Examining Temporary Disposition and Acquisition in Peer-to-Peer Renting

Abstract

This study examines the nature of temporary disposition and acquisition in the context of online peer-to-peer (P2P) renting. Although renting is becoming increasingly popular, little is known about the phenomenon as practised between peers. P2P renting is a form of non-ownership access that enables renters to temporarily access goods, but also provides those that rent the ability to temporarily dispose of their possessions. Theoretically driven thematic analysis identifies that P2P renting is characterised as a self-service exchange with extensive co-creation and a balanced market-mediated exchange involving short-term intermittent transactions driven by a desire for community, inspired by political consumerism. However, fear of negative reciprocity, the high-involvement nature of the transaction, limited access to products and the inflexible nature of P2P rental sites impede the practice. Having a better understanding of current attitudes towards P2P renting may help with the design of future online P2P systems.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
Download by: [University of Canterbury] Date: 26 November 2015, At: 15:01
Journal of Marketing Management
ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
Examining temporary disposition and acquisition
in peer-to-peer renting
Heather E. Philip, Lucie K. Ozanne & Paul W. Ballantine
To cite this article: Heather E. Philip, Lucie K. Ozanne & Paul W. Ballantine (2015) Examining
temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting, Journal of Marketing
Management, 31:11-12, 1310-1332, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2015.1013490
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1013490
Published online: 26 Feb 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 196
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in
peer-to-peer renting
Heather E. Philip, Department of Management, Marketing and
Entrepreneurship, College of Business and Law, University of
Canterbury, New Zealand
Lucie K. Ozanne, Department of Management, Marketing and
Entrepreneurship, College of Business and Law, University of
Canterbury, New Zealand
Paul W. Ballantine, Department of Management, Marketing and
Entrepreneurship, College of Business and Law, University of
Canterbury, New Zealand
Abstract This study examines the nature of temporary disposition and acquisition
in the context of online peer-to-peer (P2P) renting. Although renting is becoming
increasingly popular, little is known about the phenomenon as practised between
peers. P2P renting is a form of non-ownership access that enables renters to
temporarily access goods, but also provides those that rent the ability to
temporarily dispose of their possessions. Theoretically driven thematic analysis
identifies that P2P renting is characterised as a self-service exchange with
extensive co-creation and a balanced market-mediated exchange involving
short-term intermittent transactions driven by a desire for community, inspired
by political consumerism. However, fear of negative reciprocity, the high-
involvement nature of the transaction, limited access to products and the
inflexible nature of P2P rental sites impede the practice. Having a better
understanding of current attitudes towards P2P renting may help with the
design of future online P2P systems.
Keywords collaborative consumption; peer-to-peer renting; temporary disposi-
tion; temporary acquisition
Introduction
Facilitated by the advancement of technology and peer communities, redefined forms
of sharing, bartering, swapping and renting have emerged as potential modes of
acquisition and disposition (e.g. Belk, 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Gansky,
2010). One of these forms, peer-to-peer (P2P) renting, allows private individuals to
engage in the temporary disposition and acquisition of everyday items with peers via
an online rental network.
©2015 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
Journal of Marketing Management, 2015
Vol. 31, Nos. 11–12, 1310–1332, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1013490
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

Within the literature, renting and sharing networks are examined under the
umbrella of product service systems (PSS) as a way to consume more sustainably by
extending the intensity of product use (Behrendt et al., 2003; Hirschl, Konrad &
Scholl, 2003; Tukker, 2004). PSS are defined as ‘a system of products, services,
networks of actors and supporting infrastructure that is developed to be
competitive, satisfy customers and be more environmentally sound than traditional
business models’(Mont, 2001, p. 239). PSS have existed for many years in the
business to consumer realm (e.g. cars, movies, hotels, and rentals), but with the
advent of online social networks, there is an opportunity for P2P exchange to
expand significantly (Belk, 2014; Geron, 2013).
A potential challenge for usage-oriented PSS may be attracting new customers, as
consumers are accustomed to ownership and are hesitant to shift their behaviour
(Behrendt et al., 2003). However, P2P renting may have an attraction for providers
looking to earn extra money. Rentoid promotes how the average member can make
US$200 per month renting out video gaming systems (Chicotsky, 2012). Forbes
(Geron, 2013) estimated that the sharing economy would surpass US$3.5 billion by
2014, with growth exceeding 25%, and some estimate the potential for P2P rental
markets to be a sector worth US$26 billion (Sacks, 2011).
The goal of this research is to examine the nature of temporary disposition and
temporary acquisition in the context of P2P renting. Temporary disposition is often
overlooked as an aspect of consumer behaviour, with the majority of research
focusing on permanent disposition (Albinsson & Perera, 2012). As argued by Sheth
and Uslay (2007), ‘the value creation paradigm encourages marketers to think of
other types of value by reaching beyond value in exchange and even in use –for
example, the long-neglected value in disposal …’ (p. 303). As research indicates that
consumers rarely consider renting out or loaning their belongings compared with
more permanent disposal options (Jacoby, Berning & Dietvorst, 1977), it is not
surprising that temporary disposition has not been a focus of study. In addition,
renters have often been perceived as flawed consumers (Cheshire, Walters &
Rosenblatt, 2010) and permanent acquisition practices such as ownership and
possession have been the central focus of consumer research (Bardhi & Eckhardt,
2012; Durgee & O’Connor, 1995). Specifically, the goal of this study is to examine
the nature of both temporary acquisition and disposition behaviour in the context of
P2P renting.
Literature review
We define P2P renting as an exchange whereby one individual makes available their
physical possessions temporarily to another individual for a rental fee in order to
meet the temporary needs of the renter without a transfer of ownership. Examples of
P2P renting in this research are limited to those that are facilitated by online
networks and to those that take the form of an explicit economic transaction as
opposed to pure altruism, charity models or forms of sharing. Lovelock and
Gummesson (2004) argue that marketing exchanges that do not involve transfer of
ownership from seller to buyer are fundamentally different to those that do, and that
non-ownership ‘offers scholars a new lens through which to observe marketplace
activity’(p. 35).
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1311
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

Durgee and O’Connor (1995)arguethattheperson–object relationship is
altered when the object is rented. In their exploratory examination of renting,
they find that the behaviour is a high-involvement transaction with low post-
purchase dissonance and is preferred when the need is a temporary one (Durgee
&O’Connor, 1995). In addition, rental is an attractive option as renters prefer
to put wear and tear on rental goods. Similarly, Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012)find
that car sharing is guided by norms of negative reciprocity with consumers
engaged in opportunistic behaviour at the expense of the object and other
users. However, when the rental good is owned by a peer, how does this alter
the person–object relationship as well as affect the relationship between the user
and provider?
Moeller and Wittkowski (2010) explore consumer preference for renting and find
that non-ownership is negatively influenced by possession importance but positively
influenced by consumers’trend and convenience orientation. As our study examines
online rental from a peer, rather than from an organisation, a key question is whether
this form of renting is still perceived as an ‘inherently convenient form of
consumption’(p. 181). In their study, consumer preference for renting also did not
appear to be motivated by price consciousness or environmentalism. Contrary to
these findings, Lawson (2011) reported that consumers’attitude towards renting was
motivated by value seeking and environmentalism. However, neither of these studies
examined actual renting behaviour, only preference for renting.
In an examination of automobile leasing, Trocchia and Beatty (2003) found that
desire for variety, simplified maintenance and social approval motivated this
behaviour. However, as leasing offers extended possession utility, like ownership, it
differs from short-term rental (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004) which is explored in
this study. In addition, previous research explores various forms of commercial
renting, where organisations rent to consumers. Our research fundamentally differs
in that we explore renting between peers. This practice enables renters to temporarily
access goods, but also provides those that rent the ability to temporarily dispose of
their possessions. Thus, we next turn to a brief discussion of temporary disposition
and temporary acquisition.
Temporary disposition
Jacoby et al. (1977) suggest that a consumer contemplating disposition has three
choices: keep the belonging; get rid of the belonging completely; or temporarily
get rid of the belonging, either by loaning or renting it out. The literature is
sparse regarding the option of temporary disposition. Indeed, many studies
suggest that consumers choose to keep, donate or throw away their possessions
rather than put in the effort to make profits from their unutilised things (e.g.
Albinsson & Perera, 2009; Coulter & Ligas, 2003; Domina & Koch, 1998).
According to Paden and Stell (2005), consumer disposition can be explained by
three influences: (1) individual characteristics, (2) situational factors and (3)
product qualities.
Research by Coulter and Ligas (2003) on consumer identity compares ‘packrats’to
‘purgers’; the individual characteristics of purgers may help us understand the
motivations for temporary disposition. Consumers who ‘identify themselves as
clean, uncluttered, and organised’are likely to keep stock of their belongings’
utility and continually purge themselves of old things that are no longer being used
1312 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

