Research on Sharing Intention Formation Mechanism Based on the Burden of Ownership and Fashion Consciousness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
0. Title
I suggest you to eliminate first part of title "What makes me more willing to share resources", I think It is not convenient for a scientific article with rigor.
1. Introduction and abstract
In the abstract section, you mention “How to improve the willingness of individuals to share idle resources with others is becoming an urgent problem for enterprises and academia.” And you repeat this in line 51.
I suggest you to clarify this, I thinks you wants explain that “It’s a problem that entreprises and academia must offer solutions”
The introduction is concise and well structured, however, I would recommend stating the research problem, gap and contribution (especially scientific contribution) more explicitly.
In line 36, the authors mention “The sharing economy not only promotes a more convenient flow of resource elements but also realices more efficient matching between supply and demand.” I recommend you to support with references this affirmation. Have you effected this analysis?
In line 62, you mention “The public is already aware of the positive social benefits of energy saving, emission reduction and green and sustainable development from the sharing economy, but the existing research lack specific guidance and promotion conditions on ‘how to effectively share idle resources through individuals’”. I recommend you supporting this idea with more references.
2. Methodology
Looking at the methods section, you have constructed correctly your hypothesis, but I’m surprising you have not included the variable “innovation”, you mention in line 137 “…share and convert idle resources into economic resources in innovative ways”. Why don’t include this variable in your study? I suggest include it or justify not inclussion.
In H3 your mention “mobile Internet”, I suggest you to add “and sharing platforms”
In line 204 you mention “The burden of ownership positively affects H1-H3”, I would suggest H1-H2-H3. The same in H5.
In line 244 you mention 46,3% males, In recommend you to Include females and data.
Clarify how your questionnaires have been collected (intranet or paper).
3. Results
The results are relevant and fulfill the objective at hand, also it is very important the work they are announcing to do. Author or authors need to clarify their discussion with the theory.
4. Conclusions
Conclusions cover several good points, but need to be revised, especially you repeat part of introduction. It should be concreted by associating with previous studies in the literature.
5. References
The authors were selective regarding the quality of the journals they are citing
6. English style
English style is very comprehensible, the only thing that I would change the use of “sharing” (80 times) so often.
Author Response
0. Title
Point 1: I suggest you to eliminate first part of title "What makes me more willing to share resources", I think It is not convenient for a scientific article with rigor.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. After discussing this point, we changed the title to 'Research on sharing intention formation mechanism based on the burden of ownership and fashion consciousness', which we believe is more rigorous and scientific.
1. Introduction and abstract
Point 2: In the abstract section, you mention “How to improve the willingness of individuals to share idle resources with others is becoming an urgent problem for enterprises and academia.” And you repeat this in line 51.
I suggest you to clarify this, I thinks you wants explain that “It’s a problem that entreprises and academia must offer solutions”
The introduction is concise and well structured, however, I would recommend stating the research problem, gap and contribution (especially scientific contribution) more explicitly.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. According to your suggestions, we made adjustments to the structure of the introduction in the way of 'research problem-gap-contribution'. The resulting Introduction is now more concise and reasonable. The revised Introduction no longer has the repeated problems with line 51. The modified content is as follows:
The sharing economy business models, such as sharing accommodation, sharing cars, and p2p platforms, have not only changed people's daily lives, behaviours and habits, they also exerted a huge impact on the traditional economic structure. In 2017, the valuation of Airbnb was more than $31 billion, that of Uber was more than $68 billion and the turnover of sharing economic market was up to 4.9 trillion yuan in China . The sharing economy not only promotes a more convenient flow of resource elements but also realises more efficient matching between supply and demand. Moreover, this model is not just a new economic phenomenon and economic form but also a new development concept and consumption concept—one that has attracted the attention of academic circles and enterprises.
The sharing economy provides opportunities for individuals to obtain temporary access to resources or to share underutilised resources with others as an alternative to ownership. This situation leads to a more efficient use of resources while reducing resource consumption, thereby reflecting the significant potential of sustainability. At present, many scholars have studied sharing economy from different perspectives, including (1) basic theories on the sharing economy, such as conception, characteristics; (2) antecedents and motivations to participate in the sharing economy, such as trust, familiarity and social contact; and (3) the marketing effect of participating in the sharing economy, such as increasing employment. However, most of the existing research were carried out from the perspective of the users, and only few discussed the sharing intention of individuals who with underutilized resources act as service providers rather than consumers According to the 2018 China Sharing Economy Development Report, individual service providers account for less than 10% of the total number of participants in sharing economic activities, indicating that China's actual sharing behaviour is lower than the sharing intention. The gap between sharing intention and behaviour means that the formation mechanism of sharing behaviour at the individual level has not been completely solved. Accordingly, this study attempts to solve two research problems:
Q 1: What factors affect the sharing intention of individual service providers?
Q 2: How can the sharing intention of individual service providers be improved?
