personal and communal) in the sharing process when the sharing scheme emphasizes providers as peers (Costello & Reczek, 2020); this leads consumers to perceive greater meaning in their commitment to new consumption options (e.g., they perceive their consumption as helping their peers) (Costello & Reczek, 2020). This triadic, platform-based constellation of C2C sharing differs from B2C sharing because it allows users to share privately owned objects with other consumers, which may affect the users’ perceptions of the value of sharing practices. Social value is often expected to be salient in C2C sharing schemes such as Airbnb, because consumers experience the hospitality of strangers and a sense of belonging to a community (Yang et al., 2017). By contrast, B2C sharing schemes involve companies that act as both providers and facilitators. In many cases, firms employ a salient organizational structure, profit-maximization-oriented business models, or strategic business planning in terms of pricing, product development, and distribution in B2C sharing schemes, which may evoke similarities to traditional rental businesses or services. Eckhardt et al. (2019) show that B2C sharing (e.g., Zipcar) has more in common with traditional rental businesses (e.g., rental cars). Therefore, traditional beliefs and practices are more applicable, while C2C sharing (e.g., BlaBlaCar) requires a major revision of marketing theories (see Table 2 in Eckhardt et al., 2019). Indeed, B2C sharing schemes are more likely to trigger consumers’ adoption of an exchange lens in which the exchange of money for goods/services from firms is the primary focus of the transaction (Costello & Reczek, 2020). Therefore, B2C sharing schemes are perceived as being more commercial and similar to traditional rental markets. These experiences might discount the perceived disruption of socioeconomic benefits from sharing practices and result in less self-reflection than when users have only C2C experiences. However, B2C sharing experiences may strengthen the effect of the perceived potential sustainability in sharing practices on consumer reflexivity. In addition, B2C sharing schemes may sometimes be perceived as identical to traditional rental markets because most B2C sharing schemes may engage in sharewashing, which involves purposely portraying an image of social and ecological principles even if the platform’s business model does not account for them (Hawlitschek et al., 2018; Price & Belk, 2016), to differentiate themselves from ownership-based companies. This includes highlighting their contributions to sustainability endeavors and the environment. For example, compared with traditional rental markets, B2C sharing schemes may prioritize the durability, recyclability, and codesign of their products (e.g., using hybrid or electric cars in car-sharing schemes) (Demailly & Novel, 2014). Compared with C2C sharing schemes, B2C sharing schemes have greater capability to exert an upstream influence on goods design and production and a downstream influence on recycling (Demailly & Novel, 2014). Therefore, consumers with B2C sharing experiences may attribute more importance to sustainability potential in their sharing experiences, which results in higher levels of consumer reflexivity. Thus:

Table 2 Online survey: Means, standard deviations, and correlations

H4

Consumers’ additional B2C sharing experiences weaken the positive mediating impact of consumer reflexivity on the effects of perceived (a) economic utility and (b) social benefits on their intentions to re-engage in sharing practices. However, their experiences strengthen the mediating impact of consumer reflexivity on the perceived (c) sustainability benefits of sharing practices.

Methods

Overview of studies

Our empirical investigation comprises both surveys and experimental research. First, we developed and established a multidimensional measure of consumer reflexivity using an online survey as a prestudy. Second, we conducted another online survey (Study 1) among users of different sharing schemes to capture the existence and impact of consumer reflexivity on consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices as well as the relevant boundary conditions of this effect. Third, we employed experimental research (Study 2) to establish the causality and validity of the proposed relationships. Specifically, we first developed primes to suppress or boost participants’ levels of consumer reflexivity in Pretests 1a and 1b. We then developed the manipulations for the perceived benefits of sharing practices in Pretest 2. Next, we conducted a between-subjects experiment by randomly assigning participants to different priming tasks on consumer reflexivity, after which we manipulated different perceived benefits of sharing practices to examine the causality of the main effects and the mediating effects proposed in our model. Table 2 provides an overview of the studies.

Measurement development of consumer reflexivity

Although scholars have discussed the concept of reflexivity across different domains, including sociology (e.g., Giddens, 1991), education (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998), psychotherapy (Katz et al., 2017), management (Schippers et al., 2003, 2007), and consumer research (Akaka & Schau, 2019; Thompson et al., 2018), their empirical examination of reflexivity is limited and context-specific.⁴ Moreover, current scales of reflexivity or reflection are unable to accurately capture consumer reflexivity in the sharing economy context. Therefore, new ways to delineate, measure, and quantify the major dimensions, processes, and effects of consumer reflexivity in an increasingly salient consumption trend are required to enrich understanding of both the nature of the sharing economy and consumer reflexivity.

We conceptualized and measured consumer reflexivity by combining items adapted from different scales, focusing on multiple dimensions of reflexivity in the literature. Following this procedure, we generated an initial pool of 20 items capturing self-awareness (six items adapted from Grant et al., 2002), self-regulation (eight items adapted from Schippers et al., 2003), and identity construction (six items developed from the related discussions of Barnett (1997), Glaser & Brunstein (2007), and Giddens (1991)). We completed a pilot test by interviewing 30 students with past experiences with sharing schemes and asked them to indicate their reflections and considerations regarding their sharing practices. After that, we invited the students to evaluate the 20 items in the initial measure of consumer reflexivity. Next, we held extensive discussions with doctoral students and researchers in the consumer and sharing research field, which helped us refine the 20 items (reported in Appendix Table 11) to ensure the accuracy and adequacy of the measure of consumer reflexivity in sharing practices.

For the quantitative prestudy, we recruited 203 consumers in the United States who participated in sharing practices within one year before our study using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We paid US$1 to each consumer for completing our survey. The average age of the sample was 37 years, and 57.1% consumers were male. In addition, 45.3% declared a yearly household income of less than US$50,000, and 83% had completed college or higher.

