System Design Choice in the Sharing Economy: How Different Institutional Logics Drive Consumer Perception and Consumers’ Intention to Use Sharing Systems

被引:0
作者
Clemens V. [1 ]
Sabel C.A. [1 ]
Foege J.N. [2 ]
Nüesch S. [1 ]
机构
[1] University of Muenster, Schlossplatz 3, Muenster
[2] Leibniz University Hannover, Königsworther Platz 1, Hannover
来源
Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research | 2022年 / 74卷 / 2期
关键词
Business-to-consumer; C90; Consumer perception; D16; D26; D91; Institutional logics; L10; M10; M30; Peer-to-peer; Sharing economy;
D O I
10.1007/s41471-022-00133-z
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The sharing economy provides consumers with temporary access to various products. As a growing business trend that continuously attracts new consumers, it motivates businesses to rapidly develop new system designs. In this study, we investigate how the system design choices of sharing systems for products affect consumers’ perceptions of the system and consequently their intention to use a system. Building on institutional logics, we examine how the logics inherent in two system designs—the community logic in peer-to-peer (P2P) systems and the corporate logic in business-to-consumer (B2C) systems—affect consumer perceptions. We argue that consumers perceive P2P and B2C logics differently regarding logics’ economic benefits, product scarcity, sustainability benefits, and social benefits. To test our theory, we conducted a scenario experiment with 1259 participants from the UK. Our findings suggest that consumers perceive P2P systems as yielding higher economic, sustainability, and social benefits than B2C systems, and that these benefits increase consumers’ intention to use the system. However, we also find that P2P systems suffer from the risk of product scarcity, reducing consumers’ intention to use such systems. In summary, our findings show that system design affects consumers’ perceptions and that different designs attract consumer groups with different preferences. © 2022, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码:201 / 234
页数:33
相关论文
共 92 条
[1]  
Akbar P., Mai R., Hoffmann S., When do materialistic consumers join commercial sharing systems, Journal of Business Research, 69, 10, pp. 4215-4224, (2016)
[2]  
Albinsson P.A., Yasanthi Perera B., Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building community through sharing events, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11, 4, pp. 303-315, (2012)
[3]  
Balcer Y., Lippman S.A., Technological expectations and adoption of improved technology, Journal of Economic Theory, 34, 2, pp. 292-318, (1984)
[4]  
Bardhi F., Eckhardt G.M., Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing, Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 4, pp. 881-898, (2012)
[5]  
Barnes S.J., Mattsson J., Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, pp. 200-211, (2016)
[6]  
Battilana J., Dorado S., Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 53, 6, pp. 1419-1440, (2010)
[7]  
Baumeister C., Scherer A., v. Wangenheim F., Branding access offers: The importance of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 5, pp. 574-588, (2015)
[8]  
Belk R., Why not share rather than own?, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 1, pp. 126-140, (2007)
[9]  
Belk R., Sharing, Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 5, pp. 715-734, (2010)
[10]  
Belk R., You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online, Journal of Business Research, 67, 8, pp. 1595-1600, (2014)