Using survey data from 300 respondents, we analyse the sharing intention of individual service providers. The results show that the motivations, abilities and opportunities of individual service providers have an impact on their sharing intention. The burden of ownership has positive moderating effects on economic motivation, perceived ease of use and sharing intention, but negatively moderates the relationship between customised service capability and sharing intention. Besides, fashion consciousness has positive moderating effect on customised service capability, perceived ease of use and sharing intention, but negatively moderates economic motivation and sharing intention.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows: First, while most research on sharing economy is carried out from the perspective of demand or the consumer, this study is carried out from the perspective of the suppliers. Under the new concepts of ‘green and sharing development’, promoting sustainable development and achieving high-quality growth are the results of reducing resource consumption and improving the recycling of underutilised resources. Unfortunately, the current number of service providers is relatively small. Thus, we take individuals with underutilised resources as research objects and then call for more people to participate in the sharing economy.
Second, many scholars have conducted cause analysis, especially for consumers. However, few have studied the antecedents for individual service providers to participate in the sharing economy. The public is already aware of the positive social benefits of energy saving, emission reduction and green and sustainable development from the sharing economy, but the existing research lack specific guidance and promotion conditions on ‘how to effectively share underutilised resources through individuals’. However, owning underutilised resources alone is not enough to establish sharing behaviours, so it is vital to study “the conditions to form individual sharing intention”.
Third, to promote sustainable development, many scholars have called for a more efficient use of resources. The call is mainly manifested in the sharing economy as individuals sharing underutilised resources with others, but the overall effect is not ideal. Many individuals have the conditions of sharing behaviour, but their willingness to participate is not high. Exploring how to enhance their willingness and encourage more people to share resources is an urgent issue related to enhancing the boundary conditions of the sharing intention.
Point 3: In line 36, the authors mention “The sharing economy not only promotes a more convenient flow of resource elements but also realizes more efficient matching between supply and demand.” I recommend you to support with references this affirmation. Have you effected this analysis?
Bardhi, F; Eckhardt, G.M. Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing. J. Jour of Con Res, 2012, 39, 881-898.
Möhlmann, M. Collaborative Consumption: Determinants of Satisfaction and the likelihood of Using a Sharing Economy Option Again. J. Jour of Con Beh, 2015, 14, 193-207.
Scaraboto, D. Selling, Sharing, and Everything In Between: The Hybrid Economies of Collaborative Networks. J. Jour of Con Res, 2015, 42, 152-176.
Point 4: In line 62, you mention “The public is already aware of the positive social benefits of energy saving, emission reduction and green and sustainable development from the sharing economy, but the existing research lack specific guidance and promotion conditions on ‘how to effectively share idle resources through individuals’”. I recommend you supporting this idea with more references.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your comment. We have added references as suggested. Examples are listed below.
Möhlmann, M. Collaborative Consumption: Determinants of Satisfaction and the likelihood of Using a Sharing Economy Option Again. J. Jour of Con Beh, 2015, 14, 193-207.
Martin, C. J. The Sharing Economy: A Pathway to Sustainability or a Nightmarish Form of Neoliberal Capitalism? J. Ecolo Econ, 2016, 149- 159.
Geissinger, A.; Laurell, C.; Öberg, C; Sandström, C. How Sustainable is the Sharing Economy? On the Sustainability Connotations of Sharing Economy Platforms. J. Jour of Clea Pro, 2019, 206, 419-429.
Lee, H.; Yang, S.B.; Koo, C. Exploring the Effect of Airbnb Hosts' Attachment and Psychological Ownership in the Sharing Economy. J. Tour Mana, 2019, 284 -294.
2. Methodology
Point 5: Looking at the methods section, you have constructed correctly your hypothesis, but I’m surprising you have not included the variable “innovation”, you mention in line 137 “…share and convert idle resources into economic resources in innovative ways”. Why don’t include this variable in your study? I suggest include it or justify not inclussion.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your comment. We apologize if you thought 'innovation' was a variable due to unclear expression and explanation. 'Innovation' is not a study variable. Therefore, we decided to delete the phrase 'in innovative ways' to eliminate misunderstanding and avoid ambiguity.
Point 6: In H3 your mention “mobile Internet”, I suggest you to add “and sharing platforms”
Response 6: Thank you very much for your constructive comment. The addition of 'and sharing platforms' makes H3 clearer. The modification is as follows:
H3: The perceived ease of mobile Internet and sharing platforms use by individual service providers positively influence their sharing intention.
Point 7: In line 204 you mention “The burden of ownership positively affects H1-H3”, I would suggest H1-H2-H3. The same in H5.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. Your suggestions make H4 and H5 more concise and clearer. Thus, we changed H4 and H5 to:
H4: The burden of ownership positively affects H1-H2-H3.
H4a: The burden of ownership positively moderates the effect of economic motivation on individual sharing intention.
H4b: The burden of ownership positively moderates the effect of customised service capability on individual sharing intention.
H4c: The burden of ownership positively moderates the effect of perceived ease of mobile internet and sharing platforms use on individual sharing intention.
H5: Fashion consciousness positively affects H1-H2-H3.
H5a: Fashion consciousness positively moderates the effect of economic motivation on individual sharing intention.
H5b: Fashion consciousness positively moderates the effect of customised service capability on individual sharing intention.
H5c: Fashion consciousness positively moderates the effect of perceived ease of mobile internet and sharing platforms use on individual sharing intention.
Point 8: In line 244 you mention 46,3% males, In recommend you to Include females and data.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your comment. We made the corresponding modification in line 267 according to your suggestion.