(Coulter & Ligas, 2003, p. 43). Purgers also tend to be trend conscious and are more
likely to dispose of outdated items in order to ‘make room for new belongings’
(Albinsson & Perera, 2009, p. 345). Through the process of temporary disposition, a
consumer may be able to afford the next trend by renting out their current
possessions; however, the tendency of purgers to want to maintain order may
dissuade them from wanting to keep an inventory of their possessions for rental.
In addition, temporary disposition may be less likely when consumers are
possessive and attached to the things that they own (Chapman, 2005; Kleine &
Baker, 2004). Purgers are less likely to attach sentimental meaning to their things
(Phillips & Sego, 2011) and infrequently consider their belongings to be a part of
their extended selves. This allows them the freedom to dispose of things without the
usual anxieties that come with the disposition of positively charged possessions (e.g.
Lastovicka & Fernandez, 2005; Price, Arnould & Curasi, 2000).
Situational factors affecting the inclination for temporary disposition involve how
the would-be provider perceives the available renting infrastructure. There are a
number of indicators that temporary disposition may be a high-involvement
activity, which increases the time and effort required (e.g. Taylor & Todd, 1995)
over alternative disposition activities. As P2P renting is relatively new, many
consumers have no prior experience and may overestimate the efforts required to
become involved (e.g. Behrendt et al., 2003). The limited availability of temporary
disposition channels may also impact a consumer’s perceived control of temporary
disposition.
Product attributes also affect the permanent disposition decision (Albinsson &
Perera, 2009) and may have relevance to the decision to temporarily dispose of an
item. Consumers are likely to get rid of things that are broken or which no longer
serve their originally intended use (e.g. Phillips & Sego, 2011). However, many of
these product characteristics may make the item unsuitable for rental as renting is
usually associated with superior-quality products (e.g. Mont, 2008). An object’s
symbolic value is another attribute which influences disposition. Lastovicka and
Fernandez (2005) found that negatively charged items are more likely to be
disposed of willingly and easily, as consumers want to distance themselves from the
negative memories associated with objects (e.g. Cherrier & Murray, 2007). Whether
negatively charged items are more acceptable to be held for rental is unclear.
Temporary acquisition
Guiot and Roux (2010) observe two main motivations for second-hand acquisition:
economic and recreational. Researchers have also found that budget constraints,
particularly in lower-income urban neighbourhoods, act as a primary reason for
seeking second-hand goods (e.g. Gregson & Crewe, 2003; Lemire, 2000; Williams
& Windebank, 2000). However, second-hand acquisition may also provide
‘unpredictable offerings, visual stimulation and excitement due to the plethora of
goods, the urge to hunt for bargains, and feelings of affiliation and social interaction’
(Guiot & Roux, 2010, p. 384). Given these factors, temporary acquisition may be an
attractive alternative driven by reduced economic considerations but also by social or
recreational motives (Williams & Paddock, 2003).
By participating in a rental scheme, consumers can experience more product
variety without the burdens of ownership (Lawson, 2011). These burdens include
having the risks of product obsolescence (e.g. Bulow, 1986), as well as the liability of
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1313
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

maintaining and storing the product (Berry & Maricle, 1973), and disposal (Hirschl
et al., 2003). As renters may not participate in the practices of appropriation with
temporarily accessed objects (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012), renting may also reduce the
burden of ownership. Renting can offer superior tangible and intangible benefits by
providing more diversity, higher-quality products (Mont, 2008) and more customised
solutions (Tukker & Tischner, 2006).
Bolton and Alba (2012) suggest that as consumers try to avoid wasteful purchases
of items they would rarely use, they may choose temporary acquisition for items that
are expected to have a high idling capacity. In a similar vein, consumers may want to
seek a trial of products before making high-involvement purchases in haste (e.g.
Locander & Hermann, 1979). This dissonance avoidance by renting before buying
has also been a reason for sharing in toy libraries (Ozanne & Ozanne, 2011),
purchasing on eBay (Denegri-Knott & Molesworth, 2010) and renting from
organisations (Lawson, 2011).
Renting may, however, come with tangible sacrifices. For instance, inflexibility and
inconvenient access may occur (Tukker, 2004; Tukker & Tischner, 2006).
Additionally, rental services might be more expensive than traditional ownership in
the long run (Durgee & O’Connor, 1995). A German study reveals that a majority of
respondents feel that if they share goods with others, they won’t be able to access
them for themselves (Hirschl et al., 2003), mirroring the findings of Lamberton and
Rose (2012). Consumers might be overly cautious with their rental products to avoid
penalties for damage and thus not enjoy the consumption as much as normal
(Moeller & Wittkowski, 2010).
Another deterrent is ‘the notion that many products possess symbolic features and
that consumption of goods may depend more on their social meaning than their
functional utility’(Solomon, 1983, p. 319). Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) find that the
shared use of objects with strangers leads to experiences of contagion, which inhibits
the extension of self into the accessed object. The use of alternative channels such as
P2P renting may provide competing sign value: for low-income consumers a sign that
they are excluded from traditional channels (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Williams &
Paddock, 2003) but for more affluent consumers a sign of more responsible
consumption (Williams & Paddock, 2003). We now turn to a discussion of our
methodological approach.
Method
There are numerous studies that focus solely on disposition (e.g. Jacoby et al., 1977)
or acquisition (e.g. Kasulis, Lusch & Stafford, 1979), and still others that look only at
non-usership (e.g. Selwyn, 2003; Wyatt, Thomas & Terranova, 2002), but this
research maintains that these activities are not exclusive. Some people will only
choose to provide while others may choose only to rent, yet others will undertake
both behaviours. Thus, user type is of particular interest in this study and this buyer–
seller malleability (e.g. Siddiqui & Turley, 2006) was explored via purposive sampling
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of two-way users (renters and providers), one-way users
(renters or providers) and non-users (those who had not yet participated in a rental
transaction but were members of a P2P rental website).
Participants were randomly recruited online through seven P2P rental companies
(see Table 1) by the first author sending personal messages through the website’s
1314 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

