Next Article in Journal
Residents’ Attitudes toward Support for Island Sustainable Tourism
Previous Article in Journal
Pleurotus spp. Cultivation on Different Agri-Food By-Products: Example of Biotechnological Application
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sharing Economy Service Experience and Its Effects on Behavioral Intention

1
College of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Wenzhou University, Chashan University Town, Wenzhou City 325000, China
2
College of Management, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan-Tung Road, Chung-Li 32003, Taiwan
3
Department of Business Administration, National Taiwan Normal University, Heping East Road, Da’an District, Taipei City 106, Taiwan
4
Gogoro Taiwan Limited, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(18), 5050; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185050
Submission received: 14 August 2019 / Revised: 6 September 2019 / Accepted: 8 September 2019 / Published: 16 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)

Abstract

:
The sharing economy allows consumers to share spare resources through online platforms and to reduce the transaction costs by using platform services. Shared enterprises use idle resources in a more intelligent manner and share the resulting benefits with consumers. This study connects the shared enterprises’ service innovations with service experience. This study examines the consumers’ energy sharing experience and its impact on their experiential values, which in turn, affects their continued sharing energy intention. In addition, this study further examines the moderating effects of social influence and sustainability on experiential value and behavioral intentions. Data were collected from 460 Taiwanese consumers. The consumers were asked to complete a survey about their experience with Gogoro energy sharing services. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was adopted to analyze the data via IBM SPSS AMOS 25.0 (Armonk, New York, U.S.). As a result, a new four-element sharing economy service experience model was suggested; the service experience had a significant and positive effect on the behavioral intention. Additionally, the experiential values had significant and positive effects on the behavioral intention. Moreover, social influence and sustainability had significant and positive moderating effects on the relationships between experiential values and behavioral intention.

1. Introduction

The sharing economy was instantly involved in the capitalist market and became a hybrid economy [1,2]; the sharing economy’s potential is expected to reach $335 billion in 2025 [3]. With the maturation of globalization and the Internet environment, as well as the rapid development of mobile technology and social media, the sharing economy has become a new consumption model [4,5] and has gradually created new customer values, such as environmentally friendly values, an innovation lifestyle, or a sharing culture [6]. According to CB Insights [7], the market value of Uber (San Francisco, California, U.S.), which uses an app to provide transport services, has reached 68 billion US dollars and Airbnb (San Francisco, California, U.S.), which is a short-term vacation rentals company, also reached $29 billion. The sharing economy provides consumers with new options to reduce spending and a more efficient consumption model. Thus, the sharing economy has caused society as a whole to gradually reduce its purchasing behavior, thus promoting ownership sharing and short-term rentals.
The success of the sharing economy suggests that ownership is no longer the ultimate expression of consumer desires [8,9,10]. Companies can use service-oriented business models to replace the traditional ones to provide economic incentives to consumers, who are able to save the initial high cost of purchasing of a product, while they are able to continue enjoying the convenience of maintenance, upgrades, and other services [11]. For example, Taiwan’s start-up company, Gogoro, an energy distribution and management company, integrates the services of energy, transportation, and information systems, provides user-swappable batteries, and a vast network of battery-swapping stations to replace the traditional electric scooter battery sales.
Gogoro’s service model not only solves the electric scooter cruising range problem but also saves the time consumption cost of charging the battery and the battery maintenance cost. That is, Gogoro uses the concept of energy sharing to manage the customer’s energy use; hence, the energy can be used more efficiently. All these advantages can incentivize customers to use electric scooters. The sharing of electric power through the energy network is able to sustain the social energy supply and sustainable economic development [1]. The energy network is not only a technical concept but also a field of energy and an electricity sharing economic model. Based on Botsman and Rogers’ [12] sharing economy typology, we aim to discuss the product-service systems (PSS) (Product-service systems: Goods are regarded as services, which mean that it is unnecessary to purchase the rights of ownership of the goods, and the needs are satisfied by renting or sharing the goods [12]) of the sharing economy and define its forms as an innovative business model. The model gains benefits by renting rights of use and providing services. It is a model that sells services instead of physical products, where consumers obtain the products and services they need by acquiring rights of use instead of rights of ownership.
To understand the factors that drive consumers to continue using the sharing economy, prior studies have focused on the relationship between the consumers’ using motivation and continued use intention of the sharing service, as well as the relationship between the consumer’s motivation to adopt new services and their intention to continue to use the sharing service (e.g., [6,13,14]). Some studies have focused on the relationship between the consumer’s personal characteristics (such as the innovation personality) and their intention to continue to use the sharing service (e.g., [15,16]). Only a few studies have focused on understanding the relevance between the customers’ experience, feeling, perception, and continued use intentions when they are using sharing economy services [16].
This study proposes that the sharing economy’s value is mainly from the customer’s service experience rather than from product purchasing. Customers desire an unforgettable and enjoyable service experience and pay more attention to the value or benefits they receive from the service they use [17]. For example, the value of Uber may be perceived as higher by people who perceive it as a service that reduces the number of private cars in an already congested city street [6]. To many consumers, using sharing economy services is economical, convenient, and enjoyable. Potential risks, such as privacy risk and security risk, however, have deterred them from using such services. For instance, using a sharing economy service often requires users to provide detailed personal information, which may be used for non-intended commercial activities. In addition, there have been notable cases of rape, vandalism, and theft of using different sharing economy services, such as Uber and Airbnb. Therefore, it is imperative for sharing economy service providers to understand customer-perceived experiential values and its effect on their continued use intention.
Customers prefer to pay for a short-term use instead of purchasing and owning goods [18]. Service experience is the consumers’ perception of the service process [19]. A more positive service experience is able to increase the customer’s satisfaction and purchasing intention [20]. A successful service experience makes the customers feel unique, remember the experience for a long time, and share their experiences with others [21]. As a result, the customer’s service experience is an important factor affecting the experiential values in a sharing economy. However, customer satisfaction is created by experiential value [22]. Several articles have focused on how hedonic and utilitarian values affect consumption behavior. A hedonic value is a reflection of the customer’s emotions, where the customer tends to maximize their feelings of fun, joy, etc. Conversely, utilitarian value refers to customers who view products or services as more practical and necessary. In the sharing economy, when customers use shared services or products, it can be said that the hedonistic and utilitarian values refer to the rational or emotional embodiment of the value of the shared services or products [23]. Hence, there is a need to determine the impact of hedonic and utilitarian value on behavioral intentions in the setting of the sharing economy.
Recently, social influence has become one of the motivations for consumers to use the sharing economy (e.g., [2,24,25]). Social influence can create personal confidence in using new services. For example, community identity is a motivation that encourages members to share their passion for a service or product and attract others to become users of the sharing service [26]. People in a community receive pressure from other members or friends to be consistent. The family behavior and attitude also have strong impacts on their cognition [27]. The participants in the sharing economy obtain social relationships due to their sharing behavior, and the value and benefits grow as more people participate in the sharing economy [28]. Therefore, this study considers social influence to be an important factor to understand the continued use of sharing economy services by consumers.
In addition, enterprises often emphasize the environmental friendliness of sharing economy services. For example, Zipcar actively advocates the green advantage of car sharing [18]. The relationship between sustainability and innovation in the sharing economy studies is dramatically increasing [29]. The innovation model of the sharing economy has subverted the established business model, generated economic activity, and the accompaniment of social and environmental benefits [30]. The sharing economy is a disruptive innovation as well as a social innovation. This innovation is able to solve the injustice and inequality of the market economy and create a potential path for sustainable development [4].
Accordingly, consumers in the sharing economy have a greater understanding of sustainability and altruistic values than consumers engaging in traditional consumption [31]. People in the sharing economy value sustainability, enjoyment, and economic benefits. Collaborative consumption is not only able to meet their individual utilitarian needs, but it can also satisfy their psychological needs. That is, a service that may be slightly more expensive than its traditional counterparts, but provides ecological benefits, may be preferred by someone who values environmental sustainability [16]. Sharing economy users believe that sharing has a reciprocal benefit and they expect to have a friendly and positive exchange relationship and to promote stable and sustainable development of the sharing economy [32]. Therefore, this study considers that sustainability is another important factor to understand the continued use of sharing economy services by consumers. To explore the impact of the enterprise’s overall service performance on consumers’ experiential values when consumers experience the sharing services, which in turn, affects their continued use intention. This study explores the moderating effects of social influence and sustainability on behavioral intention in the sharing economy. A research model is proposed, as shown in Figure 1.
Our study contributes to the literature as follows: First, sharing economy investigations address issues, such as participation intention [2], the factors influencing sharing satisfaction [33], and trust and reputation in the sharing economy [34]. Despite the importance of a customer experience perspective, little is known about the sharing economy service experience. While the service experience has garnered considerable attention in recent years (e.g., [35,36,37,38,39]), knowledge of sharing economy service experience remains limited. Second, the present analysis relates the dramaturgical theory to sharing economy service experience and identifies its multiple dimensions. Therefore, the paper provides a more holistic understanding of sharing economy service experience than is found in the existing research and argues for the wider relevance of this phenomenon. The insights generated will open up new perspectives and avenues for future research on sharing economy service experience and demonstrate its implications for managers seeking to monitor and facilitate their customers’ experiences.