Point 9: Clarify how your questionnaires have been collected (intranet or paper).
Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. Our questionnaires were mainly distributed to students taking MBA courses, so they are mainly paper questionnaires. According to your suggestion, we have made the corresponding modification in line 266.
3. Results
Point 10: The results are relevant and fulfill the objective at hand, also it is very important the work they are announcing to do. Author or authors need to clarify their discussion with the theory.
Response 10: Thank you very much for your comment. We clarified our discussion with existing studies and our revision thus became more interesting. In addition, we combined the conclusion and discussion for the sake of brevity and clarity of the whole chapter. The modification contents are as follows:
(1) The impact of individual service providers' ability, motivation and opportunity on the sharing intention. In the sharing economy, the resources required for services come from enterprises and underutilized resources owned by individuals [22]. A large number of studies have extensively explored the conditions that an enterprise should have as a service provider. In comparison, few studies have discussed the conditions an individual with underutilized resources should have to become a service provider. In this case, we systematically and theoretically discuss as well as empirically analyze the formation mechanism of the sharing intention of individual service providers with MOA theory. Empirical results show that economic motivation, customized service and perceived ease of use positively influences the sharing intention of individual service providers, which is consistent with Siemsen, Roth and Balasubramanian's research stating that ability, motivation and opportunity can effectively predict behavior [25].
(2) The moderating effect of the burden of ownership. Previous studies have discussed the ownership paradigm and its positive impact in great detail [47]. Under the stimulation of the external environment, such as the development of the Internet and the increase in income, impulsive consumption has brought pleasure to individuals. However, this has also led to a large number of items becoming idle and eventually turning into burdens. In the context of this new economic model, we rediscuss the influence of ownership on individual behavior from the ‘perspective of burden’. Empirical results show that the heavier the burden of ownership, the stronger the influence of individual service providers’ (b) economic motivation (c) perceived ease of use on their sharing intention. This finding is consistent with Schaefers, Lawson and Kukar-Kinney's research, which concluded that consumers prefer acquisition rather than possession because of burden of ownership [47]. Interestingly, we found that the burden of ownership negatively affects the relationship between customization and sharing intention. As Wang, Lee, Fang and Ma stated, customization is a time-consuming and costly marketing strategy [39]. Subsequently, the burden of ownership will bring more risks and troubles to individuals [47]. Thus, the burden of ownership will weaken and even negatively affect the relationship between customized services and sharing intention.
(3) The moderating effect of fashion consciousness. The sharing economy, which is resource sharing or acquisition rather than possession through the platform, provides a new form of value [20-22]. This practice is consistent with sustainability [11,21] and embodies a fashion trend [52,53], which meets consumers' pursuit of sustainability[57] and conforms to the characteristics of new consumer groups. For example, new consumer groups grew up during the first years of the Internet and possess advanced consumption concepts, love fashion, follow the trends and enjoy new things5 [34,35]. Thus, we introduce the concept of ‘fashion consciousness’ and explored its impact on individual behavior. Results show that with the increase of fashion consciousness brought about stronger influences of (b) customized service capability (c) perceived ease of use of mobile Internet on the sharing intention. In other words, H5 (b) is not supported. This can be due to the fact that, based on the limited attention[58], the stronger the fashion consciousness is, the more likely the individual is to attach importance to fashion and fun in activities while ignoring the economic value generated by them, which will inevitably weakening or even negatively affecting the relationship between economic motivation and the sharing intention.
4. Conclusions
Point 11: Conclusions cover several good points, but need to be revised, especially you repeat part of introduction. It should be concreted by associating with previous studies in the literature.
Response 11: Thank you very much for your comment. Based on recommendations 2 and 11, we have adjusted the structure of the introduction and modified the parts that repeat the conclusions. In addition, we further discussed the conclusions based on previous studies. The modified contents are as follows:
(1) The impact of individual service providers' ability, motivation and opportunity on the sharing intention. In the sharing economy, the resources required for services come from enterprises and underutilized resources owned by individuals [22]. A large number of studies have extensively explored the conditions that an enterprise should have as a service provider. In comparison, few studies have discussed the conditions an individual with underutilized resources should have to become a service provider. In this case, we systematically and theoretically discuss as well as empirically analyze the formation mechanism of the sharing intention of individual service providers with MOA theory. Empirical results show that economic motivation, customized service and perceived ease of use positively influences the sharing intention of individual service providers, which is consistent with Siemsen, Roth and Balasubramanian's research stating that ability, motivation and opportunity can effectively predict behavior [25].
(2) The moderating effect of the burden of ownership. Previous studies have discussed the ownership paradigm and its positive impact in great detail [47]. Under the stimulation of the external environment, such as the development of the Internet and the increase in income, impulsive consumption has brought pleasure to individuals. However, this has also led to a large number of items becoming idle and eventually turning into burdens. In the context of this new economic model, we rediscuss the influence of ownership on individual behavior from the ‘perspective of burden’. Empirical results show that the heavier the burden of ownership, the stronger the influence of individual service providers’ (b) economic motivation (c) perceived ease of use on their sharing intention. This finding is consistent with Schaefers, Lawson and Kukar-Kinney's research, which concluded that consumers prefer acquisition rather than possession because of burden of ownership [47]. Interestingly, we found that the burden of ownership negatively affects the relationship between customization and sharing intention. As Wang, Lee, Fang and Ma stated, customization is a time-consuming and costly marketing strategy [39]. Subsequently, the burden of ownership will bring more risks and troubles to individuals [47]. Thus, the burden of ownership will weaken and even negatively affect the relationship between customized services and sharing intention.