We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm our suggested three dimensions: self-awareness, self-regulation, and identity construction. We dropped nine of the initial 20 items because of low factor loadings and cross-loadings with different factors in EFA and CFA; therefore, we had 11 items. Sample items for self-awareness, self-regulation, and identity construction include “I compare the way I consumed in the past and the way I prefer to consume now after participating in sharing program,” “I think I can simplify my life by using the sharing programs instead of shopping around,” and “I express myself through what I borrowed/rented from the sharing programs,” respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for self-awareness, self-regulation, identity construction, and consumer reflexivity (second-order factor) measured by the three first-order factors was 0.88, 0.83, 0.85, and 0.80, respectively. We then conducted CFA on the remaining 11 items to examine the factor structure. We compared a one-factor model (χ²₍₄₄₎ = 402, p < 0.01; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.74; goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = 0.68; incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.74; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.20) with a three-factor model with a higher-order factor (χ²₍₄₁₎ = 91, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.96; GFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.08). The three-factor model showed a better fit, so we opted for the higher-order factor model.

To test the convergent and discriminant validity of our measure of consumer reflexivity, we conducted CFA to evaluate a measurement model including consumer reflexivity and three relevant personal traits in the psychology literature: private self-consciousness (Scheier & Carver, 2013), a new measure of private self-consciousness focusing on reflection engagement and need (Grant et al., 2002), and reflection in the Rumination-Reflection scale (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999). The model showed a satisfactory fit (χ²₍₄₂₅₎ = 801, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.90; GFI = 0.80; IFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.07). Both the subdimensions and the high-order factor of consumer reflexivity demonstrated good convergent validity with composite reliabilities (CRs) ranging from 0.86 to 0.87. Their average variance extracted (AVEs) values ranged from 0.64 to 0.69. The correlations between the high-order factor of consumer reflexivity with the three relevant personal traits ranged from 0.40 to 0.49. Therefore, our results met the requirement of sufficient discriminant validity in which the AVE values should exceed the squared correlation with other measures. Overall, our results confirm the convergent and discriminant validity of consumer reflexivity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and distinguish it from relevant personal traits in the literature.

Study 1: Survey on sharing and consumer reflexivity

Sample and procedure

In this exploratory study, we focused on real-life US consumers with sharing experiences to test whether their evaluation of the potential benefits of sharing is positively associated with their level of reflexivity and whether consumer reflexivity mediates the relationship between perceived benefits and intentions to re-engage in sharing practices. Our sample included consumers who had accessed products or services provided by certain sharing schemes one year before our data collection. We recruited these consumers via Prolific and paid them US$1.08 for completing our survey. The survey provided clear definitions and examples of sharing schemes at the beginning to ensure that the respondents understood the focus of the study. We removed 50 respondents who misunderstood the concepts of sharing and/or had no sharing experience from the sample using two screening questions to (1) indicate the type of sharing scheme they participated in and (2) list the names of all sharing schemes in which they previously engaged. We also excluded 43 respondents who did not pass our attention check question. Because we focused on the consumer experience from the customer’s perspective rather than the supplier’s perspective in sharing schemes, we excluded an additional 28 respondents who indicated having only service provider experience in their B2C sharing. Our survey recorded 1000 complete answers, and we obtained a final sample of 879 valid responses.

Our sample included consumers from the United States, and 52.45% were female. The respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 79 years, with an average age of 32.02 years. In addition, 62.23% had obtained a college degree or higher, 42.43% declared a personal monthly income of less than US$50,800, and 74.86% had part-time or full-time jobs. All respondents had past sharing experiences (e.g., Uber, Airbnb). After asking questions about their experiences (e.g., types of sharing schemes), we surveyed their perceptions of the economic utility, social value, and sustainability potential of the sharing schemes they named. Next, we asked questions about consumer reflexivity. Finally, we measured respondents’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices in the future.

Measurement scales

For the measures, we used a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”). Appendix Table 12 provides a summary of the measures.

Re-engagement intention

We adopted a four-item measure from Hamari et al. (2016) (α = 0.88) to test our main model. We also used a two-item measure for sharing propensity from Lamberton and Rose (2012) (α = 0.90) in our robustness check analysis.

Perceived sharing benefits

The measure of perceived economic utility came from the measures developed and validated by Lamberton and Rose (2012). We used a two-item measure to assess respondents’ perception of the key economic utility of sharing practices considering their storage advantages (α = 0.77). We adopted three items to measure social value from Lamberton and Rose (2012) (α = 0.83) and the five-item measure of Hamari et al. (2016) to capture respondents’ perceptions of the sustainability potential of sharing practices (α = 0.94).

Consumer reflexivity

We used our self-developed 11-item and three subdimensional measures of consumer reflexivity. Cronbach’s alphas for self-awareness, self-regulation, identity construction, and consumer reflexivity (second-order factor) measured by the three first-order factors were 0.90, 0.84, 0.88, and 0.72, respectively.

B2C sharing experience

While all respondents indicated some experience with C2C sharing schemes, we asked whether they also had B2C sharing experiences using a categorical variable (0 = no B2C sharing experience, 1 = B2C sharing experience).

Control variables

We controlled for the confounding influence of demographic features, such as age, gender, education, and household monthly income, as these might affect both consumer reflexivity and future sharing intentions in the sharing economy (Lawson et al., 2016). To test the relationships between the sharing economy benefits and re-engagement intention, we employed a structural equation modeling approach using AMOS 26.

