Cited by 96Sharing Economy and PlatformsService and Product InnovationTransportation and Mobility Innovations

No one rides for free! Three styles of collaborative consumption

Open access
Guyader, Hugo·2018·Journal of Services Marketing

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jsm-11-2016-0402

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 measured
  • The 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 measured
  • Commercial 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 measured
  • Within 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guyader, H.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
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
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