2. Theoretical Background

Dramaturgical Theory

When the dramaturgical theory [40] is employed in the service industry, the service encounter process is similar to the enactment of a drama, where the enactment is an interaction between customers and service workers, service settings, and situational factors during the service, i.e., the core of service encounters [41]. The dramaturgical theory describes the settings of service encounters from the perspective of a drama performance. The four elements include (1) actors (service workers)—service providers, (2) audience (customers)—service recipients, (3) settings (service environment and facilities)—the place where services are provided, and (4) enactment (the performance during service encounters)—service performance, which are the consequence of the interactions between service workers and customers.
The dramaturgical theory integrates the mutual influence among service settings, service workers, and customers. The ultimate consequence of the integration is a service performance, whose quality includes the quality of physical products, the speed of service, the invisible service process, and the support of the system. The service performance that customers experience is the interactive result of the related systems, procedures, service workers, and customers in a service organization [42]. The dramaturgical theory embodies service encounters and compares the actors, audience, settings, and performances in an enactment of a drama to the process that customers encounter with service workers and their consumption experience in a service setting, which is quite applicable to the service industry, with a great amount of interpersonal contact [43].
Accordingly, all the factors being coordinated are key to a successful performance [43]. We propose the influence of the overall performance of an enterprise on the customers’ experiential value during the provision of sharing services, as well as its influence on their future behavioral intentions based on the dramaturgical theory. That is, the dramaturgical theory understands how a service organization combines the actors, audience, and settings together and creates a trustworthy and enjoyable service performance in which customers enjoy the experience of enactment during the service.

3. Literature Review and Development of Hypotheses

3.1. Experiential Values

“Experience” involves emotions that are produced in customers and can be unforgettable to them [21]. During consumption, customers not only possess tangible goods or services but also have a pleasant buying experience in which they sense the value brought by a unique and unforgettable experience [44]. The experiential value is defined as the perception of and preference for product properties and service performance by customers from the perspective of experience, and the value can be increased through the customers’ participation and interaction [45]. Experiential value can provide both external and internal benefits. The external benefits are obtained from the utilitarian buying experience, while the internal benefits are satisfied through the inner emotional experience [45,46].
Current studies have proved that experiential values can be conceptualized as multidimensional constructs [47,48,49,50]. Among the perceptual values, utilitarian value and hedonic values often appear in the marketing field [47,51,52,53,54,55]. Utilitarian value is defined as the consumers’ evaluation of costs and substantial benefits after they take into account the product, service, and price, etc. [53]. Utilitarian value is an experience of utility and the result of a conscious pursuit. When obtaining the utilitarian value, consumers who are goal-oriented and rational purchase products after considering them and regard the purchase as a shopping task. The utilitarian value assesses the overall functional benefits and sacrifices [53]. That is, the utilitarian value integrates the perceptions of economic values, such as saving time and money and convenience [56,57]. Consumers are more willing to pay a higher price when buying utilitarian products [58].
Hedonic value is the recreational and emotional value that products and services provide. It is the consumers’ evaluation of costs and experiential benefits, such as pleasure, enjoyment and feelings of escapism [53]. Compared to utilitarian value, the hedonic value is influenced by the emotional feelings or pleasure brought by the products, which are invisible and subjective opinions [59]. These involve the sense of pleasure obtained during shopping. Hedonic value, which is often emotional and irrational, is often produced during a consumption experience. It often comes from fun and playfulness, which are sensory, enjoyable, and aesthetic experiences, instead of fulfilling shopping tasks [59]. The utilitarian value and hedonic value reflect the potential perceived value produced in the customer service experience [47,60]. Accordingly, this study defines the experiential value of sharing services as an interactive evaluation of rationality and sensibility, which consists of utilitarian value and hedonic value.

3.2. Sharing Economy Service Experience

Pine II and Gilmore [21] propose that enterprises create unforgettable experiences with visible goods and invisible services, and they regard experiences as commodities that can be marketed. The service experience is related to the service concept, the customers’ range of social contacts, the delivery systems, and the needed technology [61]. The service experience is the customer’s perception after receiving the service. It is the outcome of the customers’ perception, feelings, and behaviors produced after they interact with service organizations, systems, procedures, and workers, namely, the subjective feelings that a customer experiences during service encounters and service delivery [62]. Grace and O’Cass [19] defined service experience as the perception and feelings produced in customers when they receive services, stating that the service experience falls into the category of emotional thinking and involves the service process, service workers, and service settings.
During the interactions with enterprises, customers gradually accumulate service experiences and establish relationships with the enterprises. When customers build the relationship, they are willing to maintain a relatively stable and a long-lasting interactive relationship with the enterprise [63], encourage others to experience the services, interact with the enterprise in a friendly manner, and provide the enterprise with advice. In the service experience created by the sharing economy, products and services are merely props and service workers are only actors in a performance in a customer experience theater. Consequently, enterprises need to learn to combine these elements to create a fascinating experience and provide value to the customers through the sharing economy [64]. For example, Uber and Airbnb enable people to enjoy service experiences and values that are diametrically different from those provided by traditional taxes and restaurants; therefore, they become loyal supporters of the sharing economy. Moreover, their service experience and efficacy are continuously extended in the sharing economy every time products and services are shared and circulated between owners and users [65].
Grace and O’Cass [19] argue that service experience can be explored from the servicescape, employee service, and core service. Servicescape is the physical and social environments where service experiences, transactions, and matters take place [66]. Employee service is the behavior or performance of service workers during service delivery, which is established based on the interaction between service providers and customers. Its main function is to convey the content of the service, and it plays an important role in service delivery [67]. Service workers’ clothing, behaviors, attitudes, professional expertise, and promises to customers are all included in this dimension [68]. Core service is the effects of the services provided by enterprises. It is the benefit and utility that customers pursue when they make a purchase, and it is also the highest value that consumers can receive from service providers during service delivery [19]. In this study, these three indicators are used to judge the service experience, which will help provide a good service experience and create satisfaction and experiential value for customers in the sharing economy.
Moreover, Bastita, Ng, and Maull [69] consider the sharing economy as one disruptive innovation that could transform a market economy. The sharing economy is conceptualized as a social innovation [70], a field related to service innovation (i.e., sharing economy platforms) [71]. Service innovation includes a novel service concept or service delivery process and unique ways of improving and resolving problems [72]. Service innovation is about the different aspects of the service from what the customers had previously experienced or their unexpected consumption experience [73]. Thus, enterprises offer different types of services or consumption experiences that are unexpected by consumers [73]. We define service innovation in the PSS of the sharing economy as “enterprises develop services based on their core products, providing various services or consumption experiences unexpected by consumers and new solutions to the existing problems in the society” and argue that service innovation should be a part of the service experience of the sharing economy. However, there have been few studies showing that service innovation is related to the three factors cited by Grace and O’Cass [19]. Therefore, this study intends to explore whether the four factors, i.e., servicescape, employee service, core service, and service innovation, are related to the customers’ service experience in the sharing economy.
A sharing economy that promotes collaborative consumption is a process in which high hedonic values are provided. In this aspect, Gilovich et al. [74] argue that collaborative consumption offers more experience and higher hedonic values compared to the purchase of products and services in a traditional business environment. Bardhi and Eckhardt [18] found that customers use the sharing services of Zipcar and Autolib because of the utility of the services. That is, car-sharing services provide customers with utilitarian values. The benefits of utilitarian values, such as saved costs and utility, are key in the decisions of young consumers regarding whether they are satisfied with the service and are willing to use it [75]. The collaborative consumption is also related to hedonic values. For example, customers can obtain pleasure by experiencing different options, such as the car-sharing service called DriveNow by BMW (Munich, Germany). Using the service, consumers can drive a BMW or Mini by paying only the membership fee by way of sharing or hiring BMW cars [76]. Hamari et al. [2] studied why customers participated in collaborative consumption under the sharing economy and found that the main motives are closely related to sustainability, economic benefits, and enjoyment. The aforesaid research reveals that the utilitarian and hedonic values brought by sharing services are one of customers’ motives to use sharing services. In this respect, Ryu et al. [77] pointed out that utilitarian and hedonic values form the foundation on which customers rate their consumption experience, as the two values explain the basic and potential consumption process and present the customers’ experiential values in a complete manner.
H1. 
Service experience has a positive effect on utilitarian value.
H2. 
Service experience has a positive effect on hedonic value.
Behavioral intentions and actual behaviors are highly correlated [78]. Behavioral intention is the willingness that customers demonstrate towards engaging in certain behaviors, which is often used to predict or explain customers’ actual behaviors. Behavioral intention suggests an individual’s possible actions in the future, which can be used to predict people’s behaviors [79]. We define the behavioral intention behind sharing services in terms of continuous use, according to the studies by Molinari et al. [79] and Bhattacherjee [80,81]. The values represent the function of and the emotion evoked by the service environment, respectively, which affect the customers’ satisfaction and their willingness to purchase in the future. The value affects the customers’ judgment and pushes them to take action, such as repurchase intentions, public praise, increase in purchase amounts, and willingness to pay a higher price. Consumers produce positive behavioral intentions when they sense high consumption values during the consumption experience or assessment, such as the willingness to buy again, public praise, and recommending the service to friends [82]. The service values of consumers can be categorized into utilitarian and hedonic values [83]. These two types of values result in different emotional experiences and exert different impacts on customers’ future behaviors [84].
H3. 
Utilitarian value exerts a positive effect on behavioral intention.
H4. 
Hedonic value exerts a positive effect on behavioral intention.