email service. Users were visible by using the ‘Find users near me’function, viewing
the website’s messaging boards, browsing available rental items and by looking at
previously reviewed items. After agreeing to participate, the participant and
researcher would agree to a mutually convenient time to conduct the online Skype
interview. Participants were recruited until the data reached theoretical redundancy
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Six informants were connected to the websites’business,
but also participated as users. These key informants were also interviewed in order to
provide a more in-depth understanding of an otherwise underexplored practice,
because the literature suggests they are more knowledgeable about target market
behaviour (Kumar, Stern & Anderson, 1993).
The final sample of 19 users (see Table 2) was evenly split with 10 females and 9
males who were primarily based in high-density urban areas, including Sydney, Los
Angeles, New York and London. The sample included an assortment of thirteen
ordinary informants and six key informants (three founders and three part-time
interns). The inclusion of founders and interns veers away from the bias errors that
may occur when only interviewing founders, who are likely to interpret events
differently to a lower-level employee, a common complaint of key informant
research (Hambrick, 1981). Additionally, it was found in the interviews that the
three founders could be classified as user entrepreneurs in that they had developed
their P2P renting website to address a personal need and want for the service. This
distinction from regular entrepreneurs or producers puts them at a higher level of
involvement for use because they are gaining benefit from the website’s utility rather
than solely focusing on financial or commercial benefits (Haefliger, Jager & Von
Krogh, 2010). The resulting mix of informants and key informants thus provided not
only ‘personal feelings, opinions, and behaviours’, but also ‘patterns of behaviour’
generalised from ‘either observed (actual) or expected (prescribed) organisational
relations’of P2P renting users (Seidler, 1974, p. 817).
In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted online via audio Skype and
ranged between 30 and 100 minutes. Discussion topics encompassed motivations and
deterrents for renters and providers, reasons providers chose only to rent out their
products, reasons renters chose only to rent from others, obstacles inhibiting non-
users from using the system, and factors that might facilitate greater usage (see the
interview guide provided in Appendix).
Table 1 Website information.
Website
Year
established Users
Items
listed
Items
wanted
Facebook
likes
Charity
option
1 2010 50,000+ – – 1,496 No
2 2007 2807 2085 7 953 Yes
3 2007 – 5220 0 112 No
4 2010 – 961 1 1,388 Yes
5 2010 – – – 1,615 No
6 2010 – 216 N/A 292 No
7 2007 – – – 105 No
Notes: website information compiled on 9 October 2014.
– Information not accessible.
N/A not applicable to the website.
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1315
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

The final 333 pages of transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis (Braun &
Clarke, 2006) whereby common themes were identified by recurrence, forcefulness
and repetition (Keyton, 2011). Coding was theoretically driven around the six
dimensions of access-based consumption introduced by Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012)
in the case of car sharing: (1) type of accessed object –the characteristics of the items
being rented and provided; (2) consumer involvement –the exchange mechanisms
and efforts involved in fulfilling the exchange; (3) temporality –the duration of
access and usage of the rental items; (4) market mediation –the impetus and type of
reciprocity driving the exchange; (5) anonymity –the interpersonal relationships
between users and the spatial distance between rental items and users; and (6)
political consumerism –the ideological interests of the users that may or may not
be a catalyst for access-based consumption.
Findings
We advance our understanding of temporary disposition and acquisition in the
context of P2P renting, which is characterised as: (1) functional and material rental
objects with high idling capacity; (2) self-service exchange with extensive co-creation;
(3) short-term intermittent transactions; (4) balanced monetary market mediated with
fears of negative reciprocity and evidence of generalised reciprocity; (5) driven by
Table 2 Research participants.
Pseudonym User type Location Website
Emma Non-user NY, USA 1
Joel Non-user CA, USA; LDN, UK 1
Virginia Non-user LDN, UK; ITA 2
Tim Non-user CA, USA 1
Anita Provider SYD, AU 3
Ariel Provider SYD, AU 4
Barbara Provider NY, USA 1
Bob Provider NY, USA 1
Jack Provider* NY, USA 5
Martin Provider CA, USA 5
Samuel Renter TX, USA 1
Bailey Renter SYD, AU 4
William Renter SYD, AU 6
Earl Two-way user* CA, USA 5
Leigh Two-way user* CA, USA 5
Wade Two-way user** TX, USA 7
Charlotte Two-way user SYD, AU 4
Lynne Two-way user** SYD, AU 4
Tara Two-way user** LDN, UK 2
Notes: *Part-time intern of website.
**Website founder.
1316 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

both physical and virtual peer-to-peer interaction; and (6) inspired by political
consumerism.
Type of object accessed
Participants were prompted to freely discuss their preferences for items that they
wanted to rent or provide. Their discussion provided an overview of the typical
situations where a ‘provider’or ‘renter’could emerge. These encompassed three
main circumstances which affected the type of accessed object: (1) individual
motivations commanded expensive high-involvement goods; (2) situational
prospects required objects of high idling capacity and experiential functionality;
and (3) product perceptions guided the preference for objects to be unbreakable,
fairly durable and not precious.
As providers and renters mainly engaged in P2P renting for economic pursuits, to
maximise savings and earnings, both renters and providers preferred the rental
product to be a costly, high-involvement item. For example, some renters described
how they sought to trial products before making a high-involvement purchase, such
as using an iPad to test out its functionality or discovering what to look for when
buying a high-powered vacuum. These examples support the proposition of Durgee
and O’Connor (1995) that renting inspires consumer product exploration, and are
similar to the findings of Ozanne and Ozanne (2011) with sharing in toy libraries
where ‘patrons could engage in limited trial of toys to determine if the toys were
developmentally appropriate’(p. 270), and of Lawson (2011), who found that
dissonance avoidance by renting before buying could also be a motivation for car
renting schemes.
A motivation for providers was the gratification of seeing their things being used
and enjoyed. This gratification was usually due to an aversion to unused utility
(Bolton & Alba, 2012), with the situations of providers regretting the inefficiencies
of their infrequently used items. For instance, Lynne describes her love of ‘being able
to make better use of your things, not necessarily just get rid of them completely’.
Renters hoped to save money by avoiding the wasteful purchase of items they would
seldom use, or as Bailey put it: ‘if we only do it very rarely I just can’t see that we can
justify owning it’.
Situations where temporary access arose most frequently brought a mix of
utilitarian and hedonic goods being accessed: family life cycle changes (e.g.
Charlotte sought out baby products for short-term use); one-off projects (e.g. Ariel
needed a projector for an art project, Martin needed a DVD camcorder to transfer
old video tapes); entertainment (e.g. Wade needed speakers for a party); and
travelling (e.g. Wade wanted to avoid the airplane costs of bringing belongings on a
one-week holiday).
Because the accessed object was being rented temporarily, the product
characteristics deemed most appropriate for the rental were that they be
unbreakable, durable and not precious. Providers opted for durable goods that
were less likely to be damaged. Additionally, Moeller and Wittkowski (2010) found
that renters may be overly cautious with their rental products in order to avoid
penalties for damage. The result of this prudence is a diminished enjoyment in
consumption. Leigh had undertones of this when she described borrowing a paint
remover: ‘He was like, rightfully so, “just be careful”…I am hesitant when I’m using
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1317
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