(3) The moderating effect of fashion consciousness. The sharing economy, which is resource sharing or acquisition rather than possession through the platform, provides a new form of value [20-22]. This practice is consistent with sustainability [11,21] and embodies a fashion trend [52,53], which meets consumers' pursuit of sustainability[57] and conforms to the characteristics of new consumer groups. For example, new consumer groups grew up during the first years of the Internet and possess advanced consumption concepts, love fashion, follow the trends and enjoy new things5 [34,35]. Thus, we introduce the concept of ‘fashion consciousness’ and explored its impact on individual behavior. Results show that with the increase of fashion consciousness brought about stronger influences of (b) customized service capability (c) perceived ease of use of mobile Internet on the sharing intention. In other words, H5 (b) is not supported. This can be due to the fact that, based on the limited attention[58], the stronger the fashion consciousness is, the more likely the individual is to attach importance to fashion and fun in activities while ignoring the economic value generated by them, which will inevitably weakening or even negatively affecting the relationship between economic motivation and the sharing intention.
5. References
Point 12: The authors were selective regarding the quality of the journals they are citing
Response 12: Thank you very much for your comments. We will refer to the following references as you suggest. In the future, we will keep your suggestions in mind.
6. English style
Point 13: English style is very comprehensible, the only thing that I would change the use of “sharing” (80 times) so often.
Response 13: Thank you very much for your review. In addition to the proper terms of sharing economy and sharing intention, we have done a synonymy substitution of 'sharing' in the text.
Thank you sincerely for your valuable comments and suggestions. We appreciate your effort in helping us improve and upgrade this article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is a very interesting article, well prepared, with a powerful methodology based on regression analysis.
The article makes a brief reference in the abstract to aspects of sustainability and sharing economy. The ideas of sustainability should be reinforced, introducing some additional reference such as:
Núñez-Cacho et al. 2018. Family Businesses Transitioning to a Circular Economy Model: The Case of Mercadona. Sustainability 10, 2, 538
Also, the authors can take ideas from:
How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.196
HYPOTHESES
On the development of the hypothesis, while the first 3 are sufficiently clear, in the 4th it introduces the idea that the burden of ownership influences another hypothesis, which scientifically can not be proven, the hypothesis must be clear and concise. Variable A influences Variable B. If there are several such as in this case, it could introduce sub hypotheses
For example:
4aThe burden of ownership affects positively to economic motivation of consumer
4b ...
4c ...
METHODS / RESULTS
The same case occurs with hypothesis 5, it must be broken down into sub-sections to correctly formulate the hypotheses.
It might be interesting to provide some additional information about the sample.
As far as the methods are concerned, I would eliminate the p value 0.10 in the correlation analyzes. It gives the impression that all the variables are correlated. The null hypothesis is rejected if the value of p associated with the observed result is equal to less than the level of significance established, conventionally 0.05 or 0.01. This would simplify the information and make the study more understandable. In addition, it is already being used as recommended the value 0.01 that statistically is more significant.
The same in the regression analysis.
I would introduce a specific section of results, to comment on the obtained on each of the hypotheses, which now appears a bit hidden among the methods.
Author Response
Point 1: It is a very interesting article, well prepared, with a powerful methodology based on regression analysis.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your affirmation and recognition of this article. We will try our best to revise and improve according to the evaluation, as we are eager to have our article published in your journal.
Point 2: The article makes a brief reference in the abstract to aspects of sustainability and sharing economy. The ideas of sustainability should be reinforced, introducing some additional reference such as:
Núñez-Cacho et al. 2018. Family Businesses Transitioning to a Circular Economy Model: The Case of Mercadona. Sustainability 10, 2, 538
Also, the authors can take ideas from:
How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.196
Response 2: Thank you very much for your comment. We have emphasised the idea of sustainability in the paper as follows:
In line 38-41: The sharing economy provides opportunities for individuals to obtain temporary access to resources or to share underutilized resources with others as an alternative to ownership. This situation leads to a more efficient use of resources while reducing resource consumption, thereby reflecting the significant potential of sustainability.
In line 380-384: The sharing economy, which is resource sharing or acquisition rather than possession through the platform, provides a new form of value. This practice is consistent with sustainability and embodies a fashion trend, which meets consumers' pursuit of sustainability and conforms to the characteristics of new consumer groups.
HYPOTHESES
Point 3: On the development of the hypothesis, while the first 3 are sufficiently clear, in the 4th it introduces the idea that the burden of ownership influences another hypothesis, which scientifically can not be proven, the hypothesis must be clear and concise. Variable A influences Variable B. If there are several such as in this case, it could introduce sub hypotheses
For example:
4aThe burden of ownership affects positively to economic motivation of consumer
4b ...
4c ...
Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. Your suggestions make H4 more concise and clearer. According to your suggestion, we modified H4 as follows:
H4: The burden of ownership positively affects H1-H2-H3.
H4a: The burden of ownership positively moderates the effect of economic motivation on individual sharing intention.
H4b: The burden of ownership positively moderates the effect of customised service capability on individual sharing intention.
H4c: The burden of ownership positively moderates the effect of perceived ease of mobile internet and sharing platforms use on individual sharing intention.
METHODS / RESULTS
Point 4: The same case occurs with hypothesis 5, it must be broken down into sub-sections to correctly formulate the hypotheses.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Your suggestions make H5 more concise and clearer. According to your suggestion, we modified H5as follows:
H5: Fashion consciousness positively affects H1-H2-H3.
H5a: Fashion consciousness positively moderates the effect of economic motivation on individual sharing intention.
H5b: Fashion consciousness positively moderates the effect of customised service capability on individual sharing intention.
H5c: Fashion consciousness positively moderates the effect of perceived ease of mobile internet and sharing platforms use on individual sharing intention.
Point 5: It might be interesting to provide some additional information about the sample.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We will add relevant information on female subjects in line 267 and the method of questionnaire collection in line 266.
Point 6: As far as the methods are concerned, I would eliminate the p value 0.10 in the correlation analyzes. It gives the impression that all the variables are correlated. The null hypothesis is rejected if the value of p associated with the observed result is equal to less than the level of significance established, conventionally 0.05 or 0.01. This would simplify the information and make the study more understandable. In addition, it is already being used as recommended the value 0.01 that statistically is more significant.
The same in the regression analysis.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your constructive comment. The value 0.01 is indeed more statistically significant. According to your suggestions, we have made corresponding modifications to the relevant analyses and regression analyses sections. Fortunately, the results did not change much.
Point 7: I would introduce a specific section of results, to comment on the obtained on each of the hypotheses, which now appears a bit hidden among the methods
Response 7: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. Based on your suggestions, we introduced a specific discussion of our results with existing studies. We then added this discussion in the conclusion, because the conclusion also implies discussion. In this way, the discussion and conclusion sections give a clearer picture of hypothetical results, making them more interesting and scientific. The modified contents are as follows:
(1) The impact of individual service providers' ability, motivation and opportunity on the sharing intention. In the sharing economy, the resources required for services come from enterprises and underutilized resources owned by individuals [22]. A large number of studies have extensively explored the conditions that an enterprise should have as a service provider. In comparison, few studies have discussed the conditions an individual with underutilized resources should have to become a service provider. In this case, we systematically and theoretically discuss as well as empirically analyze the formation mechanism of the sharing intention of individual service providers with MOA theory. Empirical results show that economic motivation, customized service and perceived ease of use positively influences the sharing intention of individual service providers, which is consistent with Siemsen, Roth and Balasubramanian's research stating that ability, motivation and opportunity can effectively predict behavior [25].
(2) The moderating effect of the burden of ownership. Previous studies have discussed the ownership paradigm and its positive impact in great detail [47]. Under the stimulation of the external environment, such as the development of the Internet and the increase in income, impulsive consumption has brought pleasure to individuals. However, this has also led to a large number of items becoming idle and eventually turning into burdens. In the context of this new economic model, we rediscuss the influence of ownership on individual behavior from the ‘perspective of burden’. Empirical results show that the heavier the burden of ownership, the stronger the influence of individual service providers’ (b) economic motivation (c) perceived ease of use on their sharing intention. This finding is consistent with Schaefers, Lawson and Kukar-Kinney's research, which concluded that consumers prefer acquisition rather than possession because of burden of ownership [47]. Interestingly, we found that the burden of ownership negatively affects the relationship between customization and sharing intention. As Wang, Lee, Fang and Ma stated, customization is a time-consuming and costly marketing strategy [39]. Subsequently, the burden of ownership will bring more risks and troubles to individuals [47]. Thus, the burden of ownership will weaken and even negatively affect the relationship between customized services and sharing intention.
(3) The moderating effect of fashion consciousness. The sharing economy, which is resource sharing or acquisition rather than possession through the platform, provides a new form of value [20-22]. This practice is consistent with sustainability [11,21] and embodies a fashion trend [52,53], which meets consumers' pursuit of sustainability[57] and conforms to the characteristics of new consumer groups. For example, new consumer groups grew up during the first years of the Internet and possess advanced consumption concepts, love fashion, follow the trends and enjoy new things5 [34,35]. Thus, we introduce the concept of ‘fashion consciousness’ and explored its impact on individual behavior. Results show that with the increase of fashion consciousness brought about stronger influences of (b) customized service capability (c) perceived ease of use of mobile Internet on the sharing intention. In other words, H5 (b) is not supported. This can be due to the fact that, based on the limited attention[58], the stronger the fashion consciousness is, the more likely the individual is to attach importance to fashion and fun in activities while ignoring the economic value generated by them, which will inevitably weakening or even negatively affecting the relationship between economic motivation and the sharing intention.
Thank you sincerely for your valuable comments and suggestions. We appreciate your effort in helping us improve and upgrade this article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank your for providing an interesteding perspective on the willingness to take part in the sharing economy. Overall I like the approach, question, layout for the results, etc. I only have a few concerns that I feel should be addressed.