Measurement model

We first conducted EFA to confirm that the items for each measure loaded on their corresponding factor and then conducted CFA to establish the convergent and discriminant validity of these measures. The initial measurement model including all items suggested a good model fit. However, one of the three items of social value had a low factor loading (< 0.40), and the modification index reported in the initial AMOS results also showed strong error correlations with other errors. Therefore, we dropped that item and reran our measurement model. The modified model showed a satisfactory fit (χ²₍₂₃₉₎ = 1,008, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.95; GFI = 0.91; IFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.06). The CRs of the measures ranged from 0.78 to. 95, and their AVE values ranged from 0.65 to 0.84. Our results met the requirement of sufficient discriminant validity that the AVE values should exceed the squared correlation with other measures. Overall, these findings prove the convergent and discriminant validity of each scale (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 3 summarizes the key statistics for all surveyed variables of our study.

Table 3 Online survey: Means, standard deviations, and correlations

We conducted three tests to address potential common method bias. First, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). EFA with all our study variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003) produced a seven-factor solution, accounting for 79.73% of the total variance. The first factor explained 15.83% of the variance. No single factor accounted for the majority of the variance, providing initial evidence that common method bias was not a major concern. To assess the validity and distinctiveness of our key measures, we conducted CFA (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The corresponding structure showed an acceptable fit (χ²₍₂₃₉₎ = 1,008, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.95; GFI = 0.91; IFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.06). The results of a one-factor model were significantly less suitable (χ²₍₂₅₂₎ = 8,315, CFI = 0.46, GFI = 0.46, RMSEA = 0.19; difference in χ²₍₂₂₎ = 7,306, p < 0.01). Second, we added a common latent factor to the original CFA model (Podsakoff et al., 2003), which was not correlated with other latent variables, and fixed the equal factor loading for all measurement items from the common factor. We obtained an equal factor loading of 0.618, indicating that the common factor explained 38.19% of the variance, which was below the recommended level. Third, we employed the marker variable approach as a further stringent common method bias examination (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Using a four-item scale, we identified materialism as a valid marker variable. Some causes of common method variance (e.g., common scale format, common anchors, leniency bias) could have arisen when the respondents rated the measurement items for the key constructs in the model as well as the materialism items during the survey. The correlations between materialism and the other constructs in our model were weak, with an absolute correlation value less than 0.06. The only exception was the correlation coefficient of 0.21 with self-identity. We added the marker variable to the original CFA model, which was not correlated with other latent variables, and fixed the equal factor loading for all measurement items from this marker variable. From the equal factor loading value (0.029), we found that the explained common variance further decreased to only 0.09%, which was significantly below the recommended level. These results further suggest that common method variance was not a significant problem in our study.

Structural model

To test our hypotheses on the mediation system, we developed a structural model using three key independent variables: economic utility, social value, and sustainability potential. The mediator variable was consumer reflexivity, the dependent variable was re-engagement intention, and the control variables were age, gender, education, and income. In another model, we also included the moderating effect of B2C sharing experience, which we operationalized by adding the interaction terms between B2C sharing experience and the three independent variables in predicting consumer reflexivity (Fig. 1).

Table 4 reports the results of the regression weights in the path model in addition to the estimates of the mediating and moderating effects. We found good model fit for the mediation model (left-hand side) (χ²₍₃₅₂₎ = 1,523, p < 0.01, χ²/df = 4.33; CFI = 0.92; IFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.06). The results showed significant and positive effects of economic utility (β = 0.138, p < 0.01), social value (β = 0.133, p < 0.01), and sustainability potential (β = 0.517, p < 0.01) on consumer reflexivity (the mediator), in support of H1a, H1b, and H1c, respectively. We also found a positive effect of consumer reflexivity (β = 0.243, p < 0.01) on re-engagement intention, in support of H2. Bootstrapping estimates for the indirect effect confirmed consumer reflexivity as a mediator for the impacts of economic utility (β = 0.033, p = 0.02), social value (β = 0.032, p = 0.03), and sustainability potential (β = 0.125, p < 0.01) on re-engagement intention, confirming H3a, H3b, and H3c, respectively. Moreover, the results indicated partial mediation through consumer reflexivity. From the reported total, direct, and indirect effects of the three sharing benefits on re-engagement intention, we found that the indirect effects were significant rather than weak or negligible, with the comparison between indirect and direct effects being 0.033 vs. 0.111 for economic utility, 0.032 vs. 0.227 for social value, and 0.125 vs. 0.200 for sustainability potential.

Table 4 Estimates of online survey in Study 1

We also obtained an acceptable model fit for the moderated mediation model (right-hand side of Table 4; χ²₍₄₃₉₎ = 2,051, χ²/df = 4.67; CFI = 0.90; IFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.07). The results showed the effects of the interplay between B2C sharing experience and economic utility (β =  − 0.208, p < 0.01), social value (β =  − 0.066, p = 0.34), and sustainability potential (β = 0.190, p < 0.01) on consumer reflexivity (the mediator). Accordingly, the estimated moderated mediation effects showed that the moderation of B2C sharing experience was significant for two of the three mediation effects for consumer reflexivity in terms of their impact on re-engagement intention (H4a: economic utility: β =  − 0.050, p = 0.09; H4b: social value: β =  − 0.016, p = 0.54; H4c: sustainability potential: β = 0.046, p = 0.04). Therefore, H4 was partially supported.

Robustness checks and additional analyses

We conducted several additional statistical analyses to validate and extend our findings. First, we adopted Hayes’s (2013) approach to validate the revealed mediation and moderated mediation mechanisms. As the results in Table 5 show, consumer reflexivity significantly mediated the effects of economic utility (indirect effect = 0.045, p < 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.019, 0.073]), social value (indirect effect = 0.032, p = 0.02, 95% CI [0.006, 0.058]), and sustainability potential (indirect effect = 0.174, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.142, 0.210]) on re-engagement intention. The moderated mediation index showed that B2C sharing experience moderated consumer reflexivity as a mediator of the effects of economic utility (index =  − 0.050, p = 0.06, 95% CI [− 0.104, 0.001]) and sustainability potential (index = 0.037, p = 0.08, 95% CI [− 0.003, 0.082]), but not social value (index =  − 0.016, p = 0.55, 95% CI [− 0.068, 0.035]), on re-engagement intention. Overall, the results were consistent with our model estimated with structural equation modeling.