people’s items because I don’t want to disappoint them and I don’t want to ruin the
item and I certainly don’t want them to keep my deposit’.
As expected, providers mentioned they would not want to rent out items that were
important to them. Sometimes, this had nothing to do with financial or functional
risk but more to do with public–private possessiveness. For instance, Wade said he
would not rent out his iPad or laptop because they were personal items and he
wouldn’t want to ‘mess with the settings or things like that’. Additionally, Joel said it
was ‘human nature to hide some things’and he would not want to lend out private
items, especially if he was ‘embarrassed about it’. Ultimately, these concerns related to
their level of risk aversion, as all users echoed Samuel’s assertion that he would not
want to provide ‘anything that [he] wasn’t willing to risk’. This also sometimes came
down to a matter of trust, as Charlotte mentioned that she would be hesitant to lend
out her racing bike because ‘if it gets damaged it is quite expensive to fix’, but she
happily offered it to ‘a friend’s daughter who wanted to train for a triathlon’with no
reservations.
Consumer involvement
P2P renting websites offer a self-service model (Vargo & Lusch, 2004) where users
actively participate in the realisation of value (Lawson, 2011; Young, 2011). For this
reason, P2P renting is a highly involved exchange with both users holding a number
of responsibilities in the efforts of co-creation (Lawson, 2011). Providers not only
need to post photos, prices and descriptions of their items available for rent, but they
are also responsible for meeting the renter for both drop-off and pick-up, and
providing feedback to the renter. On the other side of the exchange, renters need
to browse, find and request their wanted items, contact the seller for available times
and places to meet for pick-up and drop-off, arrange payment, return the item in the
same condition as originally rented and also leave feedback for the provider.
This high level of involvement was cited as a major deterrent for users. As also
reported by Baumeister and Wangenheim (2014) for potential renters, the
inflexibility, limited access and high level of participation were perceived by renters
in this study to be inconvenient, while providers complained about the arduous task
of marketing their rental goods. For instance, Jack expressed his opinion on
managing the logistical aspects of renting: ‘Not only posting the picture, but then
meeting the person, like if I’m going to Craigslist something, I only have to meet that
person and at the end of it I’m walking away with cash, that’s why Craigslist works,
but this one, it’s like I’ve got to go there, the money’s coming through PayPal, I’ve got
to wait for it to transfer, it’s freaking ANNOYING, and then I’ve got to go pick it up
at the end, I’ve got to make sure it’s not broken –all that stuff, it’s too much to
handle’.
The most significant constraint with consumer involvement came about because
users were too widely spread. The insufficient network externalities (e.g. Katz &
Shapiro, 1986; Song & Walden, 2007) impeded users from finding things they
wanted to rent, or items that were near them. These distribution issues were
repeatedly deemed to be the key reason for not engaging in P2P renting. Non-users
were particularly constrained, as aspiring providers complained that no one had yet
requested their items while would-be renters were disappointed by the site’s lack of
browsing and ‘window shopping’capabilities, as well as the limited number of items
available to rent. The ‘chicken and the egg problem’, as Leigh explained it, was that
1318 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

‘as long as people go to the website and don’t find what they’re looking for then
they’re less inclined to add their items to the website, so it’s kind of like a vicious
cycle where the website comes to a standstill and stays that way as long as people
aren’t getting what they need from the site’. Even when users were able to overcome
these ‘timewaster’issues, geographical distance further added to the efforts involved
in a rental transaction. Joel found that because of the long distance between people
there was a loss of efficiency when people had to ‘drive past a hardware store to
borrow an electric drill’.
Ultimately, perceived inconvenience diminished with the item’s worth, as many
participants stated they perceived P2P renting as being too much of a hassle only for
‘smaller ticket items’. This finding is similar to the research of Denegri-Knott and
Molesworth (2010), who found that a tremendous amount of work is required by
sellers to dispose of possessions on eBay, which may not be invested in lower-value
items.
Temporality
Temporary acquisition and disposition can differ on two levels of ‘temporality’: (1)
duration of access, where acquisition/disposition transactions can either be
intermittent and one-off, or longitudinal, ongoing and repeated; and (2) duration
of usage, where the rental period of the transaction can be either short-term or long-
term (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Within the context of P2P renting, duration of
access is characterised by intermittent one-off transactions, with demand from renters
being mostly infrequent and needs-driven. Participants indicated that the duration of
usage ranged from about 3 days to 3 months depending on the type of accessed
object and their ability to coordinate a mutually convenient drop-off/pick-up time.
Many renters thought that P2P renting websites would give them an opportunity
to ‘impulse shop’, with the literature suggesting variety seeking as a motivation for
potential renters (Lawson, 2011). For example, Lynne spoke of her desire to shop for
new things saying, ‘it does still give you that buzz’, suggesting that by fostering a
proliferation of ‘mini-buzzes’, rentals could be an alternative to regular compulsive
buying. Unfortunately for would-be hedonistic renters, this motivation was often
unmet due to the type of items usually being provided. For example, Ariel
complained that most of the items listed were ‘just day-to-day items, and there was
nothing fancy or different’.
One distinguishing characteristic of temporary acquisition came from duration of
usage, where renters lauded the opportunity to experience unique objects for a short-
term experience. Trying novel activities was appealing, as Bob professed: ‘I have
friends who I’d do a lot of cooking with and we’d say “wouldn’t it be cool if we could
get an ice cream maker and make ice cream out of bacon”’. This idea of being able to
temporarily access a unique object was a benefit to many renters, as Anita posed the
question ‘Where, commercially, can you find a chocolate fountain to rent for five
dollars over the weekend?’. These findings differ from Moeller and Wittkowski
(2010), who found that experience orientation did not have a positive influence on
the preference for renting.
Although a study by Moore and Taylor (2009, p. 1213) found that ‘with shorter
durations, renting is the preferred acquisition mode, even when both options entail
the same expenditure and provide the same quality’, users in this study indicated a
number of concerns with temporary acquisition. These included future resale and
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1319
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

rental value, availability of access and, as discussed in the next section, the risks of
using the rental item. Future resale and rental value relates to the opportunity cost of
either buying the item and selling it after use, or buying the item and gaining back the
cost through rental fees. For example, Joel lamented the difficulties of mentally
calculating the value of borrowing or providing a drill for use, saying that it would
be ‘worth buying a $100 drill if [he] can lend it out and make $5 an hour and recoup
the cost over 20 hours’. Availability of access was an important benefit of ownership
that many users said they would rather not give up, as Charlotte put it: ‘it’s just so
much easier to buy my own because I know it’s always there at my disposal’. Thus,
like sharing in commercial systems, perceived risk of product scarcity plays a role in
determining renting propensity (Lamberton & Rose, 2012).
Market mediation
Market mediation refers to the motivating factors driving users to provide and rent
via a P2P renting website. As explained by Sahlins (1972, p. 195), this includes a
continuum of reciprocal ‘sidedness’where at one end of the spectrum users engage in
generalised reciprocity, characterised by disinterestedness (giving without the
expectation of compensation), neighbourly compassion and personal mutuality, and
at the other extreme users engage in negative reciprocity, guided by self-
interestedness. A common form of exchange examined in marketing is balanced
reciprocity, where a quid pro quo mentality exists (Bagozzi, 1975) and exchange is
governed by a fair market value defined by each user.
Nearly all participants highlighted monetary incentives as their primary motivation
for joining a P2P website and described balanced exchange relationships. Ariel
recounted the benefit she received by providing her item for rent: ‘I got a fourteen
dollar discount off my original forty dollar purchase’and the benefit the renter
received: ‘and she didn’t really need to buy a costume, so it saved her money’.
Many renters agreed with Ariel’s balanced view of the exchange in that they
believed temporary acquisition would save them money. William expressed his
preference for P2P over B2 C rental models when he said ‘it’s cheaper than renting
it off those rental places’, while Leigh enjoyed renting, ‘because [she loved] saving
money and [thought] it would be a great option to do so’. In addition, some
providers indicated that temporary disposition was a way to avoid negative
reciprocal relationships that often arise after selling possessions at a loss through
traditional secondary markets such as eBay (Chu & Liao, 2007; Denegri-Knott &
Molesworth, 2010).
Informants were more fearful of negative reciprocity than having experienced it
directly. The most palpable concern was the fear of damage to the rented product;
this was echoed almost unanimously by providers: ‘What if they break it?’. Renters
equally shared this unease, asking on the other side of the exchange: ‘What if I
break it?’. Because the transaction had to be done face-to-face, many renters said
they were concerned about breaking the rental item because they would feel bad or
embarrassed when they brought it back to the owner. However, some providers
suggested they would be willing to confront exchange partners who had damaged
an item, as described by Charlotte: ‘hey, you know this is going to cost me 80 bucks
to fix and under the terms of the website, “can you pay for that damage?”Umm
yeah, I’dbemoreopentospeakingtothatpersonaboutthatinthatsituation
1320 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