3.3. Social Influence

People’s perceptions, attitudes, and values are affected by those who are around them, i.e., social influence [85]. Taylor and Todd [86] defined social influence as the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system. The influence of external social factors on individual behaviors can be categorized into informational influence and normative influence [87]. Informational influence means that users feel the information provided by others is trustworthy, and thus, they are willing to accept it, whereas the normative influence is about users satisfying others’ expectations to gain acknowledgement. Many consumers post their positive or negative reviews about their experience of using technology products online. The reviews affect the choice and buying decisions of potential customers [88], which can be seen as an informational influence. For consumers who want to gain others’ acknowledgement, they choose to use recognized technology products to improve their personal image or social status. This is another key factor in product sales, which is an example of a normative influence.
That consumers are influenced by reference groups has been discussed in the marketing literature. The reference group can be divided into direct reference groups (family or friends) and indirect reference groups (magazines, books, newspaper, and media) [89]. Regarding the community that serves as a reference group and the type of social influence, a community is a group of people who live together and share their promises, thoughts, and values, which means that a community is a social unit and its members gather together because of their shared values. The communities often involve topics in which the members all take interest. The members of the community often share some interests or information regarding products or services [90].
The members are reflected through their perception of the community’s nature, their emotions towards the community, and their reviews about the importance of the community [91,92]. Through frequent interactive meetings, the members heighten their sense of identity, which makes them feel the need to take responsibility for the community [93]. Their sense of responsibility becomes a group norm of the community and the reciprocity, compulsory service, and information feedback constitute the community’s social capital [94]. Ahearne et al. [95] pointed out that the community members are willing to help other members when they acquire a sense of identity in the community. They offer their advice to help resolve other members’ doubts based on their own expertise, by which they increase their own values and benefits and those of the community and achieve their common goals [96]. The existence of communities often distinguishes the sharing economy from the traditional economy [97]. The customers of a successful shared enterprise often interact continuously in addition to their transaction demands in their community, in which the members often experience value-oriented trust toward each other.
Individual behaviors and decisions are often influenced by the social environment [98]. Venkatesh et al. [87] view social influence as an external motive, arguing that social influence positively affects consumer behavioral intentions in innovative information systems. Studies on network behaviors have revealed that social influence is an important factor that affects the decisions of users regarding whether they share community behaviors [99,100,101,102]. The sharing economic environment will drive people to engage in social interaction, such as sharing, communication and information exchange in different places [103]. If a group or a platform can provide similar goods or services to meet demanders’ needs, it will strengthen their willingness to participate in collaborative consumption [104]. For instance, recommendations from family and friends along with other users’ positive reviews may encourage a new user to try the Uber services. In addition, the features of the sharing economy produce such a mindset; the emergence of a sharing economy helps people comprehend the power of sharing and collaboration [2]. Once people experience the power, they will apply the same logic to other parts of their lives, which is conducive to creating a long-term trend of sharing limited resources [6]. Therefore, the study suggests that the intentions of consumers using sharing services may be affected by social factors, such as a community with common values, family and friends, and public praise online.
H5a. 
Social influence exerts a positive moderating effect on the relationship between utilitarian value and behavioral intention.
H5b. 
Social influence exerts a positive moderating effect on the relationship between hedonic value and behavioral intention.

3.4. Sustainability

Sustainability means that consumption can be satisfied and that an abundant society can be built without increasing the burden on the environment and consuming resources [105,106]. Sustainability is seen as an important principle behind wealth distribution and resource consumption [107] and is the equilibrium point between economic development, environmental quality, and social justice [108,109]. Sustainability urges humankind to maintain a balance between development and the environment and serves as a reminder that the rehabilitation of natural resources and the environment is limited, and it is necessary to take the ecological balance and sustainable development of the environment into account while the development of the economy is being promoted.
The sharing economy can be seen as green consumption, which may enable humankind to build a sustainable society with a sustainable environment [110]. As far as the outcome of collaborative consumption is concerned, goods and services are repeatedly used when they are constantly exchanged, which satisfies the consumers’ needs by improving the use efficiency of current resources and reducing the consumption of natural resources and the social costs incurred by unnecessary waste [111]. When collaborative consumption increases, the frequency of using goods and services will increase and the unnecessary waste of natural resources will be reduced, which lessens the negative impact on the society and the environment [110].
Recent research reveals that the platform created by the sharing economy can develop a sustainable market [112]. Sustainability can improve the consumption environment, society, and the economy, and meet the contemporary and future needs of human beings [113]. Sustainable consumption requires consumers to adopt another way of buying and using products and services, so it is often related to social movements [114]. Böckmann [6] thinks that one of the social norms that the sharing economy conveys is to guarantee sustainability through community collaboration. For instance, people think about the use of limited resources in a more responsible manner. Consumers who participate in the sharing economy are often predicted to be responsible regarding ensuring the sustainability of the ecological environment [115,116]. However, sharing economy services nonetheless have unsustainable effects. The business operation of Airbnb (San Francisco, California, U.S.) and Uber (San Francisco, California, U.S.) has created unregulated marketplaces and unfair competition, enables tax avoidance, and transferred risks to consumers [117]. These unsustainable effects of the sharing economy services demonstrate a contested phenomenon.
Using sharing services provides flexible choices in which all types of transport needs are met, and private ownership and the negative effects of environmental inefficiency are reduced [118]. Owyang [119] found that many people take part in the sharing economy because of its convenience and lower costs and not because of their pursuit of sustainable lifestyles. However, sharing services still strive to combine sustainability and community management better. Hamari et al. [2] also had an interesting finding when researching the motivation of participating in the sharing economy, which is that sustainability does not influence behavioral intentions directly unless it exerts a positive impact on the sharing economy. That is, consumers’ preference for sustainable consumption is a key factor that affects their willingness to participate in the sharing economy.
H6a. 
Sustainability exerts a positive moderating effect on the relationship between utilitarian value and behavioral intention.
H6b. 
Sustainability exerts a positive moderating effect on the relationship between hedonic value and behavioral intention.