Table 5 Robustness check: Estimation with Hayes’s mediation/moderated mediation test

Second, although our results of various tests showed that common method bias was not a major concern in our measurement model, we performed additional analyses to control for common method variance and check the robustness of our findings. We used two approaches of the partial correlation method recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). On the one hand, we conducted a marker variable approach (Table 6, panel A). We again identified materialism using a four-item scale adapted from Richins (2004) as a valid marker variable. On the other hand, rather than using the marker variable as a proxy for the method variance factor, we adopted the unmeasured latent method factor approach by including and partialling out the effects of an unmeasured general method factor (panel B). For each method, we tried two model specifications by allowing the factor loadings of the latent method factor/marker variable on the measurement items of all other constructs to be both equal and unequal. All models produced comparable results for the structural relationships to those from our proposed model. Thus, our findings were robust after we controlled for potential common method bias.

Table 6 Robustness check: Common method bias control

Third, as a robustness check, we reran our model using sharing propensity as an alternative measure of the dependent variable. As Table 7 shows, the results were largely consistent with our previous results.

Table 7 Robustness check: Alternative dependent variable of future sharing propensity

Fourth, to enrich our understanding of the mediating role of consumer reflexivity, we ran our proposed model with each subdimension: self-awareness, self-regulation, and identity construction. Table 8 reports the results. Using the moderated mediation model in the right column, we found consistent support for the significant mediation of the subdimensions of consumer reflexivity for the effects of all three sharing benefits on re-engagement intention, with the only exception being the nonsignificant mediating effect of identity construction on the impact of economic utility and social value on re-engagement intention. For moderated mediation, B2C sharing experience weakened the mediating effect of self-regulation on the impact of economic utility on re-engagement intention; it also weakened the mediating effect of identity construction on the impact of social value on re-engagement intention. In addition, B2C sharing experience strengthened the mediating effects of self-awareness and identity construction on the impact of sustainability potential on re-engagement intention. Overall, the results for each subdimension of consumer reflexivity not only provided consistent support for the findings from our proposed model but also revealed the specific mediating roles of each subdimension of consumer reflexivity and the complex moderating effect of B2C sharing experience.

Table 8 Additional analyses: Subdimensions of consumer reflexivity

Fifth, we conducted additional analyses to rule out alternative mediating effects of other personal traits, such as materialism, which prior studies have established as an important predictor of inhibiting sharing intentions (Akbar et al., 2016; Davidson et al., 2018), in addition to private self-consciousness in relation to consumer reflexivity. We adopted a four-item measure of materialism from Richins (2004) (α = 0.78) and a 12-item measure of private self-consciousness with a focus on engagement and the need for self-reflection from Grant et al. (2002) (α = 0.95). The results, which we summarize in Table 9, showed no mediation of materialism for the main effects of the three sharing benefits on re-engagement intention. This result ruled out the possibility of materialism as a mediator in predicting future commitment. In addition, we proved that private self-consciousness only mediated the effect of economic utility on re-engagement intention, but both paths (i.e., from economic utility to private self-consciousness and from private self-consciousness to re-engagement intention) were negative, which was opposite to our hypotheses. These results showed that consumer reflexivity was a distinct construct from the simple self-reflection triggered by private self-consciousness in the sharing context. Overall, these findings further validated the unique role of consumer reflexivity in mediating the effects of the perceived benefits of sharing on intentions to re-engage in it.

Table 9 Additional analyses: Alternative mediators

Study 2: Experiment to validate causality and mediating mechanism

The findings from Study 1 revealed the positive associations of the key constructs proposed in our model. We next conducted an experiment to establish the causality of the proposed relationships and validate the mediating effect of consumer reflexivity. To achieve this goal, we followed the concurrent randomization approach (Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016) used in the psychology and consumer literature to test the role of the mediator in an experimental setting. Specifically, we chose concurrent randomization experimental designs to manipulate both the mediator (by enhancing or suppressing it) and the independent variable simultaneously (Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016; Spencer et al., 2005).

Various pretests preceded our main experimental study. First, we developed a priming task to enhance or suppress consumer reflexivity, which we pretested with college students (Pretest 1a, n = 118) and then respondents of the general US population recruited from MTurk (Pretest 1b, n = 101). Second, we pretested our manipulations of perceived sharing benefits (Pretest 2, n = 444) with another group of respondents recruited from MTurk. After ensuring that all experimental stimuli were successful, we conducted our main experiment (n = 549) with another group of respondents recruited from MTurk. In this experiment, we first randomly assigned participants (n = 549) to one of two priming tasks to either suppress or enhance consumer reflexivity and then exposed them to one of six sharing benefit manipulations. We measured all other constructs similar to Study 1. This allowed us to examine the causal effects of both the independent variables and the mediator by priming consumer reflexivity (the mediator) and manipulating the independent variables (i.e., perceived sharing benefits). Overall, the results of Study 2 provided support for our proposed conceptual framework by showing that sharing benefits (i.e., economic utility, social value, and sustainability potential) triggered consumer reflexivity, which in turn mediated the effects of perceived sharing benefits on consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices in the future.