because there is no sort of prior relationship or anything and I won’t be seeing them
again anyhow, so yeah!’.
Another perceived risk that users indicated was a fear that the other party was not
committed to the rental transaction. For instance, Martin expressed his annoyance
that potential renters may not commit: ‘if something is not high value or somebody
doesn’t seem to be fully committed, there’s a high probability of people flaking out’.
Likewise, Samuel (as a renter) said he was ‘taking a certain financial risk in that [he’s]
got a fairly firm plan’, and needs rentals to be guaranteed at a certain time. Thus, we
see the significance of co-creation of the renting service; without the commitment of
both parties to the rental, the service will not be possible.
The aforementioned risks can be explained by information asymmetry (Mishra,
Heide & Cort, 1998), where renters have to try to determine the characteristics of
the provider. However, the provider also has to determine the trustworthiness of the
renter. As explained by Pavlou, Liang and Xue (2007), this uncertainty can be
explained by two types of problem: (1) hidden information, the true attributes of
the provider/renter and rental product that are unknown until the transaction begins;
and (2) hidden action, the provider/renter actions in completing the transaction.
Though these fears were common due to the anonymous nature of the opening
exchange being conducted online, information asymmetry was lowered by the
exchange having to be finalised in person.
Though all respondents had varying fears of negative reciprocity, none had heard
about or experienced first-hand any of these risks coming to fruition with P2P
renting. According to one of the founders of the P2P rental sites in this study, zero
transactions have so far needed to use the website ‘dispute wizard’in regard to issues.
However, it is uncertain whether these successful transactions are artificially inflated
due to other factors relating to reputation systems, such as ‘fear of retaliatory
negative feedback or simply a desire to avoid further unpleasant interactions’
(Resnick, Kuwabara, Zeckhauser & Friedman, 2000, p. 47). As discussed in the
next section on anonymity, because the exchange happens face to face, social
norms may influence users to have a proclivity for less retaliation and fewer
unpleasant interactions when not under the guise of an anonymous user in
cyberspace.
The unique mix of electronic commerce’s impersonality and face-to-face meetings
provides opportunities for generalised reciprocity to emerge as self-interested
strangers start to become ‘friends’. When encouraged to share their favourite
stories and aspects about P2P renting, users discussed experiences of generalised
reciprocity. Some providers found it to be an outlet for altruistic behaviour, saying
they often gave things away and that temporary disposition was another way to
provide others with a needed object. Barbara best exemplified this with her
comments on renting out a designer dress: ‘I don’t even really need to make
money off of it, it’s more about helping people who maybe can’t afford to buy a
$500 dress, and so they can just spend $20 or $50 instead of paying $500’.
Some providers said that after repeating rental transactions with the same person,
they became more willing to just lend it out for free as the line between formal
market mediation and informal borrowing became blurred, or as Charlotte put it:
‘that’s when you know you sort of passed that line and you’ve gone from a
commercial friendly relationship to best buddies or whatever’. Founders of the
websites concurred with many users’assertion that this type of behaviour was
hidden from the website’s radar, as once people start to just ‘give it away for free’
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1321
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

as friends, they stop using the website to avoid any hassle and just contact each other
directly. Charlotte also exemplified other providers who loved to share: ‘I’d be more
than happy to rent it out for free’, where the monetary tit-for-tat exchange was often
seen as an added benefit: ‘but if I can make a few dollars that’s fine too’.
Findings also suggested that temporary disposition through renting out could
become a form of ‘cheap altruism’in that people can share and still own (Coyne,
2005). For example, two of the seven websites studied offered charity options where
providers could rent out their items and the proceeds from the transaction would go
to an elected charity or fundraiser. This was well accepted among both renters and
providers.
Some users discussed the notion that sellers should always provide goods that are
in sound condition, emphasising the tit-for-tat mentality of a fair deal. For example,
Samuel stated that if he was going to rent out a bike he would want to make sure it
was ‘all tarted up’before listing, saying ‘If I’m going to rent a bike, I want to make
sure it’s tuned, I don’t want to give somebody a bike and be like “oh, by the way, the
first seven gears, you know, the derailleur is off, it won’t shift into them”’. However,
others were less concerned with product quality in P2P renting. For example,
Charlotte said as a renter that she would be happy to rent more ‘beat up’items ‘as
long as it’s just sort of superficial stuff that doesn’t affect how it works’. Other
examples of generalised reciprocity from renters included offering help on how to
fix a game system and teaching the owner how to work their gramophone.
These occasions of imbalance seem to support the ‘demur’made by Sahlins (1972,
p. 223) that perhaps balanced reciprocity is ‘inherently unstable’as ‘on one hand, a
series of honourably balanced dealings between comparatively distant parties builds
trust and confidence’(causing generalised reciprocity), while ‘on the other hand, a
renege acts to sever relations –as failure to make returns breaks a trade partnership’
(causing negative reciprocity).
Anonymity
As explained by Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012), ‘access consumptionscapes’can differ
on two levels of anonymity: (1) spatial anonymity, whether the context of use is
public or private, and (2) interpersonal anonymity, whether the interaction between
users is anonymous or in person.
In Zipcar, automobile use is private (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012) while in an art
gallery, consumption is shared with others (Chen, 2009). The spatial distance
between items and users in the context of P2P renting is both private (the renter
takes temporary ownership of the item away from the provider’s eyes) and public
(many renters post pictures and reviews after using the item, the provider is able to
see any damage or wear and tear caused by the renter, and the provider is sharing
their private possessions with a stranger).
Usually, a person’s private items are hidden from their peers, but P2P renting
networks allow transparency of possessions. Lynne expressed her favourite aspect of
the site when she said: ‘my friends don’t actually know I have these really awesome,
really expensive things, like an air mattress for example, I mean why or how in
conversation would that really come up? And I’m more than happy to rent it to
them’. She continued on to explain why she liked the name Open Shed (i.e. one of
the rental sites): ‘you are letting people know what you actually have that you are
happy to share or rent or lend out’.
1322 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

A perceived advantage of P2P renting formal broker websites was that they
provided users a level of anonymity to ask for needed items or rent them to others.
Many users stressed that it was ‘rude’and ‘awkward’to ask neighbours to borrow
needed items. Joel gave his thoughts: ‘if someone asks to borrow something and it’s
very inconvenient because you thought you might be using it, you’dbeinan
awkward position. I wouldn’t want to put someone in an awkward position by
asking for something, which maybe wouldn’t be available or they weren’t sure’.
This discomfiture can dampen a person’s inclination to share. Many participants
wouldn’t even think of saying, as Joel put it, ‘oh sure, you can borrow my drill, it’s
only $1 an hour’to an enquiring neighbour. Thus, a recurring theme with users was
their appreciation of a formal mechanism, the P2P rental website, to broker the
exchange and reduce this social barrier to renting. Indeed, by moving the original
in-person request to online messaging, consumers are able to make requests ‘under
the protective cloak of anonymity’that cyberspace provides through
‘deindividuation’(McKenna & Bargh, 2000, p. 62).
An additional dimension of anonymity is the level of interpersonal connection in
the exchange. On eBay, interactions are less personal and mediated by technology and
postal delivery, while during a swapping event interactions are face to face and social.
The P2P rental transaction is a mix of these extremes, with participants initially
interacting online, but then having to meet to facilitate the transaction. It may be
because of this more social nature of the transaction that norms around product care
develop among those who participate in P2P renting –as compared with Bardhi and
Eckhardt (2012) who found a lack of care in the case of anonymous car sharing. For
example, Earl explained that he took extreme care with items as a renter because he
would feel guilty, intimidated and ‘afraid of the look that they’re going to give’him if
he returned a broken item.
Social connections were also emphasised by participants seeking communal links
with one another, similar to Albinsson and Perera (2012) and Ozanne and Ozanne
(2011), which may arise out of the need to co-create the rental service (Belk, 2010).
Leigh described how renting her textbook out allowed her to meet new
acquaintances around university. Tara described her situation after moving to a new
town: ‘I moved to a village in the middle of nowhere and I know no one here, so I’ve
actually met people through lending my stuff out; I met a couple who borrowed my
ladder and on my profile I had written that I really want to get more into sailing so
I’ve been out sailing with them!’. Leigh and Tara’s experiences illustrate a prominent
reason for getting involved, in that users find others with similar experiences as might
be expected in a context where the outcome depends on collaboration between
participants (Belk, 2010). This is similar to the findings of Ozanne and Ballantine
(2010) and Ozanne and Ozanne (2011), who found that families feel supported by
other toy library members during this difficult liminal period. Thus, the desire for
community and social interaction within P2P models seems to deviate from
commercial access models, where Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) found that
consumers resisted the efforts of a car-sharing company to build a brand community.
Political consumerism
Political consumerism (Micheletti, Follesdal & Stolle, 2003) is the growing
phenomenon of markets being guided by politics through ‘actions by people who
make choices among producers and products with the goal of changing objectionable
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1323
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