4. Methodology

4.1. Sample and Data Collection

This study discusses the ways an enterprise can improve consumers’ use of energy by developing an energy network with the help of innovative technology in a sharing economic environment. In the network, consumers obtain experiential values by experiencing sharing services, which exerts an impact on their future behavioral intentions in using energy sharing services. The study subject is Gogoro, a new energy company in which the energy sharing concept has been the most mature in Taiwan to date.
Gogoro was chosen for five reasons. First, Gogoro ranked first, with an 87% market share of the electric scooters market in 2018 [120], thus it has sample representativeness. Second, Gogoro has a business model of service innovation, which is different from the traditional charging mode of electric scooters’ batteries. Gogoro uses energy network exchange to develop electric scooters. Third, Gogoro’s GoCharger fast charging station can share energy with others. GoCharger has been built in many stores, such as cafes, restaurants, gyms, spas, hairdressing salons, and bookstores, making energy-sharing platforms more common in all parts of the city. Fourth, Gogoro operates electric scooters using the shared economy model and provides users with new experiences and services on the platform of the battery switching station and smart phone app.
Finally, Gogoro’s energy network, an example of energy sharing, aims to resolve problems, such as long wait time when a battery is being charged, weak endurance of a battery, and short battery life. The network combines big data and IoT technology, monitoring and analyzing the overall service condition and possible battery trends. Gogoro envisions collaboration with other manufacturers of scooters and the use of batteries with the same specification and energy swap systems. In this way, Gogoro focuses on developing battery swap stations and energy management, while other manufacturers focus on designing and developing scooters. With concerted efforts, they develop a sharing economy platform of green energy. Accordingly, consumers have access to environmentally friendly modes of transportation. Hence, research attests to the importance of Gogoro’s sharing economy services and highlights the need to focus research on this area.
In this study, paper-based and web-based questionnaires were distributed simultaneously for the purpose of collecting data more conveniently and extensively. The web-based questionnaires were filled out by the communities related to Gogoro on Facebook, while the paper-based ones were answered by customers at Gogoro’s battery swap stations. The senior specialists at Gogoro were asked to review and complete the draft version of the questionnaire to identify ambiguities and suggest improvements. An examination of the feedback led to further refinement and eventually a final version. To ensure the face validity of each construct, each item was derived from the existing literature. Each item was closed-ended and employed a Likert-style rating scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”. A sticker was designed as a thank-you gift to those who participated. The respondents left their mailing information after they answered the web-based questionnaires and stickers were sent to them after all the samples were obtained. Those who answered the paper-based questionnaires received the sticker immediately after they finished the survey at the site.
Data collection was via online and paper formats. The users of its energy sharing services answered the questionnaire. A total of 515 questionnaires were collected, where 460 of these were regarded as valid and 55 were invalid; thus, the usable response rate was 89%. In this study, 55 invalid surveys were removed, which were either incomplete or from the same individual (via IP address tracking, mailing information). To examine the consistency between the two data sources, this study used the chi-squared test to examine the distribution of demographics in the online and physical survey. There is no statistically significant difference between the two data sources in terms of gender (p = 0.212), age (p = 0.121) and education (p = 0.094). Therefore, this study combined the data from the two data sources.
The techniques used in this study to identify any common method bias include Harman’s single-factor test and the common latent factor test based on the suggestion from Podsakoff and Organ [121]. Harman’s single-factor test was run to identify common method bias. All the 39 items were entered, and one factor was fixed to identify how much variance is explained by only one factor. It was found that one factor explained 41.499% of the data, which shows that common method bias is not a major threat in the data. Common latent factor analysis was also performed to test the method variance in the dataset. Table 1 shows the demographic information. Among the 460 respondents, 350 (76.1%) were males and 110 (23.9%) were females. The age of the respondents ranged mainly from 21 to 40 years old (82.1%). In total, 64.6% of the respondents were college and university graduates. In total, 32.2% of the respondents work in the service industry (32.2%) and 23.3% of the respondents have occupations in manufacturing. Moreover, the monthly disposable incomes of the two largest groups of the respondents were over NT 40,001 (40.0%) and NT 30,001 to NT 40,000 (23.5%).

4.2. Measures

Service experience was modeled as a second-order construct and was measured regarding the following four reflective indicators: Servicescape, employee service, core service, and service innovation. Servicescape was measured by the consumers’ overall evaluation of the physical and virtual environments where the service is delivered [20,43]. Employee service was measured by the consumers’ evaluation of the expertise, behaviors, attitudes, and service quality of service workers [19,67,68]. Core service was measured by the consumers’ sensory evaluation of what the service is about and whether the service is in line with the benefits, utility, reliability, and quality that they expect [19,122]. Service innovation was measured by the consumers’ overall impression of the novel service concepts and new solutions to the problems in enterprises and society [19,72,73,123].
Experiential values consist of two variables, namely, utilitarian value and hedonic value. Utilitarian value was measured by the consumers’ evaluation of the costs and functional benefits received during the sharing service experience [47,53,59]. Hedonic value was measured by the consumers’ evaluation of the costs and emotional feelings or pleasure experienced during the sharing service experience [47,53,59]. Social influence was measured by how much consumers’ perception, values, behaviors, or attitudes are affected by reference groups, including informational and normative influences [85,87]. Sustainability was measured by the social and environmental benefits received when using the sharing service [2,105]. Behavioral intention was measured by the consumers’ experience with the sharing services and whether they are willing to continue using it in the future and to recommend it to others [79,80,81].

5. Data Analysis and Results

5.1. Measurement Model

IBM SPSS AMOS 25 (Armonk, New York, U.S.) was used to perform the analyses and to evaluate the quality of the measurement model and the construct interrelationships. Consistent with the recommendations of MacKenzie et al. [124], confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to ensure convergent validity and discriminate validity. The overall model statistics indicated that the chi-square/degrees of freedom = 2.88, goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.82, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.91, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.91, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06. The internal reliability of the measurement model was tested by using Cronbach’s alpha (α) and composite reliability (CR). In Table 2, the Cronbach’s alpha of all constructs exceeds the recommended level of 0.7 and demonstrates a high internal consistency of measure reliability [125]. In addition, the CR values ranged between 0.78 and 0.92, exceeding the recommended standard of 0.7. Convergent validity was assessed by examining whether the average variance extracted (AVE) values were above the recommended threshold value of 0.5 [126]. All AVE values ranged from 0.54 to 0.72, suggesting that the items were reflective of the constructs. Discriminate validity was tested by examining whether the square root of AVE was greater than the values of the inter-construct correlations; the diagonal was higher in all cases than the correlations among the variables. All the constructs’ AVE values are above this threshold, implying that there is discriminant validity and reliability among the constructs. Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations.

5.2. Structural Model

To examine the proposed research model and the hypothesized relationships, structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed. SEM has the distinctive advantage of accounting for all covariance in the data, which allows for the simultaneous examination of correlations, shared variance, path coefficients, and their significance, making it ideal to test for main effects [127]; additionally, it involves an analysis of theoretical constructs that are measured by latent factors [128]. The results for the direct effects of the structural model are shown in Figure 2 and Table 4. A bootstrapping approach was applied to obtain the statistical significance of the path coefficients in the structural model by using 200 interactions of a bootstrapping technique. Figure 2 provides the standardized path coefficients and overall model fit for the direct effects model (χ2/d.f. = 3.957, GFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08). According to Table 4, the service experience had significantly positive effects on the utilitarian value (β = 0.89, t = 16.82, p < 0.001) and hedonic value (β = 0.90, t = 18.59, p < 0.001). Thus, hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported. There was a significantly positive relationship between the utilitarian value and behavioral intentions (β = 0.14, t = 2.07, p < 0.05). Hence, hypothesis 3 is supported. There was a positive relationship between the hedonic value and behavioral intentions (β = 0.68, t = 9.17, p < 0.001). Thus, hypothesis 4 is supported. Regarding the R2 values, service experience explains 80% of the variance in the utilitarian value and 81% of the variance in the hedonic value. In addition, the utilitarian value and hedonic value explain 65% of the variance in behavioral intentions. All of the values exceed the cut-off value of 0.50, indicating a large effect size of R2 [129]. All of these values are significant at p < 0.01.