Priming consumer reflexivity

Priming the mediator in a proposed theoretical framework is a widely adopted method used in the consumer literature to test and validate mediating mechanisms (Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016; Spencer et al., 2005). Following this rationale, we randomly assigned participants to two groups and primed them to trigger high (i.e., enhancing) or low (i.e., suppressing) reflexivity levels. Following this procedure, we expected to find a positive effect of perceived benefits on participants’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices through reflexivity when we encouraged them to self-reflect on their consumption (i.e., primed with high reflexivity). By contrast, for the participants primed with a low level of reflexivity, we expected to find a weaker positive indirect effect of perceived benefits on their intentions to re-engage in sharing practices. Thus, if our theory was correct, consumer reflexivity would function as a significant mediator only in the high reflexivity prime condition.

Pretests 1a and 1b

Drawing from the literature on manipulating mediators (e.g., Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016; Spencer et al., 2005) and our operationalization of consumer reflexivity, we designed the materials featuring reading and writing tasks to prime the participants into high or low reflexivity beliefs. We randomly assigned the participants to the low reflexivity condition to read an article that described how too much self-reflection on consumption can have negative effects on individual happiness and listed six reasons people should refrain from using self-reflection in consumption. The article in the high reflexivity condition instead described that self-reflection on consumption could result in positive effects on individual happiness and listed seven reasons people should self-reflect on consumption. After exposure to these articles, the participants were then given a writing task. Those in the high reflexivity condition were asked to write about an important recent purchase and to elaborate on their awareness, thoughts, and feelings of how that purchase contributed to their happiness. Those in low reflexivity condition were asked to write about a recent purchase that made them feel happy. Next, participants answer questions about the level of consumer reflexivity using our 11-item measure of consumer reflexivity. We first conducted a pilot study (Pretest 1a) with a sample of 118 college students; the results of our data analysis established the validity and effectiveness of our priming task (M_Low = 4.25 vs. M_High = 4.61, p < 0.01; see Appendix Table 13). We then replicated this test with 101 US respondents recruited from MTurk, which further confirmed the validity of our priming tasks on consumer reflexivity (M_Low = 4.56 vs. M_High = 5.10, p < 0.01).

Pretest 2

Next, we conducted a pretest to validate our manipulations of the perceived benefits of sharing practices with 444 participants recruited from MTurk. All participants were asked to imagine a fictitious situation in which they had just moved for work to a suburban area of a new city with no access to frequent public transport. On the following page, they then learned that they had come across a bike-sharing scheme and were asked to imagine that they had tried the bike-sharing option to commute to work. We then randomly assigned the participants to one of six possible benefit manipulations featuring a 3 (benefit type: economic utility, social value, and sustainability potential) × 2 (benefit level: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental design. Next, we measured perceived benefits (see Appendix Table 15 for details). The results confirm the success of our developed stimuli in these six conditions: economic utility (M_Low = 3.90 vs. M_High = 5.34, p < 0.01), social value (M_Low = 3.94 vs. M_High = 5.58, p < 0.01), and sustainability potential (M_Low = 4.00 vs. M_High = 5.49, p < 0.01).

Experimental design of main experiment and model test

After confirming the effectiveness of our priming tasks and stimuli, we conducted an experiment with 549 participants recruited from MTurk to examine the effects of perceived benefits of sharing practices on consumer reflexivity subject to the priming effects.⁵ We administered a 2 (consumer reflexivity priming: enhanced vs. suppressed) × 3 (benefit type: economic utility, social value, and sustainability potential) × 2 (benefit level: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental design. Following the same procedures as in Pretests 1a and 1b, we first randomly assigned participants to a priming task to suppress or enhance their level of reflexivity. Then, similar to the procedures in Pretest 2, we randomly assigned participants to one of six conditions featuring the perceived benefits of sharing practices. Next, we asked questions about their level of consumer reflexivity and re-engagement intention by adopting the same measures for both as in Study 1. All items used a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”). If our manipulation of the mediating mechanism was successful, we would expect to find the main effects of the independent variables (i.e., the perceived benefits of sharing practices) on consumer reflexivity for the participants who were encouraged to reflect (high reflexivity prime) but not for those who were discouraged to reflect (low reflexivity prime). The resulting mean and analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistics showed that for the participants primed with high reflexivity, those who perceived higher sharing benefits had significantly higher consumer reflexivity than those who perceived a low level of sharing benefits in economic utility (difference = 0.54; F(1, 97) = 5.86, p = 0.02), social value (difference = 0.41; F(1, 80) = 4.74, p = 0.03), and sustainability potential (difference = 0.44; F(1, 86) = 3.75, p = 0.05). By contrast, we found that the same effects of perceived benefits on consumer reflexivity were not significant for the participants primed with low reflexivity. These results indicated that we successfully manipulated the mediator by priming the participants to become more (less) reflexive on evaluating the benefits of sharing when they were encouraged (discouraged) to reflect more on their consumption in the enhanced (suppressed) reflexivity condition in our experiments.

Results

We conducted a series of ANOVAs to investigate the causality of our proposed effects on the perceived benefits of sharing practices and the mediating role of consumer reflexivity in these scenarios. We first conducted a two-way ANOVA to test the interaction between consumer reflexivity and sharing benefits_. The results show no significant interactions between consumer reflexivity and economic utility (F(1, 187) = 1.50, p = 0.22), consumer reflexivity and social value (F(1, 176) = 2.26, p = 0.13), or consumer reflexivity and sustainability potential (F(1, 174) = 0.251.50, p = 0.62). We then proceeded to examine the main effects proposed in our model. Our results revealed significant main effects of perceived sharing benefits on consumer reflexivity for economic utility (M_{Low economic utility} = 4.48 vs. M_{High economic utility} = 4.78; F(1, 190) = 3.31, p = 0.07), social value (M_{Low social value} = 4.62 vs. M_{High social value} = 4.89; F(1, 179) = 3.25, p = 0.08), and sustainability potential (M_{Low sustainability potential} = 4.47 vs. M_{High sustainability potential} = 4.83; F(1, 177) = 4.23, p = 0.04), in support of H1a, H1b, and H1c, respectively. We also found significant main effects of perceived sharing benefits on re-engagement intention for economic utility (M_{Low economic utility} = 4.23 vs. M_{High economic utility} = 5.21; F(1, 190) = 22.12, p < 0.01), social value (M_{Low social value} = 4.51 vs. M_{High social value} = 5.10; F(1, 179) = 10.16, p < 0.01), and sustainability potential (M_{Low sustainability potential} = 4.24 vs. M_{High sustainability potential} = 5.30; F(1, 177) = 25.81, p < 0.01). In addition, we found significant main effects of consumer reflexivity on re-engagement intention (M_{Low reflexivity} = 4.58 vs. M_{High reflexivity} = 4.95; F(1, 548) = 9.38, p < 0.01), in support of H2. Overall, these results were consistent with those from Study 1 and confirmed the causality of our proposed effects of the independent variables (perceived sharing benefits) on the mediator (i.e., consumer reflexivity) and of the causal effects of both the independent variables and mediator on re-engagement intention.

