Exploring innovativeness, need for uniqueness and brand tiers in the sharing economy

Abstract

Purpose

In a context where the sharing economy (SE) plays an important role in the transformation of today’s business landscape, profoundly changing the behavior of consumers and many established companies, some companies have begun to adapt to SE by incorporating its value propositions into their business models. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to study the role of consumer innovativeness, brand levels and the need for uniqueness on the way to attitudes and intentions to participate in SE.

Design/methodology/approach

This study collected the data through an online user survey, achieving a total sample of 717. The data were first analyzed using structural equation modeling and then combined with the use of the PROCESS macro.

Findings

The findings provide empirical evidence of the antecedents of consumer innovativeness in a SE context and its role in explaining consumer attitudes and intentions to participate in non-ownership consumption. Furthermore, they also demonstrate that brand tiers and the need for uniqueness moderate the relationship between intentions and participation.

Originality/value

The results of this study contribute to the theoretical development of the SE by presenting the first conceptual model that considers including the brand tiers effect and connects it to two leading theories on consumer behavior (diffusion of innovations theory and uniqueness theory). In addition, the study’s findings provide valuable insights for sharing platforms and traditional companies that choose to participate in the collaborative economy.

Citation

Espinosa Sáez, D., Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera Alemán, J.L. (2024), "Exploring innovativeness, need for uniqueness and brand tiers in the sharing economy", Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-11-2023-0309

1. Introduction

The emergence of SE has dramatically changed consumer behavior, as people are presented with alternative modes of temporary and collaborative consumption that challenge actual ownership as the dominant and normative ideal mean of obtaining product benefits (Stough and Carter, 2023).

Its popularity has expanded, taking advantage of the arrival of internet-based technologies and fueled by global economic crises, increased awareness of climate change and the need for a more efficient resource management (Alves et al., 2023), a process that is expected to accelerate in years to come. For example, the global value of SE worldwide has been estimated at $150bn in 2023 and is expected to reach $794bn by 2031, a compound annual growth rate of approximately 32% (Statista, 2024). In addition, the SE sector currently contains a total of 9,829 companies operating in 133 countries and across 25 categories (Gitnux, 2024).

In response to this, academic research has been prolific in determining why people accept access-based sharing options instead of actual ownership (see Appendix for a comprehensive summary). Despite this rich body of research, there are three remaining major gaps.

First, SE is regarded as a business model innovation with the potential to transform the traditional modes of engaging in economic transactions and generate value for all relevant stakeholders (Duan, 2023). In addition, considering the noteworthy influence of consumer innovativeness on the adoption of innovations (Alves et al., 2023; Belezas and Daniel, 2023), it is striking to see that SE literature has yet to pay sufficient attention to the connection between consumer innovativeness and SE adoption. In other words, SE constitutes a substantial transformation in people’s consumption behavior (Fang and Li, 2022) and in the way supply and demand are organized, introducing a kind of novelty that may require a certain degree of innovation on the part of consumers (Belezas and Daniel, 2023). As such, in response to the ongoing call in literature to look more closely at the factors favoring the development of SE (Duan, 2023), it becomes imperative to analyze these relationships in greater detail.

Second, many companies have started offering their own brands through access services (Richard and Cleveland, 2016). For example, the German multinational retail chain Media Markt decided in 2020 to realign its strategy by offering rental services for some of its products (Espinosa Sáez et al., 2023). In the automotive sector, Geely Technology Group created its own carsharing platform, Cao Cao Mobility, which the group defined as a strategic investment in mobility services focused on new energies, offering luxury carsharing services with its own cars; or the Stellantis Group, which created the Free2move carsharing platform to offer mobility services with the cars of the group’s brands. In the fashion sector, the luxury company Diane Von Furstenberg, in 2020 launched its own online clothing rental platform “ Diane von Furstenberg (DVF) Link.” The service being offered consisted of a monthly subscription through which the company allows its registered partners to access a wide variety of the company’s products.

The examples mentioned above underscore the significant challenges in relation to the role of brands in SE, an issue that remains relatively unexplored in existing literature (Eckhardt et al., 2019), despite the potential for SE to provide access to brand tiers that consumers may not typically be able to afford through regular purchase (Khalek and Chakraborty, 2023). As such, a crucial aspect to understand pertains to how different brand tiers – divided into as low, medium and high – may influence consumers’ intention to engage in SE (Jain and Mishra, 2020).

Finally, the effect of consumers’ need for uniqueness in product purchases has been extensively demonstrated within traditionally owned business models (Tian et al., 2001), based on the assertion that it constitutes a pivotal variable in consumer behavior. The reason is that consumers characterized by a heightened need for uniqueness tend to prioritize self-expression, the establishment of an independent identity and the use of distinctive brands (Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2018). However, within an SE context, where consumers have access to and use brands they may not have the financial capacity to own (Lovelock and Gummesson, 2004), a comprehensive analysis is notably absent.

To bridge the knowledge gaps identified about, the aim of this study is:

• To understand the role of consumer innovativeness in explaining people’s attitudes and intentions to adopt the SE; and

• To know what brand tiers would benefit more from the non-ownership consumption and how consumers’ need for uniqueness might condition this effect.

In examining these gaps, this paper contributes to the theoretical development of SE by proposing a model that integrates the study of the effect of brand levels with the theory of the diffusion of innovations and the theory of uniqueness. In addition, the findings provide strategic guidelines for companies devising SE strategies to make informed decisions by considering what factors may determine the adoption of SE consumption and how brand tiers and consumer uniqueness condition sharing-related intentions.

In what follows, we review relevant literature on the SE and, in doing so, propose a theoretical model. Subsequently, we explain the research methodology, and the findings obtained are discussed. Finally, practical and theoretical implications as well as future research directions are outlined.

