From Sharing to Exchange: An Extended Framework of Dual Modes of Collaborative Nonownership Consumption
Abstract
The sharing economy captures several different market practices such as “car sharing” or “house sharing.” Anecdotal and empirical evidence has found conflicting motivations for participating in the sharing economy due to a misuse of the concept and an absence of a framework. This article proposes a framework to classify sharing economy practices based on their relative weights of sharing and exchange characteristics. The argument is that each practice is dualistic in nature: having characteristics of both sharing and exchange. The essay suggests a way to situate practices within the framework by offering a method to quantitatively calculate the sharing score of a given practice. An augmented model of willingness to participate in the sharing economy is tested across five practices that support the framework’s validity and usefulness. The results resolve some of the mixed findings in the literature and the positive role that materialism plays in the likelihood to participate.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Among the nine sharing economy studies, only one examined the more idealistic side (Couchsurfing), whereas the majority focused on the commercial end of the continuum.
“of those nine studies, only one examined the more idealistic side (i.e.Couchsurfing) of the sharing economy, whereas the majority of studies focused on the commercial end of the continuum.”
From Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as Habibi et al., 2016
Cites
Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World
Belk, R. W. (1985) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208515 · Cited by 1,966 · see citing works
Sharing Versus Pseudo-Sharing in Web 2.0
Belk, R. (2014) · The Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/09720073.2014.11891518 · Cited by 622 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review
ter Huurne, M., Ronteltap, A., Corten, R., & Buskens, V. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1667 · Cited by 456 · see citing works
Hwang, J., & Griffiths, M. A. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-10-2015-1560 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Motivations and obstacles for fashion renting: a cross-cultural comparison
Lang, C., Seo, S., & Liu, C. (2019) · Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/jfmm-05-2019-0106 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
- Authors
- Habibi, M. R., Kim, A., & Laroche, M.
- Affiliations
- Concordia University (CA)
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Consumer Research
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 277-294
- ISSN
- 2378-1815 (ISSN-L)
- 2378-1823
- OpenAlex
- W2285756457
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 47.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the Association for Consumer Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
- Keywords
- sharing economy, collaborative consumption, willingness to participate, materialism, car sharing, shared housing
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