According to Pirlott and MacKinnon (2016), if the manipulations in a concurrent randomization design are successful and the mediation is significant, the effects of the independent variables on the dependent variables through the mediator should be greater with the enhancement of the mediator than with the suppression of the mediator. Thus, we expected the mean difference in re-engagement intention between perceived high and low benefits to be greater in the enhanced (high) than in the suppressed (low) consumer reflexivity priming condition. We report the results in Table 10. Consistent with our expectations, the mean difference in reengagement intention for the groups receiving our manipulation of high versus low sharing benefits on economic utility was statistically larger (F(1, 187) = 3.90, p = 0.05) for the participants who received the enhanced reflexivity priming tasks (${{\text{Diff}} \, }_{\text{Economic utility}}^{\text{High reflexivity}}$ = 5.52 – 4.37 = 1.15, p < 0.01) than for those who received the suppressed reflexivity priming tasks (${{\text{Diff}} \, }_{\text{Economic utility}}^{{\text{Low}}\text{ reflexivity}}$ = 4.91 – 4.07 = 0.84, p < 0.01). We found similar patterns when comparing the groups that received a high versus low social value manipulation. That is, the differences in re-engagement intention were statistically larger (F(1, 176) = 5.02, p = 0.03) for the participants who received the enhanced reflexivity priming tasks (${{\text{Diff}} \, }_{\text{Social value}}^{{\text{High}}\text{ reflexivity}}$= 5.44 – 4.54 = 0.90) than for those who received the suppressed reflexivity priming tasks (${{\text{Diff}} \, }_{\text{Social value}}^{{\text{Low}}\text{ reflexivity}}$= 4.83 – 4.48 = 0.35). The mean difference in re-engagement intention for the high versus low sustainability potential conditions was also (marginally) statistically larger (F(1, 174) = 3.31, p = 0.07) for the participants who received the enhanced reflexivity priming tasks (${{\text{Diff}} \, }_{\text{Sustainability potential}}^{{\text{High}}\text{ reflexivity}}$ = 5.54 – 4.37 = 1.17) than for those who received the suppressed reflexivity priming tasks (${{\text{Diff}} \, }_{\text{Sustainability potential}}^{{\text{Low}}\text{ reflexivity}}$ = 5.04 – 4.13 = 0.91). In addition, the mediating effect reflected in the mean differences in re-engagement intention between those who received high versus low sharing benefits manipulations should be largest when comparing the group that received both enhanced consumer reflexivity priming tasks and high sharing benefits manipulations (sharing benefit_high – consumer reflexivity_high) with the group that received both suppressed consumer reflexivity priming tasks and low sharing benefits (sharing benefit_low – consumer reflexivity_low) than any other pairwise group comparisons (Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016). The pattern of the results shown in Table 10 indicates that the expected strongest effects occurred as expected for economic utility (5.52 – 4.07 = 1.45), social value (5.44 – 4.48 = 0.96), and sustainability potential (5.54 – 4.13 = 1.41). Taken together, these results provided further evidence for the mediating role of consumer reflexivity, in support of H3.

Table 10 Mean of re-engagement intention in Study 2

Our experimental study confirmed the descriptive findings of the large-scale survey in Study 1. It also validated all hypothesized causal relationships (H1 and H2) and the mediating mechanism through consumer reflexivity (H3) in our study context.

General discussion

Across multiple studies, we quantitatively capture the disruptiveness of the sharing economy on the consumer level by demonstrating that the perceived consumer benefits of sharing practices significantly trigger consumer reflexivity, which in turn influences consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices. Our findings contribute to the theory related to the sharing economy and have several managerial implications.

Theoretical contributions

First, from a theoretical perspective, our research is the first to demonstrate the transformative impacts of the sharing economy at the individual consumer level, thus extending prior research with a primary focus on the disruptiveness of sharing practices from a macro perspective, including economic growth, society, and the environment (Akbar et al., 2016; Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Eckhardt et al., 2019; Frenken & Schor, 2017; Möhlmann, 2015; Zervas et al., 2017). Understanding the impact of sharing at the individual consumer level provides a first step toward understanding the process and value cocreation in sharing practices (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Reynolds-Pearson & Hyman, 2020). Moreover, we extend the literature on the prediction of general intentions to participate in sharing practices and re-engagement in sharing (Akhmedova et al., 2020; Hazée et al., 2017; Roos & Hahn, 2017, 2019). As an increasing number of consumers obtain more knowledge and experience in the sharing economy, our research offers timely insights into investigating the theoretical challenges associated with the sharing economy in building customer loyalty from a consumer perspective (Akhmedova et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2017).