1) The method for the MOA needs to be highlighted more transparently in the methodology section. What is it, how is it used, why did you choose it (not a lot about why)?
2) In your questions, there is no regard to environmental/sustainability concerns about taking part in the sharing economy. I feel this is needed (was left out) and could skew the results to state that it is more economic concerns. Similarly, previous research has shown that environmental and social (taking part in social systems) was a major influencing factor for taking part and sharing. This should be addressed, i.e. why you left it out, or in the discussion state how it could influence the understanding of the results
3) The discussion section needs a discussion of your results with previous reearch in the field. Again this is a major concern as it is here you show how your results compare and add novelty to the field.
4) Have other MOA studies been done? How is yours different, comparable, etc.
5) Is it possible to list your hypotheses earlier and together?
6) There is no clear aim outlined for the paper. I would like to see this earlier, and connected to the hypotheses (see previous comment).
7) Motivation is defined as "economic motivation". This is a bit questionable and could be argued. Maybe provide a more convincing arguement.
More direct comments:
Line-15-18, please revise these lines
Lines 21-28- Can you split the results in to different sentences. I feel it is a bit too long to follow.
-Throughout the text, you use the word (idle). COuld you elaborate or provide a definition about this.
Line-47, research has been carried out...
Line 63-65- needs a reference or two
Line 61-62-this line is not complete
-Check the referencing. There are 1-2 instance of using the publication year and not the numbering method as preferred in the journal
Author Response
Point 1: The method for the MOA needs to be highlighted more transparently in the methodology section. What is it, how is it used, why did you choose it (not a lot about why)?
Response 1: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. According to your suggestions, we have reviewed the research on MOA theory and found that MOA refers to the motivation, ability and opportunity required for behaviours, which is mainly used to explain the conditions required for the occurrence of such behaviours. We think MOA should be a good predictor of the sharing intention of individual service providers in the sharing economy. Therefore, we chose MOA theory. The modified contents are as follows:
In addition, MOA theory refers to the motives, abilities and opportunities required for behaviors [23]. Previous researches on MOA theory are based on the traditional economic background and focus on organizational behavior and knowledge sharing, and so on [24,25]. We think MOA should be a good predictor of the sharing intention of individual service providers in the sharing economy. Subsequently, we will elaborate the formation mechanism of sharing intention based on MOA theory.
Point 2: In your questions, there is no regard to environmental/sustainability concerns about taking part in the sharing economy. I feel this is needed (was left out) and could skew the results to state that it is more economic concerns. Similarly, previous research has shown that environmental and social (taking part in social systems) was a major influencing factor for taking part and sharing. This should be addressed, i.e. why you left it out, or in the discussion state how it could influence the understanding of the results
Response 2: Thank you very much for your constructive comment. According to your suggestion, we will consider environmental protection and social factors. Towards a reasonable structure and fluent expression, we will put this part in the ‘Limitations and Further Research’. The modified content is as follows:
Previous studies have shown that, in addition to economic motives, environmental and social motivations will affect taking part and sharing in certain ways [6,60 ]. However, the conclusions about the impact of environmental and social motivations are inconsistent [5,27]. Consistent with the views of most scholars [26,31], we believe that individuals participate in sharing economic activities for economic benefits. To avoid ambiguity, we mainly consider economic motivation. Thus, we suggest future research to evaluate the impact of environmental and social motivations to gain further insights into the reasons why individual service providers participate and share.
Point 3: The discussion section needs a discussion of your results with previous research in the field. Again this is a major concern as it is here you show how your results compare and add novelty to the field.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. A detailed discussion of the results based on previous research is indeed necessary. Through a discussion, we realised how our results are different from past findings and may even be considered innovative in this field. For brevity and clarity of the whole chapter, we present this part in the conclusion and discussion. The modification contents are as follows:
(1) The impact of individual service providers' ability, motivation and opportunity on the sharing intention. In the sharing economy, the resources required for services come from enterprises and underutilized resources owned by individuals [22]. A large number of studies have extensively explored the conditions that an enterprise should have as a service provider. In comparison, few studies have discussed the conditions an individual with underutilized resources should have to become a service provider. In this case, we systematically and theoretically discuss as well as empirically analyze the formation mechanism of the sharing intention of individual service providers with MOA theory. Empirical results show that economic motivation, customized service and perceived ease of use positively influences the sharing intention of individual service providers, which is consistent with Siemsen, Roth and Balasubramanian's research stating that ability, motivation and opportunity can effectively predict behavior [25].
(2) The moderating effect of the burden of ownership. Previous studies have discussed the ownership paradigm and its positive impact in great detail [47]. Under the stimulation of the external environment, such as the development of the Internet and the increase in income, impulsive consumption has brought pleasure to individuals. However, this has also led to a large number of items becoming idle and eventually turning into burdens. In the context of this new economic model, we rediscuss the influence of ownership on individual behavior from the ‘perspective of burden’. Empirical results show that the heavier the burden of ownership, the stronger the influence of individual service providers’ (b) economic motivation (c) perceived ease of use on their sharing intention. This finding is consistent with Schaefers, Lawson and Kukar-Kinney's research, which concluded that consumers prefer acquisition rather than possession because of burden of ownership [47]. Interestingly, we found that the burden of ownership negatively affects the relationship between customization and sharing intention. As Wang, Lee, Fang and Ma stated, customization is a time-consuming and costly marketing strategy [39]. Subsequently, the burden of ownership will bring more risks and troubles to individuals [47]. Thus, the burden of ownership will weaken and even negatively affect the relationship between customized services and sharing intention.
