The sharing economy and the antecedents of resource sharing intentions: Evidence from a developing country

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oabm20 The sharing economy and the antecedents of resource sharing intentions: Evidence from a developing country Mark Ratilla, Sandeep Kumar Dey & Miloslava Chovancová | To cite this article: Mark Ratilla, Sandeep Kumar Dey & Miloslava Chovancová | (2021) The sharing economy and the antecedents of resource sharing intentions: Evidence from a developing country, Cogent Business & Management, 8:1, 1997245, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 06 Nov 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 255 View related articles View Crossmark data MARKETING | RESEARCH ARTICLE The sharing economy and the antecedents of resource sharing intentions: Evidence from a developing country Mark Ratilla 1 , Sandeep Kumar Dey 1 and Miloslava Chovancová 1 Abstract: As the sharing economy continues to diffuse in the global sphere, this paper seeks to understand the relevant behavioral antecedents for individuals to supply resources in technology-enabled platforms, especially in environments where resource scarcity subsists and the cultural landscape varies. Explicitly, we examine the impact of a set of belief factors and the individual-level collectivistic orientation on the core constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior. A web-based survey was carried out in the Philippines, and a total of 365 valid responses were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Results show that attitude and perceived behavioral control strongly drive the consumers’ intention to share resources in the sharing economy. Attitude is markedly preceded by altruistic and social tenets traditionally attached to sharing practices, while perceived behavioral control is endorsed by perceived trust and ease of use. Also, this work recognizes the attributions of culture to behavior as evidenced by the significant positive effect of collectivism towards the subjective norm. However, the Mark Ratilla ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ing. Mark Ratilla is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Management and Marketing at the Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Czech Republic. His research interest spans sharing economy participation, e-commerce, and cross-cultural consumer behavior. His current research intends to contribute to the sharing economy’s ongoing discourse and leverage its advantages in the developing world. Sandeep Kumar Dey is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Business Administration at the Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Czech Republic. His research interest centers around sustainable consumption in the tourism and hospitality industry. doc. Ing. Miloslava Chovancová, CSc. is an associate professor at the Department of Marketing, Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Czech Republic. She also chairs the academic senate of the Faculty of Economics and Administration in the same university. Her research focus covers the fields of cross-cultural consumer behavior, brand management, and entrepreneurship. She has an excellent track record in publishing several research outputs in reputable journals. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT The rapid advances in technology and the social transition towards access-based consumption gave birth to the phenomenon known as the “sharing economy.” It embraces the idea of supplying and accessing idle resources among people through digital platforms. A rapid rise in demand for shared services has become evident in developing countries like the Philippines. Yet, crucial to sustaining the phenomenon, in the long run, requires information on the factors driving peoples’ tendency to supply idle resources in the sharing platforms. This study revealed that the belief to help others in need, overall trust beliefs, and the perceived social rewards and pleasure from sharing precede the individual’s positive attitude and resource sharing intentions in the digital platforms. Hence, promoting the altruistic, social, and hedonic nuances and establishing the integrity of transactions could be a plausible strategy for existing and prospective platform providers to entice more suppliers into the platform. Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 1 of 25 Received: 23 May 2021 Accepted: 12 July 2021 Corresponding author: Mark Ratilla, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Carlos Gomez Corona, Consumer Research, Firmenich SA, MEXICO Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. potency of subjective norms on behavioral intention is argued. The study findings offer relevant insights to existing and prospective sharing economy platform providers in fostering peer-provider participation in the less developed world. Subjects: Asian Business; Consumer Behaviour; Internet / Digital Marketing / e-Marketing; Keywords: Collaborative consumption; Collectivism; Peer-provider; Peer-to-peer sharing; Sharing economy; Theory of planned behavior 1. Introduction The concerted rise in individual incomes and hyper-consumption have produced volumes of wastes that much have ended up dumped in landfills and causing substantial impacts to the environment. Nevertheless, the growing precedence towards sharing over the ownership of resources is deemed to counter the issue and may reduce the rapid depletion of scarce natural resources. This type of consumption backs the premise of the sharing economy, which refers to a socio-economic system that features access-based consumption in technology-driven platforms (Gerwe & Silva, 2020). It anchors on the idea of a commodity exchange or gift giving (Belk, 2007). It is also presumed to contravene the traditional consumerist view on the ownership and accumulation of resources as it underscores the efficient utilization of idle capacities (Belk, 2010; Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Frenken & Schor, 2017). According to Möhlmann (2015), the term “sharing economy” is analogous to collaborative consumption. Other similar labels include “collaborative consumption”, “accessed-based consumption”, “the mesh” and “connected consumption” (Codagnone & Martens, 2016). Meanwhile, Eckhardt et al. (2019) synthesize a definition suggesting that it is “a scalable socio-economic system that employs technology-enabled platform to provide users the temporary access to tangible and intangible resources that may be crowdsourced” (p. 3). In a typical sharing economy configuration, the platform provider set-ups a system depicting a two-sided marketplace that facilitates the exchange processes between the resource provider (peerprovider) and users (Hawlitschek et al., 2018). Since the recognition of the phenomenon, research investigations have grown. From existing literature, sharing economy participation has been dominantly attributed to its economic benefits (Belk, 2007; Böcker & Meelen, 2017; Lang, 2018; So et al., 2018; Tran & Filimonau, 2020), hedonic benefits (Albinsson et al., 2019; Becker-Leifhold, 2018; Hwang & Griffiths, 2017; So et al., 2018), social incentives (Barnes & Mattsson, 2016; Hawlitschek et al., 2018; Lee & Chow, 2020; Roos & Hahn, 2017), trust (Boateng et al., 2019; Hallem et al., 2019; Hawlitschek et al., 2018; Laurenti & Acuña, 2020; Tussyadiah & Pesonen, 2016) and environmental sustainability (Hallem et al., 2019; Hamari et al., 2016; Laurenti & Acuña, 2020; Lee & Chow, 2020; Roos & Hahn, 2017). Nevertheless, some empirical studies still contradict the preceding arguments. Gazzola et al. (2019) assert that consumers’ behavioral patterns are distinct and context-dependent. That is, the degree of influence on the identified factors may vary across the population. Other related studies shared similar concerns and noted caution on the generalizability of their findings (Boateng et al., 2019; Kim, 2019; Mittendorf, 2018; Yan et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). Meanwhile, prior empirical works have mainly concentrated on the demand side of shared mobility and accommodation modalities in the urban areas of advanced economies (Bakker & Twining-Ward, 2018; Hawlitschek et al., 2018; Mont et al., 2020). Kuah and Wang (2020) specify that the extant investigations on consumers’ involvement in circular economy practices encompassing collaborative consumption focused on Western contexts despite its promising developments in Asia. Retamal (2019) argued that behavioral patterns in sharing economy vary in different socio-economic contexts. Hence, it is imperative to capture a different viewpoint in environments where resource scarcity subsists. Presumably, the sharing economy brings the opportunity to ease the access of previously inaccessible resources. Piff et al. (2010) likewise claim that people in lower socio-economic class manifest more remarkable prosocial behavior as they hold greater values of compassion and egalitarianism. Hence, they may demonstrate a higher propensity to participate in the sharing economy as resource providers. Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 2 of 25 Meanwhile, Belk (2007) reiterates that the act of sharing is shaped by culture. In support, Akhmedova et al. (2020) advocate that the difference in sharing economy practices is attributable to cultural diversity. Previous studies strongly recommend to consider cultural influences on sharing economy behavior to strengthen and validate extant findings (Agarwal & Steinmetz, 2019; Belarmino et al., 2019). Therefore, this work anchors on the theory of planned behavior to explain the relevant perceptions and belief factors driving the attitude to behavior, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and the intention to offer resources in sharing or collaborative platforms from the perspective of a developing country—the Philippines. Usage of the theory is extensive in literature; however, its dynamics may vary in different socio-economic and cultural environments. Hence, the study adds knowledge on the particularities behind the underlying causes of behavior among potential peer-providers with distinct socio-economic backgrounds and cultural orientations. In addition, as prior works largely neglected the cultural attribution of consumer behavior, the study parses the interaction of Collectivism on the elemental constructs of the TPB, namely the attitude and subjective norm. Specifically, it attempts to operationalize the construct using the CVSCALE proposed by Yoo et al. (2011), a culturally invariant measurement tool that measures Hofstede’s cultural dimensions at the individual level. Advancing the understanding of the behavioral mechanisms behind the supply intentions in sharing or collaborative platforms is crucial for its sustainability in the long run. Likewise, it is essential to identify pathways to exploit the concepts’ promises in less advanced economies such as in 1) the ease of access to resources (Benoit et al., 2017), 2) promote sustainable consumption, 3) economic development, 4) entrepreneurship and regulation and 5) business formalization (Retamal & Dominish, 2017). Condensing the points cited above, extant studies concerning the sharing economy primarily represent the resource “users” perspective in advanced economies with highly individualistic cultural orientations. Hence, in contrast with prior works, the current study attempts to narrow the knowledge gap concerning peer providers’ (resource supplier) participation in the sharing economy, specifically in developing countries where socio-economic and cultural backgrounds vary. The study parses the influence of different perceptions, belief factors, and individual collectivistic orientation on nomological constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Furthermore, the study purports that the subsisting contextual factors in the less developed economies may drive a different consumer behavioral patterns. With this, the study advances the knowledge on the validity of TPB in explaining consumer behavior in the sharing economy in a developing country context. The remaining part of the paper contains the following: a review of the factors influencing sharing economy participation, conceptual model, research hypotheses, methodology, and results. Then, it concludes by articulating the findings, theoretical and managerial implications, limitations, and future research directions. 2. Theoretical background and hypotheses 2.1. Contextualizing participation in sharing/collaborative platforms in the Philippines According to a Nielsen survey (Nielsen, 2014), the Philippines is one of the countries in the AsiaPacific with the most willing participants in the sharing economy. It trails China, Indonesia, and Slovenia with the top potential users for products and services in sharing economy. While it is evident that there is a high demand for sharing economy services, the scarcity of knowledge remains as to the specificity of consumers’ engagement and the forces enabling their sharing economy participation as resource providers. This study also follows the presumption that the early collaborative consumption practices manifested in the form of “barter” in the earliest stages of the country’s development (Tiquia, 2021) may be a catalyst for sharing resources using technology-enabled platforms. Meanwhile, the country is a highly collectivistic society (Hofstede, 2020). It features “a tight social framework in which people expect their in-group (relatives, clan, Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 3 of 25 organizations) to look after them, and in exchange for that, they feel they owe absolute loyalty to it” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 45). Sreen et al. (2018) claim that group goals and societal pressures in a collectivist society influence individual decisions. It could as well influence Filipino consumers’ decisions to engage as peer-providers in sharing or collaborative platforms. More opportunities transpire as internet penetration rates continue to increase and consequently boost internet-based services in the country. Projection reveals that the digital market in Southeast Asia is up-and-coming across geographic regions (Gilchrist, 2016). Data shows that the internet economy in the Philippines is valued at 7.5 billion U.S. dollars as of 2020, with approximately 73 million internet users (Sanchez, 2020). Despite the promising prospects, the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) has plunged the growth of some sharing economy sectors. Countries have enforced disease containment measures that severely affected peoples’ mobility. The travel and tourism industry, conjointly with the sharing economy’s transportation and accommodation sectors, has experienced a collapse. Rachel Botsman, a pioneering advocate of collaborative consumption, asserts that the health crisis will enable sharing economy sectors to re-align back to their roots, focusing more on its social, frugal, and sustainable attributes (The Economist, 2020). In addition, Dolnicar and Zare (2020) believes that the demand in the accommodation sharing sector will recover; however, for-profit sharing services would likely pacify. The authors expect a re-emergence of the original ethos of accommodation sharing that centers on the social aspect and the true principles of sharing. Lastly, the global pandemic may instill long-lasting changes in consumer behavior, including the proclivities towards disruptive technologies or innovations. Hence, as consumers compel to adopt digital technologies and increase online presence (The World Bank, 2020), this may have significant implications in the sharing economy or collaborative practices in general. 2.2. The theory of planned behavior and belief factors Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) expands from its early work on the Theory of Reasoned Action. Prior works popularly use the theory to explain consumer behavior. The theory postulates that behavioral intention or the individual’s determination to perform the behavior in question is driven by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Attitude refers to the positive or negative evaluation of behavior in question. At the same time, subjective norm relates to a person’s belief over other people’s approval or disapproval of the behavior in question. In contrast, the perceived behavioral control refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior in question. In a nutshell, an individual elicits a behavioral intent when he or she deems the action to produce favorable consequences (attitude). Alongside, pressures from social groups or peers (subjective norms) and the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior (perceived behavioral control) exert significant influences. As individuals place attributes to objects, forms the salient beliefs (i.e., behavioral, normative, and control) that precede the fundamental elements of behavioral intention (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). It also transpires from a person’s past learnings, experiences, or secondhand information obtained from the subsisting environment. Identifying and understanding the underlying belief factors is critical to substantiate the effectiveness of the vital determinants of behavior to predict behavioral intention and accordingly to actual behavior. Besides, the authors emphasize the flexibility of the theory regarding its applicability in diverse behavioral contexts. It also pliant as the addition of new explanatory variables are permitted that may seem to enhance the variance in explaining behavior. Following the main elaborations of TPB, the study hypothesizes: H 1 : Attitude positively influences the intention to share resources in the sharing economy platforms H 2 : Perceived behavioral control positively influences the intention to share resources in the sharing economy platforms Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 4 of 25 H 3 : Subjective norm positively influences the intention to share resources in the sharing economy platforms Botsman and Rogers (2011) highlights the economic, social, and environmental implications of the phenomenon as predominant drivers of users’ participation. The authors also noted that the trust shared amongst people serves as a new currency driving the development of the sharing economy across the globe. Other studies have offered a meaningful plethora of findings; however, the spotlight points to the users or the demand-side of sharing economy services (Karlsson & Dolnicar, 2016; Wilhelms et al., 2017; Wirtz et al., 2019). Concurrently, the determinants of behavior are still contrasting. For sharing economy models to function appropriately, there is a need to emphasize peer-providers and eventually consolidate knowledge to capture a complete picture of both perspectives and design effective strategy prescriptions accordingly. Evidence suggests the role of economic incentives in the involvement of peer-providers that the sharing economy offers (Böcker & Meelen, 2017; Karlsson & Dolnicar, 2016; Tussyadiah, 2016). Peer-providers can monetize the underutilized capacities of their resources through sharing via online platforms, hence, allowing greater productivity of supposedly idling resources (Valente et al., 2019). Huang and Kuo (2020) associate the term “micro-entrepreneurs” with peerproviders as they generate monetary benefits from their assets or skills. Popular sharing economy platforms such as Uber and Airbnb have offered these income opportunities, enticing people to share their transport vehicles and living spaces even with strangers. Despite some firm evidence on the dominating influence of economic benefits on the resource providers’ model, some studies still oppose these results (Alzamora-Ruiz et al., 2020; Urbonavicius & Sezer, 2019). With this, perceived economic benefits or or the expectation of monetary rewards form sharing out resources may encourage peer provider participation. Hence, the study posits that: H 1a : Perceived economic benefits positively influence the attitude towards resource provision in the sharing economy platforms Studies also underscore the influence of social motives for sharing economy participation, particularly in the accommodation-sharing sector. The possibility to meet and communicate with new and culturally diverse individuals and the benefits arising from social interaction are driving the movement (Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Karlsson & Dolnicar, 2016). Kim et al. (2018) maintain that the prospect of establishing social relationships with other people is a gainful experience for accommodation providers. They infer that perceived social benefits shape peer providers’ attitude and intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation platforms. Böcker and Meelen (2017) corroborates the extant findings yet, emphasize the impact of social benefits not just for sharing accommodation assets but including other resources. Meanwhile, sharing economy participation deems to elicit fun and enjoyment among peer-providers. Becoming a peer-provider and its advantages induces the feeling of pleasure and satisfaction (Wilhelms et al., 2017). These feelings are described as hedonic motives and forms one’s positive attitude (Huang & Kuo, 2020) and behavioral intention (Kim et al., 2018). Alzamora-Ruiz et al. (2020) reveal the same claims and argues the dominant influence of perceived economic advantages. Hence, the study postulates that: H 1b : Perceived social incentives positively influence the attitude towards resource provision in the sharing economy platforms H 1c : Perceived hedonic incentives positively influence an individual’s attitude towards resource provision in the sharing economy platforms The persistent concern towards the environment appears to fuel collaborative forms of consumption in the contemporary era. Botsman and Rogers (2010) stipulate that it helps to Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 5 of 25 alleviate waste-related issues derived from hyper-consumption. Sharing resources among peers extends the product life cycle, mitigating the rapid depletion of scarce natural resources. Technological advances magnify this as it reduces transactional cost and infuses hedonic elements towards sharing practices. One’s perceived environmental benefits or the beliefs on the proenvironmental implications associated with sharing or collaborative practices is recognized by prior studies as a significant driver in stirring the participation towards the sharing economy as peer-providers (Bellotti et al., 2015; Böcker & Meelen, 2017; Sung et al., 2018). Specifically, Hamari et al. (2016) and Huang and Kuo (2020) claim that beliefs form one’s positive attitude towards sharing assets. Nevertheless, Wilhelms et al. (2017) argue environmental sustainability perception is merely a consequence emanating from sharing economy participation and not a direct behavioral motive. Given these, this research hypothesizes that: H 1d : Perceived environmental benefits positively influence an individual’s attitude towards resource provision in the sharing economy platforms Altruistic beliefs may set off sharing in the platform economy as it exemplifies a kind of prosocial behavior. Altruism is the act of being passionate and helpful in promoting their welfare of others (Hsu & Lin, 2008). Presumably, individuals who exhibit altruistic beliefs would likely support the idea of sharing. Offering resources on online platforms is an act to help others who are in need. A few initiatives examine the influence of peoples’ altruistic values in enabling peer-to-peer sharing. Roos and Hahn (2019) and Zhang et al. (2019) endorse the positive impact of altruistic orientation for higher participation in collaborative consumption. These argue the earlier findings of Becker-Leifhold (2018) as it infers the insignificance of altruistic orientation in the sharing of clothing. Piff et al. (2010) also connote that less affluent individuals share more as they hold greater values of compassion and egalitarianism. Hence, sharing resources via online platforms may be driven by compassion and the feeling of altruism in a less developed country like the Philippines. Also, the current work postulates that altruism poses more influence among Filipinos to share resources in the platform economy due to the early childhood upbringing, which markedly inculcates prosocial behavior (Gülseven et al., 2020; Kagitcibasi, 2005; Whiting et al., 1975). Thus, the study proposes the notion that: H 1e : Altruistic beliefs positively influence an individual’s attitude towards resource provision in the sharing economy platforms Perceived trust is the extent to which an individual feels secure and confident to transact with another party or an entity (McKnight & Chervany Norman, 2001). Botsman and Rogers (2010) indicate that trust is a fundamental element in collaborative consumption models. The authors observed that trust in institutions is deteriorating, yet a new form is emerging, shared among people even beyond close relations. It is through the platform’s trust-building mechanisms and reputation systems that facilitate this new currency of trust. Consumer behavior studies have recognized the role of trust for the demanders of collaborative platforms (Hawlitschek et al., 2016; Mittendorf, 2018; S. Nguyen et al., 2020). Likewise, in the case of peer-providers of accommodation assets, trust directly shapes the individual’s behavioral intention (Sung et al., 2018). Nevertheless, this finding does not agree with other research works (Huang & Kuo, 2020; Schreiner et al., 2018; Urbonavicius & Sezer, 2019). Hence, the study proposes that: H 1f : Perceived trust positively influence an individual’s attitude towards resource provision in the sharing economy platforms Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 6 of 25 The sharing economy emerges as a phenomenon in light of technological advances. It is a disruptive innovation that enables sharing transactions between strangers through web-based or app-based technologies and the internet. Nonetheless, exploiting this innovative technology depends on the degree of acceptance among users. Perceived ease of use (PEOU) holds a predominant role in the consumer technology acceptance model (Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006; V. Venkatesh, 2000). Davis (1989) defined PEOU as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” (p. 320). It epitomizes control belief factors shaping one’s perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991; Chen et al., 2021). In addition, Pavlou and Fygenson (2006) asserted that perceived behavioral control is influenced by trust belief. They postulate that a higher perceived trust obviates the surrounding social uncertainties that diminish one’s control of a particular behavior. Hence, this study hypothesizes that: H 2a : Perceived ease of use positively influence an individual’s perceived behavioral control towards resource provision in the sharing economy platforms H 2b: Perceived trust positively influence an individual’s perceived behavioral control towards resource provision in the sharing economy platforms 2.3. Culture and consumer behavior: the role of collectivism Belk (2007) asserts that the act of “sharing is a culturally learned behavior” (p. 130). It gauges the nuance of generosity, fairness, and the altruistic nature of sharing. As sharing economy emerges as a phenomenon grounded from the traditional sharing practices, the study argues that culture underscores the involvement in sharing economy practices. Prior empirical works examined the influence of culture on consumer behavior in general, yet a paucity of evidence supporting the claim in the sharing economy context remains. Besides, the previous empirical investigation suggested carrying out future research works that account for the role of culture on one’s behavior in the sharing economy (Belarmino & Koh, 2020; Paundra et al., 2020; Roos & Hahn, 2019; Schreiner et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2019). Studies operationalizing cultural orientations often use Hofstede’s cultural framework (Soares et al., 2007). Geert Hofstede established five (5) cultural dimensions: individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long-term orientation. The dimensions are assigned with indexes and are used to account for cultural differences between nations. In several studies employing the framework, the country serves as a proxy for cultural comparison. Hence, it presumes that citizens in a particular country share similar cultural characteristics. Studies investigating cultural attributions towards behavior have commonly involved two or more culturally distant nationalities, however, asserted to measure cultural values at the individual level. Reiterating some previous works, Iran et al. (2019) examined the reasons for participation in collaborative fashion consumption in culturally different countries—Iran and Germany. Through a holistic view of culture was adopted, the findings reveal the various degrees of influence among factors on collaborative fashion consumption. Davidson et al. (2018) offer support to the previous claim and explicitly point out the cross-cultural differences in the degree of influence of materialism on one’s participation in sharing economy. Studies parsing the influence of culture on consumer behavior acknowledge the role of collectivism. Collectivism denotes a tight social framework in which people expect their in-group (relatives, clan, organizations) to look after them, and in exchange for that, they feel they owe absolute loyalty to it” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 45). People in collectivist societies recognize the relevance of interdependence and social relationships. Extant evidence suggests that collectivistic societies demonstrate a higher propensity towards prosocial behavior or helping behavior to others (Lampridis & Papastylianou, 2017). On this note, as sharing practices in collaborative platforms could be a manifestation of a prosocial act, the current work presumes that collectivistic Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 7 of 25 orientation can drive consumer’s attitudes, subjective norms, and intention to participate in the sharing economy as resource providers. The work of Gupta et al. (2019) took a deeper look at the cultural ascriptions of peer-to-peer sharing participation by operationalizing cultural orientation at the individual level. The findings stress the direct role of collectivism and masculinism on the individual’s renting and renting-out propensities. However, its interlinkages within the TPB configuration in the supply of resources in technology-driven sharing platforms remain scarce. A few investigations have accounted this for in other consumer behavior contexts. For instance, cultural orientation influences attitude and subjective norms in green purchase behavior (T. N. Nguyen et al., 2017). Collectivism influences subjective norms while long-term orientation significantly impacts environmental attitudes. Similarly, Higueras-Castillo et al. (2019) recognize the considerable role of collectivism in forming attitudes and proenvironmental behavior. Liobikienė and Bernatonienė (2017) also indicate other cultural orientations suchlike power distance and uncertainty avoidance to exert indirect influence towards green purchase behavior via subjective norms. Nevertheless, Sreen et al. (2018) assert that the increase in liberalization, globalization, and urban development narrows cultural differences in societies worldwide. Hence, the current study hypothesize that: H 1g : Collectivism positively influence the attitude towards resource provision in the sharing economy platforms H 3a : Collectivism positively influence subjective norms in the context of resource provision in the sharing economy platform 3. Methodology 3.1. Survey design and data collection procedure Based on the research framework presented in Figure 1, a web-based survey was designed before data collection. Multi-item measures for each latent construct were adapted from the previous Figure 1. Model specification anchored on the theory of planned behavior. Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 8 of 25 control. Also, the presumed positive influence of Collectivism as a cultural driver of behavior is only significant on subjective norms, supporting H3a (β = 0.456 T = 9.527, P < 0.01). The study did not support H1a, H1d, and H1g due to the insignificant impact of perceived economic benefits, perceived environmental benefits, and collectivistic orientation on attitude and behavioral intention. 5. Discussion and implications The rise of the sharing economy challenges traditional business models as it leverages technological advances in responding to social changes. The shift from ownership to access-based consumption underpins its strong traction in the contemporary world. Nevertheless, its infancy further requires research initiatives to fill the subsisting research gaps. Primarily, the paucity of knowledge on peer-provider participation in emerging countries establishes the grounds of this research investigation. The study contributes explicitly to theory by predicting the relevant perceptions and belief factors driving the attitude to behavior, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and the intention to offer resources in sharing economy platforms from the perspective of a developing country. Emphasis on individual-level cultural attribution of sharing economy participation is neglected mainly in prior works. Therefore, the study also serves as an initial attempt that exposes the relationship of an individual’s collectivistic orientation on the elemental constructs of the theory of planned behavior, namely the attitude to behavior and subjective norm. Consistent with the extant theoretical claims, the findings reveal that attitude and perceived behavioral control pose a significant positive effect on behavioral intention. Attitude remains the most critical parameter for behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991; Sutton, 2012). It signifies that the performance of the desired behavior largely depends on one’s positive evaluation of such behavior. Hence, facilitating an affirmative assessment towards sharing resources in the online platforms is a powerful way to entice more peer-providers. The result also supports the significant role of perceived behavioral control in dictating the desired behavior, which further justifies its inclusion in the original TPB configuration. Upon the perception of adequate knowledge, skills, or resources, individuals grasp complete control of their behavior such that it enhances their confidence to perform the desired behavior. In this study, increasing the willingness to share resources in the sharing platforms can transpire by equipping prospective users with the relevant resources to transact in the platform confidently. Nevertheless, the influence of subjective norms on behavioral intention is found insignificant. The study infers that sharing through a technology-enabled platform may still be an eccentric practice as envisaged by people in society in general. In essence, one’s affirmative opinion on the practices in the sharing economy holds less weight to stir others to the same as the concept’s positive acumen in the bigger society remains limited. A second explanation lies in the Table 5. Collinearity assessment results Construct VIF Construct VIF ALT—ATT 2.996 ATT—INT 1.736 COL—ATT 1.854 PBC—INT 2.339 ECO—ATT 2.486 SN—INT 1.967 HED—ATT 2.725 SOC—ATT 3.078 PEOU—PBC 1.503 SUS—ATT 2.968 TRU—PBC 1.503 TRU—ATT 2.070 COL—SN 1.000 Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 15 of 25 individualistic nature of the behavior (Earle et al., 2020; Kothe & Mullan, 2015) since the decision to share an expensive asset or property solely depends on the owner to a large extent. It may also appear that the high perceived behavioral control and attitude may seem to diminish the influence of subjective norms towards behavioral intention. The recent work of La Barbera and Ajzen (2020) observed this distinctive dynamic on the nomological configuration of the theory of planned behavior. The authors asserted that the relevance of subjective norm tends to diminish when the impact of attitude becomes more apparent due to a greater perceived behavioral control. A closer look at the underlying determinants of attitude exposes the significant and positive impact of perceived social benefits, perceived hedonic benefits, altruistic beliefs, and perceived trust. It further substantiates the relevance of the antecedents described above in shaping one’s attitude and intention to engage in the sharing economy as a peer-provider. A distinct result points to the highest impact of altruistic belief on attitude. It opposes the most agreed-upon claims on the dominance of economic benefit as a driver for consumption and supply of shared goods and services (Böcker & Meelen, 2017; Hamari et al., 2016; Tussyadiah, 2016; Wilhelms et al., 2017). It Table 6. Summary of inner model results Direct Effects Path Coefficient t-value p-value Hypothesis Supported ATT→ INT 0.688 10.552 0.00 H1 (Supported) PBC → INT 0.133 2.194 0.03 H2 (Supported) SN → INT 0.067 1.270 0.20 H3 (Not Supported) ECO → ATT 0.083 1.398 0.16 H1a (Not Supported) SOC → ATT 0.240 3.751 0.00 H1b (Supported) HED → ATT 0.124 2.118 0.03 H1c (Supported) SUS → ATT 0.086 1.303 0.19 H1d (Not Supported) ALT → ATT 0.249 3.903 0.00 H1e (Supported) TRU → ATT 0.143 2.744 0.01 H1f (Supported) COL → ATT −0.019 0.389 0.70 H1g (Not Supported) PEOU → PBC 0.227 4.742 0.00 H2a (Supported) TRU → PBC 0.571 11.218 0.00 H2b (Supported) COL → SN 0.456 9.527 0.00 H3a (Supported) Specific Indirect Effects ECO → ATT → INT 0.057 1.417 0.16 SOC → ATT → INT 0.165 3.696 0.00 HED → ATT → INT 0.085 2.125 0.03 SUS → ATT → INT 0.059 1.275 0.20 TRU → ATT → INT 0.098 2.632 0.01 ALT → ATT → INT 0.171 3.800 0.00 COL → ATT → INT −0.013 0.388 0.70 TRU → PBC → INT 0.030 2.107 0.04 PEOU → PBC → INT 0.076 2.039 0.04 COL → SN → INT 0.031 1.229 0.22 R 2 Adjusted R 2 SN 20.80% 20.60% PBC 52.80% 52.50% ATT 58.00% 57.20% INT 67.20% 67.00% Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 16 of 25 upholds the prosocial nature of the act of sharing as it elicits the feeling of compassion and the willingness to help others who are in need. Kuroishi and Sawada (2019) recognized this manifestation among Filipinos during the early recovery stage after natural calamities. Considering that the study took place during the Covid-19 pandemic, it may seem that sharing resources would help those adversely affected individuals. Another logical explanation points to the individual’s early upbringing in a typical Filipino household. The assumption of responsibilities such as caring for family members deems to inculcate social sensitivity and promote prosocial behavior (Gülseven et al., 2020; Kagitcibasi, 2005; Whiting et al., 1975). Moreover, the sharing economy offers the possibility to engage with people, even to absolute strangers, while deriving a socially and hedonically gainful experience. The study recognizes the role of these derived experiences in generating a positive evaluation towards the supply of resources in the sharing economy, thereby confirming the findings of Böcker and Meelen (2017), Huang and Kuo (2020), and Kim et al. (2018). Another crucial factor is the impression of trustworthiness surrounding the transactions in the sharing economy. It substantiates the prior work of Hawlitschek et al. (2018), Kim et al. (2018), and S. Nguyen et al. (2020) ascertaining the role of trust in sharing economy models. The perception of ample platform security and the confidence towards the proper use of shared resources are some aspects to consider to encourage resource provision. Concurrently, extant evidence shows that security and consumer protection concerns partly undermine digital adoption in the Philippines (The World Bank, 2020). Chiu et al. (2017) asserted that mobile banking services in the country remain poor; however, ascertaining trust can significantly influence future usage. Along this line, participation in the sharing and collaborative platforms can accelerate as trust perception improves. Furthermore, as the incidence of the Covid19 pandemic embraces the importance of digital technologies, this may as well propel the adoption of sharing economy and collaborative consumption in the future. Prior works broadly recognized the economic and environmental implications of the sharing economy as it generates economic incentives and helps reduce waste and carbon footprint. These features reveal to support the involvement among users and peer-providers (Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Lai & Ho, 2020; Schor, 2016). Nevertheless, the study contends the significant positive impact of perceived economic and environmental benefits on individuals’ attitudes and intentions. It appears that monetary returns are least expected in exchange for the shared resources in general, supporting the claims of Alzamora-Ruiz et al. (2020) and Urbonavicius and Sezer (2019). Ostensibly, it is only the leading companies in accommodation and ride-sharing sectors (e.g., Airbnb, Grab) that are pronouncing income opportunities to prompt people’s engagement. However, this also entails acquiring capital-intensive assets that people can hardly own in a developing country like the Philippines. Offering monetary returns in exchange for the shared resources is considered by Belk (2014) as a pseudo-sharing practice, which erodes the proenvironmental and sustainable nature of collaborative consumption. It is pushing people to acquire more resources, hence disputing the original essence of the sharing economy since its inception (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). The insignificant impact of environmental perceptions implies that sharing in the platform economy is still rooted in social tenets shrouding over the traditional act of sharing. People’s awareness of the environmental consequences of being involved in collaborative practices may still be ambiguous. The sharing economy in the Philippines may still be at its early stages; hence further advocating its environmental benefits may instill awareness among people in the country. In the same vein, as consumers gain more experiences in the sharing economy, they may progress their pro-environmental perceptions (Wilhelms et al., 2017). The findings also substantiate the role of perceived ease of use and perceived trust towards perceived behavioral and behavioral intention. As with prior studies in online systems, the study result corroborates to findings of Chen et al. (2021), Hansen et al. (2018), and Pavlou and Fygenson (2006). Indeed, the need to operate a technology-enabled platform is a feature that separates the sharing economy from its traditional forms. The ease of use or the user-friendliness of the platform Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 17 of 25 enhances one’s behavioral control towards sharing in the platform economy in the future. It is most evident in young demographic cohorts given their proficiency and acceptance of modern technologies (Abrams & von Frank, 2014), including those in the sharing economy (Godelnik, 2017; Hwang & Griffiths, 2017). Given this, they may discern simplicity in the processes involved in operating the sharing platform. In addition, related studies recognized the significant role of perceived trust among sharing economy users (Boateng et al., 2019; Hawlitschek et al., 2018; Lee & Chow, 2020; Tussyadiah & Pesonen, 2018). This study likewise asserts its role over peerprovider participation. It appears that overall trust perception reduces the perceived uncertainty and the behavioral difficulty to accomplish sharing economy transactions. Hence, it is imperative to build confidence over the platform and in the users of shared goods/services to encourage prospective peer-providers. Hofstede (2001) proposed several dimensions of national culture and studies adopted them in several consumer studies. Evidence recognized the effect of collectivism in e-commerce (Choi & Geistfeld, 2004) and green purchase behavior (T. N. Nguyen et al., 2017), renewable energy adoption (Higueras-Castillo et al., 2019), and technology acceptance (Srite & Karahanna, 2006). Collectivism is primarily manifested in the form of concern with others, including the sharing of tangible and intangible resources (Hui & Triandis, 1986). Though prior works articulate the preceding variable relationship in other consumer behavior contexts, the study result maintains that the relation is valid in the sharing economy participation context. It implies that individuals who manifest deep concern for others and recognize in-group relevance will be more receptive to others’ opinions and will more likely behave following the in-group norms. Nevertheless, subjective norms did not show a significant and positive effect on sharing intentions, arguing extant contentions. Also, contrary to the claims of Higueras-Castillo et al. (2019), Perfili et al. (2019), and Srite and Karahanna (2006), the analysis shows a negative relationship between Collectivism on attitude to behavior, although found insignificant. In the pragmatic sense, the results imply that platform providers may need to mainstream the social nuances of the sharing economy to foster consumers’ participation as peer providers. For instance, advocating it as a platform that channels support for people in need may actuate an individual’s altruistic belief and sharing intentions. Also, embedding platform features that enhance the quality of social interaction and fun (e.g., gamification) may be a compelling strategy to entice peer-provider participation. The integrity of transactions transpiring in the sharing platform is deemed essential; hence, platform providers must assure the public of their system security and privacy protection measures. There is also a need to reinforce the currently adopted trust-building mechanisms (i.e., reviews or ratings) to infuse one’s confidence with other people using the shared resources. For instance, damages on shared tangible resources after use need resolves to protect peer providers’ rights should be available. Platform providers should also espouse the ease and comfort associated with using their web or app-based platform. They can also target the younger generation due to their proficiency in modern technology use. However, encouraging participation from older generations who can hold excess resource capacities may need more enlightenment on the platform use. Collectivistic orientation endorses the salience of interpersonal influences to one’s behavior, yet, the pervasiveness of tech-driven sharing or collaborative models in the Philippines remains limited. Nevertheless, as actual usage accelerates, covering a significant portion of the populace may accordingly increase the potency of social influences, including the pro-environmental perceptions towards the sharing economy in general. Meanwhile, other countries (e.g., Southeast Asia) which may share similar contextual characteristics with the Philippines in terms of the level of maturity of the sharing economy models, digital competitiveness, cultural orientation, and prosocial tendencies may draw from our findings in the design of plausible strategies to encourage more people to share their resources in technologyenabled platforms. The Philippines and its citizens’ distinct and innate tendency to extend help and manifest concern for the needs of others and the community (Ang, 1979) brace the act of sharing as a custom practice; hence, emphasis points to the promotion of the social nuances and Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 18 of 25 enhancement of trust-building features to incite more peer-providers. Ultimately, insights in this research may help advance the economic, social, and environmental promises of the sharing economy and befit as an avenue to attain a more sustainable future across the globe. 6. Conclusion and limitations The research presents a distinctive behavioral pattern among potential peer-providers in the technology-driven sharing platforms in a developing country. The study presents varying degrees of influences of the selected antecedents to one’s attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and the intention to share resources in online sharing platforms. In a developing country where the sharing economy is at its early stages, it appears that peer-provider participation remains shrouded over the altruistic and social tenets emanating from the traditional concept of sharing. Also, its novelty and less widespread recognition in society still undermine the potency of interpersonal influences. Meanwhile, as with other technology-enabled systems budding in lessdeveloped economies, overall trust remains a core determinant to propel one’s affirmation and control over sharing resources in the online platforms in the future. People in ordinary social class and the young generations may still not have the possessions (e.g., cars, apartments) to take advantage of economic incentives offered by for-profit sharing economy platforms like Airbnb and Grab. At the same time, a poor understanding of its environmental consequences remains. Hence, within the study context, the economic and pro-environmental features of the sharing economy as dominant drivers of consumer and peer-provider participation are opposed. This research is also in line with the contention that embedding cultural values in theoretical models of consumer behavior may capture a better picture of the phenomena under investigation (Srite & Karahanna, 2006). The study found that collectivism exhibit a significant positive effect on the subjective norm, thus endorsing empirical findings in other consumer behavior contexts. Relevant insights are also proposed to existing and prospective platform providers to stimulate people to share their resources through their online sharing platforms. Though this exploratory work contributes to the ongoing discourse around the sharing economy, we recognize several limitations that future research needs to address. First, the study examines the behavioral antecedents towards sharing of resources in general. Underlying causes of sharing behavior may display different dynamics when the examination points towards a specific resource type. Researchers may pursue works that dissect behavioral patterns based on a specific type of resource. Second, the present work solely looks at behavioral intention over actual behavior. Arguments prevail as to the translatability of behavioral intentions to actual behavior; thus, future studies can examine the relationship of both variables. Third, the study sample is represented mainly by Gen Z and Gen Y cohorts. Despite their high propensity to adopt modern technologies and their potential to back the sharing economy, their sharing intentions limit their capacity to share-capital intensive resources. The acquisition of assets to be shared in for-profit sharing economy platforms may not be financially feasible. Global sharing economy firms offering monetary returns to peer-providers are reputed to engage in pseudo-sharing practices (Belk, 2014), which in turn erodes the concept’s original essence. As people own more resources accordingly increases resource capacities and magnifies the possibilities of environmental rebound effects. Future investigations can improve the sample’s composition if the focal point directs towards the sharing in prominent and for-profit sharing economy platforms. Fourth, the present work only examines a selected group of antecedents argued to influence behavioral outcomes in the sharing economy. Likewise, the probe on the cultural attribution of behavior only accounts for the cultural dimension of collectivism as it is deemed relevant according to previous studies in another consumer behavior context. Future research can integrate other determinants of behavior and include other dimensions of culture operationalized at the individual level. Lastly, this work recognizes that the findings may not be generalized in all contexts. Certain limitations and potential bias arise from self-reported online surveys; hence, future research can adopt approaches that further limit response consistency effects and subsequently reduce common method variance and response bias. Scholars can carry out complementary qualitative research as well to acquire an in-depth account of the inferred relationship parameter relationships. Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 19 of 25 Moreover, as this investigation was conducted in the middle of a crisis, there is a need to continuously track behavioral patterns and validate the current findings, especially in the postpandemic world. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to the Internal Grant Agency of FaME through Tomas Bata University in Zlin No. IGA/FaME/ 2020/002 (The impact of digital transformation on customer behavior and firm’s sustainable performance) and IGA/FaME/2021/003 (Consumer behaviour and performance management of firms in a competitive digital world) for financial support to carry out this research. Funding This work was supported by the Tomas Bata University in Zlin [IGA/FaME/2020/002 and IGA/FaME/2021/003]. Author details Mark Ratilla 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8318-505X Sandeep Kumar Dey 1 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9103-5422 Miloslava Chovancová 1 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9244-9563 1 Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Zlin, Czech Republic. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). CRediT author statement Mark Ratilla: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing - Original Draft Sandeep Kumar Dey: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis Miloslava Chovancová: Resources, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition Citation information Cite this article as: The sharing economy and the antecedents of resource sharing intentions: Evidence from a developing country, Mark Ratilla, Sandeep Kumar Dey & Miloslava Chovancová, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245. References Abrams, J., & von Frank, V. (2014). Defining the generations. The Multigenerational Workplace: Communicate, Collaborate, and Create Community, 1 (1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387741.n2 Agarwal, N., & Steinmetz, R. (2019). Sharing {economy}: {A} {systematic} {literature} {review}. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(6), 1930002. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0219877019300027 Ajzen, I. (1991). The {theory} of {planned} {behavior}. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0749-5978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the {attitude}-{behavior} {relation}: {Reasoned} and {automatic} {processes}. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14792779943000116 Akhmedova, A., Mas-Machuca, M., & Marimon, F. (2020). Value co-creation in the sharing economy: The role of quality of service provided by peer. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266(1), 121736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.121736 Albinsson, P. A., Perera, B. Y., Nafees, L., & Burman, B. (2019). Collaborative {consumption} {usage} in the {US} and {India}: {An} {exploratory} {study}. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 27(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2019.1644956 Alzamora-Ruiz, J., Guerrero-Medina, C., Martínez-Fiestas, M., & Serida-Nishimura, J. (2020). Why people participate in collaborative consumption: An exploratory study of motivating factors in a Latin American economy. Sustainability, 12(5), 1936. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su12051936 Amaro, S., Andreu, L., & Huang, S. (2019). Millenials’ intentions to book on {Airbnb}. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(18), 2284–2298. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13683500.2018.1448368 Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170 Ang, G. R. (1979). The Bayanihan Spirit: Dead or Alive? Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society - University of Scan Carlos Publications. 7(1), 91–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29791626 Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF02723327 Bakker, M., & Twining-Ward, L. (2018). Tourism and the {sharing} {economy}: {Policy} and {potential} of {sustainable} {peer}-to-{peer} {accommodation}. The World Bank Group.http://documents.worldbank.org/ curated/en/161471537537641836/pdf/130054REVISED-Tourism-and-the-Sharing-Economy-PDF.pdf Barnes, S. J., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: {A} four-stage {Delphi} study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104(1), 200–211. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.006 Becker-Leifhold, C. V. (2018). The role of values in collaborative fashion consumption - {A} critical investigation through the lenses of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199 (1), 781–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018. 06.296 Belarmino, A., & Koh, Y. (2020). A critical review of research regarding peer-to-peer accommodations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 84(1), 102315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.05.011 Belarmino, A., Whalen, E., Koh, Y., & Bowen, J. T. (2019). Comparing guests’ key attributes of peer-to-peer accommodations and hotels: Mixed-methods approach. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1293623 Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own?. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 126–140. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0002716206298483 Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 715–734. https://doi.org/10.1086/612649 Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2013.10.001 Bellotti, V., Ambard, A., Turner, D., Gossmann, C., Demková, K., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). A muddle of models of motivation for using peer-to-peer economy systems. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 20 of 25 2015 , Seoul, South Korea (pp. 1085–1094). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2702123.2702272 Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. (2017). A triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors. Journal of Business Research, 79(1), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2017.05.004 Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical {issues} in {structural} {modeling}. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0049124187016001004 Boateng, H., Kosiba, J. P. B., & Okoe, A. F. (2019). Determinants of consumers’ participation in the sharing economy: {A} social exchange perspective within an emerging economy context. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31 (2), 718–733. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-112017-0731 Böcker, L., & Meelen, T. (2017). Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for intended sharing economy participation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.004 Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. HarperCollins Publishers. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. In Choice reviews online (Vol. 48, Issue 06). Harper Business. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48-3364 Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., & Lutz, C. (2016). What’s mine is yours (for a nominal fee) – {Exploring} the spectrum of utilitarian to altruistic motives for {Internet}- mediated sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 62 (1), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04. 002 Chen, S.-C., Jong, D., Hsu, C.-S., & Lin, C.-H. (2021). Understanding extended theory of planned behavior to access backpackers’ intention in self-service travel websites. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348021994166 Chiu, J. L., Bool, N. C., & Chiu, C. L. (2017). Challenges and factors influencing initial trust and behavioral intention to use mobile banking services in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 246–278. https://doi.org/10. 1108/APJIE-08-2017-029 Choi, J., & Geistfeld, L. V. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of consumer e-shopping adoption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(6), 821–838. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.joep.2003.08.006 Codagnone, C., & Martens, B. (2016). Scoping the {sharing} {economy}: {Origins}, {definitions}, {impact} and {regulatory} {issues}. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Digital Economy Working Paper 2016/01.JRC100369. . https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2783662 Cohen, J. (1992). A powe primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 115–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909. 112.1.155 Davidson, A., Habibi, M. R., & Laroche, M. (2018). Materialism and the sharing economy: {A} cross-cultural study of {American} and {Indian} consumers. Journal of Business Research, 82(1), 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07. 045 Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 249008 Dolnicar, S., & Zare, S. (2020). COVID19 and Airbnb – Disrupting the disruptor. Annals of Tourism Research, 83(March), 102961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals. 2020.102961 Earle, A. M., Napper, L. E., LaBrie, J. W., Brooks-Russell, A., Smith, D. J., & de Rutte, J. (2020). Examining interactions within the theory of planned behavior in the prediction of intentions to engage in cannabis-related driving behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 68(4), 374–380. https://doi. org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1557197 Eckhardt, G. M., Houston, M. B., Jiang, B., Lamberton, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Zervas, G. (2019). Marketing in the {sharing} {economy}. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919861929 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating {structural} {equation} {models} with {unobservable} {variables} and {measurement} {error}. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 Fota, A., Wagner, K., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2019). Is renting the new buying? {A} quantitative investigation of the determinants of the rental-commerce intention. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 29(5), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2019.1664616 Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eist.2017.01.003 Gazzola, P., Grechi, D., Papagiannis, F., & Marrapodi, C. (2020). The sharing economy in a digital society: Youth consumer behavior in Italy. Kybernetes, 50(1), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2019-0796 Gazzola, P., Vătămănescu, E.-M., Andrei, A. G., & Marrapodi, C. (2019). Users’ motivations to participate in the sharing economy: {Moving} from profits toward sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 741–751. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1715 Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725–737. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0305-0483(00)00021-9 Gerwe, O., & Silva, R. (2020). Clarifying the sharing economy: Conceptualization, typology, antecedents, and effects. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 65–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0010 Gilchrist, C. (2016). ASEAN’s sharing economy: Understanding opportunities and navigating regulations. Asia Briefing. Dezan Shira & Associates. https:// www.aseanbriefing.com/news/sharing-economyasean Godelnik, R. (2017). Millennials and the sharing economy: {Lessons} from a ‘buy nothing new, share everything month’ project. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eist.2017.02.002 Gülseven, Z., Kumru, A., Carlo, G., & De Guzman, M. R. (2020). The roles of perspective taking, empathic concern, and prosocial moral reasoning in the self-reported prosocial behaviors of Filipino and Turkish young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 51(10), 814–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022022120968265 Gupta, M., Esmaeilzadeh, P., Uz, I., & Tennant, V. M. (2019). The effects of national cultural values on individuals’ intention to participate in peer-to-peer sharing economy. Journal of Business Research, 97 (September2017), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2018.12.018 Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 21 of 25 Hair, J., Jr, Hult, G. T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). In Sage (Second ed. 1–384). Sage. Hallem, Y., Ben Arfi, W., & Teulon, F. (2019). Exploring consumer attitudes to online collaborative consumption: {A} typology of collaborative consumer profiles. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/ Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De l’Administration, Cjas, , 37(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1554 Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: {Why} people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552 Hansen, J. M., Saridakis, G., & Benson, V. (2018). Risk, trust, and the interaction of perceived ease of use and behavioral control in predicting consumers’ use of social media for transactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80(1), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2017.11.010 Hawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., & Gimpel, H. (2018). Consumer motives for peer-to-peer sharing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204(1), 144–157. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.326 Hawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., & Weinhardt, C. (2016). Trust in the {sharing} {economy}. Die Unternehmung, 70(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.5771/0042-059X-2016-1-26 Higueras-Castillo, E., Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Muñoz-Leiva, F., & Molinillo, S. (2019). The role of collectivism in modeling the adoption of renewable energies: A cross-cultural approach. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16(4), 2143–2160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-01902235-4 Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?. Organizational Dynamics, AMACOM a division of American Management Association. 42–63. https:// pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/272151/1-s2.0-S009026 1600X01088/1-s2.0-0090261680900133/main.pdf? X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB8aCXVz LWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIGJMyj4W6enrOFcvS0MZePqLP BWwDcGqy7Ygk3ww1E9MAiEAn3DwzNF6F8VYD9L9d TP3AeXUZwyKzhX13p3FHSCKT9Mqv Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G. (2020). National culture. Hoftede Insights. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/countrycomparison/the-philippines/ Hsu, C.-L., & Lin, J.-C.-C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: {The} roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.im.2007.11.001 Huang, S. L., & Kuo, S. Y. (2020). Understanding why people share in the sharing economy. Online Information Review, 44(4), 805–825. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/OIR-03-2017-0073 Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualismcollectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002186017002006 Hwang, J., & Griffiths, M. A. (2017). Share more, drive less: {Millennials} value perception and behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(2), 132–146. https://doi. org/10.1108/JCM-10-2015-1560 Iran, S., Geiger, S. M., & Schrader, U. (2019). Collaborative fashion consumption – {A} cross-cultural study between {Tehran} and {Berlin}. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212(1), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2018.11.163 Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403–422. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959 Karlsson, L., & Dolnicar, S. (2016). Someone’s been sleeping in my bed. Annals of Tourism Research, 58 (1), 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016. 02.006 Kim, K. (2019). Understanding key antecedents of consumer loyalty toward sharing-economy platforms: The case of Airbnb. Sustainability, 11(19), 5195. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su11195195 Kim, S., Lee, K. Y., Koo, C., & Yang, S. B. (2018). Examining the influencing factors of intention to share accommodations in online hospitality exchange networks. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 35(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016. 1244024 Konrath, S., & Handy, F. (2018). The {development} and {validation} of the {motives} to {donate} {scale}. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 347–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0899764017744894 Kothe, E. J., & Mullan, B. A. (2015). Interaction effects in the theory of planned behaviour: Predicting fruit and vegetable consumption in three prospective cohorts. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20(3), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12115 Kuah, A. T. H., & Wang, P. (2020). Circular economy and consumer acceptance: An exploratory study in East and Southeast Asia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247(1), 119097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2019.119097 Kuroishi, Y., & Sawada, Y. (2019). Motivations behind prosocial behavior: {Evidence} from the {Philippines}. Journal of Asian Economics, 64(1), 101127. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2019.06.003 La Barbera, F., & Ajzen, I. (2020). Control interactions in the theory of planned behavior: Rethinking the role of subjective norm. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3. 2056 Lai, M. K. W., & Ho, A. P. Y. (2020). Unravelling potentials and limitations of sharing economy in reducing unnecessary consumption: A social science perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153(October2019), 104546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2019.104546 Lampridis, E., & Papastylianou, D. (2017). Prosocial behavioural tendencies and orientation towards individualism–collectivism of Greek young adults. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22 (3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843. 2014.890114 Lang, C. (2018). Perceived risks and enjoyment of access-based consumption: Identifying barriers and motivations to fashion renting. Fashion and Textiles, 5(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-018-0139-z Laurenti, R., & Acuña, F. M. B. (2020). Exploring antecedents of behavioural intention and preferences in online peer-to-peer resource sharing: {A} {Swedish} university setting. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 21(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2019.10.002 Lee, S. H. N., & Chow, P.-S. (2020). Investigating consumer attitudes and intentions toward online fashion renting retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52(1), 101892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jret conser.2019.101892 Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 22 of 25 Liobikienė, G., & Bernatonienė, J. (2017). Why determinants of green purchase cannot be treated equally? {The} case of green cosmetics: {Literature} review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.204 McKnight, D. H., & Chervany Norman, L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 2246(January), 27–54. https://doi. org/10.1007/3-540-45547-7_3 Mittendorf, C. (2018). Collaborative consumption: The role of familiarity and trust among {Millennials}. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 35(4), 377–391. https://doi. org/10.1108/JCM-12-2016-2040 Mittendorf, C., Berente, N., & Holten, R. (2019). Trust in sharing encounters among millennials. Information Systems Journal, 29(5), 1083–1119. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/isj.12237 Möhlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again: {Collaborative} consumption-determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14 (3), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1512 Mont, O., Palgan, Y. V., Bradley, K., & Zvolska, L. (2020). A decade of the sharing economy: {Concepts}, users, business and governance perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269(1), 122215. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122215 Nguyen, S., Didi Alaoui, M., & Llosa, S. (2020). When interchangeability between providers and users makes a difference: The mediating role of social proximity in collaborative services. Journal of Business Research, 121(April), 506–515. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.021 Nguyen, T. N., Lobo, A., & Greenland, S. (2017). The influence of cultural values on green purchase behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2016-0131 Nielsen. (2014). Is sharing the new buying? Reputation and trust are emerging as new currencies. https:// www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/ 04/global-share-community-report-may-2014.pdf Paundra, J., van Dalen, J., Rook, L., & Ketter, W. (2020). Ridesharing platform entry effects on ownership-based consumption in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265(1), 121535. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121535 Pavlou, P., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148720 Perfili, M., Parente, S., Grimaldi, M., & Morales-Alonso, G. (2019). A study on consumer behaviour in the sharing economy. In Á. Ortiz, C. Andrés Romano, R. Poler, & J.-P. García-Sabater (Eds.), Engineering digital transformation (pp. 79–86). Springer International Publishing. Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020092 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.879 Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., & Barghi, R. (2017). Effects of motivation, knowledge and perceived power on residents’ perceptions: Application of Weber’s theory in world heritage site destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research, 19(1), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2085 Retamal, M. (2019). Collaborative consumption practices in Southeast Asian cities: Prospects for growth and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02. 267 Retamal, M., & Dominish, E. (2017). The sharing economy in developing countries. Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) for Tearfund UK. https://learn.tearfund.org/~/media/files/tilz/circular_ economy/2017-tearfund-the-sharing-economy-indeveloping-countries-en.pdf?la=en Roos, D., & Hahn, R. (2017). Does shared consumption affect consumers’ values, attitudes, and norms? {A} panel study. Journal of Business Research, 77(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04. 011 Roos, D., & Hahn, R. (2019). Understanding {collaborative} {consumption}: {An} {extension} of the {theory} of {planned} {behavior} with {value}-{based} {personal} {norms}. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3675-3 Sanchez, M. J. (2020). Internet economy in the Philippines - statistics & facts. Statista Website. https://www.sta tista.com/topics/5660/internet-economy-in-thephilippines/#dossierSummary__chapter3 Schor, J. (2016). Debating the Sharing Economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 4(3), 7. https://doi.org/10.22381/jsme4320161 Schreiner, N., Pick, D., & Kenning, P. (2018). To share or not to share? Explaining willingness to share in the context of social distance. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(4), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/ cb.1717 So, K. K. F., Oh, H., & Min, S. (2018). Motivations and constraints of {Airbnb} consumers: {Findings} from a mixed-methods approach. Tourism Management, 67 (1), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018. 01.009 Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M., & Shoham, A. (2007). Hofstede’s dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research, 60 (3), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006. 10.018 Sreen, N., Purbey, S., & Sadarangani, P. (2018). Impact of culture, behavior and gender on green purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41(1), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser. 2017.12.002 Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704. https://doi.org/10. 2307/25148745 Sung, E., Kim, H., & Lee, D. (2018). Why do people consume and provide sharing economy accommodation? —A sustainability perspective. Sustainability, 10 (6), 2072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062072 Sutton, S. (2012). Determinants of health-related behaviours: Theoretical and methodological issues. In S. Sutton, A. Baum, & M. Johnston (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of health psychology (pp. 94–126). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://www/doi.org/10/4135/ 9781848608153.n Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding {information} {technology} {usage}: {A} {test} of {competing} Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 23 of 25 {models}. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144 The Economist. (2020). The sharing economy will have to change. The Economics Group Limited. https://www. economist.com/business/2020/06/04/the-sharingeconomy-will-have-to-change The World Bank. (2020). Philippines digital economy report 2020. In International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. https://doi.org/10. 1596/34606 Tiquia, M. L. (2021). Building shared economy and well-being budget. The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes. net/2020/07/21/opinion/columnists/building-sharedeconomy-and-well-being-budget/743786 Tran, T. H., & Filimonau, V. (2020). The (de)motivation factors in choosing {Airbnb} amongst {Vietnamese} consumers. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 42(1), 130–140. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jhtm.2019.10.011 Tran, V., Zhao, S., Diop, E. B., & Song, W. (2019). Travelers’ {acceptance} of {electric} {carsharing} {systems} in {developing} {countries}: {The} {case} of {China}. Sustainability, 11(19), 5348. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11195348 Tussyadiah, I. P. (2015). An {exploratory} {study} on {drivers} and {deterrents} of {collaborative} {consumption} in {travel}. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), Information and {communication} {technologies} in {tourism} 2015 (pp. 817–830). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-143439_59 Tussyadiah, I. P. (2016). Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55 (1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.03.005 Tussyadiah, I. P., & Pesonen, J. (2016). Article {PROOF} {impacts} of {peer}-to-{peer} {accommodation} {use} on {travel} {patterns}. Journals.Sagepub.Com, 55(8), 1022–1040. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287515608505 Tussyadiah, I. P., & Pesonen, J. (2018). Drivers and barriers of peer-to-peer accommodation stay – An exploratory study with {American} and {Finnish} travellers. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(6), 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1141180 Urbonavicius, S., & Sezer, A. (2019). Accommodation providers’ motives in sharing economy: Comparison between Turkey and Lithuania. International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research, 13(4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-07-2018-0096 Valente, E., Patrus, R., & Córdova Guimarães, R. (2019). Sharing economy: Becoming an Uber driver in a developing country. Revista De Gestão, 26(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/REGE-08-2018-0088 van der Heijden. (2004). User {acceptance} of {hedonic} {information} {systems}. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148660 Venkatesh, M. D., & Davis. (2003). User {acceptance} of {information} {technology}: {Toward} a {unified} {view}. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. https://doi.org/10. 2307/30036540 Venkatesh, T., & Xu, T. (2012). Consumer {acceptance} and {use} of {information} {technology}: {Extending} the {unified} {theory} of {acceptance} and {use} of {technology}. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157. https://doi. org/10.2307/41410412 Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 Whiting, B. B., Whiting, J. W. M., & Longabaugh, R. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.4159/harvard.9780674593770 Wilhelms, M.-P., Henkel, S., & Falk, T. (2017). To earn is not enough: A means-end analysis to uncover peerproviders’ participation motives in peer-to-peer carsharing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore. 2017.03.030 Wirtz, J., So, K. K. F., Mody, M. A., Liu, S. Q., & Chun, H. E. H. (2019). Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy. Journal of Service Management, 30(4), 452–483. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-20180369 Yan, R., Zhang, K. Z. K., & Yu, Y. (2019). Switching from hotels to peer-to-peer accommodation: An empirical study. Information Technology and People, 32(6), 1657–1678. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-20170444 Yang, S.-B., Lee, K., Lee, H., & Koo, C. (2019). In Airbnb we trust: Understanding consumers’ trust-attachment building mechanisms in the sharing economy. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83 (1), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.10. 016 Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring {Hofstede}’s {five} {dimensions} of {cultural} {values} at the {individual} {level}: {Development} and {validation} of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3–4), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2011. 578059 Zhang, G., Wang, L., & Shi, P. (2019). Research on {sharing} {intention} {formation} {mechanism} {based} on the {burden} of {ownership} and {fashion} {consciousness}. Sustainability, 11(4), 992. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11040992 Zhang, Y., Phang, C. W., Gu, R., & Zhang, C. (2019). Antecedents and role of individual sociability on participation in mobile collaborative consumption. Internet Research, 29(5), 1064–1089. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/INTR-03-2018-0131 Ratilla et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1997245 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1997245 Page 24 of 25