institutional or market practices’(p. 2). Most users initially used P2P renting as a
form of political consumerism, as they found it to be a more sustainable option than
traditional consumption practices. For instance, Bob, as a provider, thought his
‘ability to put [his] things back into the market for other people to use, [was] in the
long run far more efficient and ecologically friendly than just hoarding it’. Earl, as a
renter, commented that he saw temporary access as ‘a more responsible way to live’,
in that, as Anita stressed, renting minimised ‘production in the embodied energy and
carbon and all that sort of business’, adding that ‘if people can share their things, then
it should reduce the cost of manufacturing, and the cost to the planet’. This finding is
supported by research on other forms of temporary access which has found that
environmentalism is a prominent reason for renting cars (Lawson, 2011) and anti-
materialism is an important value for parents who share toys communally (Ozanne &
Ozanne, 2011), but differs from participants in commercial sharing programmes
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Lamberton & Rose, 2012).
Another motivation was the desire to move away from materialism and
overconsumption. This tapped into being part of an anti-consumption movement
(Black & Cherrier, 2010) where Bob described his attitude towards consumerism:
‘I’ve always found it very unappealing, because it’s so wasteful, and so by renting a
good I’m not playing into it, instead of buying things for this one-off use and having
to think about disposing of it immediately or eventually or disposing of its packaging
and all that crap around it’. When asked to expand on their perceived level of
materialism, many participants described purger tendencies whereby they would
continually keep stock of the utility of their belongings and purge themselves of
unused items (Coulter & Ligas, 2003).
Although sustainability and political consumerism were a prominent topic of
discussion, nearly all participants stated that these benefits were mostly, as Lynne
put it, ‘an added bonus’. This finding supports the research of Ozanne and Ballantine
(2010) and Devinney, Auger and Eckhardt (2010), who found that people who
participate in environmentally friendly alternatives do not always do so for
conservational reasons, but instead for reasons of self-interest, including factors
such as price, convenience and a sense of community. For sustainable consumption
to be successful, motivations need to be embedded in personal gain, which is
reinforced by many participants in this study who stated that their decision to rent
or own would always, as Charlotte put it, ‘come down to a matter of price’.
Discussion and conclusions
Although the literature on renting is rich with insight, this is the first study, to our
knowledge, to examine renting from the perspective of individual consumers who
choose to rent their possessions to peers. These providers are primarily motivated by
economic considerations, preferring to rent larger-ticket items to maximise their
revenue. Renting enables usage of their idle possessions, which many providers find
gratifying. Ironically, although they complain that P2P rental is a high-involvement
form of temporary disposition, they also desire more frequent rental of their goods.
This behaviour provides a mechanism to avoid the negative reciprocity of other
disposition methods, yet the information asymmetry of hidden action on the part
of those who rent their possession concerns providers. In addition, for some
1324 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

providers P2P renting provides an outlet for generalised reciprocity and altruistic
behaviour.
Even though participants laud the fact that temporary disposition and acquisition
provide a way to protect the environment and reduce waste, economic utility is still a
primary consideration for participants in P2P renting, consistent with other research
examining access-based consumption (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Other utilitarian
motivations for participation include avoiding the dissonance that might arise out of
more permanent forms of acquisition, and enabling trial before purchase through
temporary acquisition (Ozanne & Ozanne, 2011). In addition, experiential
motivations, such as trialling novel products and enabling experiences, also
motivate those who rent products from peers.
Although participants wanted to increase their own personal utility when
participating in P2P renting, the fact that the practice contributes to collective
utility also supports temporary disposition and acquisition. Participants appreciated
that the consumption practice enables them to live a more sustainable, anti-
materialistic lifestyle that is consistent with their values. In addition, the practice
enables participants to practice an altruistic behaviour or to share with others in a
socially acceptable manner (Albinsson & Perera, 2009).
Managerial implications
This research suggests that managers of P2P rental sites are faced with a number of
difficulties that need to be overcome to facilitate this behaviour. Perhaps the most
crucial inhibitor to P2P renting was its inchoate nature of low externalities stagnating
trial. Thus, websites need to incentivise users to list products on the website to
encourage exploration and browsing from would-be renters. Furthermore, the
literature suggests that attracting rental customers can be difficult because they are
accustomed to ownership and are hesitant to shift towards temporary access without
prior experiences with this form of consumption (Rexfelt & Ornäs, 2009).
The findings suggest a number of enabling factors that may facilitate participation
in P2P renting. First, managers need to attract large numbers of potential users to
develop a critical mass of customers and items to rent, as many participants indicated
that they would be willing to participate if rental items were available. Research
supports that many online communities fail because of an insufficient number of
active contributors (Yen, Hsu & Huang, 2011). Marketers of P2P rental sites need to
promote the environmental benefits of this practice, as many participants perceived
renting as being consistent with their anti-materialistic and anti-consumption values,
and as a mechanism to consume more sustainably. Incorporating gamification,
defined as the integration of ‘game mechanics into non-game environments to
increase audience engagement, loyalty and fun’(Corrigan & Miller, 2011, p. 14),
might be one mechanism to increase the participation of those who sign up but do
not engage with the behaviour. As participants are seeking community through
participation, gamification might be a way to increase interaction between users
and might also provide an approach to reward users for their altruistic behaviour
while increasing their standing in the community.
Overcoming perceptions of risk in use is another key consideration for managers.
Although most sites enable deposits to be taken, this only protects those who rent
out. As insurance mitigates risk for both parties involved, in that the renter no longer
has to worry about paying for accidental damage and the provider no longer has to
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1325
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