2. Literature review on the sharing economy

While sharing has long been a fundamental aspect of human behavior, contemporary technological advancements have propelled the concept of sharing beyond conventional boundaries (Khalek and Chakraborty, 2023). Within this context, Lessig (2008) was the first to introduce the concept of “Sharing economy” (SE), described as a market where access to products or services is not only regulated by price but by a complex set of social relations. Due to the absence of a more precise definition of SE in the literature, various authors have coined different terms, with SE being used as an overarching term for this organizational model (Zou et al., 2023).

The concept of SE has evolved since its inception by Lessig (2008). In the early stages of literature development, multiple concepts were proposed. For example, Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) used “access-based consumption,” while Möhlmann (2015) and Hamari et al. (2016) refer to “collaborative consumption.” However, in recent years, SE has been established as the central concept (Khalek and Chakraborty, 2023), with most studies addressing it specifically (Zou et al., 2023; Shaikh et al., 2023; Belezas and Daniel, 2023). Consequently, it is recognized as a comprehensive construct encompassing diverse practices related to shared access to goods and assets, including the collaborative economy, global platform economy (Lehdonvirta et al., 2019), peer-to-peer economy (Ma et al., 2020), access-based consumption, gig economy or lateral exchange market (Shaikh et al., 2023).

For the purposes of this study, SE is understood as a scalable socioeconomic and collaborative system that uses technology to afford people temporary access to both tangible and intangible resources (Eckhardt et al., 2019). This implies that SE transactions do not involve a transfer of ownership (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012), but goods being used successively by multiple individuals (i.e. shared) over time (Schaefers et al., 2016), with consumers acquiring the right to use a product or service temporarily (Zervas et al., 2017) due to financial constraints, an inability to justify the purchase or a preference not to retain the good after use (Lovelock and Gummesson, 2004).

Existing literature on the SE is very informative on the drivers of the sharing attitudes and intentions of consumers (see Appendix). Some of them are related to the characteristics of the specific sharing option such as host and product’s attributes (Ert et al., 2016), the existence of trust building measures and information about regulation mechanisms (Marth et al., 2022) and the system and service performance and content provision (Park and Le, 2023), among others.

It has been stated that the perceived economic benefits (Ek Styvén and Mariani, 2020), enjoyment and social-relational benefits derive from using SE (Lo et al., 2020; Minami et al., 2021; Park and Le, 2023) also explain the sharing attitudes and intentions of consumers.

It has been further argued that individual traits and characteristics, such as altruism (Say et al., 2021), environmental concern (Aktan and Kethüda, 2023; Alves et al., 2023), openness to experience and collectivism (Gupta et al., 2019; Tunçel and Tektaş, 2020), are positively related to sharing attitudes and intentions, whereas the importance given to possession and materialism (Akbar et al., 2016; Davidson et al., 2018) have the opposite effect (Lang and Armstrong, 2018; Moeller and Witkowski, 2010).

Consequently, and despite the study of numerous variables as described previously and outlined in Appendix, literature on SE underscores the imperative of looking more closely at the factors influencing the development of SE (Duan, 2023). For example, the consideration of consumer innovativeness remains notably absent in the examination of attitudes and intentions toward SE. The introduction of this variable within the spectrum of consumer characteristics previously analyzed would be compelling, given the innovative nature of SE in reshaping consumption patterns, to enhance our current understanding of SE. Moreover, existing research provides limited insights into the potential conditional effects exerted by brand tiers and the need for uniqueness. To address these gaps, a proposed theoretical model is outlined below.

3. Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

For the scope of this study, the theoretical model is based on self-determination theory (hereafter SDT) (Ryan and Deci, 2000), a general theory that focuses on what factors can motivate new behavior. In fact, sharing economy literature has highlighted that self-motivation is a preliminary indicator of participation behavior in SE (Yakin et al., 2017). As such, we look at how a new behavior (in this study, innovative predisposition among consumers to learn about and adopt a new mode of consumption) might be facilitated and sustained as a result of motivations as proposed by SDT.

The main factors that have traditionally been identified as motivations to explain consumer adoption of the SE are related to the benefits (e.g. cost savings, environmental sustainability) and the costs (e.g. loss of ownership) of sharing (Lee and Chow, 2020; Moeller and Witkowski, 2010; Morewedge et al., 2020). In this context, we propose a theoretical model to explain consumer adoption of the SE with the inclusion of consumer innovativeness as an intermediate driver between consumer attitudes and three factors that can potentially determine individuals’ self-determination to innovate and adopt this new form of consumption (see Figure 1).

3.1 Antecedents of consumer innovativeness in a sharing economy domain

In response to growing concerns about rationalizing natural resources and ecological pressures to adopt an eco-friendlier and more sustainable product design (Tseng et al., 2019), SE offers alternative forms of green, ethical or sustainable consumption, reducing the material required and avoiding waste and overproduction (Albinsson et al., 2021; Hamari et al., 2016; Möhlmann, 2015). In terms of SDT, several studies have stressed that environmental awareness or concerns provide an intrinsic motivation for people to be more reliant on environmentally friendly practices (Fishman et al., 2013) because it satisfies our needs by reducing waste, saving resources and improving the quality of the environment (Li and Wen, 2019). As such, environmental concerns, which indicate the importance consumers attach to ecological issues and environmental protection in their consumption practices and activities (Lee and Chow, 2020), are an important motivation for people to innovate and change from their current behavior to a more environmentally friendly behavior (Wang et al., 2020). Hence, it is expected that the higher the level of environmental awareness consumers have, the higher their predisposition to innovate. More formally, it is hypothesized that:

H1.

Environmental concerns exert a positive effect on consumer innovativeness.