Second, we answer the call of Eckhardt et al. (2019) to uncover the unique factors underlying consumers’ decision-making in sharing practices to capture their disruptive impact on consumers. We identify, theorize, and empirically demonstrate the crucial role of consumer reflexivity as a key understudied factor that can explain the disruptive impact of the sharing economy on consumers’ commitment to a new consumption practice in which products are accessed temporarily instead of owned permanently (Akhmedova et al., 2020; Eckhardt et al., 2019). The robust evidence from our studies shows that higher levels of consumer reflexivity reshape consumption preferences, identities, and commitment to re-engage in sharing practices (Lai & Ho, 2020). Our conceptualization and empirical evidence of consumer reflexivity in the sharing context show its critical role in creating ongoing attitudinal and behavioral changes (del Mar Alonso-Almeida et al., 2020; Lai & Ho, 2020; Styvén & Mariani, 2020).

Third, our findings address the conflicting results in the literature regarding the significance of economic, social, and environmental benefits in driving consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices (see Table 1). For example, some studies show that social values play an important role in driving consumers’ intentions to re-engage in sharing practices (Yang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). By contrast, other studies suggest that social motivations for sharing vanish in commercial sharing schemes, which they attribute to the strong similarity between commercial sharing schemes and traditional rental models (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Möhlmann, 2015; Tussyadiah, 2016). Another conflict centers on the importance of environmental values. Whereas Styvén and Mariani (2020) argue that the sustainability potential of sharing practices positively influences consumers’ choice to reuse a sharing practice, other scholars find no effect of the perceived environmental impact of sharing practices (Möhlmann, 2015) and even suggest that sharing practices reinforce unsustainable economic paradigms for less environmentally conscious people (Acquier et al., 2017). We shed light on these inconsistencies by demonstrating that the economic, social, and sustainability benefits of sharing practices can significantly motivate consumers to re-engage in sharing practices, if they reflexively evaluate, internalize, and identify these benefits. Moreover, these mediating effects are conditional on consumers’ past sharing experiences (i.e., whether they have B2C sharing experience). This finding offers an opportunity for future research to identify reasons consumers re-engage in sharing practices beyond the simple evaluation of related benefits.

Fourth, by conceptualizing and operationalizing the three subdimensions of consumer reflexivity (i.e., self-awareness, self-regulation, and identity construction), we answer the question: “How does consumer identity affect sharing experience?” (Eckhardt et al., 2019, p. 5). Fritze et al. (2020) show that identification with sharing practices can increase psychological ownership (i.e., the mental state of perceiving something as one’s own) through access-based services. Our research extends this emerging literature by demonstrating that consumers’ experiences can trigger reflexivity through which they increase their identification with the consumption practice of sharing itself, rather than the products accessed through sharing practices. Specifically, we find that self-awareness and self-regulation significantly mediate the impact of all perceived sharing benefits on re-engagement intention and that B2C sharing experience significantly moderates some of these effects. We also show that self-identity mediates the effects of sustainability potential on re-engagement intention. Therefore, we offer important evidence of the crucial role of self-identity in increasing consumers’ commitment to sharing practices. These findings thus advance understanding of consumers’ re-engagement in sharing practices (Akhmedova et al., 2020; Hazée et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017), in addition to prior research that suggests that consumers tend to avoid identification with products through product ownership or material possessions (Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015).

Last, our research is the first to conceptualize, measure, and prime the state of consumer reflexivity with three subdimensions (self-awareness, self-regulation, and identity construction). By capturing the most essential and interrelated reflexivity factors, our empirical study and findings help differentiate consumer reflexivity from simple self-reflection or personal traits of private self-consciousness (e.g., Grant et al., 2002). Given the paucity of studies that quantify and measure consumer reflexivity, we advance consumer literature on its critical role (Akaka & Schau, 2019; Schau & Akaka, 2021; Thompson et al., 2018).

Managerial implications

Our results also offer valuable insights for managers and users of sharing schemes. First, given many unique barriers that cause consumers to refrain from re-engaging in sharing (Hazée et al., 2017), firms need to gain a better understanding of the psychological processes underlying consumers’ decision-making to develop successful strategies to build customer loyalty. Specifically, firms might consider redesigning their marketing promotions in accordance with our results (Palgan et al., 2017). For example, managers might consider highlighting not only the economic benefits but also the social and environmental benefits of their sharing scheme. Moreover, firms need to decide whether to adopt diagnostic (i.e., identifying and communicating problematic situations and their causes), prognostic (i.e., suggesting solutions for situations or problems, developing specific strategies to resolve them, and even setting targets) or motivational (i.e., encouraging the public, certain actors, or social movements to trigger action) approaches when describing the benefits of sharing practices (Palgan et al., 2017). Our study also suggests that managers should consider promoting the distinctiveness of sharing experience from the ownership-based consumption experience with the goal of triggering more reflexive thoughts among existing users. This suggestion aligns with the post-COVID-19 reorientation of sharing economy companies, many of which are now reestablishing growth, demonstrating empathy toward employees and partners, and cocreating novel brand experiences and meaningful relationships with their stakeholders (Meenakshi, 2020). Our findings imply that such reorientation efforts can directly influence consumers’ experience and perceived benefits of sharing practices, which in turn can increase their reflexive thoughts about the sharing economy and their intention of re-engaging in sharing practice.

Second, we find that B2C sharing experience weakens (economic utility) and strengthens (sustainability potential) the mediating impact of consumer reflexivity on consumers’ intention to re-engage in sharing practices. Costello and Reczek (2020) suggest that C2C sharing schemes should consider provider-focused marketing communications because they help consumers adopt an empathy lens to perceive their participation in sharing practices as helping individual providers whom they may view as peers. Our findings expand this suggestion by evidencing that B2C sharing schemes should choose platform-focused rather than provider-focused marketing strategies to emphasize the sustainability potential of sharing practices for society.