(3) The moderating effect of fashion consciousness. The sharing economy, which is resource sharing or acquisition rather than possession through the platform, provides a new form of value [20-22]. This practice is consistent with sustainability [11,21] and embodies a fashion trend [52,53], which meets consumers' pursuit of sustainability[57] and conforms to the characteristics of new consumer groups. For example, new consumer groups grew up during the first years of the Internet and possess advanced consumption concepts, love fashion, follow the trends and enjoy new things5 [34,35]. Thus, we introduce the concept of ‘fashion consciousness’ and explored its impact on individual behavior. Results show that with the increase of fashion consciousness brought about stronger influences of (b) customized service capability (c) perceived ease of use of mobile Internet on the sharing intention. In other words, H5 (b) is not supported. This can be due to the fact that, based on the limited attention[58], the stronger the fashion consciousness is, the more likely the individual is to attach importance to fashion and fun in activities while ignoring the economic value generated by them, which will inevitably weakening or even negatively affecting the relationship between economic motivation and the sharing intention.
Point 4: Have other MOA studies been done? How is yours different, comparable, etc.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your constructive comment. We have reviewed the research on MOA theory and found that most of the other MOA studies are applied to study organisational behaviour, knowledge sharing, etc. in traditional economy. However, we studied the formation mechanism of individual behaviour in the context of sharing economy. The modified contents are as follows:
In addition, MOA theory refers to the motives, abilities and opportunities required for behaviors [23]. Previous researches on MOA theory are based on the traditional economic background and focus on organizational behavior and knowledge sharing, and so on [24,25]. We think MOA should be a good predictor of the sharing intention of individual service providers in the sharing economy. Subsequently, we will elaborate the formation mechanism of sharing intention based on MOA theory.
Point 5: Is it possible to list your hypotheses earlier and together?
Response 5: Thank you very much for your constructive comment. In accordance with recommendations 5 and 6, we have made appropriate modifications to the structure of the introduction, such as including H1-H2-H3 in Q1 and H4-H5 in Q2. We hope the reader can now easily understand the major problems this article is trying to address in terms of Q1 and Q2. The modified contents are as follows:
Q 1: What factors affect the sharing intention of individual service providers?
Q 2: How can the sharing intention of individual service providers be improved?
Point 6: There is no clear aim outlined for the paper. I would like to see this earlier, and connected to the hypotheses (see previous comment).
Response 6: Thank you very much for your constructive comment. After discussing, we made the article clearer and reasonable. The modified contents are as follows:
The sharing economy business models, such as sharing accommodation, sharing cars, and p2p platforms, have not only changed people's daily lives, behaviours and habits, they also exerted a huge impact on the traditional economic structure. In 2017, the valuation of Airbnb was more than $31 billion, that of Uber was more than $68 billion and the turnover of sharing economic market was up to 4.9 trillion yuan in China . The sharing economy not only promotes a more convenient flow of resource elements but also realises more efficient matching between supply and demand. Moreover, this model is not just a new economic phenomenon and economic form but also a new development concept and consumption concept—one that has attracted the attention of academic circles and enterprises.
The sharing economy provides opportunities for individuals to obtain temporary access to resources or to share underutilised resources with others as an alternative to ownership. This situation leads to a more efficient use of resources while reducing resource consumption, thereby reflecting the significant potential of sustainability. At present, many scholars have studied sharing economy from different perspectives, including (1) basic theories on the sharing economy, such as conception, characteristics; (2) antecedents and motivations to participate in the sharing economy, such as trust, familiarity and social contact; and (3) the marketing effect of participating in the sharing economy, such as increasing employment. However, most of the existing research were carried out from the perspective of the users, and only few discussed the sharing intention of individuals who with underutilized resources act as service providers rather than consumers According to the 2018 China Sharing Economy Development Report, individual service providers account for less than 10% of the total number of participants in sharing economic activities, indicating that China's actual sharing behaviour is lower than the sharing intention. The gap between sharing intention and behaviour means that the formation mechanism of sharing behaviour at the individual level has not been completely solved. Accordingly, this study attempts to solve two research problems:
Q 1: What factors affect the sharing intention of individual service providers?
Q 2: How can the sharing intention of individual service providers be improved?
Using survey data from 300 respondents, we analyse the sharing intention of individual service providers. The results show that the motivations, abilities and opportunities of individual service providers have an impact on their sharing intention. The burden of ownership has positive moderating effects on economic motivation, perceived ease of use and sharing intention, but negatively moderates the relationship between customised service capability and sharing intention. Besides, fashion consciousness has positive moderating effect on customised service capability, perceived ease of use and sharing intention, but negatively moderates economic motivation and sharing intention.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows: First, while most research on sharing economy is carried out from the perspective of demand or the consumer, this study is carried out from the perspective of the suppliers. Under the new concepts of ‘green and sharing development’, promoting sustainable development and achieving high-quality growth are the results of reducing resource consumption and improving the recycling of underutilised resources. Unfortunately, the current number of service providers is relatively small. Thus, we take individuals with underutilised resources as research objects and then call for more people to participate in the sharing economy.