In addition to the idea that SE is an environmentally friendly option of consumption, while using SE, people also improve their financial situation thanks to the economic benefits associated with sharing practices. At the core of an access-based service is that a product is used successively by multiple individuals over time (Schaefers et al., 2016). Therefore, instead of satisfying one person’s desire for unlimited access to a product, SE satisfy multiple people’s need for temporary access. This implies that with an access-based consumption, consumers enjoy multiple economic benefits as they do not suffer the “burden of ownership” (Moeller and Witkowski, 2010), because temporary access to the use of a product drastically lowers the economic burden compared to purchasing or owning that product (e.g. lower price, money saving and lower ownership costs) (Jiang and Tian, 2016; Kim and Jin, 2020; Moeller and Witkowski, 2010). In fact, these economic benefits have been identified by previous studies as the main expected outcome reported by participants in SE (Lee et al., 2018, 2019). Translated through the SDT framework, the reduction of spending and increasing welfare can be understood as external or extrinsic motivation that prompts the predisposition of individuals to innovate and change the way they consume. We propose:

H2.

Economic concerns exert a positive effect on consumer innovativeness.

Finally, in comparison to SE, the traditional form of consumption is ownership-based (Akbar et al., 2016). However, unlike the term “ownership,” the term “possession” generally involves personal identification and a strong attachment with the item as an extension of the self (Belk, 1988). Thus, distinct from legal ownership, the importance given to possessions refers to the feeling people have as though the target of ownership is part of who they are (Watkins et al., 2015). Therefore, the value of owning a possession transcends its functional value because it also symbolizes important components of self-identity (e.g. personal success) (Ferraro et al., 2011).

By contrast, the new forms of consumption offered by sharing services only provide instrumental utility (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012), which means the development of feelings of attachment and personal identification with the physical products is not possible (Moeller and Witkowski, 2010) due to the limited access to a given object. As such, the importance of possession may prevent people from looking for new ways of consumption that do not offer full ownership of a product. In other words, consumers who value possession would be unlikely to change the way they consume. They are comfortable with the traditional way of consumption and have no intention of changing at all. Therefore, their predisposition to change the way they consume is negatively affected. That is why we propose:

H3.

Importance given to possession exerts a negative effect on consumer innovativeness.

3.2 Impact of consumer innovativeness on sharing economy attitude and adoption

As we have argued above, within a SE context, it is the processes (and their constant evolution) through which goods are delivered and demanded that really represent an important novelty (Maalouf et al., 2021), because they change consumer behavior in a profound way (Srinivasan and Ramani, 2018). For example, interaction in SE contexts generally takes place through a centralized and sophisticated online platform (Belezas and Daniel, 2023). The use of real-time functionalities in messaging is common, while integrated payment processing tools are the default (Maalouf et al., 2021), which means that each of these components requires a certain level of innovativeness to be seen as a positive and attractive alternative (Maalouf et al., 2021).

Moreover, the more innovative an individual is, the more quickly they will perceive the advantages of innovations, and these perceptions will foster not only a positive attitude towards innovations (Li et al., 2021) but also affect their intentions to adopt because highly innovative individuals are able to cope with high levels of uncertainty (Lu et al., 2005) and are more willing to try out new forms of consumption (Eun Park et al., 2010). As such, we also propose that:

H4.

A consumer’s innovativeness exerts a positive effect on SE attitudes.

H5.

A consumer’s innovativeness exerts a positive effect on SE intentions.

In line with earlier studies, we also expect that people’s attitude towards SE positively affects their intention to participate, because attitudes are an important determinant of behavior as they indicate that personal evaluations of performing a particular behavior are either favorable or unfavorable and that people are more likely to engage in a certain behavior if they have a positive attitude toward that behavior (Won and Kim, 2020). In recent years, several studies have shown that this relationship also exists within the context of sharing economy (Hamari et al., 2016), sharing services and fashion sharing platforms (Kim et al., 2018; Won and Kim, 2020). Thus, we formally propose that:

H6.

Consumers’ attitudes toward SE exert a positive effect on their intentions to participate.

We further explore this relationship by analyzing the conditioning effects that brand tiers and consumers’ needs for uniqueness might exert on the relationship between attitudes and intentions.

3.3 The moderating effects of brand tiers and the need for uniqueness on the relationship between attitudes and intentions to participate in sharing economy

As long as firms offer a portfolio of brands with different price-quality levels and attributes (Keller, 2020), and many consumers cannot afford to buy specific brands because of their high price and quality, it would appear that brand tiers may condition the relationships between sharing attitudes and intentions, especially among individuals with a need to enhance themselves and their social reputation (Tian et al., 2001).

From a consumer perspective, a brand tier is defined as a set of brands that consumers purchase based on the attributes they consider important (Keller, 2020). Based on this definition, earlier studies have distinguished three brand tiers (Rubio et al., 2020) in terms of different attributes and performance levels: low (economy), middle (volume) and high (luxury).

The high brand tier is classified as luxury, premium-priced and top-quality, occupying the top end of the market (Chung and Kim, 2020). Brand image is considered to be very important, as it is used to signal exclusivity, status and wealth (Palmeira et al., 2019). Higher-tier brands are also bought by consumers to achieve greater social status and communicate wealth and exclusivity based on the assumption that they are unique (Verhoef et al., 2007).

The middle brand tier is the mid-price/mid-quality alternative and serves most of the market (Verhoef et al., 2007). Quality is lower compared to the higher-tier brands, as is the price, which is why the brand itself is of less importance because it does not communicate status, wealth or exclusivity but rather utility (Verhoef et al., 2007). They are priced near the market average and have relatively high market shares, positioned in the mass merchandiser section (Seenivasan and Talukdar, 2016).

Finally, the low brand tier offers basic quality at a price below market average (Verhoef et al., 2007) and is sold at the low end of the market. Compared to the other tiers, the quality is lower, but that also goes for the price (Lemon and Nowlis, 2002). The brand itself is not important to consumers because they focus on price, which is the most important rationale in this case (DelVecchio, 2001).