worry about replacing a broken item, P2P rental sites should always provide
insurance options. Another way to enable trust is by branding users, products and
the website itself. For instance, users need to brand themselves as trustworthy to
others by the use of feedback and comments, their profile and the effort they put
forth in their communication and online image. Likewise, products need to be
branded as items that potential renters would actually want to rent; comments and
feedback on a specific product could increase the rentability of the product, as well as
using merchandising techniques like high-quality photos. The importance of having
high-quality photos is confirmed by an empirical study on eBay as having a significant
impact on auction success (Shen, Chiou & Kuo, 2011). Lastly, institutional trust is
extremely important. The rental websites need to brand themselves as trustworthy
brokers that provide a safe and engaging place for individuals to gather and rent
items with one another.
Convenience is another important aspect in overcoming the constraints to P2P
renting. In high-density urban areas, it might be possible for a third party to provide
storage facilities and facilitate the logistics of the rental transaction, thus reducing the
high level of effort required of users and providing storage utility for those who rent
out (Lamberton & Rose, 2012). Consider an existing example: eBay drop-off stores
‘often use the consignment model of selling […] for consigners who lack the time or
expertise to sell on eBay’(Chu & Liao, 2007, p. 179), which could be adapted for the
renting context.
Future research
There are a number of potential future research directions that arise from our
findings. Trust between strangers is an area in need of further inquiry. There have
been a number of studies examining trust in online auctions (e.g. Jeon, Crutsinger &
Kim, 2008; Shen et al., 2011), but the findings from the current research suggest that
trust in P2P rentals is embedded in ‘risk of use’. Thus, further research exploring trust
specifically for this type of system would be highly beneficial, especially as this
practice grows in scope. As this research focused on users who were located
primarily in urban, English-speaking cities, no significant cultural differences were
detected among countries. Future research should compare other countries who have
successfully implemented P2P renting websites (e.g. Singapore, Germany, Denmark)
to discover what cultural, political and structural aspects foster or impede P2P rental
exchange. Another potential avenue for research would be to explore whether P2P
renting is more sustainable, as perceived by participants. Although there have been
studies comparing commercial renting and ownership effects, the question remains
whether P2P renting also intensifies product use and extends product life (e.g.
Hirschl et al., 2003), or whether the profits earned through P2P renting in fact fuel
further consumption activity, as others have found with the sale of possessions on
eBay (Denegri-Knott & Molesworth, 2010).
References
Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2009). From trash to treasure and beyond: The meaning of
voluntary disposition. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,8(6), 340–353. doi:10.1002/cb.301
1326 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building
community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,11(4), 303–315.
doi:10.1002/cb.1389
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing,39(4), 32–39.
doi:10.2307/1250593
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access based consumption: The case of car sharing.
Journal of Consumer Research,39(4), 881–898. doi:10.1086/666376
Baumeister, C., & Wangenheim, F. (2014). Access versus ownership: Understanding consumers’
consumption mode preference (Working Paper). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/
abstract=2463076
Behrendt, S., Jasch, C., Kortman, J., Hrauda, G., Pfitzner, R., & Velte, D. (2003). Eco-service
development: Reinventing supply and demand in the European Union. Sheffield: Greenleaf
Publishing.
Belk, R. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research,36(5), 715–734. doi:10.1086/
612649
Belk, R. W. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption
online. Journal of Business Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2013.10.001
Berry, L. L., & Maricle, K. E. (1973). Consumption without ownership: What it means for
business. MSU Business Topics,21(2), 44–47.
Black, I. R., & Cherrier, H. (2010). Anti-consumption as part of living a sustainable lifestyle:
Daily practices, contextual motivations and subjective values. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour,9(6), 437–453. doi:10.1002/cb.337
Bolton, L. E., & Alba, J. W. (2012). When less is more: Consumer aversion to unused utility.
Journal of Consumer Psychology,22(3), 369–383. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.002
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative
consumption. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology,3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bulow, J. (1986). An economic theory of planned obsolescence. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics,101, 729–750. doi:10.2307/1884176
Chapman, J. (2005). Emotionally durable design: Objects, experiences & empathy. London:
Earthscan.
Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: Consumer desires and value perceptions regarding
contemporary art collection and exhibit visits. Journal of Consumer Research,35(6), 925–
940. doi:10.1086/593699
Cherrier, H., & Murray, J. B. (2007). Reflexive dispossession and the self: Constructing a
processual theory of identity. Consumption, Markets, and Culture,10(1), 1–29.
doi:10.1080/10253860601116452
Cheshire, L., Walters, P., & Rosenblatt, T. (2010). The politics of housing consumption:
Renters as flawed consumers on a master planned estate. Urban Studies,47(12), 2597–
2614. doi:10.1177/0042098009359028
Chicotsky, B. (2012). Quick insight into collaborative consumption. Retrieved from http://
texasenterprise.org/article/quick-insight-collaborative-consumption
Chu, H., & Liao, S. (2007). Defining and categorizing consumer resale behavior in consumer-
to-consumer (C2C) e-commerce. International Journal of Business and Information,2(2),
159–184.
Corrigan, M., & Miller, H. G. (2011). Toward a user-centric digital ecosystem. IT Professional,
13(4), 12–15. doi:10.1109/MITP.2011.72
Coulter, R. A., & Ligas, M. (2003). To retain or to relinquish: Exploring the disposition
practices of packrats and purgers. In P. A. Keller & D. W. Rook (Eds.), Advances in
consumer research (vol 30, pp. 38–43). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1327
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

Coyne, R. (2005). Cornucopia limited: Design and dissent on the internet. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Denegri-Knott, J., & Molesworth, M. (2010). ‘Love it. Buy it. Sell it’: Consumer desire and the
social drama of eBay. Journal of Consumer Culture,10(1), 56–79. doi:10.1177/
1469540509355025
Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2010). The myth of the ethical consumer.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Domina, T., & Koch, K. (1998). Environmental profiles of female apparel shoppers in the
Midwest, USA. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics,22(3), 147–161.
doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.1998.tb00726.x
Durgee, J. F., & O’Connor, G. C. (1995). An exploration into renting as consumption
behavior. Psychology & Marketing,12(2), 89–104. doi:10.1002/mar.4220120202
Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York, NY: Penguin
Group.
Geron, T. (2013) Airbnb and the unstoppable rise of the share economy. Forbes. Retrieved
from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-and-the-unstoppable-rise-
of-the-share-economy/
Gregson, N., & Crewe, L. (2003). Second-hand cultures. Oxford: Berg.
Guiot, D., & Roux, D. (2010). A second-hand shoppers’motivation scale: Antecedents,
consequences, and implications for retailers. Journal of Retailing,86(4), 355–371.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2010.08.002
Haefliger, S., Jager, P., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Under the radar: Industry entry by user
entrepreneurs. Research Policy,39(9), 1198–1213. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.07.001
Hambrick, D. C. (1981). Environment, strategy, and power within top management teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly,26(2), 253–275. doi:10.2307/2392472
Hirschl, B., Konrad, W., & Scholl, G. (2003). New concepts in product use for sustainable
consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production,11(8), 873–881. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526
(02)00162-2
Jacoby, J., Berning, C. K., & Dietvorst, T. F. (1977). What about disposition? Journal of
Marketing,41(2), 22–28. doi:10.2307/1250630
Jeon, S., Crutsinger, C., & Kim, H. (2008). Exploring online auction behaviors and
motivations. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences,100(2), 31–40.
Kasulis, J. J., Lusch, R. F., & Stafford, E. F. (1979). Consumer acquistion patterns for durable
goods. Journal of Consumer Research,6(1), 47–57. doi:10.1086/208747
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1986). Technology adoption in the presence of network
externalities. Journal of Political Economy,94(4), 822–841. doi:10.1086/261409
Keyton, J. (2011). Communication research: Asking questions, finding answers (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kleine, S. S., & Baker, S. M. (2004). An integrative review of material possession attachment.
Academy of Marketing Science Review,1,1–39.
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research
using key informants. Academy of Management Journal,36(6), 1633–1651. doi:10.2307/
256824
Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for
understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of
Marketing,76(4), 109–125. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0368
Lastovicka, J. L., & Fernandez, K. V. (2005). Three paths to disposition: The movement of
meaningful possessions to strangers. Journal of Consumer Research,31(4), 813–823.
doi:10.1086/426616
Lawson, S. J. (2011). Forsaking ownership: Three essays on non-ownership consumption and
alternative forms of exchange (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University,
Tallahassee.
1328 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

