The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sharing as a form of anti‐consumption? An examination of toy library users
Abstract
While the literature on anti‐consumption is rich and growing, there is still a lack of understanding among consumer researchers regarding why consumers choose to avoid consumption. This study seeks to extend the literature by exploring whether a group of consumers who reduce consumption through choosing to share rather than own are motivated by anti‐consumption reasons. The authors use quantitative data from 397 toy library members to explore why members choose to participate in this form of sharing. The study reveals four groups – Socialites, Market Avoiders, Quiet Anti‐Consumers and Passive Members. The Socialites enjoy the social benefits of active participation in their library. The Market Avoiders also perceived social and community benefits, are interested in sharing and are the least materialistic of the groups. The Quiet Anti‐Consumers feel a sense of belonging to their toy library and hold strong anti‐consumption, frugality and sharing values. The Passive Members are not socially involved, nor did they hold strong anti‐consumption values. Thus, the authors find evidence that sharing may be one possible alternative market structure that may be adopted by anti‐consumption consumers. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption
Shaw, D., & Newholm, T. (2002) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.10008 · Cited by 572
Cited by
The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23552 · Cited by 3,439
You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online
Belk, R. (2014) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001 · Cited by 2,951
Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing: Table 1.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/666376 · Cited by 2,015
Sharing Versus Pseudo-Sharing in Web 2.0
Belk, R. (2014) · The Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/09720073.2014.11891518 · Cited by 622
When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies
Murillo, D., Buckland, H., & Val, E. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.024 · Cited by 330
Why are customers loyal in sharing-economy services? A relational benefits perspective
Yang, S., Song, Y., Chen, S., & Xia, X. (2017) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-01-2016-0042 · Cited by 188
Hawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., & Gimpel, H. (2016) · 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2016.593 · Cited by 177
Is sharing the solution? Exploring public acceptability of the sharing economy
Cherry, C. E., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.278 · Cited by 167
The many faces of sustainability-conscious consumers: a category-independent typology
Balderjahn, I., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., Wiedmann, K.-P., & Weber, A. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.022 · Cited by 151
Lang, C. (2018) · Fashion and Textiles · doi:10.1186/s40691-018-0139-z · Cited by 113
From Ownership to Access: How the Sharing Economy is Changing the Consumer Behavior
University of Craiova, C., Barbu, C. M., Florea, D. L., Universidad Anġhuac Mĩxico Sur, M. C., Ogarca, R. F., University of Craiova, C., Barbu, M. C. R., & University of Craiova, C. (2018) · www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro · doi:10.24818/ea/2018/48/373 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Behaviour
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-11
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 485-498
- ISSN
- 1472-0817 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-1838
- OpenAlex
- W2070950781
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