These brand tiers represent different levels of value for money whose legal ownership is not equally available to all consumers (Zhang et al., 2020), with the top tier of brands being perceived as superior to the other two (Verhoef et al., 2007). In this sense, the rise of SE has resulted in a boom of new ways to access more expensive brands (e.g. renting, on-demand use or temporary access) that would otherwise have been unaffordable (Christodoulides et al., 2021; Morewedge et al., 2020). As such, we propose that brand tiers play a moderating effect on the relationship between attitude and intentions to adopt the SE so that, the higher the brand tier, the stronger the relationship:

H7.

Brand tiers exert a positive moderation effect on the relationship between SE attitudes and SE intentions to participate.

The proposed two interaction effects between brand tiers and SE attitude on intentions to participate may be further conditioned by people’s need to express themselves as being different from others for meaningful self-identification (Abosag et al., 2020). According to the Theory of uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin, 1977), uniqueness is defined as a personal trait of seeking difference from others by acquiring and using goods to develop and enhance one’s personal and social self-image (Tian et al., 2001). Thus, consumers with a high need for uniqueness tend to place greater emphasis on expressing themselves, establishing an independent identity and using distinctive brands (Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2018).

Specifically, the need for uniqueness is an important driver of interest in expensive and luxurious brands (Abosag et al., 2020) because they denote exclusivity and status (Palmeira et al., 2019). Following these arguments, we propose that the need for uniqueness may enhance the moderating effect of the higher brand tier (relative to the other two tiers) on the relationship between SE attitude and intentions. Therefore:

H8.

The interaction effect of SE attitude and brand tiers on intentions is moderated by consumers’ needs for uniqueness, suggesting that the interaction effect is significant when the need for uniqueness is higher.

Based on the discussion presented above, Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical model, which also includes a set of control variables (e.g. type of product, age, gender and level of income) that might correlate with the main dependent variables of the model.

4. Methodology

4.1 Context of the study

Our study focuses on the fashion and automotive sectors, where SE is growing more through the creation of new platforms that allow consumers to have access to the use of products (Ciulli and AKolk, 2019). Moreover, the three brand levels analyzed in this research can be clearly identified in these two sectors.

The selection of brands within each tier involved 10 in-depth interviews within a convenience sample that closely aligned with the characteristics of SE consumers. As such, the interview pool consisted of 5 men and 5 women, with 7 participants falling within the 18 and 35 age group. During these in-depth interviews, participants were queried, without any prompting, about their awareness of brands in the automotive and clothing sectors. They were then asked with categorizing the list of brands mentioned into three groups, or tiers, according to their respective positions within the sector.

Following the preliminary classification of brands in both sectors, two focus groups were conducted—one for each sector—to obtain a final brand classification across various tiers. Each focus group consisted of four individuals engaged in discussions on the categorization of brands, which meant that these two groups of four people were formed to discuss the categories of the different brands (e.g. two brands per tier in each sector). Ultimately, the brands considered were: high-tier brands (cars: Porsche, Lamborghini; clothes: Prada, Giorgio Armani), medium-tier brands (cars: Volkswagen, Toyota; clothes: Zara, H&M) and low-tier brands (cars: Dacia, Daewoo; clothes: Primark, Lefties).

4.2 Sample and data collection

According to the findings of the European Commission (2018), approximately 75% of SE consumers are between 15 and 38 years old, indicating a predominantly youthful demographic. Consequently, to align the sample characteristics with this demographic profile, a self-administered questionnaire was disseminated online to the e-mail distribution list of a Spanish university, giving us access to people that share similar characteristics with the main users of SE (e.g. young people) but also to other age groups, albeit to a lesser extent (e.g. teachers, administrative staff). Therefore, the sampling procedure consisted of a non-probability convenience sampling method (Malhotra et al., 2017). To avoid the effect of participants’ familiarity with a specific brand, the description of each brand tier did not focus on the brand as such but on a set of brands representing the characteristics of each tier according to the interviews and focus groups. As such, participants were exposed to a particular brand tier of either fashion products or cars. A hypothetical scenario is built on these brands, outlining the possibility of accessing these brands through SE services, i.e. the possibility of accessing the use of this set of brands at a reasonable price without the need to acquire ownership of the products. Based on this hypothetical scenario, participants were asked a series of questions related to the variables of interest.

A total of 725 questionnaires were collected between April and June 2021. Following the removal of invalid submissions, 717 usable questionnaires made up the final data set. Women made up 56% of the sample, with over 70% falling within the age range of 18–38 years old. Regarding occupation, 48.3% were students, while approximately one-third (33.8%) were permanent workers. The majority of respondents reported a monthly income ranging between €1,000 and €2,000, encompassing 75% of the sample.

4.3 Measurement

Existing scales were used, and, where necessary, slight changes were made in the wording to adapt the questions to the context of the study. Table 1 presents the set of items measuring the theoretical concepts and their bibliographical sources. The values 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) were the anchors used for all of the scales.

5. Analysis and results

5.1 Reliability and validity analysis

To check the reliability and one-dimensionality of the measures, a confirmatory factor analysis was first conduced and showed good overall fit [χ² (303) = 956.47; goodness of fit (GFI) = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.055; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.048; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.97; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) [non normed fit index (NNFI)] = 0.97] and high construct reliability (ranging from 0.84 to 0.96; see Table 1).

Table 1 reveals the convergent validity of the constructs in that all the loadings were significant at p < 0.01 and the average variance extracted (AVE) values are higher than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All constructs fulfilled the requirements for discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) because the 99% confidence interval of each pair of constructs’ correlations did not include a value of 1.

Table 2 presents the constructs’ means, standard deviations and intercorrelations.

