The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring renting
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify and assess the importance of proposed determinants of the growing consumer preference for renting consumer goods, as opposed to the actual transfer of ownership. Design/methodology/approach: Following a qualitative preliminary study and a literature review, six factors are identified as possible determinants of a preference for non‐ownership modes of consumption. These are examined in a quantitative study using a sample of 461 members of a German online peer‐to‐peer sharing network. Hypotheses regarding the proposed determinants are tested using factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Findings: The results show that the demand for non‐ownership services is negatively influenced by “possession importance” (the importance that a consumer attaches to full ownership) and positively influenced by “trend orientation” and “convenience orientation”. The other proposed determinants – “experience orientation”, “price consciousness”, and “environmentalism” do not appear to influence a preference for non‐ownership modes of consumption. Practical implications: Although the renting of goods is an increasingly popular form of consumption, consumers still value ownership. Suppliers should therefore consider offering a mixture of “ownership” and “non‐ownership” modes of consumption to their customers. Originality/value: This study complements existing research in this area, which has largely been conceptual in nature, by undertaking an empirical evaluation of the importance of several proposed determinants for non‐ownership preference.
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
Coase, R. H. (1960) · The Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1086/466560 · Cited by 18,255
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549
Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209376 · Cited by 6,020
Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2004) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.41.1.101.25090 · Cited by 229
Cited by
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
Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.004 · Cited by 554
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
Habibi, M. R., Kim, A., & Laroche, M. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/684685 · Cited by 162
Metadata
- Authors
- Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K.
- Venue
- Managing Service Quality: An International Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-03-23
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 176-191
- ISSN
- 0960-4529 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087826376
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.73
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring renting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09604521011027598
- The paper
- Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring renting. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521011027598
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.