Second, many scholars have conducted cause analysis, especially for consumers. However, few have studied the antecedents for individual service providers to participate in the sharing economy. The public is already aware of the positive social benefits of energy saving, emission reduction and green and sustainable development from the sharing economy, but the existing research lack specific guidance and promotion conditions on ‘how to effectively share underutilised resources through individuals’. However, owning underutilised resources alone is not enough to establish sharing behaviours, so it is vital to study “the conditions to form individual sharing intention”.
Third, to promote sustainable development, many scholars have called for a more efficient use of resources. The call is mainly manifested in the sharing economy as individuals sharing underutilised resources with others, but the overall effect is not ideal. Many individuals have the conditions of sharing behaviour, but their willingness to participate is not high. Exploring how to enhance their willingness and encourage more people to share resources is an urgent issue related to enhancing the boundary conditions of the sharing intention.
Point 7: Motivation is defined as "economic motivation". This is a bit questionable and could be argued. Maybe provide a more convincing arguement.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your constructive comment. The literature review reveals that, in addition to economic motives, environmental and social motivations affect individual participation and sharing to an extent. Scholars, such as Edbring, Lehner and Mont, Guttentag, Smith, Potwarkaand Havitz, believe that environmental protection and social motivations are the main influencing factors for participating and sharing, but Bardhi and Eckhardt, Bucher, Fieseler and Lutz, do not think so. Most scholars agree that individual participation and sharing are mainly driven by economic motivation [26,31], and we agree with this point. For the reasonable structure and fluent expression, we will put this part in the ‘Limitations and Further Research’. The modified content is as follows:
Previous studies have shown that, in addition to economic motives, environmental and social motivations will affect taking part and sharing in certain ways [6,60 ]. However, the conclusions about the impact of environmental and social motivations are inconsistent [5,27]. Consistent with the views of most scholars [26,31], we believe that individuals participate in sharing economic activities for economic benefits. To avoid ambiguity, we mainly consider economic motivation. Thus, we suggest future research to evaluate the impact of environmental and social motivations to gain further insights into the reasons why individual service providers participate and share.
Point 8: Line-15-18, please revise these lines
Response 8: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your comments, we have modified lines 15 to 18 as follows:
Although current research on sharing economy provides insights into users' perspectives, little attention has been given to the comprehensive investigation of the sharing intention of individual service providers.
Point 9: Lines 21-28- Can you split the results in to different sentences. I feel it is a bit too long to follow.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your comments, we have modified lines 21 to 28 to:
The results reveal that the sharing intention of individual service providers depends on their customized service capability, economic motivation and perceived ease of use. Furthermore, the burden of ownership and fashion consciousness will further influence the sharing intention of individual service providers. This discovery provides theoretical basis for the development of enterprise sharing economy and government guidance, and enriches the theoretical research on sharing economy.
Point 10: -Throughout the text, you use the word (idle). COuld you elaborate or provide a definition about this.
Line-47, research has been carried out...
Response 10: Thank you very much for your comment. By re-reading the previous literature, we define idle resources as underutilised resources. To avoid ambiguity, we replaced ‘idle resources’ with ‘underutilised resources’.
Point 11: Line 63-65- needs a reference or two
Response 11: Thank you very much for your comment. We have added the references, as suggested. Examples are listed below.
Möhlmann, M. Collaborative Consumption: Determinants of Satisfaction and the likelihood of Using a Sharing Economy Option Again. J. Jour of Con Beh, 2015, 14, 193-207.
Martin, C. J. The Sharing Economy: A Pathway to Sustainability or a Nightmarish Form of Neoliberal Capitalism? J. Ecolo Econ, 2016, 149- 159.
Geissinger, A.; Laurell, C.; Öberg, C; Sandström, C. How Sustainable is the Sharing Economy? On the Sustainability Connotations of Sharing Economy Platforms. J. Jour of Clea Pro, 2019, 206, 419-429.
Lee, H.; Yang, S.B.; Koo, C. Exploring the Effect of Airbnb Hosts' Attachment and Psychological Ownership in the Sharing Economy. J. Tour Mana, 2019, 284 -294.
Point 12: Line 61-62-this line is not complete
Response 12: Thank you very much for your comment. We have modified lines 61 to 62 as follows:
Second, many scholars have conducted cause analysis, especially for consumers. However, few have studied the antecedents for individual service providers to participate in the sharing economy.
Point 13: -Check the referencing. There are 1-2 instance of using the publication year and not the numbering method as preferred in the journal
Response 13: Thank you very much for your comment. We have reviewed and revised the references as suggested.
Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Your efforts play an important role in the improvement of this article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
After the modifications made his work has increased its scientific consistency in a remarkable way, with a better structuring and with the clearer contents.
Congratulations.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for thoroughly responding to my suggestions and comments. I am happy with the changes made and find it acceptable for publication.