Because the data were collected from one single respondent, we test for the existence of common-method variance. The Harman’s one-factor test suggests that common-method variance is not present because the unrotated factor solution showed the presence of multiple factors and no one accounted for most of the covariance. A more sophisticated test uses confirmatory factor analysis with a one-factor model in which all the observable variables used in this research load on the same factor. This model yielded a χ² = 11,576.39 with 324 degrees of freedom (compared with the χ² = 956.47 with 303 degrees of freedom for the measurement model – Table 1). A chi-squared difference test (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) suggests a considerably worse fit for the unidimensional model than for the measurement model. The results of these tests confirmed that common-method bias is not a serious threat in this study.

5.2 Structural model test

5.2.1 Main effect tests.

Structural equation modeling analyses were conducted to test H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 and H6.

The overall fit of the structural model was acceptable [χ² (315) = 991.45; GFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.055; SRMR = 0.062; CFI = 0.97; TLI (NNFI) = 0.97], thereby suggesting that the nomological network of relationships fits the data. To provide greater confidence in our model specification, we test it against a more parsimonious model where SE attitudes exert a full mediating role between consumer innovativeness and intentions. The significant worse fit of the alternative model (Δχ² = 30.22 Δdf = 1 p < 0.05) suggests that the theoretical model is a better alternative to estimate the hypotheses.

In terms of our hypotheses, Table 3 illustrates that, beyond the effects of the covariates, the expected causal relationships are significant and consistent with our expectations, providing support for the hypotheses.

5.2.2 Interaction between brand tiers and SE attitudes.

H7 predicted a moderating effect of brand tiers on the relationship between SE attitudes and intentions. Because the moderator variable (e.g. brand tier) is multi-categorical with three categories, we used the PROCESS macro for SPSS, which automatically re-coded the three brand tier categories into two dummy coded variables, D₁ and D₂, which generate comparisons of interest between the three brand tiers (D₁: low brand tier = 0, medium + high brand tier = 1; D₂: low + medium brand tier = 0, high brand tier = 1).

The results obtained from the estimation of Model 1 of PROCESS with 5,000 bootstraps and a confidence interval of 95% are shown in Table 4. The results indicate that, beyond the effects of covariates, a significant change in R² results from adding the two interaction terms, ΔR² = 0.0076, F(2,707) = 3.49 p < 0.05, which suggests that the effect of SE attitude on intentions depends on brand tiers, thereby supporting H7.

More specifically, the interaction term “SE attitude x D₂”, which indicates the relative conditional effect of the high brand tier relative to the reference condition (low + medium brand tiers), was not significant (b = −0.008, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−0.18, 0.17]). By contrast, the interaction term “SE attitude x D₁”, which indicates the relative conditional effect of high + medium brand tiers relative to low brand tier (reference condition) on intentions, was positive and significant (b = 0.189, 95% CI [0.036, 0.341], p < 0.05).

Figure 2 provides a visual depiction of these interaction effects. It can be observed that the gap between the three lines conditioned at a specific value of attitudes reflects the differences in consumers’ intentions resulting from different brand tiers. As shown, participants in the high and medium brand tiers showed greater intentions to participate in SE than those in the low-end brand tier at a specific value of attitude. It also appears that as participants’ attitude is greater, the gap between high and medium brand tier lines relative to low-end brand tier is greater.

To further probe the conditional effect of D₁ and facilitate the interpretation of the interaction effect “SE attitude x D1” on intentions, we used the recommended Johnson–Neyman technique. This technique illustrates the entire range of the independent variable (e.g. SE attitude) to demarcate regions of significance for the difference coded by D1 variable (low brand tier = 0, medium + high brand tier = 1).

Following the tutorial suggested by Hayes and Montoya (2017), we estimated Model 1 using Hayes’s PROCESS Macro with 5,000 bootstrap samples. SE intentions was entered as the dependent variable, with the variable D1 as the independent variable and SE attitude as the moderator. Along with the control variables, D₂ dummy variable and its product with SE attitude were also specified as covariates.

The results from the Johnson–Neymann technique indicate (see Figure 3) that the conditional effect of brand tiers on SE intentions transitioned in significance at values of attitudes greater than 3.54, while below this threshold, the conditional effect is not significant. In other words, the results indicate an interaction between attitude and high and medium-end brand tiers relative to low brand tier, but only for those consumers with SE attitudes greater than 3.54.

5.2.3 Three-way interaction between brand tiers, sharing economy consumption attitude and consumer uniqueness.

To test H8, a PROCESS SPSS Macro (Model 3, n = 5,000 resamples) was implemented. Model 3 allows the estimation of a three-way interaction whereby the interaction effect between attitudes and brand tiers is moderated by consumers’ need for uniqueness. After controlling for the effects of the covariates, it was found that the three-way interaction was not significant for D1 (b = 0.066, 95% CI [−0.0155, 0.1474], meaning that the conditional effect of high+medium brand tiers (relative to low brand tier) on the relationship between attitudes and intentions is not conditioned by the need for uniqueness.

By contrast, there was a three-way interaction between attitude, uniqueness and D2 (b = 0.1319, 95% CI [0.046, 0.217] p < 0.05), meaning that the moderation effect of high brand tier (relative to low + medium brand tiers) on the relationship between attitudes and intentions was a function of consumers’ need for uniqueness. This significant three-way interaction is discussed below and presented graphically in Figure 4, with the three panels corresponding to values on uniqueness equal to the mean and plus/minus one standard deviation (SD) from mean. A Johnson–Neyman test revealed this moderation effect was only significant at values of uniqueness higher than 4.8. In other words, for individuals with low and medium levels of uniqueness (< 3.06), the three-way interaction effect is not significant. By contrast, for higher levels of uniqueness (> 4.8), high brand tier exerts a higher conditional effect relative to low+medium brand tiers on the relationship between SE attitudes and intentions.