5.3. The Results for Moderating Effects

To examine the moderating effect of social influence and sustainability on the relationship between the experiential values and behavioral intentions, this study used the latent moderated effect model [130]. As shown in Table 5, the interaction term of utilitarian value × social influence had a positive and significant moderating effect on the relationship between utilitarian value and behavioral intention (β = 0.60; t = 9.79, p < 0.001). Thus, hypothesis 5a is supported. The interaction term of hedonic value × social influence had a positive and significant moderating effect on the relationship between hedonic value and behavioral intention (β = 0.51; t = 7.61, p < 0.001). Thus, hypothesis 5b is supported. Moreover, as predicted by hypothesis 6a, the interaction term of utilitarian value × sustainability had a positive and significant moderating effect on the relationship between utilitarian value and behavioral intention (β = 0.81; t = 11.85, p < 0.001). Additionally, hypothesis 6b is supported, which posited that the interaction term of hedonic value × sustainability had a positive and significant moderating effect on the relationship between hedonic value and behavioral intention (β = 0.92; t = 11.31, p < 0.001).
To further assess the association of experiential values and the moderators’ influences on behavioral intention, the R2 values of the dependent variable, i.e., behavioral intention, were compared. Accordingly, the effect size (effect size f 2 = [R2 (interaction model) − R2 (main effects model)]/[1 − R2 (main effects model)] [131].) (f 2) was computed to compare the R2 values between the main and interaction effect models as a gauge of whether the interactions had a small (0.02), medium (0.15), or large effect (0.35) on behavioral intention. As shown in Table 5, model (1) contains only the main effects of the experiential values, which explained 65% of the variance in behavioral intention. Building on this, model (2) added the interaction effects of the experiential values with social influence and sustainability. Again, all constructs increase the explained variance in behavioral intention to approximately 77%. As seen in Table 5, the inclusion of the interaction effects increases the R2 from 0.65 to 0.77. The interactions had a small to medium effect size (f 2 = (0.77 – 0.65)/(1 – 0.65) = 0.34). Therefore, the relationship between experiential values and behavioral intentions are positively moderated by social influence and sustainability.
To visualize the moderating effects in a plot diagram, this study followed the methods of Dawson [132]. The relationships between experiential values and behavioral intentions at high and low levels of social influence and sustainability are shown in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6. It revealed that the slope of the line predicting behavioral intentions from experiential values appears to be steeper for high social influence and sustainability than it is for low social influence and sustainability. That is, a strong relationship between experiential values and behavioral intentions was observed, especially in consumers with high social influence and sustainability. This further supports our prediction in hypotheses 5 and 6 with respect to social influence and sustainability.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This study identified four elements of service experience, i.e., servicescape, employee service, core service, and service innovation, that can be employed to examine customers’ service experience in the sharing economy. The service experience has a positive effect on the utilitarian value (β = 0.89, t = 8.02, p < 0.001), as well as on the hedonic value (β = 0.84, t = 9.07, p < 0.001). This study provides an idea that all of the four elements of service experience are necessary for creating the consumers’ experiential values in the sharing economy. In addition, the results suggest that the utilitarian value (β = 0.36, t = 5.47, p < 0.001) and hedonic value (β = 0.47, t = 7.21, p < 0.001) have positive effects on behavioral intention. These results indicated that when consumers obtained the high experiential values from the sharing services, it could promote the consumers’ intention to continue using the sharing service.
Furthermore, the effect of the hedonic value of the consumer’s behavior intention is stronger than the utilitarian value the consumers derive from Gogoro. We noted that the emotional feeling of pleasure is the hedonic value that drives consumers in Taiwan to use Gogoro. The results indicate that consumers are interested not only in the hedonic value of the services provided in the sharing economy but also in the utilitarian value of the obtained service in comparison to the cost. In this case, the experiential values provided in the sharing economy alone are not sufficient for consumers to use the service; the value derived must also exceed the cost involved in using the service.
The two moderators, i.e., social influence and sustainability, both enhance the effects of the experiential values on behavioral intention. To further explore in which situation the social influence and sustainability would produce the positive moderating effects, this study assigned two moderators into two groups, which are the high and low moderator groups. However, as seen from Figure 3 and Figure 4, when the consumers obtained high experiential values from the sharing services, the high social influence would encourage the consumers to use sharing services more than low social influence. In addition, as seen from Figure 5 and Figure 6, when consumers obtained the high experiential values from the sharing services, high sustainability would encourage consumers to use sharing services more than low sustainability.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This study extends our understanding of the service experience that determines the consumers’ behavioral intention in the sharing economy, such as using electric scooters (Gogoro). First, the paper examined the conceptual essence and scope of this phenomenon through a survey approach, generating an integrative conceptualization of “sharing economy service experience” and developing a framework to capture the multiple dimensions of the concept (see Figure 1). In this way, the paper provides a holistic understanding of the sharing economy service experience, which has been lacking in previous research. On the strength of this analysis, researchers can hope to position their studies more appropriately and to focus and motivate their research efforts with greater conviction in the area of sharing economy service experience.
Second, the dramaturgical theory is insightful for explaining how service organizations combine actors, audience, and settings together and create a trustworthy and enjoyable service performance in which customers enjoy the experience of enactment during the service. In this study, the dramaturgical theory evaluates the effects of sharing service experience on the customers’ experiential values. We extend the knowledge that has recently been generated by the research in the areas of service experience [16,36,37] and experiences created through interactions between actors [133,134,135]. The theoretical significance of this analysis lies in bringing together state-of-the art research on service experience in the sharing economy and analyzing its future potential and directions for research. Taken together, these contributions advance the current understanding of sharing economy service experience and pave the way for its future development.
Third, experiential value has been examined in emerging service areas [136]. We demonstrate the impacts of experiential values regarding using shared services intention. Extensive insights into the experiential values in the sharing economy setting are provided. Given the increasing importance of experiential values (e.g., [137,138]), practical guidelines for service providers are also discussed to develop and maintain positive customer experiential values toward sharing services/products [139]. The lack of studies directed at providing frameworks to explore customers’ experiential values has prompted the present study to offer perspectives for the further investigation and incorporation of experiential values and behavioral intention in the sharing economy.
Fourth, we argued that social influence and sustainability play moderating roles as externally oriented mechanisms that influence the relationships between the experiential values and behavioral intention. This is consistent with our argument that social influence and sustainability reflect an external orientation that captures the influences of external referents. Regarding the social influence, social groups profoundly influence individual behavior. Therefore, this research confirmed the positive influence of social groups (e.g., reference groups) on consumers’ behavioral intention in Taiwan. For example, this study revealed that social groups (reference groups) moderated the relationship between experiential values and behavioral intention, as shown in the interaction effect. Regarding sustainability, prior studies on the sharing economy have mainly focused on the antecedents of the perceived willingness to participate in the sharing economy, trust building [34,140], and the potential sustainability of the sharing economy [117,141], rather than sustainable behavioral intention for shared services. We empirically explored an approach to facilitate the customer’s sustainable consumption behavioral intention via experiential values in the sharing economy and examined sustainability’s moderating effect to complement the existing studies.

6.2. Managerial Implications

This study’s findings suggest that three routes can be employed to enhance the consumers’ intention to use sharing services/products. One is through improving the consumer’s attitude by communicating the utilitarian values (e.g., economic benefits and functional benefits) and hedonic values (i.e., enjoyable and pleasant experiences) of sharing services/products. Second, managers can make use of an improved shared service tool to vividly capture and illustrate employee service, related core service processes, the servicescape, and service innovation. Using shared services/products to enact customer experiential values might improve their engagement in using shared services/products, which may become important factors for redesigning the sharing service experience. That is, more closely capturing the experiential values using the newly developed sharing service experience allows for better marketability of the service. Based on the captured sharing service experience and enacted new service processes, servicescapes and customer interactions can be redesigned if needed. Managers can highlight a new service design to convey the service and brand to customers, thus making it more tangible, for example, when employees enact a service for their customers.
Third, shared enterprises need to recognize the importance of social influence, such as the existence of communities. The study findings highlight the importance of leveraging on social influence. The study findings highlight that the relationship between experiential values and behavioral intention can be moderated by social influence. Thus, managers will likely increase customer satisfaction by managing related social media information properly. In addition, the study findings revealed that an individual is influenced by their social group (peers, friends, and family). As such, managers should leverage on influencer-targeting strategies.
Finally, this study finds that shared enterprises enhance the effects of proactive environmental strategies on the consumers’ intention to use shared services. This finding suggests that firms are more likely to achieve environmental sustainability through the adoption of proactive environmental strategies. Such evidence implies that to improve environmental quality, the shared enterprises can use sustainable strategies to encourage consumers to proactively pursue sustainable products/services. Additionally, consumers need to enhance their environmental awareness and make sustainability a key factor in selecting sharing service providers and in voting for politicians who are prepared to demand corporate social responsibility from the sharing economy. Furthermore, support from the government usually plays an important role in industrial sustainable innovation. Thus, this finding implies that the government can promote shared firms’ environmentally sustainable management by providing support with environmental subsidies to achieve a win–win outcome.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations in the current study. First, in spite of the amount of literature on service experience, it has been difficult to offer a full description of the nature of the service experience construct in a sharing economy context. There may be some other subdimensions of service experience that have not been identified in the conceptual framework of this study. Future studies should seek to identify the subdimensions of the sharing economy service experience that significantly impact the consumers’ perceptions of service experience that have not been identified in this study.
Second, researchers could contribute to a better examination of the maturity of technologies in the technology landscape and how they evolve in facilitating social influence. The inclusion of such a contextual understanding in a future study would provide unique insights to the referent disciplines. Third, the subjects of this study were the energy sharing users. Future research can track the behavior of individuals or wider public (prospective users, non-adopters, etc.) who have not used the sharing economy but have demonstrated intentions to use it in the future. A follow-up survey can be administered to track any changes in the using behavior of respondents. As the consumers of the sharing economy are changing their consumption practices and developing new values, broader and more in-depth studies should explore these dynamics within other sharing service contexts.
Fourth, the data were collected from customers in Taiwan only. However, these customers’ perceived sharing economy service experience, experiential values, social influence, sustainability, and behavioral intention may be different from customers’ perceptions of these constructs in other regions or countries. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to other regions or countries. When applying the results of this study to other regions or countries, future studies should seriously consider customers’ perceptual differences due to the existence of cultural or regional issues. Therefore, researchers have the opportunity to replicate the study using a large sample with diverse characteristics. Such a study will improve the generalizability of the findings.
Fifth, this study did not focus on examining the effects of demographic factors on behavioral intention and related constructs. Future studies should consider comparing customers’ experiential values and related constructs using demographic factors, such as gender, age, educational level, monthly income, and occupation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-S.C., Y.C., and T.-W.C.; methodology, H.-T.T., and T.-W.C.; software, H.-T.T. and T.-W.C.; validation, H.-T.T. and T.-W.C.; formal analysis, H.-T.T. and T.-W.C.; investigation, T.-W.C.; resources, J.-S.C. and T.-W.C.; data curation, T.-W.C.; writing—original draft preparation, T.-W.C.; writing—review and editing, H.-T.T., J.-S.C., and Y.C.; supervision, J.-S.C.; project administration, J.-S.C.; funding acquisition, J.-S.C.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) in Taiwan. The project number is MOST 106-2410-H-155-043