Lemire, B. (2000). Second-hand beaux and ‘red-armed belles’: Conflict and the creation of
fashions in England, c. 1660–1800. Continuity and Change,15(3), 391–417. doi:10.1017/
S0268416051003649
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Locander, W. B., & Hermann, P. W. (1979). The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on
information seeking in consumer risk reduction. Journal of Marketing Research,16(2),
268–274. doi:10.2307/3150690
Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither services marketing?: In search of a new
paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research,7(1), 20–41. doi:10.1177/
1094670504266131
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the
internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review,4
(1), 57–75. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6
Micheletti, M., Follesdal, A., & Stolle, D. (2003). Politics, products, and markets. Exploring
political consumerism past and present. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Mishra, D. P., Heide, J. B., & Cort, S. G. (1998). Information asymmetry and levels of agency
relationships. Journal of Marketing Research,35(3), 277–295. doi:10.2307/3152028
Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: Reasons for preferring
renting. Managing Service Quality,20(2), 176–191. doi:10.1108/09604521011027598
Mont, O. (2001). Introducing and developing a product-service system (PSS) concept in Sweden.
Lund: International Institute for Environmental Economics.
Mont, O. (2008). Innovative approaches to optimising design and use of durable consumer
goods. International Journal of Product Development,6(3/4), 227–250. doi:10.1504/
IJPD.2008.020395
Moore, A., & Taylor, M. (2009). Why buy when you can rent? A brief investigation of
differences in acquisition mode based on duration. Applied Economics Letters,16(12),
1211–1213. doi:10.1080/13504850701367304
Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-consumption: An
examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,9(6), 485–498.
doi:10.1002/cb.334
Ozanne, L. K., & Ozanne, J. L. (2011). A child’s right to play: The social construction of civic
virtues in toy libraries. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,30(2), 264–278. doi:10.1509/
jppm.30.2.264
Paden, N., & Stell, R. (2005). Consumer product redistribution: Disposition decisions and
channel options. Journal of Marketing Channels,12(3), 105–123. doi:10.1300/
J049v12n03_06
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online
exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly,31(1), 105–136.
Phillips, B.J., & Sego, T. (2011). The role ofidentity in disposal: Lessons from mothers’disposal of
children’s possessions. Marketing Theory,11(4), 435–454. doi:10.1177/1470593111418794
Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Curasi, C. F. (2000). Older consumers’disposition of special
possessions. Journal of Consumer Research,27(2), 179–201. doi:10.1086/314319
Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E. (2000). Reputation systems.
Communications of the ACM,43(12), 45–48. doi:10.1145/355112.355122
Rexfelt, O., & Ornäs, V. H. (2009). Consumer acceptance of product-service systems:
Designing for relative advantages and uncertainty reductions. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management,20(5), 674–699. doi:10.1108/17410380910961055
Sacks, D. (2011). The sharing economy. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www.
fastcompany.com/1747551/sharing-economy
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. Chicago, IL: Aldine Atherton.
Seidler, J. (1974). On using informants: A technique for collecting quantitative data and
controlling measurement error in organization analysis. American Sociological Review,39
(6), 816–831. doi:10.2307/2094155
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1329
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

Selwyn, N. (2003). Apart from technology: Understanding people’s non-use of information
and communication technologies in everyday life. Technology in Society,25(1), 99–116.
doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00062-3
Shen, C., Chiou, J., & Kuo, B. (2011). Remedies for information asymmetry in online
transactions: An investigation into the impact of web page signals on auction outcome.
Internet Research,21(2), 154–170. doi:10.1108/10662241111123748
Sheth, J., & Uslay, C. (2007). Implications of the revised definition of marketing: From
exchange to value creation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,26(2), 302–307.
doi:10.1509/jppm.26.2.302
Siddiqui, S., & Turley, D. (2006). Buyer-seller role malleability: A dip in the eBay. In K.
Ekstrom & H. Brembeck (Eds.), European advances in consumer research (Vol. 7, pp.
295–296). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research,10(3), 319–329. doi:10.1086/208971
Song, J., & Walden, E. (2007). How consumer perceptions of network size and social
interactions influence the intention to adopt peer-to-peer technologies. International
Journal of E-Business Research,3(4), 49–66. doi:10.4018/jebr.2007100103
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding household garbage reduction behaviour: A test of
an integrated model. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,14(2), 13–35.
Trocchia, P., & Beatty, S. (2003). An empirical examination of automobile lease vs finance
motivational processes. Journal of Consumer Marketing,20(1), 28–43. doi:10.1108/
07363760310456937
Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to sustainability?
Experiences from suspronet. Business Strategy and the Environment,13(4), 246–260.
doi:10.1002/bse.414
Tukker, A., & Tischner, U. (2006). Product-services as a research field: Past, present and future.
Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production,14(17), 1552–1556.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.022
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing,68(1), 1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Williams, C. C., & Paddock, C. (2003). The meanings of informal and second-hand retail
channels: Some evidence from Leicester. The International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research,13(3), 317–336. doi:10.1080/0959396032000101372
Williams, C. C., & Windebank, J. (2000). Modes of goods acquisition in deprived
neighbourhoods. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,
10(1), 73–94. doi:10.1080/095939600342415
Wyatt, S., Thomas, G., & Terranova, T. (2002). They came, they surfed, they went back to the
beach: Conceptualizing use and non-use of the internet. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Virtual society
(pp. 23–40). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Yen, H. R., Hsu, S. H., & Huang, C. Y. (2011). Good soldiers on the web: Understanding the
drivers of participation in online communities of consumption. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce,15(4), 89–120. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415150403
Young, G. (2011). Platforms for shared value creation. Retrieved from http://sharedvalue.org/
sites/default/files/resource-files/Platforms-for-shared-value-creation.pdf
Young, M. M. (1991). Disposition of possessions during role transitions. In R. H. Holman &
M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 18, pp. 33–39). Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
1330 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

Appendix. Interview Guide for P2P Renting Users
Tell me about when you first heard
about P2P renting.
What were your thoughts and feelings about the
concept?
What is it that most interested you about P2P
renting? Why did you sign up?
Did you see yourself as a renter, provider, both or
none? Why?
If you use other websites like eBay do you sell,
buy or both? If different from P2P renting, why
do you think that is?
What did you imagine it to be like?
Did you change your views after signing up and
using the website? How, why?
Tell me about your involvement
with the P2P renting website.
Describe your most recent, typical and/or
memorable transactions.
What would be your best (and worst) experience?
What are your most (and least) favourite aspects
of P2P renting?
Has anything surprised you in your experiences?
Was it what you expected?
How often do you use the website? And what for?
What situations prompt you to want to (rent,
provide items to rent out, list items, browse for
items, message other users, use the forums,
other activities)?
Do you (and did you) have any concerns about
risk and trust? If so, tell me about them and
discuss what you do to diminish these
concerns.
Renter: Discuss the similarity (and/or difference)
if you had instead rented the item from a
business or borrowed it from a friend/
neighbour.
Provider: Discuss the similarity (and/or
difference) if you had instead sold the item or
lent it out to a friend/neighbour.
Do you have any friendships or acquaintances
that have developed? Tell me about your
interactions with other users of the website.
(Continued)
Philip et al. Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting 1331
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015

About the authors
Heather E. Philip is a PhD student at the University of Canterbury in the Department of
Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship. Her doctoral research explores collaborative
consumption behaviour in the context of online swapping and peer-to-peer renting.
Corresponding Author: Heather E. Philip, Department of Management, Marketing and
Entrepreneurship, College of Business and Law, University of Canterbury, Private Bag
4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.
T+64 27 775 6379
Eheather.philip@pg.canterbury.ac.nz
Paul Ballantine is a senior lecturer in marketing whose research interests include retailing,
consumption behaviour (particularly the negative aspects of consumption), and social and
ethical issues in marketing.
Lucie K. Ozanne is an associate professor of marketing at the University of Canterbury in the
Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship. Her primary research interest
over the past 20 years has been devoted to examining the impact of consumption behaviour on
the natural environment and possible initiatives to mitigate that impact. However, in exploring
alternative grassroots consumption systems, her research has begun to take a different path. In
particular, her work examining sharing behaviour through the use of community toy libraries
and the potential for individual and community capacity development through the use of time
banks has extended her focus beyond environmental sustainability –to issues related to the
family and the wider community.
(Continued).
Is there anything that would make it
better?
Is there anything missing from the website or
community?
Is there something that could be improved or
added to the website to make you more inclined
to list your things for rent or browse for items
to rent?
Do you have any complaints about how the
system is designed?
Are there any services you want to see added to
the site to make it better for (list the
respondent’s concerns discussed earlier in the
interview in terms of bad experiences or least
favourite aspects).
Is there anything that could be done to make P2P
renting more your kind of thing?
Do you have any suggestions to improve P2P
renting?
1332 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 31
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 15:01 26 November 2015