6. General discussion

This study extends the limited existing literature on consumer innovativeness in SE (Belezas and Daniel, 2023) by providing a conceptual model that focuses on its antecedents and its role in explaining people’s attitudes and intentions to adopt non-ownership consumption. It also examines the effect of different brand tiers on the relationships between attitudes and intentions to adopt SE, and how people’s need for uniqueness may condition this effect.

Our results support the arguments that the three proposed drivers (environmental concern, economic concern and importance given to possessions) explain consumer innovativeness within the specific context of SE. So, according to the literature, considering SE as a form of green, ethical or sustainable consumption (Hamari et al., 2016), the importance consumers attach to ecological issues and environmental protection in their consumption practices and activities (Lee and Chow, 2020) exerts a positive influence on their innovativeness.

At the same time, greater economic concern on the part of consumers makes it more likely that they will be more open to new changes in their way of consuming (Kim and Jin, 2020) and have a greater tendency towards innovation. However, and according to the literature, as traditional forms of consumption are related to possessions (Akbar et al., 2016), the importance that consumers give to possessions has a negative effect on their innovation in the search for new forms of consumption.

Furthermore, based on the diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 2003), this study contributes to the existing body of literature by increasing our understanding of the factors that affect the development of SE (Duan, 2023). This contribution is achieved through the empirical evidence obtained that show the role of consumers’ innovativeness in explaining their attitudes and intentions regarding SE, specifically showing that individuals with higher levels of innovativeness exhibit more favorable attitudes and intentions (Li et al., 2021) regarding the adoption of SE consumption practices.

Moreover, the results indicate that brand tiers (Zhang et al., 2020) reinforce the relationship between attitude and intentions to participate, such that the higher the brand tier, the stronger the effect of attitudes on intentions. This is consistent with past studies, which highlight the fact that SE offer advantages to consumers to use goods or brands that are superior to those they would have purchased without that access (Christodoulides et al., 2021; Morewedge et al., 2020).

Finally, this study also enhances existing literature by incorporating the theory of uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin, 1977) to demonstrate that people’s desire for uniqueness plays a crucial role in conditioning the moderating effect of brand tiers. The fact that the interaction effect is greater the higher the level of people’s need for uniqueness is also in line with existing literature, which argues that the need for uniqueness is an important driver of interest in high-end brands (Chan et al., 2015; Palmeira et al., 2019).

6.1 Managerial contributions

Initially, SE was seen as a threat to traditional businesses because of its perceived negative impact on industries. However, it is seen more and more as an opportunity for established business models to create and deliver greater value to existing customers (Espinosa Sáez et al., 2023). In light of remarkable growth experienced by SE (Klein et al., 2022), many traditional companies have adapted their business models to align with SE principles (Ciulli and Akolk, 2019), and the empirical findings of this study have significant implications for these traditional firms.

First, our results show that innovative attitudes towards consumption modes offered by SE contribute to positive attitudes and a willingness to participate. So, managers should be aware of this and tailor their strategies to identify consumers with varying levels of innovativeness, in particular when developing strategies across different business models involving ownership or access-based consumption.

Furthermore, our data show that environmental and economic concerns, and the importance given to ownership serve as antecedents of consumers’ innovative capacity, providing managers with valuable insights into the innovative capacity of their customers. In addition, the significant role played by individual traits, such as gender, age and income, in influencing consumers’ innovativeness, suggest their utility in segmenting and demographically profiling consumers’ innovativeness tendencies.

Second, in line with arguments that SE may give people access to more upscale brands (Christodoulides et al., 2021), our study demonstrates a preference for high brand tiers in the SE market, particularly among consumers with a high need for uniqueness. Conversely, low brand tiers are less appealing to consumers. These findings can help managers make more informed decisions about their product portfolios and determine which products or services each business model should offer.

Finally, this study has notable implications for SE platforms (Cao Cao Mobility, DVF Link, Rent the Runway…) that have entered the market in recent years, because it observes that consumers with a higher degree of innovativeness are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes and intentions towards using SE services. Moreover, concerning the products or services offered on these platforms, our study reveals that brands with higher status in the market yield positive effects on the intentions to engage with these services. Therefore, platforms featuring high brand tiers may attract more attention than those with lower brand tiers.

Table 5 summarizes the research conclusion and implications.

6.2 Limitations and future research directions

This study is not without limitations, which offer valuable avenues for future research. First, we designed three hypothetical scenarios, describing generic brand tiers rather than focusing on specific brands, to ensure a sample of individuals unbiased by brand familiarity or past experiences. Future investigations may find it worthwhile to replicate our model with specific brands with which people are familiar and have past experiences with.

Second, our data collection was limited to two sectors that have adopted SE on a broader scale. However, SE is prevalent and influential across various industries beyond fashion and automobiles. Consequently, further research should include a broader spectrum of sectors to validate the results of our study and examine variations among different types of goods, given that consumers’ perceptions towards each category may differ (e.g. symbolic vs functional).

A third limitation arises from the acknowledgment that consumer motivation is oversimplified in this study, so future studies should also consider not only functional motivations as the ones we analyzed but other hedonic motivations not considered here.

Fourth, the respondents in our research were relatively young and well-educated, with most of them being university students, so follow-up studies should collect data from more diverse age groups.

Finally, our results are based on data collected from Spanish users, which means that caution is needed when extrapolating our findings to other countries. Each country possesses unique cultural and economic specificities that may affect the generalizability of our findings and it would be worthwhile to replicate this study in diverse countries to compare results and assess congruence across different cultural and economic contexts.

Figures

Figure 1.

Theoretical model

Figure 2.

Two-way interaction of attitude and brand tier on SE consumption intentions

Figure 3.

Conditional effect of brand tiers as function of attitude toward SE consumption intentions

Figure 4.