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rifkin, J. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism; St. Martin’s Griffin: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2047–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Carson, G. Five Key Sharing Economy Sectors Could Generate £9 Billion of UK Revenues by 2025. 2014. Available online: http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2014/08/five-key-sharing-economy-sectors-could-generate-9-billion-of-uk-revenues-by-2025.html (accessed on 17 July 2019).
  4. Heinrichs, H. Sharing economy: A potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA 2013, 22, 228–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ranjbari, M.; Morales-Alonso, G.; Carrasco-Gallego, R. Conceptualizing the sharing economy through presenting a comprehensive framework. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Böckmann, M. The Shared Economy: It Is Time to Start Caring about Sharing; Value Creating Factors in the Shared Economy. In Proceedings of the 1st IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, Enschede, The Netherlands, 27 June 2013; University of Twente, Faculty of Management and Governance: Enschede, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  7. CB Insights. $1B+ Market Map: The World’s 197 Unicorn Companies In One Infographic. 2017. Available online: https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/unicorn-startup-market-map/ (accessed on 1 August 2019).
  8. Chen, Y. Possession and access: Consumer desires and value perceptions regarding contemporary art collection and exhibit visits. J. Consum. Res. 2009, 35, 925–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marx, P. The Borrowers: Why Buy When You Can Rent; The New Yorker: New York, NY, USA, 2011; Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/31/the-borrowers (accessed on 17 July 2019).
  10. Sung, E.; Kim, H.; Lee, D. Why do people consume and provide sharing economy accommodation?—A sustainability perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zervas, G.; Proserpio, D.; Byers, J.W. The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. J. Mark. Res. 2017, 54, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption; Harper Business: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  13. Belk, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1595–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ranchordás, S. Does sharing mean caring: Regulating innovation in the sharing economy. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 2015, 16, 413. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hwang, J.; Hwang, J.; Griffiths, M.A.; Griffiths, M.A. Share more, drive less: Millennials value perception and behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. J. Consum. Mark. 2017, 34, 132–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Roy, S. The Impacts of Gender, Personality and Previous Use on Attitude towards the Sharing Economy and Future Use of the Services. Master’s Thesis, Craig School of Business, California State University, Fresno, Long Beach, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ulaga, W.; Chacour, S. Measuring customer-perceived value in business markets: A prerequisite for marketing strategy development and implementation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2001, 30, 525–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bardhi, F.; Eckhardt, G.M. Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 881–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Grace, D.; O’Cass, A. Examining service experience and post-consumption evaluations. J. Serv. Mark. 2004, 18, 450–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Grace, D.; O’Cass, A. Service branding: Consumer verdicts on service brands. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2005, 12, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pine, B.J., II; Gilmore, J.H. Welcome to the experience economy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Shobeiri, S.; Laroche, M.; Mazaheri, E. Shaping e-retailer’s website personality: The importance of experiential marketing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2013, 20, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chua, B.L.; Kim, H.C.; Lee, S.; Han, H. The role of brand personality, self-congruity, and sensory experience in elucidating sky lounge users’ behavior. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, Y.; Xiang, D.; Yang, Z.; Ma, S.S. Unraveling customer sustainable consumption behaviors in sharing economy: A socio-economic approach based on social exchange theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 869–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, T.C.; Gu, H.; Jahromi, M.F. What makes the sharing economy successful? An empirical examination of competitive customer value propositions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 95, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Algesheimer, R.; Dholakia, U.M.; Herrmann, A. The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sridhar, S.; Srinivasan, R. Social influence effects in online product ratings. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Belk, R. Sharing. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 36, 715–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Martin, C.J.; Upham, P. Grassroots social innovation and the mobilisation of values in collaborative consumption: A conceptual model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cohen, B.; Kietzmann, J. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 279–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Piscicelli, L.; Cooper, T.; Fisher, T. The role of values in collaborative consumption: In-sights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 97, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Albinsson, P.A.; Yasanthi Perera, B. Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building community through sharing events. J. Consum. Behav. 2012, 11, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tussyadiah, I.P. Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 55, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ert, E.; Fleischer, A.; Magen, N. Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tour. Manag. 2016, 55, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Roy, S.; Sreejesh, S.; Bhatia, S. Service quality versus service experience: An empirical examination of the consequential effects in B2B services. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. King, C.; Murillo, E.; Wei, W.; Madera, J.; Tews, M.J.; Israeli, A.A.; Kong, L. Towards a shared understanding of the service experience—A hospitality stakeholder approach. J. Serv. Manag. 2019, 30, 410–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hsieh, Y.H.; Yuan, S.T. Toward a theoretical framework of service experience: Perspectives from customer expectation and customer emotion. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. 2019, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Still, J.; Komulainen, H.; Nätti, S. Contextual layers of service experience in professional business services. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2018, 33, 1114–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Beltagui, A.; Candi, M. Revisiting service quality through the lens of experience-centric services. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 915–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
  41. Grove, S.J.; Fisk, R.P. The dramaturgy of services exchange: An analytical framework for services marketing. In Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing; Berry, L.L., Shostack, L., Upah, G.D., Eds.; The American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1983; pp. 45–49. [Google Scholar]
  42. Chandon, J.L.; Leo, P.Y.; Philippe, J. Service encounter dimensions-a dyadic perspective: Measuring the dimensions of service encounters as perceived by customers and personnel. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 1997, 8, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Grove, S.J.; Fisk, R.P.; Bitner, M.J. Dramatizing the service experience: A managerial approach. Adv. Serv. Mark. Man. 1992, 1, 91–121. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gentile, C.; Spiller, N.; Noci, G. How to sustain the customer experience: An overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer. Eur. Manag. J. 2007, 25, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mathwick, C.; Malhotra, N.; Rigdon, E. Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wu, C.H.J.; Liang, R.D. Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction with service encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 586–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Babin, B.J.; Darden, W.R.; Griffin, M. Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 20, 644–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fernández, R.S.; Bonillo, M.Á.I. The concept of perceived value: A systematic review of the research. Mark. Theory 2007, 7, 427–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sheth, J.; Newman, B.I.; Gross, B. Consumption values and market choices: Theory and applications. J. Mark. Res. 1992, 29, 487–489. [Google Scholar]
