No one rides for free! Three styles of collaborative consumption
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: This paper aims to focus on collaborative consumption, that is, the peer-to-peer (P2P) exchange of goods and services facilitated by online platforms. Anchored in the access paradigm, collaborative consumption (e.g. accommodation rental and ridesharing services) differs from commercial services offered by firms (e.g. business-to-customer [B2C] carsharing). The aim of this study is to examine the nuanced styles of collaborative consumption in relation to market-mediated access practices and socially mediated sharing practices. Design/methodology/approach: Following the general research trend on mobility services, the context of long-distance ridesharing is chosen. Data collection was conducted using participant observation as peer service provider, 11 ethnographic interviews of consumers and a netnographic study of digital artifacts. Findings: Using practice theory, ten ridesharing activities were identified. These activities and the nuances in the procedures, understandings and engagements in the ridesharing practice led to the distinction of three styles of collaborative consumption: communal collaborative consumption, which is when participants seek pro-social relationships in belonging to a community; consumerist collaborative consumption, performed by participants who seek status and convenience in the access lifestyle; and opportunistic collaborative consumption, when participants seek to achieve monetary gain or personal benefits from abusive activities. Originality/value: By taking a phenomenological approach on collaborative consumption, this study adds to the understanding of the sharing economy as embedded in both a utilitarian/commercial economic system and a non-market/communal social system. The three styles of collaborative consumption propose a framework for future studies differentiating P2P exchanges from other practices (i.e. B2C access-based services and sharing).
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
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.
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?
Easier-to-use locally adapted solutions reduce relative transaction costs, while low QoS is offset by harnessing a true sense of mutuality.
“The easier-to-use locally adapted solutions reduces the relative transaction-costs, while low QoS is being offset by harnessing a true sense of mutuality (Guyader, 2018).”
From A cross-cultural study of nonprofit self-organized ridesharing (2024) · cites this paper as Guyader, 2018
The indexed English abstract says technology makes sharing easier and cheaper, and the Findings passage describes communal participation and pro-social relationships. Neither passage establishes that locally adapted solutions reduce relative transaction costs or that mutuality offsets low quality of service; searches for transaction costs and QoS found no such account. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe emerging communal-like collaborative consumption of SORS eliminates several activities associated with commercial RS, where participants follow consumerist or opportunistic sharing styles.
“From transaction-costs perspective, the emerging communal-like collaborative-consumption of SORS, eliminates several of the activities associated with commercial RS, where participants follow consumerist or opportunistic sharing styles (Guyader 2018).”
From A cross-cultural study of nonprofit self-organized ridesharing (2024) · cites this paper as Guyader 2018
The Findings passage (page not provided) identifies communal, consumerist and opportunistic styles of ridesharing, supporting the distinction between those styles. It does not say that SORS eliminates activities associated with commercial ridesharing or assess that claim from a transaction-cost perspective. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCommercial apps may provide effective matching, but their use is associated with various cost-incurring activities.
“Where commercial apps may provide effective matching, their use is associated with various cost-incurring activities, such as creating a profile, listing a ride, reserving a seat, negotiating terms and meeting places, riding together, monetary exchange, conversing, and rating peers (Guyader 2018).”
From A cross-cultural study of nonprofit self-organized ridesharing (2024) · cites this paper as Guyader 2018
The Findings passage says the paper identifies 10 ridesharing activities, and the Purpose passage describes online platforms as facilitating peer-to-peer exchanges. The passages do not identify the listed activities or establish that they incur costs; they also do not assess how effectively commercial apps match riders. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWithin the car-sharing sector, trust-based commercial sharing leads to satisfaction and value co-creation.
“Similarly, within the car-sharing sector, trust-based commercial sharing leads to satisfaction (Barbu etal., 2018) and value co-creation, that is, an increased personalization of the experience that suits the users' needs (Guyader, 2018).”
From The Consequences of Participating in the Sharing Economy: A Transparency-Based Sharing Framework (2021) · cites this paper as Guyader, 2018
Guyader is cited for value co-creation through a more personalized experience suited to users’ needs; the satisfaction clause is attributed to Barbu et al. The indexed paper’s Purpose and Findings passage discusses three styles of long-distance ridesharing and distinguishes them from commercial B2C carsharing, but does not address the claimed personalization or value co-creation. Searches for those terms and for trust found no deciding passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Sahlins, M., & Graeber, D. (2017) · Routledge (orig. 1972) · doi:10.4324/9781315184951 · Cited by 3,159 · see citing works
The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Fiske, A. P. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.4.689 · Cited by 2,510 · see citing works
Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue
Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006) · Journal of Political Philosophy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00235.x · Cited by 890 · 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
Lateral Exchange Markets: How Social Platforms Operate in a Networked Economy
Perren, R., & Kozinets, R. V. (2018) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.14.0250 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Consequences of Participating in the Sharing Economy: A Transparency-Based Sharing Framework
C. Köbis, N., Soraperra, I., & Shalvi, S. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206320967740 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Status consciousness in energy consumption: a systematic review
Ramakrishnan, A., & Creutzig, F. (2021) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abf003 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Eskelinen, T., & Venäläinen, J. (2021) · International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy · doi:10.1108/ijssp-11-2019-0241 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
A cross-cultural study of nonprofit self-organized ridesharing
Shoshany-Tavory, S., Trop, T., & Shiftan, Y. (2024) · Transportation · doi:10.1007/s11116-022-10347-z · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Guyader, H.
- Affiliations
- Linköping University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Guyader, Hugo
- ORCID
- Guyader, Hugo
- Venue
- Journal of Services Marketing
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2018-07-13
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 692-714
- ISSN
- 0887-6045 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2883948888
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 15.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- urn.kb.se
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Services Marketing (publishedVersion)
- DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- 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
- collaborative consumption, ride-sharing, peer-to-peer sharing, sharing economy, access economy, digital platforms, practice theory, status seeking, mobility services
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