Conditional effect of brand tiers on the effect of attitudes on Intentions to SE consumption as a function of need of uniqueness

Table 1.

Constructs measurements summary: CFA results

Items		Standardized loadings (t-value)	Source
SE intentions to participate (CRa = 0.89 AVEb = 0.74)	If I had the opportunity to temporally use brand X for a reasonable price, it is likely that I would do so	0.83 (26.18)	Akbar et al. (2016), Moeller and Witkowski (2010)
	I prefer the alternative to temporally use brand X for a fee	0.90 (29.82)
	The probability that I temporally use brand X for a fee is high	0.85 (27.33)
SE attitude (CRa = 0.94 AVEb = 0.81)	I think that the temporal use of items for a fee, without actually buying them, is a positive behavior	0.91 (31.22)	Hamari et al. (2016), Kim et al. (2018)
	I think that the temporal use of items for a fee, without actually buying them, is a valuable behavior	0.93 (32.79)
	I think that the temporal use of items for a fee, without actually buying them. Is a beneficial behavior	0.90 (30.93)
	I think that the temporal use of items for a fee, without actually buying them, is worthy	0.88 (29.50)
Need for uniqueness (CRa = 0.89 AVEb = 0.74)	I like to have unusual products as a way of telling people I am different	0.82 (25.80)	Tian et al. (2001)
	I have sometimes purchased unusual products or brands as a way to create a more distinctive personal image	0.91 (30.46)
	I often look for one-of-a-kind products or brands so that I create a style that is all my own	0.85 (27.51)
Consumer innovativeness (CRa = 0.84 AVEb = 0.57)	I enjoy trying out new modes of consuming products and services	0.82 (25.23)	Hurt et al. (1977)
	I find it stimulating to be original in my modes of consumption	0.83 (26.05)
	I am usually one of the first people in my group to accept new modes of consuming products and services	0.73 (21.67)
	I am generally one of the first people about accepting new modes of consuming products and services	0.62 (17.58)
Economic concerns (CRa = 0.90 AVEb = 0.76)	For me it is important to choose a mode of consumption that allows me to save money	0.85 (27.57)	Hamari et al. (2016)
	For me it is important to choose a mode of consumption that benefits me financially	0.88 (28.97)
	For me it is important to choose a mode consumption that can improve my economic situation	0.89 (29.44)
Environmental concerns (CRa = 0.96 AVEb = 0.91)	For me it is important to choose a mode of consumption that reduces pollution	0.93 (32.67)	Hamari et al. (2016), Lee and Chow (2020)
	For me it is important to choose a mode of consumption that saves natural resources	0.95 (33.92)
	For me it is important to choose a sustainable mode of consumption	0.94 (33.80)
	For me it is important that my mode of consumption is ecological	0.89 (30.43)
	For me it is important that my mode of consumption is environmentally friendly	0.92 (32.34)
Importance of possession (CRa = 0.87 AVEb = 0.74)	The money paid for a temporal use of items is not worthwhile since I cannot own the items	0.60 (17.07)	Lee and Chow (2020), Moeller and Witkowski (2010)
	Not able to own the items I like is annoying	0.71 (21.23)
	I want to own the items I like and feel that they are mine	0.90 (30.15)
	Possession is important to me	0.81 (25.47)
	Ownership has comfort because I always have access to my possessions	0.77 (23.51)

Notes:

^aComposite reliability (CR); ^baverage variance extracted (AVE)

Table 2.

Constructs means, standard deviations and correlation matrix

Construct	Mean	SD	Correlations (phi estimates and standard errors)a
			1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. SE intentions	4.21	1.71		0.03	0.04	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.04
2. SE attitudes	4.32	1.55	0.53		0.04	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.03
3. Need for uniqueness	3.06	1.75	0.20	0.12		0.03	0.04	0.04	0.04
4. Consumer innovativ	3.88	1.46	0.46	0.55	0.53		0.04	0.04	0.04
5. Economic concerns	5.82	1.11	0.06	0.10	0.02	0.14		0.04	0.04
6. Environmental concerns	5.83	1.27	0.17	0.25	−0.01	0.23	0.24		0.04
7. Importance possession	4.26	1.51	−0.14	−0.38	0.25	0.25	0.18	−0.19

Notes:

^aCorrelations between any two constructs (phi) are presented below the diagonal. Standard errors of phi estimate between any two constructs are presented above the diagonal

Table 3.

Structural model estimates

Linkages in the model	Hypotheses	β	t-value
Environmental concerns→ C. innovativeness	H1	0.20	5.33***
Economic concerns → C. innovativeness	H2	0.11	1.92**
Importance possession → C. innovativeness	H3	−0.11	−3.84***
C. innovativeness → SE attitudes	H4	0.61	15.33***
C. innovativeness → SE intentions	H5	0.27	5.46***
SE attitudes → SE intentions	H6	0.37	7.86***
Additional paths controlled in the model
Type of product → SE intentions		0.10	3.05***
Gender → SE intentions		−0.03	−0.91
Age → SE intentions		0.03	−0.22
Income → SE intentions		−0.01	0.60
Additional paths controlled in the model
Type of product → SE attitudes		0.15	4.62***
Gender → SE attitudes		−0.07	−2.25**
Age → SE attitudes		0.13	3.13***
Income → SE attitudes		−0.03	−0.63
Additional paths controlled in the model
Type of product → C. innovativeness		−0.09	−2.38**
Gender → C. innovativeness		0.07	1.69*
Age → C. innovativeness		−0.30	−6.10***
Income → C. innovativeness		0.11	2.34**

Notes:

***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10

Table 4.

Moderation of the effect of SE attitude (X) on intentions (Y) by brand tiers (D1 and D2)

Variable	β	S.E.	t-value	LLCI	ULCI
SE attitude (X)	0.32***	0.05	5.844	0.2157	0.4339
D1	−0.39***	0.36	−1.092	−1.1025	0.3142
D2	0.19***	0.42	0.459	−0.6426	1.0355
SE attitude × D1	0.18***	0.07	2.436	0.0367	0.3413
SE attitude × D2	−0.008***	0.09	−0.086	−0.1859	0.1702
Age	−0.07***	0.04	−1.708	−0.1507	0.0105
Gender	−0.11***	0.04	−0.987	−0.3271	0.1081
Income	−0.04***	0.06	−0.684	−0.1825	0.0882
Type of product	0.32***	0.10	3.003	0.1123	0.5365
Constant	2.39***	0.31	7.734	1.7839	2.9978

Notes:

***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10

Table 5.

Conclusions and theoretical and managerial implications

Conclusions	Theoretical and managerial implications
Concern for the environment and the economy, and the importance attached to possessions are drivers of consumer innovativeness in a SE context	This study contributes to the literature by increasing our understanding of the factors affecting SE development based on the innovation diffusion theory
Higher levels of innovativeness imply more favorable attitudes and intentions regarding the adoption of SE consumption practices	This paper theoretically develops the SE literature by considering the effect of brand levels and connecting it to the theories of diffusion of innovations and uniqueness
Brand tiers reinforce the relationship between attitude and intentions	Managers of SE platforms should tailor their strategies to identify consumers with different levels of innovativeness
People’s desire for uniqueness conditions the moderating effect of brand tiers	SE platforms featuring high brand tiers attract more attention than those with lower brand tiers

Table A1.

Comprehensive summary

Study	Journal	SE antecedents	Mediators	Moderators	Dependent variables
Akbar et al. (2016)	Journal of Business Research	Materialism	Sharing intention	Desire for unique consumer Products	Sharing participation
Aktan and Kethüda (2023)	Journal of Consumer Behaviour	Environmental literacy	Psychological distance of climate change	Collectivism	Collaborative consumption
Alves et al. (2023)	Management Letters	Cooperation Pro-environmental attitudes Willingness to use before covid19	Transformation expectations		Willingness to use during Covid19
Davidson et al. (2018)	Journal of Business Research	Materialism	Transformation expectations Perceived utility		Willingness to participate
Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020)	Psychology and Marketing	Perceived sustainability Economic motivations	Distance from consumption system Attitude toward buying second hand		Intention to buy second hand
Ert et al. (2016)	Tourism management	Host’s attributes Product’s attributes	Visual information (photo) Nonvisual information: reputation		Guest’s purchase decision
Fatma et al. (2021)	Journal of Product and Brand Management	Consumer perceived CSR	Brand trust Brand identification		Brand commitment towards a ridesharing service brand
Gupta et al. (2019)	Journal of business research	Collectivism Masculinism Uncertainty avoidance Power distance			Peer provider propensity Peer consumer propensity
Hamari et al. (2016)	Journal of the association for information science and technology	Sustainability Enjoyment Reputation Economic benefits	Attitude		Behavioral intention
Kim et al. (2018)	International Journal of Hospitality Management	Awareness of consequences Ascription of responsibility Awareness of SE	Personal norm Attitude toward the behavior Subjective norm Perceived behavioral control		Intention to use sharing services
Klein et al. (2022)	Journal of Business Research	Prosumer acting	Reduction of burdens of ownership	Price assets: expensive vs cheaper	Willingness to purchase Willingness to purchase preferred brands
Lang and Armstrong (2018)	Sustainable Production and Consumption	Fashion leadership Need for uniqueness Materialism	Attitude Subjective norms Perceived behavior control Past sustainable behavior		Clothing renting Clothing swapping
Lee and Chow (2020)	Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services	Relative advantage Compatibility Psychological ownership Ecological importance Social norms	Attitude toward online fashion renting		Behavior intention toward online fashion renting
Lo et al. (2020)	Journal of Business Research	Relational benefits Attitude benefits Capability benefits	APP assessment		Purchasing intention Purchasing behavior
Marth et al. (2022)	Journal of Consumer Behaviour	Information about regulation mechanisms Trust building measures	Risk perception		Behavioral intention
Minami et al. (2021)	Journal of Business Research	Economic Trend orientation Convenience Enjoyment Social and community Environmental		SE and collaborative consumption	Behavior intention
Moeller and Witkowski (2010)	Managing Service Quality: An International Journal	Importance of possession Experience orientation Price consciousness Convenience orientation Trend orientation Environmentalism			Preference for non-ownership
Möhlmann (2015)	Journal of Consumer Behaviour	Community belonging Cost savings Environmental impact Familiarity Internet capability Service quality Smartphone capability Trend affinity Trust Utility	Satisfaction with a sharing option		Likelihood of choosing a sharing option again
Nadeem et al. (2019)	Journal of Business Ethics	Consumers’ participation on SEPs: Informational participation Actionable participation Attitudinal participation	Consumers’ ethical perceptions		Value co-creation intentions
Park and Le (2023)	Journal of Consumer Behaviour	Service performance Content provision System performance Functional value Money worthiness Pleasure Social interaction	Customer satisfaction	Brand awareness	Retention
Say et al. (2021)	Journal of Consumer Behaviour	Altruism Rational benefit Affective benefit	Sharing propensity Sustainability Consideration for others’ benefits		Sharing participation
Tran et al. (2022)	Journal of Business Research	Self-disclosure	Trust in service provider Perceived risk	Objective similarity Consumer self-esteem	Behavioral intention
Tunçel and Tektaş (2020)	International Journal of Consumer Studies	Openness to experience	Perceived risk Cosmopolitarism		Intention to participate in collaborative consumption
Zhu et al. (2017)	International journal of contemporary hospitality management	Functional value Emotional value Social value Learning cost Risk cost	Perceived value Attitude		Intention