Access vs. Ownership: Understanding Consumerss Consumption Mode Preference

Baumeister, Christoph; Wangenheim, Florian von

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2463076

Cited by 16 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Baumeister (), in personal ownership one exchanges money for the object, accepts full property rights for an infinite period of time, and largely experiences a close consumer–object relationship with the item. In contrast, access‐based consumption, which is akin to utility‐based nonownership in the current study, provides time with an object only for monetary or nonmonetary exchange, provides only usage rights for a restricted time period, and consequently yields a distant consumer–object relationship due to these seeming barriers to history‐ and meaning‐making (Baumeister, ). However, this simplistic approach to contrasting these two consumption modes is complicated by the idea of redistributed ownership introduced in the current study, where ownership occurs but the goods are passed along from another user for a second life.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current study, rather than limiting the exploration of factors to only desires and values, the researchers took a more holistic approach to conceptualizing these two consumption modes. Many researchers have frequently asserted that engaging in collaborative consumption may transform the consumer's relationship with the product, with the relevant others who are involved in the sharing scheme (peers), and with the service provider (business) when contrasted with traditional personal ownership (e.g., Belk, ; Bardhi and Eckhardt, ; Baumeister, ; Chen, ). Therefore, these relationships are at the center of this investigation, and the FMC has been adapted to explore a wider range of factors embodied within these three focal areas: consumer–product, consumer–consumer, and consumer–business relationships.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collaborative apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy: An agenda for academic inquiry

Park

Armstrong

2017

Int J Consumer Studies

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While apparel businesses leveraging the sharing economy have begun to emerge in recent years, academic research on "sharing" consumption for apparel is extremely limited. To fill this research gap, the researchers analyze current literature to present a conceptual framework that offers a durable theoretical foundation about the concept of collaborative consumption for apparel. Using a metatheory approach, the researchers develop a framework that explores how two major Internet-supported collaborative consumption modes (utility-based nonownership and redistributed ownership) manifest in an apparel context. Next, the researchers explore the implications of each consumption mode to understand the consumer's relationship with the product, peers, and businesses involved in these sharing schemes. A series of research propositions are also developed to stimulate discussion and future research about collaborative apparel consumption. K E Y W O R D S apparel consumption, collaborative consumption, sharing economy, sharing

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy: An agenda for academic inquiry

Park

Armstrong

2017

Int J Consumer Studies

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Möhlmann (2015) found a mixture of self-interest and sociallyoriented motivation through surveys of users of the car sharing service car2go, and of Airbnb (N=187) in Germany. The Baumeister & Wangenheim (2014) survey of a representative sample of 2,000 German respondents, randomly assigned to express their views and attitudes to accessing rather than owning different types of products, found that the attitude to access is consistently worse than the attitude to ownership across all product categories.…”

Section: Motivation To Participate and Social Capitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is further argued that connected consumers are much more likely to trust strangers online and, as they will become the overwhelming majority of the population, this ensures that the sharing economy would further develop and consolidate (Vaughan & Hawksworth, 2014). At the socio-cultural level, various consumption theorists see the irreversible advent of the switching from ownership to access as consumers are becoming more comfortable with this practice and with sourcing trust through peer-review systems (Baumeister & Wangenheim 2014); this trend is allegedly reinforced by surveys cited in various policy reports (Barbezieux & Herody, 2016;EESC, 2014;Observatorio Cetelem, 2013;PIPAME, 2015) conducted in various European countries suggesting that consumers are increasingly in favour of access over ownership. In addition, according to the more optimist and utopian analysts there is an increasing desire for community (Gansky, 2010: p. 50) and for richer small world experiences (Owyang, 2013, p. 5).…”

Section: XXVmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the 'Sharing Economy'

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital platforms generally placed under the 'sharing economy' and various other labels match different groups of users and providers and enable the increase in scale and speed for traditional transactions such as selling, renting, lending, labour trade, and provision of services. In many cases, these platform-mediated activities involve peer-topeer or peer-to-business transactions that occur in a regulatory vacuum. Since 2014, the phenomenal growth of a few large commercial 'sharing' platforms, the increasing number of economic sectors affected, and the conflicting interests among the stakeholders involved have made the 'sharing economy' a domain of conflictual rhetoric and public controversies, legal disputes, and even violent protests. The various expressions used to refer to 'sharing' platforms, by now appropriated by practitioners and stakeholders, are 'floating signifiers' for all sorts of different activities, in what can be called the rhetorical politics of platformisation. Terms and concepts are used in such confused and confusing ways that it is at times difficult to ascertain whether advocates, opponents, regulators, and policy makers are discussing the same phenomenon. There is a closed self-reproducing loop between conceptual ambiguity, rhetorical controversies, and lack of sound measurement and empirical evidence. This loop, in turn, limits the space for a rational debate of alternative policy options and contributes to the fragmented regulatory approaches which currently address the 'sharing economy'. This theoretically-inspired and empirically-informed critical essay (i) unpacks the 'sharing economy' rhetoric, (ii) clears the field of semantic and conceptual ambiguity by providing a heuristicallyuseful and empirically-grounded typology, (iii) maps the controversies against available empirical evidence on the functioning and on the impacts of 'sharing' platforms, (iv) reviews the debate and the literature which focuses on regulatory and policy issues, and (v) discusses all these aspects in terms of their policy implications, and of future European research on this topic. It does so in a unique way, because of the extensive evidence base used and the inter-disciplinary approach it takes in which theoretical and empirical economics, sociology, anthropology, regulatory and legal studies, and rhetorical analysis converge. The evidence comprises: a) 120 media items (newspapers and magazine articles; blogs especially by 'sharing economy' advocacy groups and organisations; industry briefs etc.); b) in-depth analysis of a purposive sample of 70 platforms (website, blog, public relations and self-reports, etc.); c) 140 sources, consisting of scientific items (115) and broadly defined reports (25), selected using a formalised protocol and systematically reviewed; c) about 60 reports released by interested parties (industrial associations, platforms own reports and public relation materials); d) 70 indirectly relevant scientific contributions and policy reports.

show abstract

“…Research exploring the role of perceptions (e.g., sense of community, environmentalism, etc.) on preferences for ownership versus access using hypothetical situations concluded that it will depend on the good in question; perceptions of sharing cars differed significantly from sharing bicycles, books or handbags (Baumeister and Wangenheim, 2014).…”

Section: Sharing Economy More Broadlymentioning

confidence: 99%