  50. Varshneya, G.; Das, G. Experiential value: Multi-item scale development and validation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Voss, K.E.; Spangenberg, E.R.; Grohmann, B. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. J. Mark. Res. 2003, 11, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jones, M.A.; Reynolds, K.E.; Arnold, M.J. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 974–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Overby, J.W.; Lee, E.J. The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 1160–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ozkara, B.Y.; Ozmen, M.; Kim, J.W. Examining the effect of flow experience on online purchase: A novel approach to the flow theory based on hedonic and utilitarian value. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 37, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Park, J.; Ha, S. Co-creation of service recovery: Utilitarian and hedonic value and post-recovery responses. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Teo, T.S. Demographic and motivation variables associated with Internet usage activities. Internet Res. 2001, 11, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Hong, J.C.; Lin, P.H.; Hsieh, P.C. The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived value and continuance intention to use smartwatch. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 67, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Okada, E.M. Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. J. Mark. Res. 2005, 42, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hirschman, E.C.; Holbrook, M.B. Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. J. Mark. 1982, 46, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Prebensen Nina, K.; Rosengren, S. Experience value as a function of hedonic and utilitarian dominant services. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 113–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. De Jong, J.P.; Vermeulen, P.A. Organizing successful new service development: A literature review. Manag. Decis. 2003, 41, 844–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Otto, J.E.; Ritchie, J.R.B. The service experience in tourism. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Odekerken-schroder, G.; De Wulf, K.; Schumacher, P. Strengthening outcomes of retailer-consumer relationships: The dual Impact of relationship marketing tactics and consumer personality. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pine, B.J., II; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  65. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The big idea: Creating shared value, rethinking capitalism. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 62–77. [Google Scholar]
  66. Bitner, M.J. The servicescape. In Handbook of Services Marketing and Management; Swartz, T., Iacobucci, D., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 37–50. [Google Scholar]
  67. Broderick, A.J. Role theory and the management of services encounters. Serv. Ind. J. 1999, 19, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Grove, S.J.; Fisk, R.P.; Dorsch, M.J. Assessing the theatrical components of the service encounter: A cluster analysis examination. Serv. Ind. J. 1998, 18, 116–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bastita, L.; Ng, I.; Maull, R. The homeostasis paradox of new business models. In Proceedings of the Naples 2013 Forum on Service, Ischia Naples, Italy, 18–21 June 2013; Gummesson, E., Mele, C., Polese, F., Eds.; SIMAS di Salerno: Ischia, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  70. Martin, C.J.; Upham, P.; Budd, L. Commercial orientation in grassroots social innovation: Insights from the sharing economy. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 118, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hsu, H.Y.; Liu, F.H.; Tsou, H.T.; Chen, L.J. Openness of technology adoption, top management support and service innovation: A social innovation perspective. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2019, 34, 575–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tidd, J.; Hull, F.M. (Eds.) Service Innovation: Organizational Responses to Technological Opportunities & Market Imperatives; Imperial College Press: London, UK, 2003; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  73. Gallouj, F. Innovation in services and the attendant old and new myths. J. Socio-Econ. 2002, 31, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gilovich, T.; Kumar, A.; Jampol, L. A wonderful life: Experiential consumption and the pursuit of happiness. J. Consum. Psychol. 2015, 25, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Möhlmann, M. Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 14, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Spray, S. BMW Taps into Sharing Economy with Launch of Drive Now across London. 2014. Available online: http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/1325262/bmw-taps-sharingeconomy-launch-drivenow-across-london (accessed on 17 July 2019).
  77. Ryu, K.; Han, H.; Jang, S.C. Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 22, 416–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Molinari, L.K.; Abratt, R.; Dion, P. Satisfaction, quality and value and effects on repurchase and positive word-of-mouth behavioral intentions in a B2B services context. J. Serv. Mark. 2008, 22, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bhattacherjee, A. An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance. Decis. Support Syst. 2001, 32, 201–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Anderson, R.E.; Srinivasan, S.S. E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: A contingency framework. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Babin, B.J.; Lee, Y.K.; Kim, E.J.; Griffin, M. Modeling consumer satisfaction and word-of-mouth: Restaurant patronage in Korea. J. Serv. Mark. 2005, 19, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chitturi, R.; Raghunathan, R.; Mahajan, V. Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 48–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rice, R.E.; Aydin, C. Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991, 36, 219–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Taylor, S.; Todd, P.A. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 1995, 6, 144–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Park, D.H.; Lee, J.; Han, I. The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2007, 11, 125–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Schiffman, L.G.; Kanuk, L.L. Consumer Behavior; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  90. Rothaermel, F.T.; Sugiyama, S. Virtual internet communities and commercial success: Individual and community-level theory grounded in the atypical case of TimeZone.com. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bagozzi, R.P.; Dholakia, U.M. Open source software user communities: A study of participation in Linux user groups. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1099–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ellemers, N.; Kortekaas, P.; Ouwerkerk, J. Self-categorization, commitment to the group and social self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 28, 371–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Coleman, J.S.; Coleman, J.S. Foundations of Social Theory; Harvard University Press: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  94. Mathwick, C.; Wiertz, C.; De Ruyter, K. Social capital production in a virtual P3 community. J. Consum. Res. 2008, 34, 832–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ahearne, M.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Gruen, T. Antecedents and consequences of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 574–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Luo, M.M.; Chen, J.S.; Ching, R.K.; Liu, C.C. An examination of the effects of virtual experiential marketing on online customer intentions and loyalty. Serv. Ind. J. 2011, 31, 2163–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Stephany, A. The Business of Sharing: Making It in the New Sharing Economy; Palgrave Macmillan: Bessinstock, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Chiu, C.M.; Hsu, M.H.; Wang, E.T. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1872–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hsu, C.L.; Lin, J.C.C. Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zhou, T. Understanding online community user participation: A social influence perspective. Internet Res. 2011, 21, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Papadopoulos, T.; Stamati, T.; Nopparuch, P. Exploring the determinants of knowledge sharing via employee weblogs. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Cheng, M. Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 57, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Dillahunt, T.R.; Malone, A.R. The promise of the sharing economy among disadvantaged communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Korea, 18–23 April 2015; Begole, B., Kim, J., Eds.; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  105. Charter, M.; Tischner, U. Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future; Greenleaf Publishing: Yorkshire, UK, 2001; pp. 151–164. [Google Scholar]
  106. Solow, R.M. Sustainability: An economist’s perspective. In Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings, 7th ed.; Stavins, R.N., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019; Part VII; pp. 425–432. [Google Scholar]
  107. Manderscheid, K. Planning sustainability: Intergenerational and intragenerational justice in spatial planning strategies. Antipode 2012, 44, 197–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Brundtland, G.H.; Khalid, M. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  109. Grunwald, A.; Kopfmüller, J. Nachhaltigkeit. 2006; Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag GmbH, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  110. Matzler, K.; Veider, V.; Kathan, W. Adapting to the sharing economy. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2015, 56, 71. [Google Scholar]
  111. Zalega, T. Sustainable consumption and innovative consumption in consumer behaviour of Mazovian households. Handel Wewn. 2014, 4, 311–323. [Google Scholar]