Third, prior research suggests that users of sharing practices have a lower sense of loyalty and are more likely to switch their service provider for convenience and cost benefits than average consumers (Hiebert, 2016; Snipp, 2017), which highlights the importance of understanding consumer loyalty in the sharing economy. For marketers of B2C or C2C sharing schemes, we propose that increasing consumers’ identification with sharing practices may provide opportunities to nurture their continuous commitment to sharing practices. Firms that are not yet participating in the sharing economy might consider broadening their traditional focus on product ownership to provide new sharing options to consumers who identify with a new sustainable consumption practice—namely, sharing. Many firms have now established their own sharing schemes to accommodate the shifting desires and preferences of their customers (e.g., BMW’s DriveNow, Daimler’s Car2Go, Ralph Lauren’s subscription rental service). By integrating a “sharing” orientation into their portfolio, firms can redesign their products within their sharing schemes and increase consumers’ attachment to their products (Gruen, 2017; Silberstein, 2021). Therefore, we recommend that future marketing campaigns proactively foster consumer reflexivity to stimulate consumers’ re-engagement in sharing practices over traditional consumption.

Limitations and future research

Consumer reflexivity and the sharing economy

Although our study provides important insights for theory and practice, our findings are not without limitations. First, our studies use recalled preferences and stated preferences as measurements. Future studies could validate our framework with field experiments and capture actual behavior. Second, we do not test whether the effects of consumer reflexivity might differ across different product categories in sharing practices (e.g., transportation vs. accommodation). However, we acknowledge that the salience, roles, and impacts of consumer reflexivity in the sharing economy can be affected by a variety of sharing practices/schemes (e.g., Böcker & Meelen, 2017); cross-cultural differences (Fors et al., 2021; Schor & Vallas, 2021); dynamic consumption changes in society, such as liquid consumption trends (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017); or shifting lifestyles (Sands et al., 2020), such as transitioning to frugal spending and minimalism. Therefore, future studies could explore the potential differences across different sharing contexts and temporal variations. Third, our study focuses on the positive benefits of sharing practices and their effects on increasing consumers’ intentions to re-engage in the general practice of sharing. Future studies could examine the factors driving consumer loyalty to a specific sharing scheme. Moreover, future studies could examine the effects of consumer reflexivity on concerns with and awareness of the dark side of sharing practices, such as poor working conditions and dysfunctional shared assets because of poor owner maintenance or user abuse (Schaefers et al., 2016). Finally, avenues for future validations of our framework could include the contexts of mindful consumption (Sheth et al., 2011), ethical consumption, or anti-consumption (Johnston & Cairns, 2013).

Role of consumer reflexivity in consumer behavior

Although we conducted this study in the sharing economy context, consumer reflexivity is likely to play a significant role in other consumption contexts in which consumers encounter significant disruptions in their consumption routines, approaches, or goals. Such disruptions can occur at the individual level (e.g., major life event; see Thompson et al., 2018), societal level (e.g., food system movement; see Johnston & Cairns, 2013), or global marketplace level. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted individual consumers’ daily arrangements with a shift to temporalities of everyday life by undoing or reassembling household practices and consumption (Greene et al., 2022). Consumers significantly increased their purchase of nonperishable and frozen food and spent less on luxury shopping (PwC, 2022). Recent reports by McKinsey further show a decline in consumers’ discretionary spending, trading-down of large basket consumption, reduced shopping frequency, local store consumption preferences, and sustainability polarization (Kohli et al., 2020). Many studies have discussed how business models and processes should be redesigned to accommodate such consumer changes (e.g., Jacobides & Reeves, 2020). We suggest that future research examine whether the pandemic-induced disruption has created short-term changes in consumption or a long-term transformation of consumers and the role of consumer reflexivity in it. Our study shows the significant impact of consumer reflexivity on the re-engagement in sharing practices, leading to a long-term and crucial impact on sustaining the ecosystem of the sharing economy. It would be useful to investigate whether and how disruptions by the COVID-19 pandemic have triggered consumer reflexivity, resulting in substantial changes in consumption beliefs, values, identities, and behaviors in the long run. Moreover, consumer reflexivity might vary across different consumption categories and also play a more salient role in new alternatives in food consumption and mobility options. Examples include consumers’ experience with automated or electric means of transportation, both private (e.g., electric car) and public (e.g., electric bus or train). While current research has identified various barriers to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles (Egbue & Long, 2012; Tarei et al., 2021), including psychological constructs such as consumer reflexivity into current adoption models may provide a fruitful avenue for investigation, offering important insights for both research and business practice.

Appendix

Table 11 Measurement items for consumer reflexivity (subdimensions)

Table 12 Scale items, factor loadings, and reliabilities

Table 13 Reflexivity priming task and material

To establish the validity and effectiveness of our priming task, we conducted a pretest with a sample of 118 college students recruited from one of the authors’ universities. Each participant received supermarket coupons for taking part in the study. The participants have an average age of 22 years, and 80.5% were female. In addition, 58.5% stated a yearly household income below US$25,000. To examine whether our suggested reflexivity prime was successful, we dummy-coded the two priming groups (1 = low reflexivity prime, 2 = high reflexivity prime) and then conducted an ANOVA to compare the level of consumer reflexivity. The results from both EFA and CFA confirm the three-dimensional measure and the second-order factor structure of consumer reflexivity. We thus follow the same approach of computation of consumer reflexivity used in our online survey data analysis. The results of the ANOVA on this measure indicate successful priming of low versus high reflexivity: participant exposed to the high reflexivity prime showed significantly higher levels of consumer reflexivity (4.61) than their low reflexivity prime counterparts (4.25; F(1,180) = 6.116, p = 0.015), as illustrated in Table 14.

Table 14 Priming task design: Mean comparison of consumer reflexivity in primed groups Overall

Table 15 Experiment: Description of scenario and different sharing benefits