  112. Phipps, M.; Ozanne, L.; Luchs, M.; Subrahmanyan, S.; Kapitan, S.; Catlin, J. Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1227–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Luchs, M.G.; Naylor, R.W.; Rose, R.L.; Catlin, J.R.; Gau, R.; Kapitan, S. Toward a sustainable marketplace: Expanding options and benefits for consumers. J. Res. Consum. 2011, 19, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  114. Barber, J. Mapping the movement to achieve sustainable production and consumption in North America. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Prothero, A.; Dobscha, S.; Freund, J.; Kilbourne, W.E.; Luchs, M.G.; Ozanne, L.K.; Thøgersen, J. Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. J. Public Policy Mark. 2011, 30, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Sacks, D. The Sharing Economy; Fast Company: New York, NY, USA, 2011; Available online: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/155/the-sharingeconomy.html (accessed on 17 July 2019).
  117. Martin, C.J. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 2016, 121, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kriston, A.; Szabó, T.; Inzelt, G. The marriage of car sharing and hydrogen economy: A possible solution to the main problems of urban living. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2010, 35, 12697–12708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Owyang, J. Sharing is the New Buying: How to Win in the Collaborative Economy; Crowd Companies: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014; Available online: https://www.slideshare.net/jeremiah_owyang/sharingnewbuying (accessed on 17 July 2019).
  120. Industrial Development Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan. Report on Market Occupancy of Electric Motorcycles; Industrial Development Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs: Taipei, Taiwan, 2018.
  121. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sureshchandar, G.S.; Rajendran, C.; Anantharaman, R.N. The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction-a factor specific approach. J. Serv. Mark. 2002, 16, 363–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Van Ark, B.; Broersma, L.; den Hertog, P. Services innovation, performance and policy: A review. Res. Ser. 2003, 6, 1–63. [Google Scholar]
  124. MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Podsakoff, N.P. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 293–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  126. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Bollen, K. Structural Equations with Latent Variables; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  128. Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Ma, F.; Wong, Y.D. The determinants of customers’ intention to use smart lockers for last-mile deliveries. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 49, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  130. Marsh, H.W.; Wen, Z.; Hau, K.T. Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychol. Methods 2004, 9, 275–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Pavlou, P.A.; EI Sawy, O.A. From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Inf. Syst. Res. 2006, 17, 198–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Dawson, J.F. Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. J. Bus. Psychol. 2014, 29, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Schallehn, H.; Seuring, S.; Strähle, J.; Freise, M. Defining the antecedents of experience co-creation as applied to alternative consumption models. J. Serv. Manag. 2019, 30, 209–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Jaakkola, E.; Helkkula, A.; Aarikka-Stenroos, L. Service experience co-creation: Conceptualization, implications, and future research directions. J. Serv. Manag. 2015, 26, 182–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Pöppel, J.; Finsterwalder, J.; Laycock, R.A. Developing a film-based service experience blueprinting technique. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 85, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ahn, J.; Back, K.J. The structural effects of affective and cognitive elaboration in formation of customer–brand relationship. Serv. Ind. J. 2018, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Wu, H.C.; Cheng, C.C.; Ai, C.H. A study of experiential quality, experiential value, trust, corporate reputation, experiential satisfaction and behavioral intentions for cruise tourists: The case of Hong Kong. Tour. Manag. 2018, 66, 200–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Chiang, C.H. Experiential Value affects Purchase Intentions for Online-to-Offline Goods: Consumer Feedback as a Mediator. J. Mark. Manag. 2018, 6, 10–24. [Google Scholar]
  139. He, H.; Zhuang, W.; Babin, B.J. Enhancing Customer Experience in the Sharing Economy: An Abstract. In Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 23–25 May 2018; Kukar-Kinney, M., Xia, L., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  140. Lamberton, C.P.; Rose, R.L. When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Yates, L. Sharing, households and sustainable consumption. J. Consum. Cult. 2018, 18, 433–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 11 05050 g001
Figure 2. Results of the structural model.
Figure 2. Results of the structural model.
Sustainability 11 05050 g002
Figure 3. Interaction between social influence and utilitarian value on behavior intention.
Figure 3. Interaction between social influence and utilitarian value on behavior intention.
Sustainability 11 05050 g003
Figure 4. Interaction between social influence and hedonic value on behavior intention.
Figure 4. Interaction between social influence and hedonic value on behavior intention.
Sustainability 11 05050 g004
Figure 5. Interaction between sustainability and utilitarian value on behavior intention.
Figure 5. Interaction between sustainability and utilitarian value on behavior intention.
Sustainability 11 05050 g005
Figure 6. Interaction between sustainability and hedonic value on behavior intention.
Figure 6. Interaction between sustainability and hedonic value on behavior intention.
Sustainability 11 05050 g006
Table 1. Sample demographics.
Table 1. Sample demographics.
ItemCategoryRates (%)
GenderMale76.10%
Female23.90%
Aggregate100%
AgeUnder 20 years old7.40%
21–30 years old46.70%
31–40 years old35.40%
41–50 years old8.50%
51–60 years old2.00%
More than 61 years old0%
Aggregate100%
EducationJunior high school and below1.30%
Senior high school18.90%
College and university64.60%
Graduate school and above15.20%
Aggregate100%
VocationStudent17.60%
Public servant6.10%
Business10.70%
Manufacturing23.30%
Service industry32.20%
Freelance5.40%
Housekeeper1.10%
Others3.70%
Aggregate100%
Disposable income per monthLess than NT.10,0007.40%
NT.10,001–NT.20,00010.20%
NT.20,001–NT.30,00018.90%
NT.30,001–NT.40,00023.50%
Over NT.40,00140.00%
Aggregate100%
Table 2. Measurement properties.
Table 2. Measurement properties.
VariablesConstruct IdentifierItemsSFLαCRAVE
ServicescapeSSSS10.770.780.780.55
SS20.76
SS30.70
Employee serviceESES10.770.920.920.62
ES20.79
ES30.73
ES40.84
ES50.88
ES60.76
ES70.77
Core serviceCSCS10.720.900.910.71
CS20.85
CS30.92
CS40.89
Service innovationSISI10.780.830.850.54
SI20.70
SI30.72
SI40.70
SI50.78
Utilitarian valueUVUV10.800.850.850.66
UV20.91
UV30.72
Hedonic valueHVHV10.860.900.900.64
HV20.88
HV30.82
HV40.72
HV50.72
Social influenceSINSIN10.810.820.870.69
SIN20.82
SIN30.87
SustainabilitySUSSUS10.750.900.900.65
SUS20.82
SUS30.89
SUS40.80
SUS50.79
Behavioral intentionBIBI10.780.910.910.72
BI20.91
BI30.87
BI40.85
Notes: (1) SFL = standardized factor loading; α = Cronbach’s alpha, CR = composite reliability; (2) All factor loadings are significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 3. Mean, SD, and correlations.
Table 3. Mean, SD, and correlations.
MeanSDSSESCSSIUVHVSINSUSTBI
SS4.510.550.74
ES4.320.630.48 **0.78
CS4.390.690.67 **0.48 **0.84
SI4.400.600.68 **0.47 **0.65 **0.73
UV4.520.600.63 **0.47 **0.70 **0.63 **0.81
HV4.450.610.65 **0.50 **0.70 **0.67 **0.73 **0.80
SIN3.880.960.26 **0.26 **0.22 **0.34 **0.19 **0.34 **0.83
SUST4.380.660.60 **0.46 **0.61 **0.64 **0.63 **0.71 **0.40 **0.80
BI4.490.650.62 **0.47 **0.62 **0.58 **0.64 **0.74 **0.26 **0.72 **0.84
Notes: (1) p ** < 0.01; (2) SS = servicescape; ES = employee service; CS = core service; SI = service innovation; UV = utilitarian value; HV = hedonic value; SIN = social influence; SUST = sustainability; BI = behavioral intention; (3) the values in the shaded diagonal are the square root of the AVE.
Table 4. Results of direct effects.
Table 4. Results of direct effects.
Paths/HypothesesPath Coefficientt-ValueResults
Hypothesized relationships
Service experience → Utilitarian value (H1)0.8916.82 ***Supported
Service experience → Hedonic value (H2)0.9018.59 ***Supported
Utilitarian value → Behavioral intention (H3)0.142.07 *Supported
Hedonic value → Behavioral intention (H4)0.689.17 ***Supported
R2
Utilitarian value0.80
Hedonic value0.81
Behavioral intention0.65
Notes: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Results of the moderating effects.
Table 5. Results of the moderating effects.
HypothesesPathsPath Coefficientt-ValueResults
H5aUV→BI0.376.56 ***Supported
SIN→BI−0.32−7.15 ***
UV × SIN→BI0.609.79 ***
H5bHV→BI0.477.61 ***Supported
SIN→BI−0.32−6.68 ***
HV × SIN→BI0.517.61 ***
H6aUV→BI−0.12−2.10 *Supported
SUST→BI0.071.05
UV × SUST→BI0.8111.85 ***
H6bHV→BI−0.14−2.30 *Supported
SUST→BI−0.00−0.04
HV × SUST→BI0.9211.31 ***
Notes: (1.) * p <0.05; *** p< 0.001; (2.) UV = utilitarian value; HV = hedonic value; SIN = social influence; SUST = sustainability; BI = behavioral intention.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tsou, H.-T.; Chen, J.-S.; Yunhsin Chou, C.; Chen, T.-W. Sharing Economy Service Experience and Its Effects on Behavioral Intention. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5050. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185050

AMA Style

Tsou H-T, Chen J-S, Yunhsin Chou C, Chen T-W. Sharing Economy Service Experience and Its Effects on Behavioral Intention. Sustainability. 2019; 11(18):5050. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185050

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tsou, Hung-Tai, Ja-Shen Chen, Cindy Yunhsin Chou, and Tzu-Wen Chen. 2019. "Sharing Economy Service Experience and Its Effects on Behavioral Intention" Sustainability 11, no. 18: 5050. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185050

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop