pedro poças reis da silva - repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt · declaration name: pedro poças reis da...
TRANSCRIPT
Pedro Poças Reis da Silva
January 2018
Value Co-creation in Sharing Systems: Airbnb Guests' Participation in Value
Co-creation Practices
Ped
ro P
oças
Rei
s da
Silv
a V
alu
e C
o-c
rea
tio
n in
Sh
ari
ng
Sys
tem
s: A
irbnb
Gue
sts'
Par
ticip
atio
n in
Val
ue C
o-cr
eatio
n P
ract
ices
U
Min
ho|2
018
Universidade do MinhoEscola de Economia e Gestão
Pedro Poças Reis da Silva
January 2018
Value Co-creation in Sharing Systems: Airbnb Guests' Participation in Value
Co-creation Practices
SupervisorProfessor Vasco Eiriz
Masters Dissertation
Master in Marketing and Strategy
Universidade do MinhoEscola de Economia e Gestão
DECLARATION
Name: Pedro Poças Reis da Silva
E-mail: [email protected]
Title of dissertation: Value Co-creation in Sharing Systems: Airbnb Guests’ Participation in Value Co-creation Practices
Supervisor:
Professor Vasco Eiriz
Conclusion year: 2018
Master in Marketing and Stategy
É AUTORIZADA A REPRODUÇÃO INTEGRAL DESTA DISSERTAÇÃO APENAS PARA EFEITOS DE
INVESTIGAÇÃO, MEDIANTE DECLARAÇÃO ESCRITA DO INTERESSADO, QUE A TAL SE
COMPROMETE;
University of Minho, 29/01/2018 Signature: ________________________________________________
iii
Personal Note
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of José de Castro Poças, my godfather, whose joyful
and inspiring presence has always been a warm light in the lives of his family and friends. You will
always be missed.
It is my belief that organizations - people who come together in order to meet shared goals –
constitute the main force driving change in the world. Today, we face the challenge of keeping up
with change itself. This alarming idea that the world is changing at such a crescent pace was why
I decided to pursue research in a relevant present-day topic such as the one of this dissertation.
Amidst all the possibilities that this advent of technology brings, we shouldn’t ignore this
concern: These very same tools that connect us are often what keeps us further apart from each
other. They don’t bond us. Bonds are nourished (co-nourished, one might say). During my young
life, I’ve found no better way to nourish these bonds than with honest gratitude. From the pressure
of reconciling work and study to sustaining such a life-restricting injury, this has been a long and
bumpy road, often far away from those I love. Please, allow me to take this space to show my
gratitude to those who made it possible for me to reach this far, for these are my co-creators:
To my supervisor, Professor Vasco Eiriz, for his continuous support, advice, critics, and
encouragement, all of which were decisive for this project to meet its goals.
To Professor Joaquim Silva, from whom I first came to know about value co-creation, for
providing me with interesting and critical advice over conducting research on the topic.
To the entire team of Clínica Eduardo Salgado, especially, Filipa Silva and Liliana Bastos
for providing me with the proper care for me to recover and heal from my injuries.
To the entire team of EDIT VALUE®, for welcoming me as their intern. Special thanks to
Nuno Pinto Bastos and Bruna Dias for their lessons, comprehension, and support.
To my friends from CEB – Clube de Escalada de Braga, especially, Filipe “Shore” Costa
for his ability to inspire people and encourage them to reach higher heights.
To my fellow colleagues, for their companionship and support.
To my family, especially my dear parents, for their loving support and always working hard
to give the possibilities to develop myself and live a happier life.
To my close friends, for being there when I need you the most.
iv
v
Abstract
Value Co-creation in Sharing Systems: Airbnb Guests’ Participation in Value Co-
creation Practices
Sharing systems, i.e., systems of economic actors who participate in a flow of exchange enabled or managed
by a physical or virtual platform, have captured the interest of the industry and academia, for its disruptive
innovation, growth curves, flexible supply and potential to extract value from underused resources. Given its
novelty, marketing research on such systems is underwhelming. Timely, marketing researchers, have been
expressing a growing interest in the active role that a consumer plays in his/her own value creation. The
notion of consumer value co-creation and its ground on SD-logic has propelled researchers into a new
marketing paradigm, that reveals itself to be an adequate lens to study a new breed of business models
and markets such as sharing systems. This dissertation explores the marketing implications of guests
participating in value co-creation for the Airbnb system. As such, it aims at meeting the following research
goals:
1. Evaluate the participation of guests in value co-creation in Airbnb experiences;
2. Evaluate the participation of guests in value co-destruction in Airbnb experiences.
We conducted an online questionnaire to Portuguese Airbnb’ guests and obtained 101 valid answers. We
found that though guests participate in some value co-creation processes and practices, and to some extent,
value co-destruction, participation in isolated practices/processes has an insignificant relationship with
satisfaction and the likelihood of choosing a sharing system again constructs. We also found participation
in co-creation to be relatively homogenous across age, gender, duration and house sharing, and found small
differences among group size and travel goal. We conduct a critical analysis of our results and comparing
them with existing literature for further elaboration. This study finds that single practices alone or all-
encompassing processes may hold poor significance in value determination for the consumer and the firm.
It also includes a practice and processes approach and suggests practices may hold more analytical power
for marketers. As such, it provides the academia with suggestions and directions for conducting research
on this topic. For the industry, this study informs decision makers, practitioners and entrepreneurs on the
idiosyncrasies of designing, managing and promoting sharing systems with value co-creation in mind. The
study endures the limitation of the infancy state of research in value co-creation (namely the lack of problem-
focused developed scales), the use of a convenience sample and consumer bias.
KEY-WORDS: value co-creation, practices, value co-destruction, Airbnb, guests, sharing economy,
collaborative consumption, satisfaction, marketing, service marketing, service-dominant logic, service
design
vi
vii
Resumo
Cocriação de Valor em Sistemas de Partilha: A Participação de Hóspedes do Airbnb
em Práticas de Cocriação de Valor
Os sistemas de partilha, constituídos por agentes económicos que participam num fluxo de trocas permitido
ou gerido por uma plataforma física ou virtual, captaram a atenção da indústria e da academia, pela sua
inovação disruptiva, curvas de crescimento, fornecimento flexível e potencial para criar valor através de
recursos subutilizados. Dada a sua novidade, a pesquisa de marketing em tais contextos ainda não foi
devidamente explorada. Oportunamente, os investigadores de marketing têm mostrado um interesse
crescente no papel ativo que o consumidor tem na sua criação de valor. A noção de cocriação de valor e a
service-dominant logic (SD-logic) impulsionou os investigadores em direção a um novo paradigma de
pesquisa de marketing, que se revela como uma lente apropriada para estudar este novo tipo de sistemas.
Esta dissertação explora as implicações de marketing dos hóspedes participarem em cocriação de valor
para os próprios e para o sistema do Airbnb. Deste modo, procura cumprir os seguintes objetivos:
1. Avaliar a participação dos hóspedes na cocriação de valor em experiências de Airbnb;
2. Avaliar a participação dos hóspedes na codestruição de valor em experiências de Airbnb.
Realizamos um questionário online a hóspedes portugueses do Airbnb e obtemos 101 respostas válidas.
Descobrimos que apesar dos hóspedes participarem nos processos e práticas de cocriação que testamos,
a sua participação parece ter uma relação insignificante com os construtos de satisfação e probabilidade
de voltar a escolher um sistema de partilha. Descobrimos ainda que a participação é relativamente
homogénea em termos de idade, género, duração, partilha de habitação, e encontramos pequenas
diferenças por objetivo de viagem e tamanho de grupo. Este estudo propõe que práticas isoladas ou
processos gerais de cocriação podem ter uma relação demasiado fraca para ser medida de acordo com os
métodos e critérios atuais. Também inclui a abordagem de práticas e processos que podem ter mais poder
analítico para praticantes de marketing. Neste seguimento, propõe sugestões e direções para elaborar
investigação neste tópico. Para a indústria, este estudo informa decisores, praticantes, e empreendedores
sobre as idiossincrasias de desenhar, gerir e promover sistemas de partilha tendo em conta a cocriação de
valor. As limitações do estudo devem-se ao estado subdesenvolvido da investigação em cocriação,
(nomeadamente, a falta de escalas desenvolvidas e testadas), o uso de uma amostra de conveniência e o
enviesamento do consumidor.
PALAVRAS CHAVE: cocriação de valor, práticas, codestruição de valor, Airbnb, hóspedes, economia da
partilha, consumo colaborativo, satisfação, marketing, marketing de serviços, service-dominant logic, design
do serviço
viii
ix
Index
Personal Note .........................................................................................................................................................iii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................. v
Resumo ................................................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... xi
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... xi
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Framing and justification for the chosen topic .............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Objectives and methodology........................................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Structure .................................................................................................................................................... 8
2. Value Co-creation .............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 From value to value co-creation in marketing ............................................................................................. 11
2.3 Value co-creation conceptual formulation .................................................................................................. 13
2.4 Dimensions and measuring....................................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Value co-creation practices approach ........................................................................................................ 20
2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 22
3. Sharing Systems ............................................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 23
3.2 Defining sharing systems .......................................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Distinctive characteristics and dynamics ................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 33
4. Research Context and Conceptual Model .......................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 35
4.2 Airbnb as a sharing system ....................................................................................................................... 35
4.3 Value co-creation in Airbnb ........................................................................................................................ 39
4.4 Goals, hypothesis, and model ................................................................................................................... 44
4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 51
5. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 53
5.2 Research paradigm ................................................................................................................................... 53
5.3 Methods and sampling ............................................................................................................................. 55
5.4 Questionnaire design ................................................................................................................................ 57
5.5 Data treatment ......................................................................................................................................... 60
x
5.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 62
6. Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 63
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 63
6.2 Sample ..................................................................................................................................................... 63
6.3 Results of value co-creation processes....................................................................................................... 67
6.4 Results of value co-creation practices ........................................................................................................ 69
6.5 Results of value co-destruction .................................................................................................................. 71
6.6 Results of satisfaction with sharing option ................................................................................................. 74
6.7 Results of choosing a sharing option again ................................................................................................ 77
6.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 81
7. Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 83
7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 83
7.2 Participation on value co-creation and satisfaction ..................................................................................... 83
7.3 Participation in value co-destruction .......................................................................................................... 88
7.4 Contributions to research .......................................................................................................................... 92
7.5 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................... 93
7.6 Future research ........................................................................................................................................ 94
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix I – Questionnaire (Portuguese) ............................................................................................................. 105
Appendix II – Questionnaire (English) .................................................................................................................. 109
Appendix III – Cross-tabulation analysis (consumer variables) .............................................................................. 113
Appendix IV – Cross-tabulation analysis (experience variables) ............................................................................. 117
Appendix V – Correlation matrix analysis ............................................................................................................. 120
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Airbnb growth numbers .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 - Number of Airbnb guests over the summer ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 - Co-destruction logic .................................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 4 - Antecedents and consequences of value co-creation ................................................................................................. 19 Figure 5 - Different types of sharing systems according to consociality and platform intermediation ........................................... 28 Figure 6 - Mohlmann's model ................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 7 - Representation of traditional goods logic versus service-domant logic formulation of Airbnb system ............................ 42 Figure 8 - Representation of the implications of value co-creation in Airbnb conceptual model ................................................... 51
List of Tables
Table 1 - SD-logic's premises and axioms ................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 2 - Gronroos and Voima’s value co-creation spheres ........................................................................................................ 18 Table 3 - Types of sharing systems, according to exclusivity and rivalry ..................................................................................... 27 Table 4 - Summary of elements and actors in a sharing system ................................................................................................ 32 Table 5 - Airbnb's sharing system elements and actors ............................................................................................................. 38 Table 7 - Research goals and hypothesis ................................................................................................................................. 48 Table 8 - Items (in English)....................................................................................................................................................... 59 Table 9 - Research goals, hypothesis, and tests ........................................................................................................................ 60 Table 10 - Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample ...................................................................................................... 64 Table 11 - Last time used Airbnb .............................................................................................................................................. 64 Table 12 - Number of nights..................................................................................................................................................... 65 Table 13 - Number of people by accommodation ...................................................................................................................... 66 Table 14 - Destinations ............................................................................................................................................................ 66 Table 15 - District of origin ....................................................................................................................................................... 67 Table 16 - Value co-creation items ............................................................................................................................................ 68 Table 17 - Value co-creation processes per Gender ................................................................................................................... 69 Table 18 - Value co-creation processes per Number of people per accommodation ................................................................... 69 Table 19 - Value co-creation practices items ............................................................................................................................. 70 Table 20 - Value co-creation practices per Number of people per accommodation ..................................................................... 71 Table 21 - Value co-destruction items ....................................................................................................................................... 72 Table 22 - Value co-destruction per Gender .............................................................................................................................. 73 Table 23 - Value co-destruction per Number of people per accommodation ............................................................................... 73 Table 24 - Value co-destruction per Travel goal ......................................................................................................................... 73 Table 25 - Total satisfaction ..................................................................................................................................................... 74 Table 26 - Satisfaction with sharing option per Gender .............................................................................................................. 74 Table 27 - Satisfaction with sharing option per Number of people per accommodation .............................................................. 75 Table 28 - Satisfaction with sharing option per Travel goal ........................................................................................................ 75 Table 29 - Satisfaction with sharing option correlations coefficients ........................................................................................... 76 Table 30 - Satisfaction with sharing option items ...................................................................................................................... 77 Table 31 - Total likelihood of choosing a sharing option again ................................................................................................... 78 Table 32 - Choosing a sharing option again per Gender ............................................................................................................ 78 Table 33 - Choosing a sharing option again per Number of people per accommodation............................................................. 78 Table 34 - Choosing a sharing option again per Travel goal ....................................................................................................... 79 Table 35 - Choosing sharing option again correlations coefficients ............................................................................................ 79 Table 36 - Likelihood of choosing a sharing option again items ................................................................................................. 80 Table 37 - Research goals and results ...................................................................................................................................... 91
xii
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the dissertation’s content. This chapter will
elaborate on the background of the topic, the goals of research and the structure of the document.
In section 1.2 we address the topic’s background and the framing for this research project,
as well as the motivations for the topic. In section 1.3 we explain the research goals. In section 1.4
we explain how the document is structured, providing a global view of the dissertation’s content.
1.2 Framing and justification for the chosen topic
The preference for this topic was strongly motivated by the market share growth of sharing systems
that was felt across multiple industries, over the last decade, which that caught the attention of
researchers, firms, media reporters and government institutions (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Cheng,
2016; EU, 2016; Lamberton & Rose, 2012; PwC, 2015). First, we take a look at how sharing
systems came to be and what its impacts in the accommodation industry were.
It is a common notion among anthropologists, that the history of man and human behavior,
institutions and cultures, have been heavily shaped and driven by the technological development
of societies (Harari, 2014).
One of the recent most impactful developments in communication technology was the
surge of the Internet in the 1980’s and its mainstream adoption in 1990’s, which strongly affected
the method and speed of information dissemination, across the world (Leiner et al., 2009). The
last two decades were marked by an increase in the usability and accessibility of the Internet, as
network signals become broadly available at reduced costs and mobile devices began to house
faster computer chips for data processing and user-friendly interfaces, allowing access to be
portable and affordable (Hampton, Livio, & Sessions Goulet, 2010; Internet Society, 2015;
Schrock, 2015).
2
Thanks to these advances, the monetary costs and individual effort for two people to
connect with each other have become rather insignificant in developed societies. Given the low
costs of operation, an online based business can now serve as an intermediary between two people
without ever making physical contact with each other, or supporting costs with active employee-
consumer contact, as digital platforms and servers now serve as interfaces for these processes.
When we look at the travel and accommodation market, we see a striking example of the
effect that the internet had on markets that used to heavily rely on intermediaries. In 2000, Ryanair
was a pioneer in allowing their passengers to book flights through an online platform, gaining
control over price, and reducing costs with travel agents (Ryanair, 2018). Online search engine
based-businesses like Booking.com made hotels and hostels reservation popular worldwide.
Together, these events contributed to the growth of online travel and booking.
Airbnb decided to take a different approach. While other platforms had hotels or hostels
(traditional accommodation offers) as suppliers, Airbnb targeted traditional homes and ordinary
people as resources for their supply line. With low effort and costs, a room, a flat or a home could
be transformed into an accommodation offer. As it was online-based it could be easily scaled to
any city in the world.
Due to its features, Airbnb doesn’t seem to meet the ordinary label of a supplier, nor does
it fit the label of a “search engine”, but is often described as an example of “sharing economy” or
“collaborative consumption” (Botsman & Rogers, 2010).
Used in this context, these terms refer to businesses or organizations that share a
collection of features such as the reliance on under-utilized resources, the existence of a moderator,
the existence of exchanges between two distinct user groups and easy access to the system,
granted by online platforms. In this dissertation, we adopt a more formal stance on the conception
of this type of business as we explore it under the definition of “sharing systems” and elaborated
upon it based on existing academic literature (Chapter 3).
For Credit Suisse, examples of these businesses can be found across multiple industries,
including:
– “transportation (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Blablacar, Didi Kuaidi), accommodation (Airbnb,
Kozaza, Couchsurfing), household services (TaskRabbit, Care.com), deliveries
(Postmates, Instacart), retail commerce (eBay, Etsy, Taobao), consumer loans
(Lending Club, Prosper), currency exchange (TransferWise, Currency Fair), project
3
finance (Kickstarter), computer programming (oDesk, Freelancer)” (Farronato &
Levin, 2015, p. 6)
In a study contracted by the European Commission, PwC estimates that the impact of
sharing systems in 2015 was 3.6 billion euros in the European Union, having surveyed the
accommodation, passenger transportation, household services, professional and technical
services, and collaborative finance markets (Daveiro & Vaughan, 2016; EU, 2016).
Among the examples of sharing systems, the most prominent are Airbnb and Uber, both
of which have benefited from rapid growth curves, causing commotions in their respective
industries. These attributes make them a major subject of interest of the academia and the
industry.
Ever since its founding in 2008, Airbnb has been growing at an accelerated pace.
According to the The Wall Street Journal, Airbnb has grown from making 1 million of US dollars
revenue in 2009 to around 900 million of US dollars in 2015 (see Figure 1).
Adapted from Winkler (2015)
Figure 1 - Airbnb growth numbers
4
During 2010 and 2015, the number of summer guests on Airbnb has grown 353 times
over, according to the company (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Number of Airbnb guests over the summer
Adapted from Airbnb (2015)
Airbnb growth pattern meet the definition of disruptive innovation. According to Bower and
Christensen (1995), disruptive innovation is when an offers that has a different set of attributes
than established offers is introduced at the lower end of a market and then relentlessly moves up,
eventually displacing established competitors. According to Airbnb, 35% of the people who travel
on the service say they would not have traveled or stayed as long but for Airbnb (Airbnb, 2018c).
The hospitality industry has undergone significant changes due to the entrance of sharing
system-type players, like HomeAway or Couchsurfing, that much like Airbnb provide low-cost
accommodation offers that have disrupted the market. The higher number of accommodation
offers, now means cities have larger tourist capacity which results in benefits for tourism-related
industries.
Airbnb’s disruptive effects are several. For instance, Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers, (2017)
find that the introduction of Airbnb in the state of Texas has changed consumer patterns. In
response to the increase in competition, traditional accommodation offers have lowered their price,
which in turn has attracted tourists.
5
Across the world, the growing number of this kind of accommodation offers have caught
the attention of policymakers due to possible gentrification that these services cause (McCartney,
2017; Zee, 2016) and legal authorities due to their propensity to avoid reporting incomes for taxes
purposes or breaking local legislation. In this context, Airbnb has fought legal battles in cities like
Barcelona (Badcock, 2016) and San Francisco (Somerville & Levine, 2017). Cities like London,
Paris, New York, and Amsterdam have imposed maximum and a minimum number of renting days
(Locklear, 2018).
In Portugal, the rise in the number of accommodations due to electronic platforms has
pressured policymakers to submit changes to the national and local laws (Turismo de Portugal,
2017; Villalobos, 2017). Hosts in countries like Portugal and Spain have found in Airbnb as a way
to recover from the economic crisis (Silva, 2015).
Given the economic, social and legal impact that this type of service has had on society, it
is imperative that researchers begin to understand how individuals interact with these systems.
Standing by Anderson (1983), marketing science can benefit by focusing on theoretic
developments and providing contributions for society as a whole.
Consumer research is one among the many possible avenues in marketing research.
However, as we dive deep into consumer research we find that consumers are by no means an
easy entity to research about. The consumer is a heterogeneous and ever-changing entity that
frequently engages in non-rational behaviors.
Marketing science itself has been undergoing significant developments since the 1990’s.
Over the last decades, the service-dominant logic paradigm (SD-logic) has been gaining acceptance
as a theoretical framework that better explains value creation in an exchange between two actors,
as opposed to the traditional logic of exchange.
This paradigm asserts that value is created by the results of the actions of several actors,
including the beneficiary, through the employment of skills and use of resources. In this line of
research, the impact of customer’s actions and interactions with the service provider are a major
subject of interest.
Considering consumers actions in service design is not new, but SD-logic paradigm
provides framing for a line of research that surpasses intellectual limitations of traditional marketing
logic. This way, value co-creation can inject new life into stagnant industries by providing business
with a tool for innovation, through consumer actions-centered service design (Prahalad &
6
Ramaswamy, 2004; Yu & Sangiorgi, 2017). For França and Ferreira (2016) firms oriented to
customers’ value co-creation will most likely achieve competitive advantage. This way, research in
SD-logic and co-creation has the potential to be much beneficial for the academia and the industry.
We will cover literature on value co-creation in Chapter 2.
Marketing current research priorities include deepening studies on value co-creation,
namely the effects of consumers taking a more active and collaborative role in value creation.
Researchers agree that consumers play a more active and collaborative role in the service process
(Alves, Fernandes & Raposo, 2015) and as such, research that asks sector-related questions on
this topic needs to be conducted (Anderson et al., 2013; Moeller et al., 2013).
Due to its novelty, marketing research problems on sharing systems haven’t been
thoroughly studied. Hence, this research provides an opportunity to apply marketing theory of value
co-creation to the study of sharing systems. This dissertation will explore the marketing implications
of the active and collaborative role that consumers play in an accommodation sharing system.
Up until now, the relationship between value co-creation theory and sharing systems has
only been softly alluded to, and practical studies on the topic are missing from the literature.
1.3 Objectives and methodology
We distinguish between two types of objectives in the dissertation. The general objective is the
overreaching goal of the dissertation’s writing, which includes the reason why the dissertation is
written on this topic. The specific objectives, we call goals of research, as they refer to the research
gaps that we found in the Literature Review part of the dissertation. The goals of research establish
the reason for why we conduct an empirical study. In this study, we gather data that allows the
study to provide a contribution to the existing research lines that concern the topic.
The general objective of the dissertation is to demonstrate an application of value co-
creation and SD-logic framing to a sharing system context. It was achieved through the elaboration
of a review of the literature on relevant topics, the execution of a quantitative study of participation
on value co-creation in the Airbnb, online accommodation service platform and a subsequent
critical discussion.
7
The dissertation has two goals of research, which will be presented in the following
paragraphs.
1. Evaluate the participation of guests in value co-creation in Airbnb experiences;
This study pans in on the concept of “participation in value co-creation” (Chan, Yim, &
Lam, 2010; Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Mccoll-kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, Sweeney, & Kasteren,
2012), which is implied to have heterogeneous and context-sensitive qualities (França & Ferreira,
2016; Grönroos, 2006; Wieland, Koskela-Huotari, & Vargo, 2016), and attempts to evaluate its
value for the user and the service system.
We choose to use two interpretations of value co-creation, as practices (Silva & Simões,
2016) and as processes. We study the importance of the participation for the outcome and its
variation along marketing variables.
We aim at shedding light on the implications of value co-creation opportunities for
“customers’ value creation but also their future purchasing” that Gronroos and Voima (2013, p.
147) allude in their article. We evaluate the type relation of value co-creation and satisfaction
(Navarro, Llinares, & Garzon, 2016; Vega-Vazquez, Ángeles Revilla-Camacho, & Cossío-Silva,
2013) in an attempt to address the value for the consumer of participating in such activities or
processes. As the main drivers of choosing sharing systems are uncertain (Lamberton & Rose,
2012), we use the “likelihood of choosing a sharing option again” measure, to infer the impact of
value co-creation on the sharing system. So, these results will allow us to understand whether value
co-creation practices are important for an Airbnb guest and/or for the firm.
As for the Research Goal 2:
2. Evaluate the participation of guests in value co-destruction in Airbnb experiences.
This study attempts to answers the several calls that have been made to address the negative
elements of consumer value co-creation (Cova & Dalli, 2009; Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Plé &
Cáceres, 2010), by including the expansive view of value co-destruction.
8
While most studies consider the impact of positive value-co-creation, value co-destruction
has been largely overlooked. Value co-destruction has been thought as unavoidable, and it is
important to understand its role in the value creation processes.
In this study, we attempt to evaluate the participation of consumers in value co-destruction
type of activities and practices. We study whether consumers report participating or feeling the
effects of these practices and its variation along marketing variables.
Like value co-creation, we also evaluate whether value co-destruction has a relationship
with satisfaction or choosing a sharing option again.
1.4 Structure
This dissertation is organized into four parts, which include seven chapters. The first part is the
Introduction, which consists of Chapter 1. The second part is the Literature Review, composed of
Chapter 2, 3 and 4. The third part is the Empirical Study is made of Chapter 5 and 6. The final
part Discussion and Conclusion, which consists of Chapter 7. Each chapter begins with a brief
introductory section that informs the reader about the chapter’s goals, it’s topics and its structure.
In the first chapter, Introduction, the topic, its context and the global and specific objectives
are presented, alongside the dissertations structure and organization. In this section, we present
the background of the topics that will be further expanded upon the Literature Review and describe
goals and the structure of the dissertation.
In the Literature Review, we go over the most relevant articles published in scientific
journals and explore concepts that concern the gist and background of the dissertation. In Chapter
2, Value Co-creation, we address the concept of value co-creation, its evolution, meaning and
current research efforts on the topic. In Chapter 3, Sharing Systems, we explore the topic of sharing
systems has a type of business with specific characteristics which has been causing significant
effects on market competition, consumer pattern and regulation. It ends with Chapter 4, which
acts as a bridge chapter between the Literature Review and the Methodology. In this chapter, we
adopt the concepts found and developed in the Literature Review and apply to the study’s context,
Airbnb.
9
In the Empirical Study, we describe the research work that was developed during the
Dissertation’s timeframe. In Chapter 5, Methodology, we describe the decisions that concern the
quality of data gathering, treatment, and interpretation and how the empirical study was designed.
In Chapter 6, we present the present the quantitative results which serve the basis of the
discussion, which takes place in the next chapter.
In the Discussion and Conclusion, which consists of Chapter 7, we argue on how the data
supports the study’s hypothesis to answer the research goals, comment of the meaning of results
and theorize over the possible influences of value co-creation in a sharing system. We compare the
study’s results with other’s author's theories and assumptions. We also explore the study’s
limitations and provide suggestions for future work on this line of research and topic.
10
11
2. Value Co-creation
2.1 Introduction
Chapter 2 begins the Literature Review by exploring literature on value co-creation. The goal of this
chapter is to present existing value co-creation literature, select a consistent theory formulation and
present instruments for measuring participation in value co-creation.
In section 2.2 we will explore the classic portrayal of value in marketing before the value
co-creation concept was initially proposed. In section 2.3 we will address existing conceptions of
value co-creation, mainly through the service-dominant logic research stream and discuss adjacent
concepts such as co-production, value-in-use and value co-destruction. In section 2.4 we will
explore existing empirical value co-creation models and frameworks. In section 2.5 we discuss
value co-creation practices as a research tool. In section 2.6 we present the conclusion of the
chapter.
2.2 From value to value co-creation in marketing
In order to understand value co-creation, it is important to review the historic notion of value in
marketing, as the former is often conceptualized and associated with a departure or improvement
over the latter’s conception (Grönroos, 2006; Gronroos & Voima, 2013; Prahalad, C. K., &
Ramaswamy, 2000; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Ranjan & Read, 2014; Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
The questions of what value is and where does it lies has been a major subject of debate
throughout marketing history (Dixon, 1990; Grönroos, 2006; Rust, 1998; Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
Two streams of thought emerge when exploring the possible rationales beyond value, one
being the use value and other being the exchange value (Dixon, 1990).
Per Dixon, the exchange value perspective can be traced back to economist Adam Smith
who associates the concept of value with prices and wealth creation. When practitioners and
researchers use this perspective, they consider that marketing “adds value” by enabling more
exchanges through the rearrangement of resources, time and place. The act of “exchange” is
12
associated with the creation of value because when actors engage in an exchange each party gains
something more valuable than what they give (Henry as cited in Dixon, 1990). This rationale, which
is long embed in marketing terminology, very often leads to the idea that the marketing purpose
ends when the exchange is concluded.
On the other hand, use value refers to the actual benefits that consumers get from the
goods or service. In this perspective, the creation of value is associated with the usefulness of an
offer and satisfaction of needs. So, through this rationale, the role of marketing is to provide and
improve offers that provide satisfaction and usefulness to the consumer. For Grönroos (2006), use
value appears to be the dominant view of marketing research today.
While both perspectives on the meaning value may seem applicable to different contexts,
this discussion has implications for the rather, more meaningful, measurement of value. When
using exchange value logic, value can be measured by the value-in-exchange (the amount of money
that the customer paid for an offer), or value-added measures (the amount of money that the
company earns with a product). By the use value perspective, end-user properties such as needs,
expectation, satisfaction, and utility are the elements that need to be measured to determine the
value creation of an offer.
As the researchers focus swift from the exchange to the use value perspective, a link
between satisfaction and worth of mouth was found (Anderson, 1998), which added to the merit
and worth of using use value attributes in firms.
The discussion of value in marketing was reignited when the value co-creation notion was
first proposed. The original ideas for the concept were first introduced in Prahalad and
Ramaswamy's (2000) article, which include the realization that companies, buyers, suppliers no
longer play fixed roles, the idea that competence for companies can be sourced from the customer
and, the comment that, internet customer communities exert significant influence on the market.
While the article’s ideas and contributions are later followed by additional papers, no
conceptual scheme was introduced at the time that justified a different treatment for this notion of
value co-creation, something that we later find in the service-dominant logic research line.
This first notion of value co-creation led to a follow up by researchers that provide a much
broader and fuller understanding of a paradigm shift in marketing logic and what it can mean for
the industry (Gronroos & Voima, 2013; Ranjan & Read, 2014; Vargo & Lusch, 2004), both of which
are addressed in the following section.
13
2.3 Value co-creation conceptual formulation
The most significant mark in the development of the value co-creation concept comes in the form
of the proposal of service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), which is credited as one of the
most influential articles concerning value-co-creation (Alves et al., 2015; Ballantyne, Williams, &
Aitken, 2011; Galvagno, Dalli, & Galvagno, 2014; Grönroos, 2006; Laamanen & Skalén, 2015;
Ranjan & Read, 2014).
Vargo and Lusch (2004) propose what is known as service-dominant logic (SD-logic), an
overarching marketing and business paradigm that proposes a new perspective on marketing.
Since his inception, SD-logic has been the subject of a continuing debate (Grönroos, 2006; Leroy,
Cova, & Salle, 2013; Lusch & Vargo, 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2008, 2015).
In SD-logic, “service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange”. This
logic directly opposes the “traditional goods-centered dominant logic” (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 7),
in several key points, such as the unit of exchange, the role of goods and customer, the meaning
of value and firm interaction. SD-logic can be applied not only to marketing but also to value
networks and constellations (Vargo & Lusch, 2008).
In conventional goods logics, the service is reduced to a mere complement of the product
and doesn’t take in consideration customer’s actions as a source of value (the “passive customer”).
In light of Vargo and Lusch’s work, the service is seen as an inclusive concept that includes any
kind of commercial offers, and is defined “as the application of specialized competencies
(knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity
or the entity itself” (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 2). Also, the consumer’s role is stated to be as “a
value cocreator of the service” and “value is perceived and determined by the consumer on the
basis of ‘value in use’ (p. 7).
SD-logic was initially laid out in eight assumptions, which they call fundamental premises
(FP). Later, Vargo & Lusch, (2015; 2008) update their premises formulation. Their fundamental
premises, as of 2015, are presented in Table 1.
14
Table 1 – SD-logic's premises and axioms
Premises Description
FP1* Service is the fundamental basis of exchange (Axiom 1)
FP2 Indirect exchange masks the fundamental basis of
Exchange
FP3 Goods are a distribution mechanism for service provision
FP4 Operant resources are the fundamental source of strategic benefit
FP5 All economies are service economies
FP6* Value is co-created by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary (Axiom 2)
FP7 Actors cannot deliver value but can participate in the creation and offering of value
propositions
FP8 A service-centered view is inherently beneficiary oriented and relational
FP9* All social and economic actors are resource integrators (axiom 3)
FP10* Value is always uniquely and phenomenological determined
by the beneficiary (Axiom 4)
FP11* Value co-creation is coordinated through actor-generated institutions and
institutional arrangements (Axiom 5)
* The premixes marked with (*) were later renamed axioms in 2015
Adapted from (Vargo & Lusch, 2015)
For a better understanding of the context in which value is co-created, we will identify three
points of the premises, that directly or indirectly provide a further conceptualization of value-co
creation following SD-logic formulation:
i) A company provides a service in exchange for a service of the customer (FP1). This
implies that while the customers’ employs “specialized skills and knowledge” (Vargo & Lusch,
2008, p. 6) to the benefit of both the customer and firm, the customer also does the same for his
benefit and that of the firm. FP2 describes that means of how this is achieved: Goods and money
exchange can be considered a service delivery.
ii) Goods have value following value-in-use logics (FP3). This implies that the value that any
offer or good has is subjectively determined by the customer (FP10). While never extensively
15
explored in SD-logic, measures such as utility and satisfaction have been related to value co-
creation (Ranjan & Read, 2014).
iii) Through FP6 the authors meant that the “beneficiary is always a party to its own value
creation” (Vargo & Lusch, 2015, p. 9) but also simultaneous as a multi-actor phenomenon. Across
the SD-logic formulation of Vargo and Lusch work, this appears to be the consistent definition of
value co-creation: the characterization of value-creation as a multi-actor phenomenon, where the
beneficiary and the service provider are both responsible for each and the other’s value-creation
(Vargo & Lusch, 2015).
This formulation, implies that value creation (the use perspective) by the customer is both
influenced by the customer interaction with the firm, and the customer’s own specialized skills and
knowledge, which is also validated by Gronroos and Ravald, 2011: “Value for customers means
that after they have been assisted by a self-service process (cooking a meal or withdrawing cash
from an ATM) or a full-service process (eating out at a restaurant or withdrawing cash over the
counter in a bank) they are or feel better off than before” and Grönroos (2006), who states while
the firm’s role is to make resources available for money, and customers can also be sole-creators
of value, as they use resources in a way that creates value for them.
So, where the “use value” notion asserts focus on the consumer benefits of the
service/product, value-co-creation asserts its focus on the idea that the value determination is
heavily affected by the actions/skills/mental state/resources of the beneficiary (and other actors
involved in the exchange), expanding beyond previous notions of value, which were limited to
characterizing value as a way of measuring the performance of a single party.
The main point of discussion of value co-creation was whether it was a phenomenon that
was exclusive to some contexts (Gronroos & Voima, 2013), as in specific activities or processes or
that customers are value co-creators by default (Vargo & Lusch, 2015, p. 9).
For Gronroos & Voima, (2013) value co-creation occurs during a direct interaction between
a consumer and a provider, and that the firm’s role is to facilitate value creation, criticizing the view
that value co-creation is “an all-encompassing process (…) which leads to the conclusion that
everything is value creation and everyone co-creates value”(p. 144). In Vargo and Lusch 2015’s
article, they consider that value is not individual nor dyadic but determined by a wide range of
actors.
16
While most literature describes positive value co-creation there is a surprising lack of
attention to the idea that value co-creation can also explain negative outcomes (Cova & Dalli, 2009;
Gronroos & Ravald, 2011; Plé & Cáceres, 2010).
For Cova & Dalli (2009) applying some forms of what would appear to be value co-creation
practices can lead to service providers transferring work for the customer that would otherwise be
done by the company. This can be perceived as “exploiting the customer” to do some task of a
service he is paying for, without receiving any benefit.
From Plé and Cáceres (2010)
For Plé and Cáceres (2010), value co-destruction for at least one of the parties occurs
when one party fails to integrate or apply resources in a manner that is appropriate and expected
by the party (see Figure 3). Gronroos and Ravald, (2011) provide a practical example of this: “if a
good does not work, the value-creating process makes the customer worse off rather than better
off” (p. 18).
Reflection on SD-logic is not complete without acknowledging its critics. As the SD-logic
framing is assumed as being open-sourced (Lusch & Vargo, 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2008), many
authors have provided contributions by expanding and debating each other’s concepts, very often
causing ambiguity and equivocal remarks (Ranjan & Read, 2014).
Figure 3 - Co-destruction logic
17
Ballantyne et al. (2011) remark that while SD-logic doesn’t bring anything new to the table,
it provides “a new pattern of ideas for our times, based in part on antecedent concepts drawn from
earlier scholars and from many disciplines.”.
Perhaps the most important aspects of SD-logic are its adaptable and compatible nature
with other research streams and disciplines, as it doesn’t deny or rejects previous research, and
tries to build upon it. Combining complementary approaches in applied research can be of benefit
for research on value co-creation, (Kuppelwieser & Finsterwalder, 2016; Mccoll-kennedy, et al,
2012). The many-to-many marketing perspective, the post-modern marketing perspective, (Alves
et al., 2015) consumer culture theory (Vargo & Lusch, 2008), practice theory (Vargo & Lusch,
2015) offer complementary approaches that put emphasis and develop other aspects of value-co-
creation.
In fact, in their recent update to SD-logic formulation (Vargo & Lusch, 2015), the authors
have drawn insight and addressed feedback and criticism in order to provide a more positive lens
to the theory that can be applied to a larger range of contexts outside marketing and Business
Sciences.
Given the different angles of value co-creation, as an effort to improve clarity and avoid
redundancy, we will present the definitions of value co-creation -related terms that are used in this
study:
i. Value co-creation refers to the notion that multiple actors (including the customer, but
also others like other consumers) influence the value (in the value in use perspective)
of an offer;
ii. Consumer value co-creation refers to when the customer actions, mindset or skill’
influence (negatively and positively) the value creation of the offer;
iii. Value co-creation practices, to be expanded upon in section 2.5, refer to the specific
actions and interactions, physical or mental, that the consumer takes that results in
consumer value co-creation.
In the following section, we will expand on how these occurrences can be studied, by
examining existence research on dimensions and measuring.
18
2.4 Dimensions and measuring
As we begin to explore conceptual theorization on value co-creation we came across different
directions of conceptualization and research.
One of the main points from which research tends to diverge is treating as value co-creation
as an “all-encompassing process (…) which leads to the conclusion that everything is value creation
and everyone co-creates value”, which Gronroos and Voima, (2013) criticize as being of less
analytical use.
The other option is restricting where value co-creation opportunities exist and where the
locus of value creation exists. This is spheres approach, in which three “areas” of service
experience and interaction should subject to evaluation (Gronroos & Ravald, 2011; Gronroos &
Voima, 2013): a provider sphere, where the opportunity for value creation is created by the service
provider, including planning and designing the service to allow for customer collaboration; a joint
sphere where the service provider and the customer interact in joint value creation; and, a
consumer sphere, where the customer, without interacting with the service provider creates value
(see Fig. 2).
From Gronroos and Voima (2013)
Similarly, Ranjan and Read’s (2014) study offers a key investigation into the antecedents
and consequences of the value co-creation and of the first scale proposes on the concept. They
found that authors conceptualize two dimensions of value-co-creation in their studies: value co-
Table 2 – Gronroos and Voima’s value co-creation spheres
19
production and value-in-use. In this sense, the value-in-use term is used to describe value co-
creation during consumption or usage of an offer, differing from Dixon’s value-in-use notion. So,
we found this study’s notion of value-in-use to match our definition of consumer value co-creation.
Figure 4 - Antecedents and consequences of value co-creation
Adapted from Ranjan and Read (2014)
Value co-production refers to actions that involve both the firm and the customer (Vargo &
Lusch, 2008). Co-production can be broken down into three constructs: (1) equity - empowering
customers and enabling joint actions for co-creation and sharing control over resources; (2)
interaction - interaction and synchronous engagement is a source of value, an enabler of social
practices, and allows for feedback and involvement; and (3) knowledge (sharing) - a flow of
information, inventiveness, knowledge, ideas, and creativity that lead to a higher value creation as
compared to what would be achieved by working independently.
20
Gronroos and Ravald’s (2011) notion of value-in-use is that “value for customers is created
during use of resources” (p. 8). Ranjan and Read, (2014) break down the value-in-use concept in
three constructs: experience, relationship, and personalization. The value-in-use stream matches
the consumer sphere matches value-in-use.
Context appears as a significant aspect of value co-creation. For Grönroos (2006), context
is a governing factor when deciding which marketing logic to use.
For Chandler and Vargo (2011) customer value co-creation efforts are a function of its
simultaneous embeddedness within complex networks and service ecosystems.
The roles that the customer takes differ across types of service offerings. The customer’s
proneness to perform activities with or without the service provider is a key characteristic variable
when analyzing business in the context of co-creation (Moeller et al., 2013).
From the firm point of view, while most theoretical studies focus on the benefits of
understanding value co-creation, none seem to refer to the implications of business that rely on it,
versus others who don’t, when choosing to buy between substitutable offers. França and Ferreira
(2016) suggest that firms oriented to customers’ value co-creation will most likely achieve
competitive advantage.
Efforts to expand the value co-creation lexicon and conceptual boundaries are still ongoing,
as Vargo and Lusch (2015) further propose additional concepts, a notion of institutions. However,
we don’t find additional frameworks that in a significant way contribute to the analytical merit of
value co-creation.
While we have taken notice of a shy effort on developing scales, research on value co-
creation is still in an early stage. On the other hand, researchers have found success by conducting
qualitative research that focuses on context-sensitive actions that the consumer participates in. We
look into existing examples these studies in the following section.
2.5 Value co-creation practices approach
Due to the ongoing discussing surrounding value co-creation conceptual formulation, few studies
have provided empirical research on the topic. Remarkable examples of such studies include
21
Mccoll-kennedy et al. (2012); Echeverri and Skålén (2011); and Salomonson, Åberg, and Allwood
(2012).
Across different contexts, a common approach these studies take is to identify and labels
sets of practical activities and actions, which are thought to be essential for consumer value co-
creation (Silva & Simões, 2016; Vargo & Lusch, 2015; Vargo, Wieland, & Akaka, 2015). In this
sense, value co-creation practices approach stands out as one of the most suitable for an empirical
study on value co-creation in a specific context.
Silva and Simões (2016) define practices as:
“interconnected set of more or less routinized actions and interactions performed
by customers-practitioners with materials and service systems, understood as
resources, that are manifested by bodily and mental activities, which carry, apply
and integrate know-how, resources and images, and are oriented to life goals”
(Silva & Simões, 2016)
Consistent with the previous definition, example of these activities, which have been
employed by existing studies, include: cooperating, collating information, colearning, connecting,
combining complementary solutions [adapted], cerebral activities, coproduction activities (Mccoll-
kennedy et al., 2012); informing, welcoming, charging, delivering, and helping (Echeverri &
Skålén, 2011); communication, understanding, agreement, customer-employee interaction
(Salomonson et al., 2012)
While Mccoll-kennedy et al. (2012) and Echeverri and Skålén (2011) directly study the
consumer, Salomonson et al. (2012) zoom in on a specific value co-creation practice, which is
employee-customer communication. However, unlike the previous two, the latter focus on the
service provider side. Regarding the customer, they find that they co-created value by expressing,
reacting and communicating with the employee on an interaction level.
Regarding the problem of value co-creation literature being underdeveloped, Echeverri &
Skålén (2011) draw insights from practical studies in their study. While Mccoll-kennedy et al.
(2012) suggest that their framework (“practice styles”) can be applied to other sectors.
This concludes the literature review on the topic of value co-creation. Additional articles
that specifically concern the goals of research, hypothesis, and context are elaborated upon in
Chapter 4.
22
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter provides an overview of the literature about the value co-creation research and its
applicability. We conclude that value co-creation theory, while in an early stage of development,
holds potential to reshape both the industry and marketing research. While SD-logic lenses and its
different dimensions provide growing contributions for understanding the surrounding conceptual
environment of value co-creation, the lack of o substantial number of empirical studies on the topic,
impose a limit on transferability of any kind of empirical study. It’s important to distinguish between
the value co-creation notion, which it’s understood as the notion that multiple actors influence the
“use” value of an offer, and consumer value co-creation, which refers to when the customer
actions, mindset or skill’ influence (negatively and positively) the value creation of the offer. Another
important take is the distinction between value co-creation as processes and value co-creation as
practices that divides researchers. In the following chapter, we will review literature on sharing
systems.
23
3. Sharing Systems
3.1 Introduction
Chapter 3 explores existing academic literature on sharing systems as an important area of
research that concerns the academia, the industry, and governing institutions. The goal of this
chapter is to explain sharing systems, defining the phenomena and its boundaries, identify its
characteristics and present literature contributes to formulating the context of research.
Section 3.2 describes several conceptualizations of a sharing system in order to reach a
stricto sensu definition to be used for the rest of the study. Section 3.3 describes types of sharing
systems, its characteristics, its different actors, and its dynamic, according to the main relevant
studies on the topic. Section 3.4 presents the main conclusions of the chapter.
3.2 Defining sharing systems
Researchers have yet to reach a general, consensual conceptual definition of what we refer to in
this dissertation as sharing systems (Perren & Kozinets, 2018). The phenomena has been referred
to most popularly as “collaborative consumption” and “sharing economy” (Belk, 2014; Botsman
& Rogers, 2010), but also as “access based consumption” (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012),
“commercial sharing systems” (Lamberton & Rose, 2012), “collaborative economy” (EU, 2016)
and more recently, “lateral exchange markets” (Perren & Kozinets, 2018).
In 2016, the European Union defined “collaborative economy” as “business models where
activities are facilitated by collaborative platforms that create an open marketplace for the
temporary use of goods or services often provided by private individuals” (EU, 2016, p. 3).
Belk (2014) defines “collaborative consumption” as “people coordinating the acquisition
and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation”. He explains that “by including
other compensation, the definition also encompasses bartering, trading, and swapping, which
involve giving and receiving non-monetary compensation”. Alternatively, Benoit, Baker, Bolton,
Gruber, & Kandampully (2017), define collaborative consumption as a “market-based relationship
24
between a platform, a peer service provider, and customers in which no ownership transfer
happens”.
Lamberton and Rose (2012), conceptualize “commercial sharing systems” as a “marketer-
managed systems that provide customers with the opportunity to enjoy product benefits without
ownership”.
Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012), define access-based consumption as “transactions that may
be market-mediated in which no transfer of ownership takes place”.
Perren and Kozinets (2018), prefer the conception of “lateral exchange market”, which
they define as “a market formed through an intermediating technology platform that facilitates
exchange activities among a network of equivalently positioned economic actors“.
Very often, authors describe sharing system as a categorical type of businesses, of which
Airbnb and Uber are prominently used as examples. Other times, authors allude to an image of a
new transformative or semi-transformative paradigm in markets named “sharing economy”,
“collaborative economy” and “access economy”. We understand this conflictual use of the terms
as different perspectives, that rely on different scales of observation (Desjeux, 1996). For clearance,
we understand the first to the be the object of research this research project intends to study, while
the latter refers to macro circumstances that, though taken in consideration, aren’t the focal point
of the theories and assumptions we review in the chapter.
The definitions of the authors we reviewed present different takes on the same social
phenomena but tend to highlight the importance of certain elements of the systems they
conceptualize. According to Scaraboto (2015), the multiple terms and definitions can also
correspond to different forms of collaboration, that follow overlapping logics. This creates a contrast
with traditional consumption where producers and consumers have a clearly defined role and the
process is the exchange of a good for a monetary fee.
Given the hazy conceptual definition, the boundaries of the concept often seem vague and
imprecise, especially when we attempt to compile the existent literature into one consistent
conception. For this reason, we find it important to define what we consider a sharing system to
be.
In this study, sharing systems is a formulation of a group of business/organization and its
users, which we define as systems of economic actors who participate in a flow of exchange
enabled or managed by a physical or virtual platform. In this definition we included the idea that
25
technological platforms or an intermediator (Benoit et al., 2017; EU, 2016; Perren & Kozinets,
2018) are required for sharing systems and that the platform’s role is to enable and moderate the
flow of exchange between user groups who willingly participate in the system. The flow of exchange
encompasses both the notion resources sharing (Belk, 2011) and access to resources (Bardhi &
Eckhardt, 2012), but may also include other forms of exchange like trading.
Our notion of sharing systems refers to a conceptualization of a system constituted by
multiple elements, which include a moderator, economic actors, dynamics, and rules, whose
idiosyncrasies are explored in the following section.
We opt to use “sharing system” throughout the dissertation for two reasons. First, the word
system is frequently used in scientific research to describes a limited set of interacting actors and
elements that are more or less defined. Sharing appears frequently throughout literature as a term
that alludes to the variety of forms of exchanges that users in the systems may engage in. Secondly,
the preference to use this term comes from the fact that it doesn’t appear to be associated with
any political agenda or movement, neither does it insinuates unproven transformative paradigms,
both of which we would like to avoid for the sake of reducing bias in the research.
After establishing this definition, we find it necessary to distinguish between value co-
creation and sharing systems due to semantic similarities (namely, the notion of cooperation and
collaboration between actors present in value co-creation and sharing systems) and similar
associations (namely, both are associated with a “break-away” type of logic from the rationale
governing “conventional” economic thought).
While Belk, (2014) briefly associates value co-creation and sharing systems, it seems
evident that the two are not the same:
- Where SD-logic tries to be seen as a “lens through which to look at social and
economic exchange phenomena so they can potentially be seen more clearly” (Vargo
& Lusch, 2008, p. 9), sharing systems aims to evoke an image of a category of
specific business models which share some commonalities, like Airbnb and Uber
(Botsman & Rogers, 2010).
- While practices and opportunities of value co-creation can be present in multiple
contexts, sharing systems is, inevitably, one among those contexts. For Grönroos
(2006) the service logic fits better the context of most companies’ offer’s today.
Keeping this notion in mind, we are prone to find similarities because SD-logic is an
26
adequate framing to examine value creation in the context of sharing systems, given
their focus on how rethinking the exchange process between economic actors. In this
argument, SD-logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2015) is capable of comprehensively describing
the logic of value creation, the unique exchange mechanism, and the roles that actors
take in the context of sharing systems. The argument of how SD-logic provides a
proper explanation of the dynamics of exchange and value creation in sharing system
as is expanded in Chapter 4, using the case of Airbnb.
In the following section, we will expand upon the characteristics and dynamics that are a
staple of sharing systems, according to existent studies.
3.3 Distinctive characteristics and dynamics
Sharing systems became possible as the broad access to the Internet created networks and
resource pools that are easily and widely reachable for consumption (Botsman & Rogers, 2010).
In fact, almost every article, book or chapter we reviewed implicitly or explicitly denotes the
importance of the Internet for sharing systems to exists. While sharing and collaboration used to
be types of exchanges exclusively carried out personally and locally, now it has become a larger,
global, phenomenon which has been recognized as a driving force behind fast-growing ventures
whose business models promote digitally enabled transactions between individuals (Belk, 2014,
p. 1596).
In sharing systems, access to the good replaces ownership of the good as the unit of
exchange (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2010). From this
perspective, we find that this framing of access is compatible with SD-logic’s premise of service
being the unit of exchange. In this case, providing access is seen as a service.
A sharing system is composed of different actors and elements. The European Union
classifies three kinds of actors in sharing systems:
(i) service providers who share assets, resources, time and/or skills — these can be
private individuals offering services on an occasional basis (‘peers’) or service
providers acting in their professional capacity ("professional services providers"); (ii)
27
users of these; and (iii) intermediaries that connect — via an online platform —
providers with users and that facilitate transactions between them. (EU, 2016, p. 3)
Researchers have taken note of the similarities but also of the variabilities across sharing
systems. Lamberton and Rose (2012), propose different types of sharing systems (see Table 3) by
drawing upon concepts from the public goods literature to classify different types of shared offers
on the basis of consumer rivalry and exclusivity.
Rivalry refers to the amount that consumers compete against consumers for a limited
supply of the shared product. Exclusivity is the degree to which access to the product can be
controlled and restricted to the consumers.
Table 3 – Types of sharing systems, according to exclusivity and rivalry
From Lamberton and Rose (2012)
Lamberton and Rose’s interpretation of sharing system is a more broad one, as it also
includes public goods or services (Q1). However, the remaining quadrants all seem descriptive of
what its expected is our notion of sharing systems (especially Q2 and Q3).
28
Like in Lambert and Rose’s formulation, we expect to exist rivalry in the system due to
limited resources and therefore, we also expect some degree of exclusivity. Consistent with this
reasoning, sharing systems are found to need rules and a governing system, as people can behave
negatively when no rules are enforced (Hartl, Hofmann, & Kirchler, 2015).
We find Perren and Kozinets (2018, pp. 26-27) classification of sharing systems to be
more helpful, as its focus is on the different types of interaction between economic actors. They
classify four types of sharing systems according to the criteria of “consociality” and platform
intermediation.
Consociality refers to the “physical and/or virtual copresence of social actors in a network,
which provides an opportunity for social interaction between them”, as defined by Perren and
Kozinets (2018, p. 23). Platform intermediation refers to the use of a software platform through
which an intermediary manages and coordinates the exchange between connected actors, aiming
at incentivizing trustworthy behavior.
Figure 5 - Different types of sharing systems according to consociality and platform intermediation
From Perren and Kozinets (2018)
29
The four types are forums (e.g. Craigslist), matchmakers (e.g. Airbnb, Uber), enablers (e.g.
Kickstarter, eBay) and hubs (e.g. Lending Club), which are defined and illustrated as seen in Figure
5.
A particularity with sharing systems is that the actors can play a wide range of roles and
engage in different types of exchanges: commercial exchange, gift-giving, intracommunity giving,
sharing, donationware and creative commons (Scaraboto, 2015). In the same way, they can even
switch roles.
Providers monetizing access to assets that are underutilized have become a primary
characteristic of sharing systems (Cusumano, 2015). While economical gain has been thought as
the primary motivation behind sharing systems (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; 2015) due to enabling
the use of underutilized assets, sharing systems have also been a subject interest from an
ecological perspective (Cheng, 2016; Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2016), because it may enable
contributions to solve issues related to the “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968) that refer to
resource-scarcity.
Sharing systems are usually mentioned as an example of innovation. In fact, most sharing
systems tend to follow some aspect of Innovation type at the market level, as most technological
platforms (e.g. Airbnb, Uber, Cabify) can be considered as product/marketing innovation, per
Oslo’s Manual definitions (OECD, 2005). As most platforms enable a new kind of access to the
offers, it meets Oslo’s manual definitions of process innovation, a new or significantly improved
production or delivery method, as users can access and supply resources through online inputs.
At the same time, the can also, cumulative be labeled as a marketing innovation, as the online
platform nature of the system, opens the opportunity for the creation of algorithms of searching,
matching, pricing, and promotion, that brings significantly improved changes to the market. Of
course, the success of these innovation depends on the case.
For Zervas et al. (2017), the success of sharing systems can be attributed not only to
technological innovation but also to the flexible supply of the users who own resources. This flexible
supply line allows them to get in and out of the platform with only a few inputs in the platform,
bearing no consequences to the business relationship with the platform.
The relatively easy access by the consumers and providers is deemed as a defining
characteristic of sharing systems. Bardhi and (2012; 2015) argue that the success of these
30
business models is due as these offers usually presenting lower costs for providers and prices for
the consumer as opposed to conventional options.
When considering access to the system by the provider-group, we need to keep in mind
that service providers in these systems can include both private individuals and professionals (EU,
2016). From the point of view of business strategy, when considering access to a market, we need
to take in consideration entry-barriers (Porter, 1979). The sharing system may be considered an
attractive market to enter, as its distribution channel is already set up and requires low to no cost
to enter or exit. Non-professional private individuals who already own marketable assets may find
sharing system attractive as they require low to none additional capital requirements to enter the
system. The same may not be true for professionals who invest in such assets and intend to
participate in the system to ensure return.
The success of non-profit such as CouchSurfing is evidence that use value (Dixon, 1990)
for both consumer individuals can be created without a monetary exchange existing. However, for
Belk (2014), we should not include non-commercial offers in this category, as different motivations
and notions of “sharing” are at play.
This seems to be consistent with Mohlmann’s (2015) study that finds that belonging and
utility determine the likelihood of selecting another sharing option, but satisfaction is influenced
mainly by the user’s self-interest, namely cost-saving, utility, trust, and familiarity.
In fact, Mohlmann (2015) presents a comprehensive study with the purpose of finding
drivers behind the satisfaction in two sharing option (car2go and Airbnb). Mohlmann tested the
influence of several variables including community belonging, costs savings, environmental impact,
familiarity, Internet capability, service quality, smartphone capability, trend affinity, trust, and utility.
In its findings (see Figure 6), we can observe that satisfaction has been positively influenced by
cost savings, familiarity, trust, and utility. In the same model, we can also observe that the likelihood
of sharing a sharing option again has been positively influenced by familiarity and utility.
31
Figure 6 - Mohlmann's model
From Mohlmann (2015)
Given that these systems rely on the actor’s input to make exchanges happen, it’s clear
that actors participate in value co-creation at a value co-production level. However, it’s implications
for the firm and the user are unknown.
In line with this study’s value co-creation formulation, we find that value co-creation
practices may also influence the consumer to choose a sharing option again. This topic will serve
as one of the premises for the research goals to be fully expanded in Chapter 4.
However, common among writers and researcher on sharing system is the notion that
these systems also include macro-level effects. From Botsman's (2013) perspective, these
correspond to the creation of a “collaborative economy”, which she describes as “an economy
built on distributed networks of connected individuals and communities versus centralized
institutions, transforming how we can produce, consume, finance, and learn.
For Cheng (2016), regulation is a major point of discussion, because successful startups
(like Airbnb and Uber) have been found to explore loopholes in regulations, and as such, there is
a concern for impacts on disability compliance standards, consumer rights, safety, and quality.
32
The effects of sharing systems on jobs, law, ecology, and economy have been a repeated
subject of interest of governing bodies. In 2014, the European Economic Social Council (EESC)
listed several potential benefits of promoting sharing systems, including: lower resource
consumption and CO2 emissions; higher demand for good quality products if the products are to
be lent, hired or repaired; eco-design benefiting a number of different users; durability and repeated
customization of compatible products; social interaction, community development and trust among
individuals; access to high-quality products for lower-income consumers (EESC, 2014). In 2016,
the European Union recognized support for sharing systems as long as “fair working conditions
and adequate and sustainable consumer and social protection” (EU, 2016) are met.
We reach the end of this chapter by summing our findings in Table 4.
Table 4 - Summary of elements and actors in a sharing system
Element/Actor Description Author/Article
Service providers Actors who own assets, resources, time or skills, which they share or grant access to. Can refer to private individuals or service providers. They have flexible supply conditions. Examples: house owners in Airbnb, Uber drivers.
(EU, 2016)
Consumers Consumers, who buy access to an offer or provide some service in return for an economic gain.
(EU, 2016)
Intermediator / moderator
Third party entities which design a service or business model that promotes and/or governs exchanges between users. Can refer to forums, matchmakers, enablers, and hubs. Examples: Airbnb, Uber
(EU, 2016; Perren & Kozinets, 2018)
Rules Sets of norms enforced by the intermediaries/ moderator that must be obeyed – designed for safeguard, system sustainability, and quality insurance.
(Hartl, Hofmann, & Kirchler, 2015)
Form of exchange
Refers to the type of exchange. May broadly be regarded as access to resources. Examples: commercial exchange, gift-giving, intracommunity giving.
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2014; Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015; Scaraboto, 2015)
Unit of exchange Actual resources exchanged. Examples: time, skills, assets, a house, a car.
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015; Scaraboto, 2015)
Access to the system
Form of access to the system, including barriers and cost/effort of an economic actor to participate in the system. Examples: public goods sharing, club goods sharing, open commercial goods sharing, closed commercial goods sharing
(Lamberton & Rose, 2012; Porter, 1979)
By the author
33
3.4 Conclusion
Given its novelty, we paid attention to the doubt of whether to consider sharing systems as a
standalone concept or just treat it as a trend. We found a reasonable number of academic articles
and institutions like OECD, EECS and EU that frame sharing systems as an independent object of
study, which shares distinguishable characteristics and therefore deserves appropriate
consideration. At this point, academic literature on sharing systems is still scarce, however, it’s
already capable of providing a clear formulation of different types of sharing system and its
characteristics. We define sharing systems as systems of economic actors who participate in a flow
of exchange enabled or managed by a physical or virtual platform. Sharing systems may be
classified into forums, matchmakers, enablers, and hubs. They are constituted by a group of
service providers, a group of consumers, an intermediator/moderator, a set of rules or regulations,
a form of exchange, a unit of exchange and a form of access to the system. Regulation plays a
major role in assuring quality, control, and fairness and trustworthy behavior in the system. The
primary motivation for consumers to consume in sharing systems appears to be utility and lower
costs. In the next chapter, in order to further study value-creation in the context sharing systems,
we will use SD-logic as a framework through which our research context (Airbnb) can be better
understood.
34
35
4. Research Context and Conceptual Model
4.1 Introduction
This chapter’s goals are to describe the context of research and present the model. We will apply
the concepts identified in Chapter 2 and 3 to Airbnb, identify the gaps our study addresses and
present our goals and conceptual model.
Section 4.2 will describe Airbnb as a sharing system. Section 4.3 will apply SD-logic and
value co-creation conceptualizations to Airbnb’s actors. Section 4.4 explains the gaps found in both
value co-creation and sharing system Literature, presents the research goal and model of research.
Section 4.5 presents the conclusion of the chapter.
4.2 Airbnb as a sharing system
Airbnb meets this study’s definition of a sharing system, as a system of dynamic actors who enable
exchanges by sharing resources or access to resources. Airbnb is a company which provides an
online platform, that matches actors that have a house to temporarily rent and actors who are
searching for one. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) classifies
Airbnb as a “short-term accommodation rental platform”, which “primarily generates revenue
through commissions paid through service fees by renters and travelers” (OECD, 2016, p. 91).
For Perren and Kozinets (2018), Airbnb is an example of the matchmaker-type of sharing
system. Matchmakers “mediate the service flow between providers and beneficiary actors and are
characterized by high platform intermediation as well as high levels of consociality” (p. 26). The
value proposition of a matchmaker sharing system comes from pairing economic actors.
The Airbnb company and website is an intermediary/moderator and plays the governance
role (Hartl et al., 2015) in the system, and creates dynamic relationships with different actors,
which we name guest and host.
In this process, the Airbnb firm enables the exchange by providing an online platform, in
which:
36
(i) Allows guests to insert a series of inputs and its search algorithms returns a series
of, previously registered, Airbnb host’s listing;
(ii) Allows hosts to manage availability, schedule “check in” and “check out” dates
with guests and process the transaction fee.
The platform also employs some features to promote the safety and quality of each pairing
by use of a reputation system, a property-liability guarantee for hosts and a money-back guarantee
for guests.
In the service, hosts lend access to a house or a room, and hospitality in exchange for a
fee. Hosts, or someone designated by them, are responsible for accepting booking requests. Hosts
play a number of tasks which include: interacting with the guest through the platform, welcoming
the guests and providing them with the conditions displayed in the listing. Whenever the hosts
decide, they can choose to put their listing offline or establish dates or period of the year when
booking is available. This is what Zervas et al. (2017) meant by supply-side flexibility.
Airbnb host-related qualities have significant effects on reservations (Wu, Ma, & Xie, 2017).
Among these qualities is the time of reservation confirmation, the acceptance rate of reservations,
the number of listings owned by hosts, whether a host has a personal profile page and host’s
gender.
Guests rent the space (which can be a room or a house), therefore buying access to the
resource of the host. They consume the time in the space. They are expected to follow the rules of
the Airbnb and the specific rules of the host (e.g. Not smoking, not making loud noises after a
certain hour).
Priporas et al. (2017), find that Airbnb guests value convenience and flexibility offered by
the platform. They also find that guests particularly appreciate the “warm hospitality” that the hosts
provide.
The reputation system is made of qualitative reviews and a star-based rating. Hosts have
a global reputation, which ranges from one to five stars. This rating is calculated after the guest
evaluates the host’s listing in a set of categories. Presently, they are evaluated in six categories:
overall experience, cleanliness, accuracy, value, communication, arrival, and location (Airbnb,
2018f). In addition, the guests are also rated by the host.
37
Airbnb’s has been an example of a disruptive company. Zervas et al. (2017) found that the
introduction of Airbnb in the state of Texas has caused an increase of competition, leaving as hotels
and hostels have lowered their price, which in turn, has attracted tourists.
Their unique actors and resources (traditional homes or spaces previously not considered
for the accommodation market) have led to a number of instances of conflict between the company
and the legal and political authorities. Examples of which, include battles in cities like Barcelona
(Badcock, 2016) where the company was fined in 600.000 euros and, sued in San Francisco
(Somerville & Levine, 2017) for listing illegal houses according to local legislation. This has
pressured Airbnb to implement additional information inputs requirements in order to meet with
local legislation.
Due to its supply-side flexibility, Airbnb has the potential to help reduce ecological or
societal problems. In 2012, Airbnb encouraged their hosts to facilitate accommodation to victims
of Hurricane Sandy by suspending the platforms’ fees during one week period (Crook, 2012).
In Table 5, we provide a summary of Airbnb sharing system elements, using the framework
we established in Chapter 3.
In the following section, we will elaborate on how the ideas of value co-creation theory can
be applied to Airbnb.
38
Table 5 - Airbnb's sharing system elements and actors
Element/Actor Description Author/Article Airbnb sharing system
Service providers Actors who own assets, resources, time or skills, which they share or grant access to. Can refer to private individuals or service providers. They have flexible supply conditions.
(EU, 2016) House proprietaries.
Consumers Consumers, who buy access to an offer or provide some service in return for an economic gain.
(EU, 2016) Consumers, typically tourists and/or short-time renters such as vacationers.
Intermediator / moderator
Third party entities which design a service or business model that promotes and/or governs exchanges between users. Can refer to forums, matchmakers, enablers, and hubs. Examples: Airbnb, Uber
(EU, 2016; Perren & Kozinets, 2018)
Airbnb company, through its website, matches guests and hosts, allows them to schedule check in and check out date, and process the transaction fee, while incentivizing trustworthy behavior.
Rules Sets of norms enforced by the community, or intermediaries that must be obeyed – designed for safeguard, system sustainability, and quality insurance.
(Hartl et al., 2015) Airbnb employs a set of policies and rules for host and travelers to help keep the community safe and trusted, which includes: Airbnb standards, Airbnb’s nondiscrimination policy, Airbnb's guest refund policy, Airbnb host guarantee, Airbnb's content policy, among others (Airbnb, 2018h).
Form of exchange
Designated the type of exchange. May broadly be regarded as access to resources. Examples: commercial exchange, gift-giving, intracommunity giving.
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2014; Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015; Scaraboto, 2015)
Commercial exchange.
Unit of exchange Actual resources exchanged. Examples: time, skills, assets, a house, a car.
(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015; Scaraboto, 2015)
Access a room or house. The host and guest may share an experience, so they create value for one another.
Form of access to the system
Form of access to the system, including barriers and cost/effort of an economic actor to participate in the system. Examples: public goods sharing, club goods sharing, open commercial goods sharing, closed commercial goods sharing
(Lamberton & Rose, 2012)
For guests and host online registration on the platform. Local legislation may impose further steps for hosts such as inspection or registration in legal systems.
By the author
39
4.3 Value co-creation in Airbnb
In this section, the study will demonstrate how traditional marketing logics convey an imprecise too
portrait of the complex relationships that the economic actors establish in Airbnb, and how we the
service-dominant logic provides a body of theory that better explains this object of study.
Per traditional marketing logic, that Lusch and Vargo, (2006) refer to as “goods dominant
concepts” and “transitional concepts” (p. 286), Airbnb’s sharing system can be represented as a
value chain of three entities: the suppliers (hosts), a service provider, a distributor (Airbnb
company) and the consumer (guests).
However, we can’t ignore that each of these three entities has interactions with each other
(guest-host, guest-Airbnb, and host-Airbnb), in which there is a bilateral provision of service or
resources. Airbnb company provides their platform as a service to hosts, while hosts interact
providing information of their available property to the platform. Airbnb provides a guest with a
searching platform in which guests search for listings that can fit their travel needs. Still, through
the online platform, guests and hosts interact in order to accept or ask information regarding
booking, and on a later instance, hosts provide an accommodation service to the guests. Each of
this interaction can be classified as a service provision per SD-logics.
So, we have at our disposable two possible formulations of the Airbnb-Guest-Host system,
one using traditional marketing framing and the other one using SD-logic and value co-creation
framing. Following, we will compare these two formulations, as its power to describe the specifics
of multiple flows of value within the system.
Traditional marketing logics: host is a service provider, guest is a consumer,
Airbnb is a distributor
When we consider the host as a service provider, we consider that the host is the producer
of the “product or “good”, which is the accommodation experience. This experience is comparable
to traditional accommodation services such as a hotel.
The role of Airbnb is to simply distribute the “good” to the guest. It does so through its
resources (a platform which lists a series of accommodations), obtaining a commercial fee if the
final consumer decides to buy (rent) the experience through Airbnb. So, in traditional logic, Airbnb’s
40
acts both as the communication channel for the host’s “promotion” function of marketing and as
a provisor of a complementary service of the product, assurance (through its guest refund policy).
In this conception, the role of the consumer is to simply find an offer that meets his/her
needs and book it.
However, that doesn’t include any sharing system typical characteristics, that are a part of
Airbnb. Airbnb’s reputation system, which ranks hosts and houses play an important role in the
system as, guests or hosts can be limited or excluded from Airbnb, that is, participating in the
system.
We can point two limitations in this conception:
- Traditional marketing logics don’t have a fitting lexicon nor explanatory power to represent
the moderator effect that a platform can have on the flow of exchange between host and
guest. Resources that the service provider (host) has to offer are effectively affected (or
moderated) by Airbnb, in what comes to access, reputation and rules;
- In the same manner, Airbnb would act as a distributor of both guests and hosts. As in,
the Airbnb would provide each with a different service. But, Airbnb’s resources are only
half of what is required to conclude the exchange. First, the consumer needs to input
search data in the platform and browse through different possible offers, and when
he/she found it, they are required to interact with the host through the platform to book
details. The traditional framing overlooks consumer actions that are required for value
creation, which is the gap that’s behind the merit of the conception of value co-creation.
Through SD-logic, we can adequately consider the influence that guest’s actions (value co-
production and value in use) have for they own value creation and the effect that their value creation
has on the system. Additionally, SD-logic consideration of economic actors as “value co-creators”,
and the definition of service provision as “the application of specialized competencies (knowledge
and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or the
entity itself” (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 2) seem be consistent with the exchange that each actor
establish with one another within a sharing system.
Next, we will expand the conception of the Airbnb system through service-dominant logic:
41
Service-dominant logic: host is a value co-creator (provider role relative to
guest), the guest is a value co-creator (consumer role), Airbnb is a value co-creator
(moderator, relative to guest).
We already established that Airbnb sharing systems is composed of three actors: guests,
hosts, and the Airbnb platform. We also established that each of the actors interacts with one
another in unique ways. For this reason, we consider it a value creation network (Lusch & Vargo,
2006). We classified exchanges into main service to refer the main unit of exchange between the
parties, and bilateral service provision as exchanges (of skills, assets or information) that is required
to assure that the system is viable.
In order to better explain this framing, we are inclined to assign each actor in the sharing
systems a role that’s bounded to the point-of-reference. Given the study’s focus on the guest, we
will take the guest and the point-of-reference from here forward.
In SD-logics, consumers are always value co-creators. That is, they provide a service to
other but also to themselves so that they can create value. Guests employ their skills in searching
and communicating with the host in order to book and eventually consume the experience,
satisfying their specific personal travel needs of accommodation (among which may be
communicating or relating with locals), creating use value. Guest pays a fee to the host, also rank
the experience and provides feedback on Airbnb. Additionally, this information will be publicly
available for other potential guests to see, delivering a service to other potential guests. The system
is viable because the consumers employ skills in several practices.
Hosts create value by providing the maintenance of their own property, and they also write
and post photographs of their property to the platform that will be consumed by the host and
Airbnb. It satisfies their financial needs by renting some space to guests. This way, the host is best
described a co-creator, who offers access to a house and hospitality in exchange for a service (the
monetary compensation for the service). The system is viable because the host provides skills and
resources to the system.
Airbnb provides service to both guest and host by managing a matchmaking sharing
system in which guests search for listings that can fit their travel needs and hosts can get sales.
We can view Airbnb as a business who employs resources (a platform) to create a value co-creation
sphere (Gronroos & Voima, 2013) where users interact to schedule and arrange the
42
accommodation, creating a system with high consociality. The system is viable because the
platform manages the flow of exchange by promoting trustworthy behavior in the platform.
However, Airbnb has the needs of growth, quality, and reputation which can only be done
through satisfied consumers and successful exchanges. This conceptualization recognizes that the
guest also feeds information to the system by evaluating and ranking the experience.
Also, in this conception, the host also supplies resources to the system, by letting access
to the system. Still, through the online platform, guests and hosts interact in order to accept or ask
information regarding booking, and in a later instance, hosts provide an accommodation service to
the guests
Figure 7 - Representation of traditional goods logic versus service-domant logic formulation of Airbnb system
By the author
43
This approach emphasized that in this system value co-production needs to take place a
distribution level, as the offer is a result of both the guest and the host’s coordinated efforts and
joint action’s from both are required for the exchange to be consummated (e.g. before the exchange
is finalized, the actors engage in dialogue to present themselves, discuss and negotiate arrival
terms and time). Also during their stay, guests may go through the process of consumer value co-
creation, as it is possible for them to contribute to their own experience through their actions (e.g.
they may choose to complement their stay with another tourist offer, or engage with the host in
multiple forms such as dialogue, asking for help/other services).
Further one, this perspective recognizes that the users are exposed to the risk of “value
co-destruction”. Gronroos and Voima, (2013) frame it as a part of the value co-creation process
where the provider’s engagement with the consumer’s interaction on value creation may have a
negative effect. This can be the result of mismanagement or an unwanted approach to the
customer. It can have a significant or, insignificant impact on value determination. Laamanen and
Skalén (2015) call for researchers to implement the conflictual perspective in their future studies,
as it contributes to a more holistic perspective on value co-creation theory. In the context of
research, such negative consequences include the feeling of social anxiety caused by interacting
with a stranger, diminish security and guarantees in what it comes to resources available in the
house. Also, the guest is also able to destroy or damage resources, causing a liability to the host.
While we find both approaches valid from a theoretical standpoint, however, SD-logic
seems to be the most fitting to a sharing system context from the point of view of a consumer,
because the service exchanges are dependent on a conscious effort to assure a successful
interaction between different parties. This way, we select this consideration because it betters
explains the complex process of value creation that takes place through Airbnb’s service, as:
- Users need to comply with the system rules in order to meet the desired service
outcome as both guests and hosts need to agree and comply with arrival date,
hours and terms of stay (rules of the system/service design). We consider
compliance with the rules to be a form of practice of co-creation;
- Fixed roles suggest that value creation occurs in a specified direction, from a
supplier to a customer, while ignores what the customer has to offer to his/her
own experience (Ekman, Raggio, & Thompson, 2016);
44
- Individual participation feeds the system with resources and information, allows
it to grow and reach other users. The contributes of the user to other consumers
that Silva and Simões (2016) suggest are hence, not ignored or underplayed.
4.4 Goals, hypothesis, and model
In this section, we will indicate the main literature gaps and goals that this study aims to meet. We
first enumerate the several calls for research on value co-creation, we present our goals of research,
then proceed to describe our conceptual model.
The roles customers play has been addressed as a research priority in service science
(Ostrom et al., 2010). It’s important to understand what influence does roles have on service
outcomes (Anderson et al., 2013).
As described in Chapter 3, sharing systems provide a context where the active role of the
economic actors is always at play, where due to its novelty few empirical studies have been carried.
One of the main topics of debate surrounding sharing systems is about what drives the choice
between sharing systems and traditional options (Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015).
As value co-creation has been an evolving theory (Vargo & Lusch, 2017; 2015) it requires
research across different contexts for theoretical advancements (Moeller et al., 2013). Inside the
value co-creation topic, value co-destruction and value co-creation practices are two directions that
authors have called focus to (Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Mccoll-kennedy et al., 2012). This study
contributes to these lines of research, by including both perspectives in the study.
Much like in marketing, a growing interest on co-creation can be found in tourism and
hospitality literature on this topic (Binkhorst & Dekker, 2009; Campos, Mendes, Valle, & Scott,
2018). Given the notable lack of applied studies on the SD-logic and consumer co-creation topics
on the tourism and hotel sector (Cabiddu & Piccoli, 2013; Shaw, Bailey, & Williams, 2011), this
study contributes to research by being one of the first studies to do so in the accommodation
sharing market.
Next, we will present this study’s goals of research and the hypothesis, followed by their
respective theoretical background and explanation.
45
Research Goal 1:
- Evaluate the participation of guests in value co-creation on Airbnb experiences;
We would like to pan into the participation of guests in value co-creation on Airbnb
experiences. By evaluation, we also refer not only to the amount of participation by also to the
implications of doing so. We will do so through two formulations: value co-creation as practices and
as processes.
H1. Guest feel they participate in value co-creation processes;
H2. Guest participation in value co-creation practices contributes to the service outcome.
Given that, service experiences are heterogeneous (Zeithaml, Bitner, & Gremler, 2009),
consumers may not always participate in the value co-creation. So, it should be expected
consumers may have different opinions/experiences to report.
It’s clear that there are two scopes when it comes to “participation in value co-creation”.
Some authors have tried to represent values co-creation as a general, one-size-fits-all configuration
of processes, instances, behaviors, and qualities, which we name value co-creation processes. This
is the kind of participation that is intended to be assessed in H1.
The applied studies we found choose to represent it as context-specific actions, efforts,
and performances like value co-creation practices. The participation in a context-specific set of
actions or mental states as value co-creation is what is intended to be assessed in H2.
H3. A guest who feels they participate in value co-creation processes/practices is more likely to
be more satisfied with the Airbnb service;
H4. Guest who feels they participate in value co-creation processes/practices increases his
likelihood of choosing a sharing system option.
46
For Gronroos and Voima, (2013, p. 147), “service providers’ opportunities to co-create
value with customers during direct interactions influence not only customers’ value creation but
also their future purchasing and consumption behavior.” For França and Ferreira (2016), it’s
important to understand the consequences of value co-creation. With H3 and H4 (and to the same
extent, H5) we want to explore the implications for the firm and for the consumer of engaging in
value co-creation processes/practices.
If H3 and H4 can be proven, they can allow us to understand the drivers behind choosing
sharing systems over traditional options, which are thought to be uncertain (Bardhi & Eckhardt,
2012; Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015; Lamberton & Rose, 2012).
Else, this may provide strength to the next hypothesis:
H5. Participation in potential value co-creation activities doesn’t affect satisfaction.
Chan et al. (2010) suggest that though consumers may participate in activities that have
the potential to create economic benefits, it also puts stress on them and may reduce their
satisfaction. Given that this study was conducted in the financial services we evaluated if our results
suggest the same for the accommodation sharing market.
Research Goal 2:
- Evaluate the participation of guests in value co-destruction on Airbnb experiences.
While most studies consider the impact of positive value-co-creation, its “negative
counterpart” is largely neglected. Value co-destruction has been thought as unavoidable, and calls
have been made to further understand its dynamics on the value creation process (Cova & Dalli,
2009; Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Plé & Cáceres, 2010).
47
We specifically aim at shedding light into Gronroos and Voima's (2013), statement of
“wrongly or ineffectively used, this direct interaction platform may lead to value destruction in the
customers’ processes, or in the best case have no significant impact” (p. 147).
We aim at evaluation participation in value co-destruction in the same way as did for value
co-creation. The hypothesis we considered are as such:
H6. Guests participate in value co-destruction;
H6a. Instances where guests participate in value co-destruction are minimal.
For Echeverri and Skålén (2011) and (Plé & Cáceres, 2010), the consumers co-creation,
may also result in value co-destruction. However, because service experiences are heterogeneous,
consumers may not always encounter situations where value co-destruction happen. So, it should
be expected consumers may have different opinions/experiences to report. While we come with
H6 hypothesis during the study design we proposed H6a after the results of the study. For further
elaboration, please read section 6.5 regarding of the Results chapter and section 7.3 of the
Discussion and conclusion chapter.
H7. When participation in value co-destruction activities occurs, it has an influence on satisfaction
with the service;
H8. Guest participation in value co-destruction decreases his likelihood of choosing a sharing
system option.
This hypothesis aim at shedding more light into the impact of value destruction in the
“customers’ processes” (Gronroos & Voima, 2013). Much like its value co-creation counterparts,
these hypotheses are instrumental to explore the implications for the firm and for the consumer.
In Table 7, its presented a summary of the goals and hypothesis.
48
Table 6 - Research goals and hypothesis
Research Goal Hypothesis
1. Evaluate the participation of guests
in value co-creation on Airbnb
experiences
H0. Guest don’t participate in value co-creation;
H1. Guests feel they participate in value co-creation processes (Vargo &
Lusch, 2008);
H2. Guest participation in value co-creation practices contributes to the
service outcome (Silva & Simões, 2016);
H3. A guest who feels they participate in value co-creation
processes/practices is more likely to be more satisfied with the Airbnb
service (Gronroos & Voima, 2013; Vega-Vazquez et al., 2013);
H4. Guest who feels they participate in value co-creation
processes/practices increases his likelihood of choosing a sharing system
option (Gronroos & Voima, 2013);
H5. Participation in potential value co-creation activities doesn’t affect
satisfaction (Chan et al., 2010);
2. Evaluate the participation of guests
in value co-destruction practices in
Airbnb experiences.
H6. Guests participate in value co-destruction (Echeverri & Skålén, 2011;
Plé & Cáceres, 2010);
H6a. Instances where guests participate in value co-destruction are
minimal;
H7. When participation in value co-destruction activities occurs, it has an
influence on satisfaction with the service. (Gronroos & Voima, 2013);
H8. Guest participation in value co-destruction decreases his likelihood of
choosing a sharing system option. (Gronroos & Voima, 2013).
By the author
Following the premises of our research goals and hypothesis, we present our conceptual
model.
49
Participation in value co-creation
This study would like to introduce skepticism regarding approaching participation in
consumer value co-creation. When reading value co-creation literature, researchers tend to simply
assume consumers participate willingly in value co-creation activities, and some that they “want”
or “desire to”. They don’t take in consideration implications for the consumer of doing so.
For instance, for Cova and Dalli (2009), this raises fears that they may be exploited into
doing something they would otherwise expect the provider to do. For Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft,
and Singh (2010), some segments may be more willing to participate in value co-creation activities
than others. For França and Ferreira (2016), the process of value co-creation is limited by the
economic capacity of customers.
In our model, in pursuance of a comprehensive evaluation of the participation in value co-
creation, we will represent participation in value co-creation processes and participation in value
co-creation practices as two different scopes.
Value co-creation processes
As presented in the Literature Review, most articles we review related to value co-creation
are dedicated to the construction of the concept as a process, whose qualities are nested in these
three elements: (1) consumers influence their value creation; (2) consumers use of the available
resources; and (3) consumer interaction with the service provider (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004;
Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
We include these three elements that represent value co-creation processes by adapting
items from Ranjan and Read's model (2014), where value co-creation is theorized as a determinant
of satisfaction.
Value co-creation practices
Regarding the representation of value co-creation practices, we select three practices that
we know to be present in Airbnb.
50
As such, we include: (1) compliance with the implicit and explicit rules (Hartl et al., 2015;
Mccoll-kennedy et al., 2012); (2) cognitive activities (Gronroos & Voima, 2013; Mccoll-kennedy et
al., 2012) (3) communicating and relationship with the host (Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Mccoll-
kennedy et al., 2012; Salomonson et al., 2012).
Value co-destruction
Regarding the representation of value co-creation practices, we select three practices that
can be present in Airbnb experiences. As such, we select: (1) failing to use resources properly,
which we name misuse of resources (Plé & Cáceres, 2010); (2) expecting the host to do something
the consumer had to do (Cova & Dalli, 2009), which we call feelings of exploitation; and (3) feeling
bad because something didn't work the way the consumer was expecting to (Gronroos & Ravald,
2011), which we name feelings of service failure.
Implications for consumer and firm
The main common background idea among marketing researchers is perhaps the
possibility to construct and organize information and knowledge over the needs and behavior of
consumers, that remains of the interest of the firms and organizations (Anderson, 1983; Hunt,
1976; Kotler, 1972), despite the debates over its epistemological qualities.
The idea of value co-creation remains an object of interest for firms, as value co-creation
opportunities “influence not only customers’ value creation but also their future purchasing and
consumption behavior” (Gronroos & Voima, 2013).
As such, we include satisfaction, to measure the impact on the consumer (in use value)
and the likelihood of choosing again (Mohlmann, 2015) as an instrument to measure the impact
on the firm (Airbnb), given the potential additional sales that the firm can get.
Our model is represented in Figure 6.
51
Figure 8 – Representation of the implications of value co-creation in Airbnb conceptual model
By the author
4.5 Conclusion
We framed Airbnb as a matchmaker-type of sharing systems in which the platform enables and
moderates the flow of exchange between guests and hosts. While we find more than one valid
option of applying SD-logic to Airbnb, our findings in sharing systems chapter prove determinant
for choosing the best fitting application of value co-creation and SD-logic to Airbnb. As described in
our representation of Airbnb, SD-logic is a better suited to fit the context of today’s business offers,
providing a clear picture of Airbnb’s value creation model. However, due to Airbnb dynamics being
highly contextual in nature, our framing is hardly transferable to other contexts. Still, it holds
significance for learning on the practices and screening potential problems for advancing
researching. As marketing research in sharing systems is underdeveloped, we found the need to
evaluate participation of guests in co-creation practices/processes and co-destruction and its
implications for the Airbnb system. Grounded in the literature, we formulate a set of hypotheses
and build a theoretical model that allow us to evaluate participation and is implications.
52
53
5. Methodology
5.1 Introduction
For a research project, researchers need to make decisions that impact the quality of research.
This chapter describes challenges and decisions that concern the quality of data gathering,
analysis, and interpretation.
Section 5.2 describes the paradigm in which this research project is framed. Section 5.3
describes methods, goals, hypothesis, and sampling. Section 5.4 describes the design of the
questionnaire and source of items. Section 5.5 presents the intended data treatment and criteria
used in the study. Section 5.6 sums up the chapter.
5.2 Research paradigm
Given the existence of multiple schools of thought in marketing science, historic debates on
metatheory, epistemology, ontology, and axiology in the field, it is important to clarify how this
research project is framed and what is the researcher’s perspective of the world and science.
This research project is framed closely to the critical realism paradigm, as described by
Sayer (2010, p. 4), in which a reality outside the individual’s mind is considered to exist. We follow
the assumption that a correspondence between concepts and the external reality exists (Mir &
Watson, 2001) and that people’s knowledge about this external reality is distorted by subjectivity
(Van de Ven, 2007).
The researcher distinguishes between an external reality, a social reality and an individual
reality. A social reality can be distinguished from the external reality, as the external reality leaves
no room for different interpretation (e.g. if you jump while standing on Earth’s surface, you will fall),
where the social reality encompasses concepts that concern human value judgment (e.g. a person
is considered smart or not according to a social group accepted criteria of what “smart”
constitutes). In this regard, in the individual reality, someone’s value judgment is molded through
tensions with the social reality (e.g. a person is considered smart or not according to a single
person’s learned criteria of what “smart” constitutes). In this sense, while physical actions of
54
people are part of the external reality, their meaning and motivation may be subject to the
interpretation of the social reality. Unlike the external reality, which is bounded by rules, the social
reality is only relatively true, as opinions, social circumstances and interpretation changes with the
times, and social-political variables need to be taken in account when studying social objects.
An individual reality exists and is the source of creativity, theory building, and validation
but, at the same time, it’s also the source of subjectivity and bias. Social reality is a product of
individual realities interacting with one another and mediates what is accepted or rejected by a
sum of individuals. Hirsch's (1992) language problem is central to understanding the interaction
of the individual, social and external realities. Hirsh recommends that we should be open to the
hypothesis that one language may be more effective at explaining an object of research than
another one, as language is a social construct and is incapable of perfectly describing reality.
The choice for methods should be conditioned by the reality we want to study (Newman &
Benz, 1998). In the marketing field, we are unable to study reality in exclusive empiricist approach,
because the tools we use to do so (e.g. our abilities, senses, language and technology) and the
criteria we can agree on (e.g. validity, consistency, transferability) are socially established
(Anderson, 1983), having their roots in an individual reality and are therefore, not static neither
purely objectivity designed metrics. What we can do is get closer to reality (Mir & Watson, 2001)
by building upon knowledge under accepted criteria, and discussing theories, so long as we accept
that there is a correspondence between our concepts and the external reality.
The diversity of methods and framing, even those of different fields, provide an opportunity
for enlarged dialogue and understanding of the same phenomena or discussing a theoretical
contribution (Marsden & Littler, 1998).
Ultimately, marketing science should strive to provide contributions to the society as a
whole (Anderson, 1983). Any research that constitutes a theoretic contribution should be able to
answer the whats, hows, and whys (Whetten, 1989) of the theory.
55
5.3 Methods and sampling
Methods need to be aligned with the research goals. The goals of our research are the following:
1. Evaluate the participation of guests in value co-creation on Airbnb experiences;
2. Evaluate the participation of guests in value co-destruction on Airbnb experiences.
In order to meet the research goals, given their applied nature, we will use a quantitative
approach by measuring the participation of the consumer in value co-creation processes and value
co-creation practices, and evaluate its relationship with satisfaction and choosing a sharing option
again constructs.
The method for gathering data was a questionnaire. The questionnaire featured items that
correspond to different concepts presented in Literature Review. Further explanation of the
questionnaire can be explored in section 5.5.
The micro-social level of observation (Leroy, Cova, & Salle, 2013, p. 1108) is the level of
analysis, where we study the “interactions between members of small groups”, in this case, the
interaction of the consumer and the service experience. In this case, Airbnb experiences present
the context, where the cases we want to study and the concepts of participation in value co-creation
are present.
The unit of research is the individual users of a specific service offer, in this case,
Portuguese travelers who have used an accommodation through Airbnb in the past. The users
were reached by means of a questionnaire. The tenth foundational premises of value creation as
established in Vargo and Lush’s article (Vargo & Lusch, 2008), is that “value is always uniquely
and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary” and “idiosyncratic, experiential,
contextual, and meaning-laden”. Therefore, we consider that the meaning of value is dependent
on the user beneficiating from it.
In order to answer the primary data regarding individual user’s perceptions on value-
creation by applying questionnaires to users of this service. While users of this service typically
include both guests and hosts, our study will focus on guest alone. For meeting the research goal,
a set of techniques and steps were planned with the aim of addressing possible problems that may
affect the consistency and quality of research, which will be described next.
56
The access to data is a primary concern of researchers when planning their research plan.
As the Airbnb service is online based, we can reach out to the users of the service through the
platform and through online communities where the users can be found lending help, sharing
knowledge and information related to the platform. This means, that a sample of the population is
easily accessible. Given their size and dispersion, covering the entire population is not feasible, as
Airbnb doesn’t share the information and both consumers and the service are usually covered by
data protection law of most countries.
A significant number of Portuguese travelers who have used Airbnb in the past as guests
can be found on Facebook Groups about travel, tourism, and accommodation. Facebook Groups
are open for Facebook users to join in, though some required acceptation by part of the group’s
administrators or members. In every case, the administrators of each group were contacted to
assure the questionnaire was allowed to be posted.
The groups were chosen due to proximity to the topic, their rules allowing the questionnaire
to be posted. We selected groups that were above 500 members, in which a majority of active
Portuguese members could be found. The data was gathered from the 7th of December of 2016
until the 15th of January 2017.
Tabela 1 – Facebook Groups where questionnaire was shared
Group’s name Groups URL address
Airbnb Portugal https://www.facebook.com/groups/airbnbportugal
Alojamento Local -
Esclarecimentos
https://www.facebook.com/groups/alojamentolocal
Amantes de Viagens https://www.facebook.com/groups/111200582241227
Hosts Airbnb Porto https://www.facebook.com/groups/1043151179030261
Interrail Portugal https://www.facebook.com/groups/interrailpt
By the author
Through this method, we could reach users who have previously used Airbnb as guests.
Given the nature of the convenience sample, results bear no statistics meaning that allows us to
make assumptions regarding the entire population. However, they can provide a starting point for
critical reflection (Chapter 7).
57
As Airbnb gathers data, the profile and approximate of the total population numbers exist
in the company’s database. Demographic information regarding its users and the experiences they
have is regularly disclosed through interviews and reports, including country-specific reports. So,
we can compare the data of our sample and that of the total population so that we can evaluate
its quality, which can be consulted in section 6.2 of Chapter 6.
5.4 Questionnaire design
In this section, the decisions that concern the design of the questionnaire are explained. The
questionnaire itself can be found in the appendix.
The online questionnaire itself was developed using the Qualtrics online platform, which
provides a user-friendly interface for respondents and researchers, multiple sections, different type
of data input and easy exportation to a data processing software.
The questionnaire was organized into four sections and contains a total of 29 individual
questions, of which 6 questions concern the characteristics of the experience, 4 questions are
regarding the individual sociodemographic profile, and the remaining 19 concern research items
that include the concepts we explored in the literature. Each question was assigned a code for the
purpose of identification and reference. All questions were close-ended answers type.
The first section contains question items that help us characterize the experience.
Respondents were asked when was the last time they used the service (Q1), their travel goals (Q2),
if they shared the accommodation with their host (Q3), the number of guests they shared the
accommodation with (Q4), the number of nights they were hosted (Q5) and in which country did
the experience took place (Q6). Regarding the travel goal question (Q2), we consider travel goal to
be not mutually exclusive, so the question form allowed multiple answers. Additionally, in the fourth
section, we included questions regarding the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents,
including gender (Q8), age (Q9), education level (Q10) and district (Q11).
The second section contain items relative to value co-creation processes, value co-creation
practices, and value co-destruction. For value co-creation processes, we took and adapted items
from Ranjan and Read (2014). For value co-creation practices and value co-destruction, we created
items based on the theory of existent studies. The third section contains items we adapted from
58
Mohlmann (2015) regarding satisfaction with a sharing option and choosing a sharing option again.
Items were screened through the following steps:
i. We considered the inclusion of entirety of the questions from Mohlmann's (2015) and
Ranjan and Read's (2014) studies that correspond to the constructs that concern the study.
ii. We establish as a priority to focus on designing a shorter questionnaire that would not
burden the respondents. As the entire list of question would pose a far longer questionnaire which
would, it was decided to adapt the items into a smaller number by cutting of adapting original
items. From Mohlmann's (2015) study, we adopt 6 items, which include 3 items that refer to the
satisfaction and 3 items that measure likelihood of choosing a sharing option again;
iii. We screened and adapt the 22 items that refer to value co-creation processes into 6
items (Items C1, C2, C3, x1, x2 and x3) [more on this items on step ix.].
iv. We add items regarding the value co-destruction dimension (Items D1, D2, D3) by
building a scale from the findings in the Literature Review that addressed different forms of value
co-destruction: D1 – misuse of resources (Plé & Cáceres, 2010); D2 – feelings of exploitation
(Cova & Dalli, 2009); D3 – feelings of service failure (Gronroos & Ravald, 2011);
v. From the value co-creation practices perspective (Items Pr1, Pr2, Pr3); Pr1 –
compliance with the norms and rules (Hartl et al., 2015; Mccoll-kennedy et al., 2012); Pr2 –
cognitive activities which are of the control of the guest (Mccoll-kennedy et al., 2012); Pr3 – guest-
host interaction in the form of communication and interpersonal relationship (Echeverri & Skålén,
2011; Mccoll-kennedy et al., 2012; Salomonson et al., 2012);
vi. We adapt the terms used in tourism and hospitality terminology. (e.g. service provider
to host, consumer to guest);
vii. We translated the questions into the native language of our target population,
Portuguese (see Appendix I for the original language and Appendix II for the English translation);
viii. Language and terms were revised and simplified after reflecting on the diversity of the
Portuguese population’s tourism;
ix. Pre-study, in the value co-creation processes group (C1, C2, C3, x1, x2, x3) we consider
three items to be regarding co-production and the remaining three to be regarding value in use.
Items x1, x2 and x3 were cut from analysis pos-study as due to poor translation and adaptation,
we found it no longer fit the expectation and design of the study. We recode the remaining three
59
to just represent value co-creation processes, and not to make distinction between co-production
and value in use.
Each research item was evaluated using five points Likert Scales, as it was the scale used
by Mohlmann (2015), with the following labels: “totally disagree”, “partially disagree”,
“indifferent”, “partially agree”, “totally agree”. The labels were scored from 1 to 5, for numerical
data processing.
In Table 8, we present the research items with respective codes, constructs, and origin,
and in Appendix I and II, where the full questionnaire can be found.
Table 7 - Items (in English)
Dimension
Question
Code Item description Theoretical grounds
Satisfaction
with a sharing
option
S1 Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. Mohlmann (2015), based
on Fornell et al. (1996)
S2 My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations.
S3 Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing
option.
Likelihood of
choosing a
sharing option
again
L1 I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time. Mohlmann (2015), based
on Lamberton and Rose
(2012) L2 In the future, I would prefer a sharing option.
L3 In the future, I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb
instead of a hotel.
Value co-
creation
processes
C1 Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the final
outcome of the process.
Ranjan and Read (2014)
C2 We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (ex. ask for
information, contact him, spending time, etc.).
C3 The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources.
Value co-
destruction
D1 I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that
damaged the host (ex. damaging an object/spill something on the
wall).
Plé and Cáceres (2010)
D2 I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. Cova and Dalli (2009)
D3 I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to. Gronroos and Ravald
(2011)
Value co-
creation
practices
Pr1 Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better
outcome.
Hartl et al. (2015); Mccoll-
kennedy et al. (2012)
Pr2 Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive
thinking help me.
Mccoll-kennedy et al.
(2012)
Pr3 Communicating and Relating to the host was important for my
objectives.
Echeverri and Skålén
(2011); Mccoll-kennedy et
al. (2012); Salomonson et
al. (2012).
By the author
60
5.5 Data treatment
The data we gathered were treated using the IBM SPSS Statistics software. The dataset was
analyzed using descriptive statistical methods, including univariate and bivariate analysis, which
allowed us to provide answers to our research questions.
According to McDaniel and Gates (2003), a hypothesis can be described as an assumption
or theory that we can have over the target-population. From the hypothesis we formulated in
Chapter 4.4, we present here their respective tests.
Table 8 - Research goals, hypothesis, and tests
Research Goal Hypothesis Test
1. Evaluate the
participation of guests
in value co-creation
on Airbnb
experiences
H0. Guest don’t participate in value co-creation;
H1. Guests feel they participate in value co-creation processes (Vargo &
Lusch, 2008);
H2. Guest participation in value co-creation practices contributes to the
service outcome (Silva & Simões, 2016);
Distribution
analysis and
cross tabulation
analysis.
H3. A guest who feels they participate in value co-creation
processes/practices is more likely to be more satisfied with the Airbnb
service (Gronroos & Voima, 2013; Vega-Vazquez et al., 2013);
H4. Guest who feels they participate in value co-creation
processes/practices increases his likelihood of choosing a sharing system
option (Gronroos & Voima, 2013);
H5. Participation in potential value co-creation activities doesn’t affect
satisfaction (Chan et al., 2010);
Spearman’s
correlation
analysis.
2. Evaluate the
participation of guests
in value co-
destruction practices
in Airbnb
experiences.
H6. Guests participate in value co-destruction (Echeverri & Skålén, 2011;
Plé & Cáceres, 2010);
H6a. Instances where guests participate in value co-destruction are
minimal;
Distribution
analysis and
cross tabulation
analysis.
H7. When participation in value co-destruction activities occurs, it has an
influence on satisfaction with the service (Gronroos & Voima, 2013);
H8. Guest participation in value co-destruction decreases his likelihood of
choosing a sharing system option (Gronroos & Voima, 2013).
Spearman’s
correlation
analysis.
By the author
61
The first step to evaluate our set of hypotheses is to reject the null hypothesis (H0), which
we formulated as “Guest don’t participate in value co-creation”. In order to provide an answer to
H0, H1, H2 we use distribution analysis to see how many people agree with each individual item
and analyze the answers sets with central tendency measurements (mean, mode, median) and
dispersion (standard deviation and variance).
We established the criteria for accepting the hypothesis, by the items showing significant
positive results, which we consider as average being equal or superior to 3,5. Likewise, we consider
an average equal or inferior to 2,5 as being significant negative results. Results above 2,5 and
inferior to 3,5 falls between a zone of uncertainty. Results superior to 3,5 allow us to reject the null
hypothesis.
Should respondents score items of group C and Pr with significant positive results, it can
suggest that users engage in value co-creation. Should respondents score items in group Pr with
significant positive scores, it can suggest items engage in the respective practices. Should items of
group D provide significant positive results, it can suggest that users engage in value co-destruction
practices.
As heterogeneity is one of the prime characteristics of service experiences (Zeithaml,
Bitner, & Gremler, 2009, p. 21), users may not always engage in such practices, but low results
may hold meaning and information as well.
As an effort to reduce the effects of heterogeneity, we also analyzed research items by
segments of our sample. In the cross-tabulation analysis, we included respondent-specific
characteristics such as gender, travel goal, age class and experience-specific characteristics such
as house sharing, duration and group size. For data treatment of cross-data only, we organized age
data into classes that had fit a minimum of 30 respondents. In other variables, we attempt to
organize data into classes that fit a number close to 30, for data processing.
Given the quantitative nature of the instrument of research, the results of each item are
individually assessed in Chapter 8, in a critical way, to surpass the measurement bias of using
untested scales. The discussion aims at understanding what the results represent and what are
the implications for the sharing system elements.
As for the hypothesis H3, H4, H6 e H7 we can evaluate the correlation between items on
the previously mentioned groups with items related to satisfaction (group S) and the likelihood of
62
choosing a sharing option again (group L), in order to verify if there is any significant relationship
between the variables.
5.6 Conclusion
This descriptive study uses both a quantitative approach and a qualitative approach in order to
meet the research goals and test the hypothesis that concern the participation of Airbnb guest’s in
value co-creation and co-destruction, which came out of the Literature Review. The methodology
included an online survey of a sample of the target population, as this technique allows to gather
data that allow us to meet the study’s research goals. The respondents were contacted by social
media online groups. We used closed-ended questions, for easier coding and processing. The
gathered data was submitted to descriptive statistics tests (univariate analysis and bivariate
analysis) and focused on obtaining results about the practices of co-creation that guests may
engage. The study is limited due to the use of a convenience sample and measurement of untested
scales bias. Given the heterogeneity of the service nature, a qualitative-based critical reflection of
items responses is essential for results discussion.
63
6. Results
6.1 Introduction
The goal of this chapter to present the statistical analysis of the data gathered from the
questionnaire which serve the basis of the discussion, which takes place in Chapter 7.
In section 6.2, we compared the data regarding the sample with information of the
population in order to evaluate the former’s quality. In sections 6.3 to 6.7, we present the results
of the questionnaire.
6.2 Sample
The number of the Airbnb Portuguese guest population was 133.300 in 2015 and 264.000 in
2016 according to Airbnb, as stated in Público (Villalobos, 2017). The data we recover, allowed us
to obtain 101 valid respondents. Out of 123 answers, only 101 respondents completed the four
sections questionnaire, while some respondents fail to provide an answer to certain questions.
Because we deemed these occurrences as residual, we still consider the rest of their answer to be
valid.
The average age of the respondents is 40,46 years, and their gender structure is 35,6%
Male and 64,4% Female.
In Table 10, we present the complete sociodemographic profile of the sample.
64
Table 9 – Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample
Variable Class / value Frequency Percentage
Gender Female
Male
Other
65
36
0
64,4%
35,6%
0%
Age groups 20-25 16 15,84%
26-30 16 15,84%
31-35 12 11,88%
36-40 21 20,79%
41-45 15 14,85%
46-50 10 9,90%
51-55 5 4,95%
56-60 3 2,97%
61-66 3 2,97%
Average age 40,46
Qualifications 12º grade or inferior 5 5%
Higher education 91 90,1%
Other 5 5%
By the author
Most respondents (54%) used Airbnb in the timeframe of a year. Responses after one
year (19%), may suffer from recall bias.
Table 10 - Last time used Airbnb
Last time the
respondent used Airbnb N % Cumulative percentage
Last month 19 18,8 18,8
Last year 54 53,5 72,3
Over one year ago 28 27,7 100,0
Total 101 100,0
By the author
Only a small part (20%) of guests report having shared the accommodation space with the
host. In the same way, only 26% of the Airbnb adds refer to private bedrooms (Pereira, 2016), as
opposed to full accommodation renting.
65
Table 11 - Number of nights
Number of nights N % Cumulative percentage
No reply 3 3 3
1 5 5 8
2 17 16,8 24,8
3 33 32,7 57,5
4 18 17,8 75,3
5 9 8,9 84,2
6 3 3 87,2
7 8 7,9 95,1
8 1 1 96,1
10 1 1 97,1
16 1 1 98,1
22 1 1 99,1
65 1 1 100
Total 101 100
Average 3,02
By the author
Almost all users spend less or equal that one week (95,1%) in the accommodation, while
most of the users spend equal or less than 3 nights (57,5%). The average number of night spend
of our sample is of 3,02 nights. This data structure is consistent with the reported average number
of nights spend in 2016, which varies across cities and region, which include, 4,1 (Lisbon), 3,4
(Porto), 4,4 (Portugal), per a 2016 Airbnb Portugal data report (Airbnb, 2016) and Dinheiro Vivo
(Pinheiro, 2017).
The travelling goals of the respondents are distributed as follow: vacations / leisure /
resting (89%), meeting new people (2%), work (12%), getting to know a different culture (17%),
celebrate an event / holiday (8%) and other (3%). This matches the Airbnb data of the entire
population, which states as the reasons for traveling, being mainly vacations / leisure (91%), visiting
friends (4%), work (3%) and others (2%). It should be noted that the design of both studies differs.
Where in ours, multiple answers were allowed, the Airbnb reported reasons add up to 100%,
implying a single-answer type of question.
66
Table 12 - Number of people by accommodation
Number of people (including respondent) N %
Cumulative Percentage
1 2 2,0 2,0 2 37 36,6 38,6 3 19 18,8 57,4 4 22 21,8 79,2 5 11 10,9 90,1 6 5 5,0 95,0 8 2 2,0 97,0 9 1 1,0 98,0
10 1 1,0 99,0 16 1 1,0 100,0
Total 101 100,0
Average 3,53
By the author
The users have reported the country took place to be as follows.
Table 13 - Destinations
Destination N %
Portugal 28 27,7 Spain 17 16,8
Italy 12 11,9 The United Kingdom 10 9,9
France 10 9,9 The Netherlands 4 4,0
USA 3 3,0 Czech Republic 2 2,0
Germany 1 1,0 Israel 1 1,0
Croatia 1 1,0 Turkey 1 1,0
Hungary 1 1,0 Poland 1 1,0
Argentina 1 1,0 Mexico 1 1,0
Slovenia 1 1,0 Morocco 1 1,0
Ireland 1 1,0 Finland 1 1,0
Denmark 1 1,0 Greece 1 1,0
Did not reply 1 1,0 Total 101 100,0
By the author
67
Their answer regarding the district of origin finds correspondence in the top district's
population of Portugal, namely Lisbon and Porto districts.
Table 14 - District of origin
District of Residence N %
Azores 3 3,0
Aveiro 3 3,0
Braga 9 8,9
Castelo Branco 1 1,0
Coimbra 1 1,0
Evora 1 1,0
Faro 5 5,0
Leiria 3 3,0
Lisbon 38 37,6
Madeira 1 1,0
Porto 29 28,7
Setubal 2 2,0
Living outside Portugal 5 5,0
Total 101 100,0
By the author
Regarding the item Q7 “I consider the last time I stayed in an accommodation that I found
through Airbnb, has a representative experience of its service”, 1 replied they totally disagree, 8
respondents replied they partially disagree, 6 respondents were indifferent, and 43 replied they
partially agree, while another 43 respondents replied they totally agree. Given the low number of
negative answers (9), we decided to analyze the data as a whole and not to run bivariate analysis
on this variable.
6.3 Results of value co-creation processes
From section 6.3 to 6.7 we will present the results we considered relevant for discussion. The
complete cross-tabulation analysis of the items and consumer and experience variables can be
found in Appendix III and IV. Correlation analysis of the items can be found in Appendix V.
68
As mentioned in the previous chapter, respondents were asked to score each item with a
five-point Likert-scale. Each item was given a numeric value for data processing “totally disagree”
(1), “partially disagree” (2), “indifferent” (3), “partially agree” (4), “totally agree” (5).
Group C contain items that measure the importance of participation in value co-creation
processes (recognition of co-creator role, recognition in pro-activity during the interaction,
recognition of using resources).
Table 15 - Value co-creation items
Item C1. Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
Item C2 - We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (ex. ask for information, contact him, spending time, etc.).
Item C3. The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources
Answer N % N % N %
Totally disagree 2 2,0 8 7,9 1 1,0
Partially disagree 2 2,0 14 13,9 4 4,0
Indifferent 5 5,0 15 14,9 2 2,0
Partially agree 32 31,7 45 44,6 36 35,6
Totally agree 60 59,4 19 18,8 58 57,4
Total 101 100,0 101 100,0 101 100,0
Function Result Result Result
Mean 4,45 3,52 4,45
Median 5,00 4,00 5,00
Mode 5 4 5
Standard deviation ,842 1,180 ,806
Variance ,710 1,392 ,650
By the author
Item C1 intends to evaluate recognition of his co-creator role. This item intended to assess
whether the consumer agrees that he also plays a part in influencing the service result. A big
majority (91%) of respondents agree that both themselves and the host influence the service
outcome, with 31,7% replying they “partially agree”, while 59,4 % reply the “totally agree”. Only
5% of respondents claim to be “indifferent”, and only 2% “partially agree” and another 2% “totally
agree”.
Item C2 verifies proactivity in interaction. This item intended to assess whether the
consumer agrees that he is required to play an active role in order to get a better service outcome,
such as engaging in actions where he is required to be proactive. Only 7,9% of respondents replied
they “totally disagree”, while 13,9% replied that they “partially disagree”. 14,9% of respondents
69
claimed they were “indifferent” while 44,6% said they “partially agree”, which gathered the most
responses. The remaining 19% of respondents replied they “totally agree.
Item C3 evaluates how important consumers feel that the resources impacted the service
outcome. This item intended to assess whether the consumer agrees if the benefits of the service
are dependent on their use of available resources. Only 1,0% of respondents replied they “totally
disagree”, while 4,0 % replied that they “partially disagree”. Only 2% of the respondents claimed
they were “indifferent” while 36% said they “partially agree”. 58% of respondents replied they
“totally agree”, which gathered the most responses.
In the gender subsets, we found that female respondents presented slightly higher average
scores of value co-creation processes in all three items than male respondents.
Table 16 - Value co-creation processes per Gender
Female Male
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Item C1. Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
4,48 ,886 4,39 ,766
Item C2. We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...)
3,57 1,274 3,44 ,998
Item C3. The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources
4,49 ,831 4,36 ,762
By the author
Table 17 - Value co-creation processes per Number of people per accommodation
1 or 2 (N=39) 3 or 4 (N=41) 5 or more (N=21)
Mean
Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Item C1. Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
4,51 ,683 4,63 ,536 3,95 1,322
Item C2. We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) 3,82 1,121 3,51 1,165 3,00 1,183
Item C3. The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources
4,41 ,785 4,59 ,741 4,24 ,944
By the author
6.4 Results of value co-creation practices Group Pr contains items that describe the participation of consumers in value co-creation practices,
in the context of an accommodation sharing system.
70
Table 18 - Value co-creation practices items
Item Pr1. Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
Item Pr2. Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
Item Pr3. Communicating and relating with the host was important for my objectives.
Answer N % N % N %
Totally disagree 2 2,0 3 3,0 5 5,0
Partially disagree 0 0 0 0 4 4,0
Indifferent 17 16,8 26 25,7 5 5,0
Partially agree 28 27,7 32 31,7 34 33,7
Totally agree 54 53,5 40 39,6 53 52,5
Total 101 100,0 101 100,0 101 100,0
Function Result Result Result
Mean 4,31 4,05 4,25
Median 5,00 4,00 5,00
Mode 5 5 5
Standard deviation ,892 ,963 1,062
Variance ,795 ,928 1,128
By the author
Item Pr1 was based on the studies that remark the importance of existing a governing
party in the system, and the implication of complying with the rules. This item intended to assess
whether the consumer agrees that if they believe they benefit from complying with the Airbnb and
host’s rules. Only 2,0% of respondents replied they “totally disagree”, while none replied that they
“partially disagree”. Only 17% of the respondents claimed they were “indifferent” while 28% said
they “partially agree”. The majority of guests (54%) replied they “totally agree”.
Item Pr2 was based on cognitive activities which could be applicable to the context. This
item intended to assess whether the consumer agrees that his/her cognitive activities impacted
the value of the experience. Only 3,0% of respondents replied they “totally disagree”, while none
replied that they “partially disagree”. Though 25,7% of the respondents claimed they were
“indifferent”, while 32% said they “partially agree”. The answer that gathered the most percentage
of respondents (39%) was “totally agree”.
Item Pr3 was based on the interaction between guest and host. This item intended to
assess whether the consumer agrees that the communication with the host was important in order
to meet the goals. Only 3% of respondents replied they “totally disagree”, while 4% replied that they
“partially disagree” and 5% of the respondents claimed they were “indifferent”. The answer that
71
gathered the most percentage of respondents (52,5%) was “totally agree”, while 33,7% said they
“partially agree”.
In the number of people per accommodation subset, we find that guests in larger groups
also scored the practices with lower scores than small groups (Table 20). We found no significant
differences in the remaining subsets. Results can be consulted in Appendix III and IV.
Table 19 - Value co-creation practices per Number of people per accommodation
1 or 2 (N=39) 3 or 4 (N=41) 5 or more (N=21)
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Item Pr1. Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
4,54 ,682 4,27 ,923 3,95 1,071
Item Pr2. Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
4,31 ,731 4,00 ,949 3,67 1,238
Item Pr3. Communicating and relating with the host was important for my objectives.
4,54 ,682 4,15 1,216 3,90 1,221
By the author
6.5 Results of value co-destruction
This group contains items that describe value co-destruction, in the context of an Accommodation
sharing system.
Item D1 was based on Plé and Cáceres (2010) study and evaluates failure in resource use.
This item intended to verify whether the consumer admits to failing while using other’s resources
and had a negative consequence for the host. The majority (90,1%) of respondents replied they
“totally disagree”, while 4% replied that they “partially disagree”. Only 1% of the respondents
claimed they were “indifferent” while 4% said they “partially agree”. “totally agree” gathered only
4% responses.
72
Table 20 - Value co-destruction items
Item D1. I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (ex. damaging an object/spilling something on the wall).
Item D2. I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own.
Item D3. I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to.
Answer N % N % N %
Totally disagree 91 90,1 55 54,5 58 57,4
Partially disagree 4 4,0 6 5,9 12 11,9
Indifferent 1 1,0 16 15,8 5 5,0
Partially agree 4 4,0 18 17,8 16 15,8
Totally agree 1 1,0 6 5,9 10 9,9
Total 101 100,0 101 100,0 101 100,0
Function Result Result Result
Mean 1,22 2,15 2,09
Median 1,00 1,00 1,00
Mode 1 1 1
Standard deviation ,743 1,396 1,470
Variance ,552 1,948 2,162
By the author
Item D2 was based on Cova and Dalli's (2009) study, which denotes the apparent feeling
of exploitation by the consumer. This item intended to verify if the consumer admits to feeling
exploited by the host, on some task that he was expected to do. The majority (55%) of respondents
replied they “totally disagree”, while 5,9% replied that they “partially disagree”. 15,81% of the
respondents claimed they were “indifferent” to the item. While 17,8% said they “partially agree”,
5,9% of guests claimed they “totally agree”. The average answer of the item was 2,15.
Item D3 aims at verifying that something did not go according to expectations and
consumer felt that we worst of. This item intended to assess whether the consumer admits to
participating in a value co-destruction practice like failing while using other’s resources and had a
negative consequence for the host. The majority (55%) of respondents replied they “totally
disagree”, while 5,9% replied that they “partially disagree”. 15,81% of the respondents claimed
they were “indifferent” to the item. While 17,8% said they “partially agree”, 5,9% of guests claimed
they “totally agree”. The average answer of the item was 2,15.
When analyzing the date per subsets, we observe that male respondents reporter higher
value in the items of value co-destruction than female respondents (Table 21) and that the class
of 5 or more people per accommodation reported lower scores than groups that featured less than
5 people.
73
Table 21 - Value co-destruction per Gender
Female Male
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Item D1. I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
1,11 ,616 1,42 ,906
Item D2. I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own.
2,03 1,414 2,36 1,355
Item D3. I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to.
2,06 1,467 2,14 1,496
By the author Table 22 - Value co-destruction per Number of people per accommodation
1 or 2 (N=39) 3 or 4 (N=41) 5 or more (N=21)
Mean Std. dev.
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Item D1. I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
1,33 ,869 1,20 ,782 1,05 ,218
Item D2. I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. 2,08 1,403 2,32 1,439 1,95 1,322
Item D3. I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to.
2,23 1,564 2,32 1,474 1,38 1,071
By the author
Between travel goal subsets, respondents in the “resting” subset, reported having a higher
score in the exploitation item. Respondents in the “meeting new people” subset, reported the lower
scores of value co-destruction.
Table 23 - Value co-destruction per Travel goal
Getting to know a different culture (N= 17)
Resting (N=18)
Vacations / leisure (N=88)
Work (N=12)
Meeting new people (N=2)
Celebrate an event/occurrence (N=8)
Other (N=3)
Mean Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev.
Item D1. I think I fell short on using the resources I had
access and that damaged the host (…)
1,24 ,970 1,00 0,00 1,20 ,730 1,33 ,888 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,000
Item D2. I expected the host to do something that I had
to do on my own. 2,00 1,32 2,61 1,34 2,18 1,40 2,00 1,348 1,00 0,00 1,88 1,13 3,00 2,000
Item D3. I felt bad because something didn't work the
way I was expecting to. 2,06 1,39 2,28 1,60 2,10 1,49 1,58 ,996 1,00 0,00 1,50 1,07 3,33 1,528
By the author
74
6.6 Results of satisfaction with sharing option In order to evaluate the internal structure of the measurement of the satisfaction, we submitted the
three items of the questionnaire to Cronbach’s alpha test, which returned the value of 0,692.
Values equal or superior to 0,7 can be regarded as being reliable for basic research (Nunnally,
1978), while other values can also be accepted as long as taken account in their context.
Considering the closeness to 0.7, we consider the internal consistency of the items to exist.
Total satisfaction is obtained by summing the satisfaction items and dividing it by the
number of items.
Table 24 - Total satisfaction
Function Value
Mean 4,4158
Median 4,6667
Mode 4,67
Standard deviation ,64361
Variance ,414
Minimum 2,00
Maximum 5,00
By the author
In order to evaluate the variability of satisfaction results, we analyze items results according
to our the subsets. In Table 20 we present the results of satisfaction on gender.
Table 25 - Satisfaction with sharing option per Gender
Female (N=65) Male (N=36)
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Total satisfaction 4,46 ,671 4,33 ,590
Item S1. Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. 4,65 ,623 4,58 ,649
Item S2. Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option.
4,31 ,828 4,03 ,878
Item S3. My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations.
4,43 1,00 4,39 ,838
By the author
75
In the table, we observe that female respondents present slightly average higher
satisfaction scores than male respondents in every item. However, we don’t consider it to be
significative to pursue further analysis.
Table 26 – Satisfaction with sharing option per Number of people per accommodation
1 or 2 (N=39) 3 or 4 (N=41) 5 or more (N=21)
Mean Std. dev.
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Total satisfaction 4,41 ,682 4,42 ,538 4,41 ,781
Item S1. Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. 4,64 ,668 4,61 ,494 4,62 ,805
Item S2. Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option.
4,13 ,951 4,34 ,693 4,10 ,944
Item S3. My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations. 4,46 ,884 4,32 1,059 4,52 ,814
By the author
In the following table, we present the results of satisfaction in each of the travel goal subset.
Each subset contains the results of respondents that marked the respective travel goal as one of
their goals.
Table 27 - Satisfaction with sharing option per Travel goal
Getting to know a different culture (N= 17)
Resting (N=18)
Vacations / Leisure (N=88)
Work (N=12)
Meeting new people (N=2)
Celebrate an event/occurrence (N=8)
Other (N=3)
Mean Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev.
Total satisfaction
4,58 ,58 4,39 ,75 4,43 ,66 4,67 ,35 5,00 0,00 4,54 ,40 3,89 ,51
Item S1. Overall, I am satisfied with
Airbnb. 4,71 ,47 4,61 ,78 4,66 ,62 4,75 ,45 5,00 0,00 4,63 ,52 3,67 ,58
Item S2. Airbnb represents the ideal
version of an accommodation sharing option.
4,41 ,80 4,11 ,96 4,23 ,84 4,50 ,67 5,00 0,00 4,13 ,84 4,00 1,00
Item S3. My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my
expectations. 4,65 ,79 4,44 ,98 4,40 ,99 4,75 ,45 5,00 0,00 4,88 ,35 4,00 0,00
By the author
Respondents that marked “resting” as a travel goal (N=18) scored the lowest satisfaction
among the available goals, with 3,39. The lowest score of the group was “other” (N=3) with 3,89.
The highest scores were “work” (N=12), with 4,67 and “meeting new people” with 5,00 (N=2).
76
We found that this difference was worth pursuing by the differences in average, however, the low
number of respondents in each of the subsets is a limitation that would reduce the plausibility of
any conclusions we may find, especially in the “meeting new people” group.
Next, we evaluate if any relationship between the variables may exist, we choose to use
Spearman’s correlation test. In the correlation tests, the entirety of the valid responses (N=101)
was used.
Table 28 - Satisfaction with sharing option correlations coefficients
Item S1. Overall, I
am satisfied
with Airbnb.
Item S2. Airbnb represents the ideal version of
an accommodation sharing option.
Item S3. My last use of
Airbnb fulfilled my
expectations. Total
satisfaction
Group Pr
Pr1 Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome. ,131 ,263** ,324** ,308**
Pr2 Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me. -,007 ,080 -,054 ,046
Pr3 Communicating and relating with the host was important for my objectives. ,036 ,112 ,006 ,086
Group C C1 Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the
outcome of the process. ,168 ,219* ,140 ,207*
C2 We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) ,124 ,162 ,038 ,156 C3 The outcome of the service is dependent on the available
resources -,091 -,050 -,111 -,061
Group D D1 I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and
that damaged the host (…) -,045 -,036 -,034 -0,70
D2 I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. -,418** -,213* -,344** -0,407**
D3 I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to. -,238* -,159 -,525** -0,444**
** Significant correlation on level 0,01 (2 sides).
* Significant correlation on level 0,05 (2 sides).
By the author
Spearman’s correlation shows that few items correlate with satisfaction items, and with
very weak results. The only significant practice group item was Item Pr1, which measures the
importance of following the rules (0,308) and Item C1 which evaluates if the guest feels they play
a role in determining the outcome of the service (0,207).
Items D1, that evaluates feelings of exploitation and D3 that evaluates feelings of service
failure correlate negatively with satisfaction. The statistic meaning of this result can be explained
because we observe there is a high majority of positive satisfaction answer (“the users are
satisfied”) and a high majority of negative answers to the items (“participation in co-destruction
77
didn’t happen”). Given these facts, an answer about whether the value co-destruction influences
satisfaction may not be possible.
However, given the low diversity of responses to the questionnaire to the satisfaction items,
obtaining significant results for regression may not be possible. Most users rate their experience
with high satisfaction scores, with the median score being 4,4158.
Table 29 – Satisfaction with sharing option items
Item S1. Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb.
Item S2. Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option.
Item S3. My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations.
Answer N % N % N %
Totally disagree 0 0% 0 0,0% 1 1,0
Partially disagree 2 2,0 7 6,9 8 7,9
Indifferent 2 2,0 7 6,9 2 2,0
Partially agree 28 27,7 45 44,6 27 26,7
Totally agree 69 68,3 42 41,6 63 62,4
Total 101 100,0 101 100,0 101 100,0
Function Result Result Result
Mean 4,62 4,21 4,42
Median 5,00 4,00 5,00
Mode 5 4 5
Standard deviation ,630 ,852 ,941
Variance ,397 ,726 ,885
By the author
6.7 Results of choosing a sharing option again In order to evaluate the internal structure of the group L of items, that concern the likelihood of
choosing a sharing option again, we submitted the three items of the questionnaire to Cronbach’s
alpha test, which returned the value of 0,779, assuring us the internal consistency of the items.
Total likelihood of choosing a sharing option again is obtained after summing the likelihood
of choosing again items and dividing it by the number of items.
78
Table 30 - Total likelihood of choosing a sharing option again
Function Value
Mean 4,3135 Median 4,3333 Mode 5,00
Standard deviation ,74807 Variance ,560 Minimum 1,67 Maximum 5,00
By the author
Table 31 - Choosing a sharing option again per Gender
Female (N=65) Male (N=36) Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Total choosing again 4,32 ,744 4,30 ,766
Item L1. I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time.
4,65 ,623 4,56 ,773
Item L2. In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb. 4,25 ,919 4,39 ,934
Item L3. In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
4,06 1,074 3,97 1,028
By the author
Table 32 - Choosing a sharing option again per Number of people per accommodation
1 or 2 (N=39) 3 or 4 (N=41) 5 or more (N=21)
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Total choosing again 4,28 ,797 4,33 ,695 4,33 ,789
Item L1. I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time.
4,64 ,778 4,59 ,631 4,62 ,590
Item L2. In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb. 4,28 ,887 4,39 ,891 4,14 1,062
Item L3. In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
3,92 1,061 4,02 1,084 4,24 ,995
By the author
Unlike satisfaction, we observe no noticeable variations in the total choosing again per
gender. In the number of people per accommodation we also found no significant differences
between group size.
In the following table, we present the results of the likelihood of choosing a sharing option
again in each of the travel goal subset. Each subset contains the results of respondents that marked
the respective travel goal as one of their goals.
79
Table 33 - Choosing a sharing option again per Travel goal
Getting to know a different culture (N= 17)
Resting (N=18)
Vacations / Leisure (N=88)
Work (N=12)
Meeting new people (N=2)
Celebrate an event/occurrence (N=8)
Other (N=3)
Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean
Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Total choosing again 4,57 ,47 3,90 ,98 4,31 ,77 4,67 ,40 4,17 ,24 4,58 ,43 3,89 1,02 Item L1. I am likely to choose
Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time.
4,71 ,47 4,39 ,92 4,60 ,69 4,92 ,29 4,50 ,70 4,88 ,35 4,33 1,16
Item L2. In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb.
4,53 ,62 3,78 1,17 4,30 ,92 4,83 ,39 3,50 2,12 4,50 ,54 4,00 1,00
Item L3. In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like
Airbnb instead of a hotel. 4,47 ,62 3,56 1,34 4,02 1,07 4,25 ,97 4,50 ,70 4,38 ,74 3,33 1,52
By the author
Like satisfaction, the respondents that marked “resting” as a travel goal (N=18) scored the
lowest choosing a sharing system again scores among the goals we suggested, with 3,90. The
lowest score among the groups was observed in the “other” (N=3) group with 3,89. The highest
scores was “work” (N=12), with 4,67. We found that the difference we find is worth pursuing given
the differences in average, however, the low number of respondents in each of the subsets presents
a limitation that would reduce the plausibility of any conclusions we may find.
Table 34 - Choosing sharing option again correlations coefficients
Item L1. I am likely to
choose Airbnb or a similar
sharing option the next time.
Item L2. In the future, I will
prefer a sharing option
like Airbnb
Item L3. In the future, I'm
likely to choose a
sharing program like
Airbnb instead of a hotel.
Total likelihood of choosing a
sharing option again
Group Pr Pr1 Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better
outcome. ,216* ,177 ,309** ,271**
Pr2 Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
,076 -,071 ,066 ,024
Pr3 Communicating and relating with the host was important for my objectives.
,099 ,109 ,254* ,213*
Group C C1 Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome
of the process. ,145 ,155 ,158 ,183
C2 We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) -,062 -,098 ,081 -,010 C3 The outcome of the service is dependent on the available
resources -,087 -,068 ,042 -,030
Group D D1 I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that
damaged the host (…) -,014 ,106 ,143 ,121
D2 I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. -,262** -,155 -,044 -,125 D3 I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting
to. -,207* -,146 -,032 -,101
** Significant correlation on level 0,01 (2 sides).
* Significant correlation on level 0,05 (2 sides).
By the author
80
Spearman’s correlation shows that few items correlate with the choosing a sharing option
again items and with the ones who do it present very weak results. The most significant practice
items were Item Pr1, which measures the importance of rules compliance (0,271) and Item Pr3
which measures the importance of communication and relating with the host in the outcome of
the service (0,213).
Item D1, that verifies feelings of exploitation and D2 and D3 that respectively assess
feelings of exploitation and of service failure negatively correlate with only one item of the choosing
again index. The statistic meaning of this result can be explained because we observe there is a
high majority of positive choosing again answer (“the users are likely to choose again the Airbnb
service”) and a high majority of negative answers to the items (“participation in co-destruction
didn’t happen”). Given these facts, an answer about whether the value co-destruction influences
the likelihood of choosing a sharing system again may not be possible.
However, given the low diversity of responses to the questionnaire to the choosing a sharing
option again items, obtaining significant results for regression may not be possible. Most users rate
their experience with high choosing a sharing option again scores, with the median score being
4,314.
Table 35 – Likelihood of choosing a sharing option again items
Item L1. I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time.
Item L2. In the future, I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb
Item L3. In the future, I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
Answer N % N % N %
Totally disagree 0 0 1 1,0 1 1,0
Partially disagree 2 2,0 7 6,9 10 9,9
Indifferent 5 5,0 5 5,0 18 17,8
Partially agree 23 22,8 36 35,6 28 27,7
Totally agree 71 70,3 52 51,5 44 43,6
Total 101 100,0 101 100,0 101 100,0
Function Result Result Result
Mean 4,62 4,21 4,42
Median 5,00 4,00 5,00
Mode 5 4 5
Standard deviation ,630 ,852 ,941
Variance ,397 ,726 ,885
By the author
81
6.8 Conclusion
Concerning value co-creation, the averages of Item C1, C2 and C3, Pr1, Pr2 and Pr3 show
significant positive scores, which strongly suggests that users participation in value co-creation is
common both according to the processes and practice perspective. Variation per gender, travel
goal, age class, house sharing, duration seems to be homogenous. We observe differences in
participation per group size and travel goals, albeit small. Value co-destruction items show low
scores, meeting our criteria for Significant Negative scores, we credit to negative bias, service
heterogeneity and possible low number of negative events, compared to the positive ones.
Cronbach’s alpha of satisfaction and likelihood of choosing again groups shows us sufficient results
regarding internal consistency of the items to proceed with research on this topic. Because most
answers were positive, correlation analysis shows us insufficient data to proceed with deeper
analysis. Given the limitations of the quantitative results and the heterogeneity of the service nature,
critical reflection of the items responses is essential for discussion of results, which is presented
in the following chapter.
82
83
7. Discussion and Conclusion
7.1 Introduction
This chapter’s purpose is to discuss how the data support the hypothesis of the study, comment
of the meaning of results, confront the results with existent theories and suggest marketing
implications of value co-creation in a sharing system.
Participation in value co-creation processes and value co-creation practices are discussed
in section 7.2, and the participation in value co-destruction will be discussed in section 7.3. Section
7.4 informs on the originality and contributes that this study presents. Section 7.5 elaborates on
limitations met during research. Section 7.6 provides suggestions and directions for future
research.
7.2 Participation on value co-creation and satisfaction
The study’s results support the idea that Airbnb guests participate in value co-creation during the
accommodation experience. In fact, this hypothesis is both supported by the results of group C,
which evaluates the participation in value co-creation processes and the results of group Pr, which
evaluates the participation in specific value co-creation practices. These results are consistent with
the body of literature that favors the idea of value co-creation and suggests it can be thoroughly
present on sharing systems. When it comes to the qualities of participation, we found it to be
relatively homogenous, with the exception of number of people per accommodation and travel goal.
Additionally, we present further evidence that Airbnb has resources that potentially affect value co-
creation. In this section, each item is assessed in a critical light and its implications are confronted
with existing literature.
The analysis of Item C1 results is pivotal for the study’s conclusion regarding the
hypothesis that consumers participate in value co-creation. Item C1 whether the consumers agree
that they share responsibility for getting a better result out of the experience. Results for the item
were significantly positive, as 92% replied with either “partially agree” or “totally agree”. This
suggests that consumers mostly agree that they are required to play an active role to get a better
84
service outcome, as in, the “locus of value creation” (Gronroos & Voima, 2013) is in the user.
Additionally, this items results allows us to reject the null hypothesis and exclude the idea that
consumers don’t feel they are in any way responsible for the outcomes of the service.
Pivotal for co-creation is the interaction between the guest and the service provider (the
host) (Gronroos & Voima, 2013). Item C2 evaluate whether the users agree that they were required
to play an active role in the relationship by engaging in actions where they were required to be
proactive. While the average score was the lowest of the group (3.52). While results are barely
above our criteria of significant positive results (3.50), it should be noted that heterogeneity is one
of the prime characteristics of service experiences (Zeithaml et al., 2009), hence a part of users
may not have been required to be proactive in their relationship with the host.
The intended purpose of Item C3 was to discern if the consumers agree that available
resources are important for value creation. Considering the existing theory, value co-creation
depends on the available resources, like the host’s properties. A limitation of this item is that users
understand that the benefits come from the resources. As in, they didn’t share responsibility for
the use of resources, which belongs to the consumer. However, this limitation is reduced by the
analysis of Item D1, which allows us to better understand the opinion of the respondents regarding
the use of resources better.
We can enrich our analysis by reading the results of Item D1, of the value co-destruction
group in a different light, as the item measured the misuse of the host’s property. Most of the
guests were not indifferent to the item, and 90% answered negatively. They may feel they made a
proper use of the host’s property and they benefit from it – participating in value co-creation. In
fact, while this item was meant to study value co-creation, the results of its inversion can be useful
for the study of value co-creation practices, because while co-creation depends on the user’s
resources, it also depends on the customer's skills. Unlike the previous item (C3), Item D1
specifically assesses the use of resources meanwhile the locus of value creation is in the consumer.
It what comes to specific practices, consumers have reported that they engage in the three
practices, with variable results. The study finds that a common co-creation practice is following the
established rules of the system and the host. Analysis of Item Pr1 which evaluate if compliance
with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome, shows that 81% of respondents
replied with positive results. This is consistent with Hartl et al. (2015) and Mccoll-kennedy et al.
85
(2012) ideas regarding governance in the service system being highly important in order for parties
to work together and achieve desired results.
Roughly 70% of respondents replied with significant positive results to Item Pr2, which
evaluates cognitive processes. The study shows that consumers report that cognitive processes,
like finding solutions for problems or positive thinking have been important to get a better service
is consistent to what can be found in tourism literature as Campos et al. (2015) also find cognitive
involvement as one of the forms in participating in value co-creation.
The data suggest that communication and the relationship with the host, are important co-
creation practices, as agreed by 86% of hosts. Communication and relationship with the host are
worthy of further research. It was one of the few Items that presented a small correlation with Item
L3. “In the future, I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel”, of the
likelihood of choosing again. The imminent managerial implication is that to support consumer
value co-creation, firms should provide training in communication skills for frontline employees,
especially when it comes to taking complaints (Salomonson et al., 2012). However, when this
training is applied in sharing system, it should take into account all moments of consociality,
including virtual and physical.
Regarding practices, we can afford to extend our analysis to how the Airbnb company in
some capacity or form tries to influence value creation practices.
We note that Airbnb’s website has pages that are target directed at the host or guest. One
of these is the hospitality standards page (Airbnb, 2018e). These standards’ purpose is, according
to Airbnb, intended to “help [the host] earn great reviews for providing excellent and dependable
hospitality”. One of the section of that page is “Communication”. The section suggests primarily
that the host should remain available for contact during guest stay, provide timely replies, keeps
touch with the guests in situations should they be unable to be present in some key moment (like
check-in). In addition, communication is also one of the categories in which the host is evaluated
(Airbnb, 2018f). This is evidence that the company is wary of how important communication
between host and guest is in the Airbnb system and it provides an example of how a sharing system
moderator can influence it.
As for the guest, the firm also has published pages that are directed at the guest behaviors
of communication, rules and cognitive activities (Airbnb, 2018a, 2018b). In the “How can I be a
considerate guest” page, Airbnb advises the guest to “communicate clearly with your host about
86
any expectations or special needs you may have” and “make sure the space, house rules, and
hosting style match your needs [before booking]” (Airbnb, 2018a). In the “I’m a guest. What are
some safety tips I can follow? ” page, Airbnb’s advice is to “set clear expectations” and “prepare
for the unexpected” (Airbnb, 2018b).
In this sense, this communication practice of Airbnb is an example of how a firm educates
their customer in how to use available resources, which enhance value co-creation (Alves, Ferreira,
& Fernandes, 2016). However, there is evidence that the system design takes into account the
possibilities of poor behavior by guest and hosts, as is discussed in section 7.3. However, the
effectiveness of such informative tactic is unknown and worthy of further exploration.
Regarding the possible relation between participation in value co-creation and satisfaction,
we found little quantitative evidence that supports the claim in this study. For Camilleri and
Neuhofer (2017), the same practices can result in value co-creation but also in value co-
destruction. A positive influence of participation in value co-creation and satisfaction was found by
the study of Vega-Vazquez, Revilla-Camacho, and Cossío-Silva (2013), albeit in a different context
and method.
Limitations of our instrument keep us from reaching the same conclusion, as the number
of instances where users report low scores of satisfaction was scarce. Consumer expectations are
“beliefs about service delivery that serve as standards or reference points against which
performance is judged” (Zeithaml et al., 2009, p. 75). For Priporas et al. (2017) Airbnb guests
have very low expectations of the performance and services available. When expected performance
is low, it’s easier for the actual performance of the service to surpass it, which result in higher
satisfaction (Zeithaml et al., 2009, p. 94).
We consider participation in value co-creation practices and processes to be relatively
homogenous, as results didn’t seem to vary among age groups, gender, travel goals, house
sharing, and duration in our sample. The only exception is number of people per accommodation,
where the respondents that shared the accommodation with 5 or more people, scored the C, Pr
and D group lower than other classes while the scores of satisfaction and choosing a sharing option
again remained similar. Individual and group social experiences are found to be conceptually
different in what comes to establishing goals, norms, intentions and desires (Bagozzi, 2000). In
event tourism, the group experience is found to be driven by peer-to-peer interaction quality and
87
communitas, while individual experiences are driven by curiosity, enjoyment and enduring
involvement (Carlson, Rahman, Rosenberger, & Holzmüller, 2016).
Given our results, we can propose that even though value co-creation may have an impact
on satisfaction, its effects may be small, inexistent or in another way, dispensable for users to be
satisfied and choose a sharing option again. In fact, this assumption is in line with the conclusion
of Navarro, Llinares, and Garzon (2016) which shows that value co-creation is not a necessary
condition for a consumer to be satisfied.
Satisfaction in disruptive innovation settings may be difficult to study. Like Bower and
Christensen (1995) discuss, by introducing a set of attributes that differ from the ones that
customers historically value, they may underperform in one dimension that those customers find
important but perform adequately for a new set of customers. This theory may explain the
differences in satisfaction per travel goal, as a guest who reported having “resting” as a goal scored
lower satisfaction scores than guests who marked “work”.
Another argument is that a factor that Airbnb tend to excel is price, due to the lower costs
of setting up an accommodation offer in a private home, which attracts on the lower end, a kind of
customer who would otherwise be unable to afford the offer. However, consistency and quality may
be lower in these offers compared to traditional hotels. However, these factors may provide better
predictors of satisfaction.
Additionally, like we mentioned in the Literature Review, multiple actors influence value
creation. Silva and Simões's (2016) propose that customer-firm interactions are only some of the
consumer interactions and may not be the most significant. One of our limitations is that we didn’t
assess the interaction between the guest and other guests, or between guest and local citizens,
which may influence value creation.
Given our set of hypotheses, we conclude the following:
- We have data that allow us to reject H0 and accept H1 and H2 as all items in
both the processes and practices approaches scored significant positive results;
- When it comes to H4 and H5, more research needs to be conducted, as we
didn’t find any evidence that can support the link between participation in value
co-creation practices/processes with satisfaction or likelihood of choosing a
sharing option again. We assume a lack of evidence to make a judgment of the
assumptions;
88
- The lack of relationship between participation in co-creation and satisfaction
provides the basis to accept H6.
Summing up this section, while we found that Airbnb guests participate in value co-creation
practices and processes, this study suggests that the relationship between value co-creation and
satisfaction and likelihood of choosing again is too insignificant to be measurable or, nonexistent.
7.3 Participation in value co-destruction
When it comes to value co-destruction, we obtained results that need to be addressed in a critically
way. We obtained largely negative results that would dispel the notion of value co-destruction
according to our statistic criteria. However, several factors may explain the results. As we are
surveying negative items, consumers who have engaged in those practices may be compelled into
lying or underestimating the impact of their own actions, especially given that they have negative
consequences as the Airbnb platforms allow the host to report the negative behavior of guests.
Guests can also be evicted from the host’s house due to breaking the rules. Another significant
factor is an absence of a large group of negative answers to satisfaction and likelihood of choosing
a sharing option again dimensions. This indicates that the respondents were mostly satisfied users
with positive experience. Given the nature of the convenience sample, results bear no statistics
meaning on allowing us to make assumptions regarding the entire population.
Plé and Cáceres (2010) describe value co-destruction as when one party fails to use
resources in a manner that is appropriate and expected by the party. Item D1 evaluates if the user
failed in using resources, scored the lowest results, as only 5% of guests agreed with the statement,
and the majority (90%) claimed they “totally disagree”. While this suggests that the damage to the
available resources (the host’s property) isn’t the norm, it hints that it may still happen in some
capacity and potentially affect experiences in a negative way. However, the users which agreed
with the statement provide mixed answers to the S and L groups. Still, the low number of cases,
keep us from running additional tests. Given the risk of negative bias, we find limitation in the
evaluation of this item, as users may not be willing to admit they damage another’s properties or
that they share responsibility for, having done so, hurting their own experience.
89
However, Airbnb keeps a service guarantee system for hosts, in order to safe keep any
property damage (Airbnb, 2018g). This system attempts to provide further assurance for hosts
listing’s by reimbursing them for damages caused by guests or under guest’s responsibility.
A richer outcome comes from the analysis of Item D2, which evaluates feelings of
exploitations. As 24 respondents replied either “totally agree” or “partially agree”, this may concern
a significant amount of Airbnb accommodations. When studying this new kind of business models,
it’s important to take into account expectation, as it’s a pivotal part of service quality (Grönroos,
1984). Because Airbnb accommodation offers are often compared to the hotel industry experience,
some guest’s expectations of the Airbnb offer may be like that of an actual hotel, which usually has
a more robust set of supportive services. Hence, actors (mainly the mediator and the provider) in
sharing system should be clear about elements that may lie within the consumer expected product
level and augmented level of the product level framework (Kotler & Keller, 2012, p. 326). This
should serve as a warning for designing services with consumer co-creation in mind, to reflect on
how clear are the tasks that may be consumers expected to do, which would otherwise be the
responsibility of the provider.
Airbnb hosts aren’t always able to provide a 24 hours support service, as they may be
engaged in other activities or lack the business structure to do so. In a sense, the data confirms
Cova and Dalli’s (2009) fears that users may be exploited by doing activities that would otherwise
be done by the service provider. This point could be targeted in the future for a deeper and more
robust analysis, as many variables may influence, such as if the customer believes he is paying for
something that he is, in fact, doing himself/herself.
Results of Item D3, which evaluates feelings of service failure, are significant for detecting
instances where the users felt bad in reaction to a negative service interaction. While not a norm,
negative events have an impact on the consumer feelings. While these occurrences may not have
the locus of responsibility on the user, the user's feelings regarding the event may lead to a negative
outcome or dissatisfaction. In the case of such inconveniences, Airbnb guests often felt that hosts
could perhaps have done something about the situation before or while it occurred but failed to do
so (Camilleri & Neuhofer, 2017).
In the context of sharing systems, service designers should ask if and how can the sharing
system compensate one party for the destruction of value caused by the other party. In the case
of Airbnb, the company provides a policy that makes the host refund the guest should the
90
accommodation experience doesn’t meet with the announced standards or causes a “travel issue”
for the latter (Airbnb, 2018d).
The negative impact of value co-creation may be felt on brand reputation (Verhoef, Beckers,
& van Doorn, 2013). Even though the amount of negative instances appears to be small in our
sample, Airbnb is associated with a significant amount of negative experiences stories, an example
of which is the website airbnbhell.com (AirbnbHell, 2018), unaffiliated to the Airbnb company,
where users can share their “horrors stories”.
However, much like the effects of value co-creation on satisfaction, we found no result that
indicates the existence of significant relationship between co-destruction items and the likelihood
of choosing a sharing option again in our sample. The low number of instances where this indicator
presented negative results, limits us from running additional tests.
Relatively to our set of hypotheses, we conclude the following:
- The criteria that governed the acceptance our or initial assumption of H6 don’t
allow us to accept it. However, we build the criteria taking into account the
value co-creation items. We greatly underestimated the dynamics of
destruction, including their expected frequency and implications for the user.
For instance, some elements (like price) may influence users to overlook the
negative events. On the other hand, the frequency of positive events and
negative events related to value formation should not be considered the same.
For these reasons, we decided to postulate hypothesis H6a;
- While some guests reported having been involved in co-destruction, given the
low frequency of these occurrences, we postulate hypothesis H6a as
“Instances where guests participate in value co-destruction are minimal”;
- Much like in H3 and H4, we didn’t find enough data that allow us to accept or
reject H7 and H8.
In Table 37, we present a sum of our hypothesis and results.
91
Table 36 - Research goals and results
Research Goal Hypothesis Results
1. Evaluate the participation of
guests in value co-creation on
Airbnb experiences
H0. Guest don’t participate in value co-creation; Significant results
H1. Guests feel they participate in value co-creation
processes (Vargo & Lusch, 2008);
Significant results
H2. Guest participation in value co-creation
practices contributes to the service outcome (Silva
& Simões, 2016);
Significant results
H3. A guest who feels they participate in value co-
creation processes/practices is more likely to be
more satisfied with the Airbnb service (Gronroos &
Voima, 2013; Vega-Vazquez et al., 2013);
Not enough evidence
H4. Guest who feels they participate in value co-
creation processes/practices increases his
likelihood of choosing a sharing system option
(Gronroos & Voima, 2013);
Not enough evidence
H5. Participation in potential value co-creation
activities don’t affect satisfaction (Chan et al.,
2010);
Not enough evidence
2. Evaluate the participation of
guests in value co-destruction in
Airbnb experiences.
H6. Guests participate in value co-destruction
(Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Plé & Cáceres, 2010);
Some positive results, See H6a
H6a. Instances where guests participate in value
co-destruction are minimal;
Significant results
H7. When participation in value co-destruction
activities occurs, it has an influence on satisfaction
with the service. (Gronroos & Voima, 2013);
Not enough evidence
H8. Guest participation in value co-destruction
decreases his/her likelihood of choosing a sharing
system option. (Gronroos & Voima, 2013).
Not enough evidence
From the author
92
7.4 Contributions to research
This study is different from existent research, as its design focusses on the consumer perception
of value co-creation using two different formulations, the practices, and processes perspectives.
The discussion that the practices formulation allows suggest that this approach may hold richer
contributes for analyzing value creation, both for the industry and for the advancing research,
therefore containing the analytical power that Gronroos and Voima (2013) expected value co-
creation to have.
Additionally, it focusses on evaluating the participation of value co-creation and value co-
destruction by the guest and its outcomes for the Airbnb and for the consumer. We find
participation in value co-creation to be relatively homogeneous among age groups, gender, travel
goals, house sharing and duration in our sample. We observe significant differences between small
and larger group experiences We also find that the impact on consumer or firm value of Airbnb
guests participating in a single process/practice, in value creation or destruction, alone may be too
insignificant to measure with statistic instruments and current criteria of significance, supporting
idea that participation in value co-creation activities alone doesn’t increase satisfaction (Chan et
al., 2010), with sharing systems.
The study answers the calls to include the view of co-destruction. The results we obtained
regarding value co-destruction, informs us that very few guests reported participating in these
practices and a different methodology may be required to evaluate these practices. We speculate
that the high scores of satisfaction in our sample may be due to the lack of significant co-destruction
occurrences. This significance for the user requires a more in-depth study regarding its impact on
satisfaction and likelihood of choosing again as the low number of instances didn’t allow to run
additional tests.
Our discussion also provides strength to current ideas in research and reveals implications
for those interesting in pursuing this line of research. We found support to the idea that users may
feel exploited through value co-creation (Cova & Dalli, 2009), and that Airbnb communicates as an
effort to educate consumers, on enhancing co-creation (Alves et al., 2016).
Though most of these findings may not be considered transferable or representative of the
population, our discussion provides the industry with topics that managers can reflect upon, when
analyzing a present or potential sharing system-based business, especially when it comes to the
exploitation and resource-use.
93
In essence, we meet the general objective of demonstrating an application of value co-
creation and SD logic theory to a sharing system and meet our goals of research. However, not
without suffering from internal limitations of the value co-creation current state of theory, and the
external limitations of the context, which is addressed in the following section.
7.5 Limitations
The cause of most limitations of this study can be found in the infancy state of research in value
co-creation. Methodologically, there is a lack of proven strategies and tactics in the approach to co-
creation research problems. Diving into the body of literature, we find an abundance of conceptual
studies on the value co-creation topic but, disappointingly, very few applied studies. While co-
creation has been at the top of marketing sciences debate since 2004, it hasn’t led to the full-
development of research frameworks and methods that be used in applied research. As such, at
the moment, there is no research instrument that serves as the standard of empirical research in
value co-creation.
In what scales are concerned, the scales we start with (Ranjan & Read, 2014) were
published rather recently and as such, haven’t been subject to rigorous turns of tests than notorious
scales are known for. We found them to be very limiting, forcing us to adapt the content of most
items, to fit our context and needs. This adaptation, also involved the translation to fit the
Portuguese target-audience, and to fit the sharing system and Airbnb context, which forced us to
discard some items due to some loss of meaning in adaptation. Specifically, we struggle with
formulating questions that assures us that the consumer felt their actions/skills/mental states had
an impact on value co-creation.
Data gathering was dependent on the subjects’ willingness to participate in the research.
Our sampling method only allowed for a convenience sample to be gathered. In the access to data,
one administrator of a group we contacted did not allow the questionnaire to be posted because it
conflicts with the group’s rules.
The last limitation is concerned with the nature of the study. We could only measure data
regarding the user’s report on their perception of his/her last experience with an Airbnb add, hence,
it may have been affected by his own biases. Additionally, we didn’t take in consideration additional
potentially explanatory variables, such as previous Airbnb experiences, socio-cultural background,
94
or destination-qualities, as the sub of questions and items require to evaluate those variables could
not fit a short and brief questionnaire, so the researcher was forced to compromise.
7.6 Future research
The study’s limitations open the way for future research. Regarding research in value co-creation,
the priority should be the development of research instruments, as it is the main restriction for
empirical work to be developed.
Researchers should focus on scale development and testing across different context for
different aspects of co-creation, namely, predisposition to co-create, value extract from activities,
the importance of participating in value co-creation practices, or contextual variables influencing
value co-creation. Additionally, value co-destruction may require a different methodology altogether,
as it’s plausible that consumers aren’t proud of recognizing or admitting they somehow failed in
using a service and that hurt their value. In both quantitative and qualitative research, restrictions
that researchers should expect should be the contextual, heterogeneous qualities of value co-
creation, and tactics should be developed to address the problems that arise from these aspects.
Future research regarding sharing system should focus on comparing how consumers feel
about the value proposition of sharing systems and value proposition of traditional offers, and if the
opportunities/processes/practices of value co-creation have any role to play in the dynamics of
sharing system, behind satisfaction. For instance, other use value measures such as utility might
be of interest to consider in future research.
95
Bibliography
Airbnb. (2015). Airbnb Summer Travel Report: 2015. Retrieved from
https://blog.atairbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Airbnb-Summer-Travel-Report-
1.pdf
Airbnb. (2016). Visão Geral da Comunidade Airbnb em Lisboa e Portugal. Retrieved from
http://2sqy5r1jf93u30kwzc1smfqt-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Portugal_EIS_Portuguese_20160627c.pdf
Airbnb. (2018a). Airbnb - How can I be a considerate guest. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/695/how-can-i-be-a-considerate-guest
Airbnb. (2018b). Airbnb - I’m a guest. What are some safety tips I can follow? Retrieved January
15, 2018, from https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/241/i-m-a-guest--what-are-some-
safety-tips-i-can-follow
Airbnb. (2018c). Airbnb Citizen Website - Community Compact. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from
https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/community-compact/
Airbnb. (2018d). Airbnb Website - Guest Refund Policy. Retrieved January 8, 2018, from
https://www.airbnb.com/terms/guest_refund_policy
Airbnb. (2018e). Airbnb Website - Hospitality. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from
https://www.airbnb.com/hospitality
Airbnb. (2018f). Airbnb Website - How do star ratings work. Retrieved January 6, 2018, from
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1257/how-do-star-ratings-work
Airbnb. (2018g). Airbnb Website - Service Guarantee. Retrieved January 7, 2018, from
https://www.airbnb.pt/guarantee
Airbnb. (2018h). Airbnb Website - Terms & Policies. Retrieved January 6, 2018, from
https://www.airbnb.com/help/topic/250/terms---policies
AirbnbHell. (2018). Airbnb Hell Website. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from
https://www.airbnbhell.com/
Alves, H., Fernandes, C., & Raposo, M. (2015). Value co-creation: Concept and contexts of
application and study. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1626–1633.
Alves, H., Ferreira, J. J., & Fernandes, C. I. (2016). Customer’s operant resources effects on co-
creation activities. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1(2), 69–80.
Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth. Journal of Service Research,
1(1), 5–17.
Anderson, L., Ostrom, A. L., Corus, C., Fisk, R. P., Gallan, A. S., Giraldo, M., … Williams, J. D.
(2013). Transformative service research: An agenda for the future. Journal of Business
96
Research, 66(8), 1203–1210.
Anderson, P. F. (1983). Marketing, Scientific Progress, and Scientific Method. Journal of Marketing,
47(4), 18.
Badcock, J. (2016). Barcelona to fine Airbnb and HomeAway €600,000 each for offering “illegal”
accommodation. The Telegraph. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/barcelona-fine-airbnb-homeaway600000-
offering-illegal-accommodation/
Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the concept of intentional social action in consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(December 2000), 388–396.
Ballantyne, D., Williams, J., & Aitken, R. (2011). Introduction to service-dominant logic: From
propositions to practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 179–180.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(December), 881–898.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.
Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. (2017). A triadic framework
for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors.
Journal of Business Research, 79, 219–227.
Binkhorst, E., & Dekker, T. Den. (2009). Agenda for Co-Creation Tourism Experience Research.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2–3), 311–327.
Botsman, R. (2013). The sharing economy lacks a shared definition. Fast Company. Retrieved
January 20, 2017, from http://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-
a-shared-definition#1
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Beyond zipcar: Collaborative consumption. Harvard Business
Review, 88(October), 15.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption.
London: HarperCollins.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard
Business Review, 73(January-February), 43–53.
Cabiddu, F., & Piccoli, G. (2013). Managing value co-creation in the tourism industry. Annals of
Tourism Research, 42, 86–107.
Camilleri, J., & Neuhofer, B. (2017). Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing
economy. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2322–
2340.
Campos, A. C., Mendes, J., Valle, P. O. do, & Scott, N. (2018). Co-creation of tourist experiences:
97
a literature review. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(4), 369–400.
Carlson, J., Rahman, M. M., Rosenberger, P. J., & Holzmüller, H. H. (2016). Understanding
communal and individual customer experiences in group-oriented event tourism: an activity
theory perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(9–10), 900–925.
Chan, K. W., Yim, C. K. (Bennett), & Lam, S. S. . (2010). Is Customer Participation in Value Creation
a Double-Edged Sword? Evidence from Professional Financial Services Across Cultures.
Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48–64.
Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames
exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–49.
Cheng, M. (2016). Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 60–70.
Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2009). Working Consumers: The Next Step in Marketing Theory? Marketing
Theory, 9(3), 315–339.
Crook, J. (2012). Airbnb Waives Fees For Sandy-Affected Users, Encourages Lower Prices From
Hosts. Techcrunch. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from
https://techcrunch.com/2012/11/01/airbnb-waives-fees-for-sandy-affected-users-
encourages-lower-prices-from-hosts/
Cusumano, M. (2015). How traditional firms must compete in the sharing economy.
Communications of the ACM, 58(1), 32–34.
Daveiro, R., & Vaughan, R. (2016). Assessing the size and presence of the collaborative economy
in Europe. PwC UK.
Desjeux, D. (1996). Scales of observation A micro‐sociological epistemology of social science
practice. Visual Sociology, 11(2), 45–55.
Dixon, D. F. (1990). Marketing as production: The development of a concept. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 18(4), 337–343.
Echeverri, P., & Skålén, P. (2011). Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study
of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 351–373.
Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2015). The Sharing Economy Isn’t About Sharing at All. Harvard
Business Review, (January), 1–3.
EESC. (2014). Collaborative consumption: new opportunities for consumers and businesses on
the EU market. Retrieved February 8, 2016, from
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.press-releases.30595
Ekman, P., Raggio, R. D., & Thompson, S. M. (2016). Service network value co-creation: Defining
the roles of the generic actor. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 51–62.
EU. (2016). Communication from the Comission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
98
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the region - A European
agenda for collaborative economy. Retrieved from
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/com2016-356-final.pdf
Farronato, C., & Levin, J. (2015). The Sharing Economy - new opportunities, new questions.
Retrieved from https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/news-and-
expertise/articles/2016/07/global-investor-2-15-en.pdf
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American
Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 7.
França, A., & Ferreira, J. (2016). Resources and capabilities through the lens of value (co-) creation:
a literature review. International Journal of Innovation Science, 8(3), 230–253.
Galvagno, M., Dalli, D., & Galvagno, M. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature
review. Marketing Service Quality, 24(6), 643–683.
Grönroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications. European Journal of
Marketing, 18(4), 36–44.
Grönroos, C. (2006). Adopting a service logic for marketing Adopting a service logic for marketing.
Marketing Theory, 6(September), 317–333.
Gronroos, C., & Voima. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-
creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150.
Gronroos, & Ravald. (2011). Service as business logic: implications for value creation and
marketing. Journal of Service Management, 22(1), 5–22.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in
collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059.
Hampton, K. N., Livio, O., & Sessions Goulet, L. (2010). The social life of wireless urban spaces:
Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 701–
722.
Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens. A Brief History of Humankind. London: Vintage.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.
Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., & Kirchler, E. (2015). Do we need rules for “what’s mine is yours”?
Governance in collaborative consumption communities. Journal of Business Research, 1–8.
Hirsch, E. (1992). The Concept of Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in
new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 283–296.
Hunt, S. D. (1976). The Nature and Scope of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40(July 1976), 17–
28.
99
Internet Society. (2015). Internet Society global internet report 2015: mobile evolution and
development of the internet. Internet Society, 1–142. Retrieved from
http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/global-internet-report
Kotler, P. (1972). A Generic Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 46–54.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing Management, 14th Edition (Vol. 22). New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Kuppelwieser, V. G., & Finsterwalder, J. (2016). Transformative Service Research and Service
Dominant Logic: Quo Vaditis? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 91–98.
Laamanen, M., & Skalén, P. (2015). Collective – conflictual value co-creation : A strategic action
field approach. Marketing Theory, 15(3), 381–400.
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.
Leiner, B. M., Cerf, V. G., Clark, D. D., Kahn, R. E., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D. C., … Wolf, S. (2009).
A Brief History of the Internet. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 39(5), 22–
31.
Leroy, J., Cova, B., & Salle, R. (2013). Zooming in VS zooming out on value co-creation:
Consequences for BtoB research. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(7), 1102–1111.
Locklear, M. (2018). Amsterdam will limit Airbnb rentals to 30 days per year. Engadget. Retrieved
January 20, 2018, from https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/10/amsterdam-airbnb-
rental-30-day-limit/
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements.
Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Service-dominant logic: A Necessary Step. European Journal
of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1298–1309.
Marsden, D., & Littler, D. (1998). Positioning Alternative Perspectives of Consumer Behaviour.
Journal of Marketing Management, 14(1–3), 3–28.
Mccoll-kennedy, J. R., Vargo, S. L., Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & Kasteren, Y. Van. (2012).
Health Care Customer Value Cocreation Practice Styles. Journal of Service Research, 15(4),
370–389.
McDaniel, C. J., & Gates, R. (2003). Marketing Research Essentials. Marketing Research
Essentials. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mir, R., & Watson, A. (2001). Critical realism and constructivism in strategy research: Toward a
synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12), 1169–1173.
Moeller, S., Ciuchita, R., Mahr, D., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Fassnacht, M. (2013). Uncovering
100
Collaborative Value Creation Patterns and Establishing Corresponding Customer Roles.
Journal of Service Research, 16(4), 471–487.
Mohlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood
of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 193–207.
Navarro, S., Llinares, C., & Garzon, D. (2016). Exploring the relationship between co-creation and
satisfaction using QCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1336–1339.
Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the
Interactive Continuum. Southern Illinois University Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual - 3rd Edition. OECD Publishing (Vol. Third edit). Paris: OECD
Publications.
OECD. (2016). OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from
http://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/naratourismstatisticsweek/statistical/pdf/2012_Tourism
_Trends_and.pdf
Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., Burkhard, K. A., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels, V., …
Rabinovich, E. (2010). Moving Forward and Making a Difference: Research Priorities for the
Science of Service. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 4–36.
Pereira, J. P. (2016). Airbnb em Lisboa rende 530 euros por mês aos proprietários. Retrieved from
https://www.publico.pt/2016/06/28/economia/noticia/airbnb-em-lisboa-rende-530-euros-
por-mes-aos-proprietarios-1736592
Perren, R., & Kozinets, R. V. (2018). Lateral Exchange Markets: How Social Platforms Operate in
a Networked Economy. Journal of Marketing, 82(January), 20–38.
Pinheiro, A. M. (2017). Airbnb em Portugal com ocupação de 39 noites por ano. Retrieved from
https://www.dinheirovivo.pt/empresas/airbnb-casas-portuguesas-com-ocupacao-media-de-
39-noites-por-ano/
Plé, L., & Cáceres, R. C. (2010). Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction of
value in service-dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6), 430–437.
Porter, M. (1979). How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 137–
145.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business
Review, 78(1), 79–90.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy &
Leadership, 32(3), 4–9.
Priporas, C.-V., Stylos, N., Rahimi, R., & Vedanthachari, L. N. (2017). Unraveling the diverse nature
of service quality in a sharing economy: A social exchange theory perspective of Airbnb
101
accommodation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9),
2279–2301.
PwC. (2015). Pwc-Consumer-Intelligence-Series-the-Sharing-Economy. PWC Consumer Intelligence
Series: The Sharing Economy. Retrieved from
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-
series-the-sharing-economy.pdf
Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2014). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 290–315.
Rust, R. (1998). What Is the Domain of Service Research? Journal of Service Research,
1(November), 107.
Ryanair. (2018). Ryanair Website - History of Ryanair. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from
https://corporate.ryanair.com/about-us/history-of-ryanair/
Salomonson, N., Åberg, A., & Allwood, J. (2012). Communicative skills that support value creation:
A study of B2B interactions between customers and customer service representatives.
Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 145–155.
Sayer, A. (2010). Method in Social Science (2nd Editio). Oxon: Routledge.
Scaraboto, D. (2015). Selling , Sharing , and Everything in Between : The Hybrid Economies of
Collaborative Networks. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 1–43.
Schor, J., Fitzmaurice, C. (2015). Collaborating and Connecting: the emergence of the sharing
economy. In J. Reisch, L., Thogersen (Ed.), Handbook of research on Sustainable Consuption.
Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved from
http://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781783471263.xml
Schrock, A. R. (2015). Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability,
locatability, and multimediality. International Journal of Communication, 9(1), 1229–1246.
Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. (2011). Aspects of service-dominant logic and its implications
for tourism management : Examples from the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 32(2),
207–214.
Silva, G. (2015). Crise ajudou à expansão do alojamento local. Expresso. Retrieved December 27,
2017, from http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2015-11-27-Crise-ajudou-a-expansao-do-
alojamento-local
Silva, J., & Simões, C. (2016). Representing Value Co-creation as a Practice of Consumption:
Customers’ Perspectives and Actions BT - Rediscovering the Essentiality of Marketing:
Proceedings of the 2015 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) World Marketing Congress.
In L. Petruzzellis & R. S. Winer (Eds.) (pp. 115–116). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Somerville, H., & Levine, D. (2017). Airbnb, San Francisco settle lawsuit over short-term rental law.
102
Reuters. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbnb-
sanfrancisco-settlement/airbnb-san-francisco-settle-lawsuit-over-short-term-rental-law-
idUSKBN17X254
Turismo de Portugal. (2017). Turismo de Portugal [Portuguese Republic’s Central Public Authority
for Tourism promotion] Page about Local Accommodation. Retrieved December 13, 2017,
from http://www.turismodeportugal.pt/Português/AreasAtividade/dvo/alojamento-
local/Pages/alojamento-local.aspx
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Building a Theory. Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and
Social Research, 100–142.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2015). Institutions and Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-
Dominant Logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–19.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.
Vargo, S. L., Wieland, H., & Akaka, M. A. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service
ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63–72.
Vega-Vazquez, M., Ángeles Revilla-Camacho, M., & J. Cossío-Silva, F. (2013). The value co-creation
process as a determinant of customer satisfaction. Management Decision, 51(10), 1945–
1953.
Villalobos, L. (2017). Airbnb não pode ter casas sem registo a partir deste sábado. Público.
Retrieved January 5, 2018, from
https://www.publico.pt/2017/06/30/economia/noticia/airbnb-nao-pode-ter-casas-sem-
registo-a-partir-deste-sabado-1777532
Villalobos, L. (2017). Proprietários lisboetas ganham 72 milhões com Airbnb. Público. Retrieved
January 6, 2018, from
https://www.publico.pt/2017/05/02/economia/noticia/proprietarios-lisboetas-ganham-
72-milhoes-com-airbnb-1770697
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490–495.
Wieland, H., Koskela-Huotari, K., & Vargo, S. L. (2016). Extending actor participation in value
creation: an institutional view. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3–4), 210–226.
Winkler, R. (2015). Airbnb Raises Over $100 Million as It Touts Strong Growth. The Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbnb-raises-
103
over-100-million-as-it-touts-strong-growth-1448049815
Wu, J., Ma, P., & Xie, K. L. (2017). In sharing economy we trust: the effects of host attributes on
short-term rental purchases. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
29(11), 2962–2976.
Yu, E., & Sangiorgi, D. (2017). Service Design as an Approach to Implement the Value Cocreation
Perspective in New Service Development. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 40–58.
Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2009). Services Marketing Integrating Customer
Focus Across the Firm International Edition. McGraw-Hill Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2017). The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Estimating the
Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(5), 687–705.
104
105
Appendix I – Questionnaire (Portuguese)
Section Code Question Theoretical grounds
Answer
Section 1
Q1 Quando foi a última vez que utilizou o Airbnb?
( ) Há mais de um ano ( ) No último ano ( ) No ano passado
[Instructions] Solicitamos que pense na última vez que ficou hospedado numa casa que encontro através do Airbnb e responda às seguintes perguntas.
Q2 Objetivos da estadia (selecione múltiplos objetivos se for o caso).
( ) Férias / Lazer ( ) Descansar ( ) Conhecer pessoas ( ) Trabalho ( ) Conhecer uma cultura diferente ( ) Celebrar um evento/acontecimento ( ) Outro
Q3 Partilhei o alojamento com o anfitrião
( ) Sim ( ) Não
Q4 Com quantas pessoas ficou alojado? (insira número, conte consigo)
[Open field]
Q5 Duração da Estadia (insira número de noites)
[Open field]
Q6 Em que país foi a estadia?
( ) Portugal ( ) Espanha ( ) Itália ( ) Alemanha ( ) Reino Unido ( ) França ( ) Outro
[If Q6 anwser is “Outro”]. Qual?
[Open field]
106
Section 2
[Instructions] Tenha em mente a última vez que ficou hospedado numa casa que encontrou através do Airbnb
C1 Tanto os Hóspedes como o Anfitrião influenciam os resultados da estadia.
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
C2 Para tirar um melhor partido da estadia, tive(mos) que ser proativo(s) na interação com o Anfitrião (ex. pedir informações, contactá-lo, gastar tempo, etc.).
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
(x1) O Anfitrião permitiu que interagisse(mos) com ele no processo de negociação.
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
(x2) A estadia melhoraria caso os Hóspedes pudessem experimentar coisas que não estavam previstas.
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
C3 Os benefícios da estadia dependem das condições e recursos que o Anfitrião fornece.
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
(x3) É importante que o Anfitrião tente atender às necessidades dos Hóspedes, para que estes desfrutem da sua estadia.
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
D1 Penso que fiz(emos) um uso impróprio da propriedade do Anfitrião, e isso prejudicou a estadia. (ex. danificar um objeto/sujar uma parede)
Plé and Cáceres (2010)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
D2 Eu esperava que o Anfitrião fizesse algo que eu tive que fazer por mim mesmo.
Cova and Dalli (2009)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
D3 Senti-me mal porque algo não funcionou da forma que eu esperava que funcionasse.
Gronroos and Ravald (2011)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente
107
( ) Concordo totalmente
Pr1 Consegui(mos) obter um melhor serviço cumprindo com as regras do Airbnb e do Anfitrião.
Hartl et al. (2015); Mccoll-kennedy et al. (2012)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
Pr2 Atividades como encontrar soluções para problemas ou o pensamento positivo ajudaram o serviço.
Mccoll-kennedy et al. (2012)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
Pr3 A comunicação e relação com o Anfitrião foi importante para atingir os objetivos da estadia.
Echeverri and Skålén (2011); Mccoll-kennedy et al. (2012); Salomonson et al. (2012).
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
Section 3 S1 No geral, estou satisfeito com o Airbnb.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Fornell et al.
(1996)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
S2 O Airbnb representa a minha versão ideal de um sistema de partilha de alojamento.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Fornell et al.
(1996)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
S3 A minha última utilização do Airbnb foi ao encontro das minhas expectativas.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Fornell et al.
(1996)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
L1 É provável que eu escolha o Airbnb ou semelhante da próxima vez que procure um alojamento para uma breve estadia.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Lamberton and
Rose (2012)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
L2 No futuro terei preferência por uma opção de sistema de partilha tal como o Airbnb.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Lamberton and
Rose (2012)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
L3 No futuro é mais provável que eu escolha um sistema de partilha como o Airbnb do que um hotel.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Lamberton and
Rose (2012)
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
108
Q7 Considero a última vez que fiquei alojado numa casa que encontrei no Airbnb como uma experiência representativa do seu funcionamento.
( ) Discordo totalmente ( ) Discordo parcialmente ( ) Indiferente ( ) Concordo parcialmente ( ) Concordo totalmente
Section 4
Q8 Género ( ) Feminino ( ) Masculino ( ) Outro
Q9 Idade (em número) [Open field]
Q10 Hab. Literárias
( ) 12º ano ou inferior ( ) Ensino Superior (a frequentar ou concluído) ( ) Outro
Q11 Em que distrito/região residia no momento da viagem?
( ) Açores ( ) Aveiro ( ) Beja ( ) Braga ( ) Bragança ( ) Castelo Branco ( ) Coimbra ( ) Évora ( ) Faro ( ) Guarda ( ) Leiria ( ) Lisboa ( ) Madeira ( ) Portalegre ( ) Porto ( ) Santarém ( ) Setúbal ( ) Viana do Castelo ( ) Vila Real ( ) Viseu ( ) Residia no Estrangeiro
Q11 Opcional: Se desejar ser informado sobre os resultados do estudo, peço-lhe que indique o seu email no seguinte campo.
[Open field]
(x) Items were excluded from data processing after recoding
109
Appendix II – Questionnaire (English)
Section Code Question Theoretical grounds
Answer
Section 1
Q1 When was the last time you used Airbnb?
( ) Over one year ( ) During last month ( ) During las year
[Instructions] Please think on the last time you were hosted in an accommodation you found through Airbnb e answer the following questions.
Q2 Travel goals (select multiple goals if it’s the case).
( ) Vacations / Leisure ( ) Resting ( ) Meeting people ( ) Work ( ) Meeting a different culture ( ) Celebrate an event/occurrence ( ) Other
Q3 I shared the house with the host.
( ) Yes ( ) No
Q4 How many people stayed in the accommodation? (insert the number that includes you)
[Open field]
Q5 Accommodation length (insert the number of nights)
[Open field]
Q6 In which country did the experience took place?
( ) Portugal ( ) Spain ( ) Italy ( ) Germany ( ) United Kingdom ( ) France ( ) Other
[If Q6 answer is “Other”]. Which?
[Open field]
110
Section 2
[Instructions] Keep in mind the last time you were a guest in a place you found through Airbnb
C2 Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
C1 We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (ex. ask for information, contact him, spending time, etc.).
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
(x1) The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
(x2) The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
C3 The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources.
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
(x3) It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs
Ranjan and Read (2014)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
D1 I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (ex. damaging an object/spilling something on the wall).
Plé and Cáceres (2010)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
D2 I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own.
Cova and Dalli (2009)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
D3 I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to.
Gronroos and Ravald (2011)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree
111
( ) Totally agree
Pr1 Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
Hartl et al. (2015); Mccoll-kennedy et al. (2012)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
Pr2 Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
Mccoll-kennedy et al. (2012)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
Pr3 Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives.
Echeverri and Skålén (2011); Mccoll-kennedy et al. (2012); Salomonson et al. (2012).
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
Section 3 S1 Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Fornell et al.
(1996)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
S3 My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Fornell et al.
(1996)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
S2 Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Fornell et al.
(1996)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
L1 I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Lamberton and
Rose (2012)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
L2 In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Lamberton and
Rose (2012)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
L3 In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
Mohlmann
(2015), based on
Lamberton and
Rose (2012)
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
112
Q7 I consider the last time I stayed in an accommodation that I found through Airbnb, has a representative experience of its service.
( ) Totally disagree ( ) Partially disagree ( ) Indifferent ( ) Partially agree ( ) Totally agree
Section 4
Q8 Gender ( ) Female ( ) Male ( ) Other
Q9 Age (number) [Open field]
Q10 Education
( ) 12th grade or inferior ( ) Higher education (ongoing or completely) ( ) Other
Q11 In which district/region were you living at the moment of the trip?
( ) Azores ( ) Aveiro ( ) Beja ( ) Braga ( ) Bragança ( ) Castelo Branco ( ) Coimbra ( ) Evora ( ) Faro ( ) Guarda ( ) Leiria ( ) Lisbon ( ) Madeira ( ) Portalegre ( ) Porto ( ) Santarem ( ) Setubal ( ) Viana do Castelo ( ) Vila Real ( ) Viseu ( ) I was living abroad
Q12 Optional: If you wish to be informed over the study’s results, please insert your email in the following field.
[Open field]
(x) Items were excluded from data processing after recoding
113
Appendix III – Cross-tabulation analysis (consumer variables)
Items per Travel goal
Getting to know a different culture (N=17) Resting (N=18) Vacations / Leisure (N=88)
Item Min. Max. Mean Std. dev. Variance Min. Max. Mean
Std. dev. Variance Min. Max. Mean
Std. dev. Variance
Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
2 5 4,59 ,795 ,632 4 5 4,67 ,485 ,235 1 5 4,43 ,841 ,708
We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) 2 5 3,53 1,00 1,015 1 5 3,50 1,249 1,559 1 5 3,60 1,170 1,369
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes.
1 5 3,65 1,27 1,618 1 5 3,44 1,464 2,144 1 5 3,73 1,284 1,649
The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things. 3 5 3,65 ,702 ,493 1 5 3,17 1,150 1,324 1 5 3,42 1,111 1,235
The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources 3 5 4,41 ,618 ,382 2 5 4,44 ,784 ,614 1 5 4,39 ,836 ,700
It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs. 3 5 4,47 ,624 ,390 3 5 4,50 ,618 ,382 1 5 4,58 ,656 ,430
I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
1 5 1,24 ,970 ,941 1 1 1,00 0,000 0,000 1 5 1,20 ,730 ,532
I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. 1 5 2,00 1,32 1,750 1 5 2,61 1,335 1,781 1 5 2,18 1,402 1,967
I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to. 1 5 2,06 1,39 1,934 1 5 2,28 1,602 2,565 1 5 2,10 1,494 2,231
Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
1 5 4,35 1,057 1,118 3 5 4,28 ,895 ,801 1 5 4,31 ,914 ,836
Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
3 5 4,18 ,809 ,654 3 5 4,22 ,878 ,771 1 5 4,07 ,980 ,961
Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives.
1 5 4,41 1,176 1,382 1 5 4,33 1,188 1,412 1 5 4,20 1,105 1,222
Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. 4 5 4,71 ,470 ,221 2 5 4,61 ,778 ,605 2 5 4,66 ,623 ,388
Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option. 2 5 4,41 ,795 ,632 2 5 4,11 ,963 ,928 2 5 4,23 ,840 ,706
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations. 2 5 4,65 ,786 ,618 2 5 4,44 ,984 ,967 1 5 4,40 ,989 ,978
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time. 4 5 4,71 ,470 ,221 2 5 4,39 ,916 ,840 2 5 4,60 ,687 ,472
In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb 3 5 4,53 ,624 ,390 2 5 3,78 1,166 1,359 1 5 4,30 ,924 ,854
In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
3 5 4,47 ,624 ,390 1 5 3,56 1,338 1,791 1 5 4,02 1,072 1,149
114
Work (N=12) Meeting new people (N=2) Celebrate an
event/occurrence (N=8) Other (N=3)
Item Min. Max. Mean Std. dev Min. Max. Mean Std. dev. Min. Max. Mean
Std. dev. Min. Max. Mean
Std. dev.
Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
4 5 4,75 ,452 5 5 5,00 0,000 4 5 4,63 ,518 5 5 5,00 0,00
We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) 1 5 3,08 1,240 4 5 4,50 ,707 2 5 3,38 1,061 2 4 3,33 1,15
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes.
1 5 3,50 1,382 4 5 4,50 ,707 3 5 4,13 ,991 2 5 4,00 1,73
The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things. 1 4 3,00 ,953 3 4 3,50 ,707 2 5 3,75 1,165 4 5 4,67 ,577
The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources 4 5 4,67 ,492 4 5 4,50 ,707 4 5 4,25 ,463 5 5 5,00 0,00
It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs. 3 5 4,67 ,651 5 5 5,00 0,000 3 5 4,50 ,756 4 5 4,67 ,577
I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
1 4 1,33 ,888 1 1 1,00 0,000 1 1 1,00 0,000 1 1 1,00 0,00
I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. 1 4 2,00 1,348 1 1 1,00 0,000 1 4 1,88 1,126 1 5 3,00 2,00
I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to. 1 4 1,58 ,996 1 1 1,00 0,000 1 4 1,50 1,069 2 5 3,33
1,528
Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
3 5 4,33 ,778 5 5 5,00 0,000 3 5 4,63 ,744 4 5 4,33 ,577
Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
3 5 3,92 ,996 3 5 4,00 1,414 3 5 4,25 ,886 4 5 4,67 ,577
Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives.
1 5 4,33 1,231 5 5 5,00 0,000 3 5 4,38 ,744 4 5 4,33 ,577
Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. 4 5 4,75 ,452 5 5 5,00 0,000 4 5 4,63 ,518 3 4 3,67 ,577
Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option. 3 5 4,50 ,674 5 5 5,00 0,000 3 5 4,13 ,835 3 5 4,00 1,00
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations. 4 5 4,75 ,452 5 5 5,00 0,000 4 5 4,88 ,354 4 4 4,00 0,00
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time. 4 5 4,92 ,289 4 5 4,50 ,707 4 5 4,88 ,354 3 5 4,33
1,155
In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb 4 5 4,83 ,389 2 5 3,50 2,121 4 5 4,50 ,535 3 5 4,00
1,000
In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
2 5 4,25 ,965 4 5 4,50 ,707 3 5 4,38 ,744 2 5 3,33 1,52
8
115
Item’s averages per Age class
[18-30] (N=32)
[30-40] (N=34)
[41-67] (N=36)
Mean
Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
4,34 ,865 4,48 ,795 4,50 ,878
We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) 3,41 1,188 3,67 1,109 3,50 1,254
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes.
3,69 1,378 3,85 1,176 3,67 1,287
The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things. 3,19 1,061 3,30 1,075 3,69 1,191
The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources 4,47 ,621 4,39 ,899 4,47 ,878
It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs. 4,47 ,507 4,64 ,549 4,75 ,770
I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
1,28 ,888 1,18 ,635 1,19 ,710
I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. 1,81 1,203 2,33 1,407 2,28 1,523
I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to. 1,63 1,238 2,42 1,521 2,19 1,546
Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
4,41 ,979 4,21 ,781 4,31 ,920
Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
3,94 1,014 4,06 ,788 4,14 1,073
Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives.
4,22 ,975 4,18 1,103 4,33 1,121
Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. 4,63 ,660 4,67 ,645 4,58 ,604
Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option. 4,19 ,859 4,18 ,882 4,25 ,841
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations. 4,53 ,950 4,30 ,984 4,42 ,906
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time. 4,53 ,671 4,73 ,626 4,58 ,732
In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb 4,28 ,813 4,48 ,795 4,14 1,099
In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
3,97 ,933 4,00 1,225 4,11 1,008
TotalSatisfaction 4,44 ,664 4,38 ,657 4,41 ,629
TotalChoosing 4,26 ,707 4,40 ,740 4,28 ,803
Item’s averages per Gender
Female (N=65)
Male (N=36)
Mean
Std. dev.
Mean
Std. dev.
Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process. 4,48 ,886 4,14
1,246
We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) 3,57 1,274
3,23 1,11
0
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes. 3,78 1,329
3,95 ,999
The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things. 3,25 1,146
3,32 1,21
1
The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources 4,49 ,831 4,50 ,859
It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs. 4,60 ,703 4,55 ,596
116
I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
1,11 ,616 1,14 ,640
I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. 2,03 1,414
1,73 1,35
2
I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to. 2,06 1,467
1,64 1,29
3
Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome. 4,38 ,963 4,45 ,800
Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me. 4,00 1,046
3,95 1,09
0
Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives. 4,31 1,045
4,41 ,959
Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. 4,65 ,623 4,77 ,429
Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option. 4,31 ,828 4,18 ,795
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations. 4,43 1,000
4,59 ,734
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time. 4,65 ,623 4,77 ,528
In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb 4,25 ,919 4,50 ,598
In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel. 4,06 1,074
4,18 ,907
117
Appendix IV – Cross-tabulation analysis (experience variables)
Item’s averages per House sharing
Shared house (N=20)
Didn’t share house (N=80)
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
4,70 ,733 4,38 ,862
We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) 3,55 1,099 3,51 1,212
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes.
4,25 ,716 3,63 1,344
The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things. 3,40 1,095 3,41 1,144
The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources 4,25 1,070 4,49 ,729
It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs. 4,35 ,988 4,69 ,493
I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
1,20 ,696 1,23 ,763
I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. 1,85 1,461 2,21 1,384
I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to. 2,05 1,504 2,08 1,465
Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome. 4,20 1,105 4,33 ,839
Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
4,05 ,826 4,05 1,005
Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives. 4,45 ,826 4,19 1,115
Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. 4,70 ,470 4,60 ,668
Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option. 4,30 ,657 4,18 ,897
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations. 4,35 1,089 4,46 ,871
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time. 4,60 ,598 4,61 ,703
In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb 4,45 ,759 4,26 ,964
In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
4,05 ,945 4,01 1,085
118
Item’s averages per Duration classes
1 or 2 nights (N=22)
3 nights (N=33)
Over 3 nights (N=43)
Mean
Std. dev.
Mean
Std. dev.
Mean
Std. dev.
Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
4,48
,667 4,53
,702 4,39 ,766
We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) 3,70
1,104
3,51
1,242
3,44 ,998
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes.
3,58
1,324
3,72
1,351
3,64 1,17
5
The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things. 3,42
1,251
3,42
1,006
3,69 1,03
7
The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources 4,42
1,001
4,40
,623 4,36 ,762
It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs. 4,64
,783 4,63
,536 4,67 ,478
I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
1,21
,650 1,21
,773 1,42 ,906
I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. 2,36
1,410
2,21
1,390
2,36 1,35
5
I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to. 2,55
1,641
2,02
1,389
2,14 1,49
6
Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
4,30
,951 4,21
,914 4,17 ,737
Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
4,21
,857 3,91
,971 4,14 ,798
Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives.
4,24
1,091
4,14
1,125
4,14 1,09
9
Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. 4,48
,667 4,67
,644 4,58 ,649
Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option.
4,09
,805 4,33
,919 4,03 ,878
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations. 4,39
1,059
4,35
,973 4,39 ,838
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time. 4,52
,795 4,60
,660 4,56 ,773
In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb 4,09
1,071
4,35
,948 4,39 ,934
In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
3,91
1,011
4,05
1,133
3,97 1,02
8
119
Item’s averages per Number of people per accommodation
1 or 2 (N=39)
3 or 4 (N=41)
5 or more (N=21)
Mean Std. dev.
Mean Std. dev.
Mean Std. dev.
Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
4,51 ,683 4,63 ,536 3,95 1,322
We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...) 3,82 1,121 3,51 1,165 3,00 1,183
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes.
3,92 1,109 3,71 1,383 3,43 1,326
The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things. 3,64 1,203 3,44 1,119 2,90 ,831
The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources 4,41 ,785 4,59 ,741 4,24 ,944
It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs. 4,74 ,442 4,56 ,776 4,52 ,602
I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
1,33 ,869 1,20 ,782 1,05 ,218
I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own. 2,08 1,403 2,32 1,439 1,95 1,322
I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to. 2,23 1,564 2,32 1,474 1,38 1,071
Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
4,54 ,682 4,27 ,923 3,95 1,071
Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
4,31 ,731 4,00 ,949 3,67 1,238
Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives.
4,54 ,682 4,15 1,216 3,90 1,221
Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb. 4,64 ,668 4,61 ,494 4,62 ,805
Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option.
4,13 ,951 4,34 ,693 4,10 ,944
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations. 4,46 ,884 4,32 1,059 4,52 ,814
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time. 4,64 ,778 4,59 ,631 4,62 ,590
In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb 4,28 ,887 4,39 ,891 4,14 1,062
In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
3,92 1,061 4,02 1,084 4,24 ,995
120
Appendix V – Correlation matrix analysis Correlation Matrix 1/5
Guest and host shared an equal
role in determining the outcome of the
process.
We had to be proactive in our interaction with
the host (...)
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him
in its business processes.
The stay could improve if the
Guest could try new things.
The outcome of the service is
dependent on the available
resources.
It’s important that the host
tries to satisfy guests’
individual needs.
I think I fell short on using the resources I
had access and that damaged
the host (…)
I expected the host to do something
that I had to do on my own.
I felt bad because something didn't
work the way I was expecting to.
Guest and host shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
Correlation coefficient
1,000 ,223* ,209* ,226* -,024 ,133 -,046 ,036 ,010
Sig. (2 ends) ,025 ,036 ,023 ,810 ,185 ,645 ,721 ,923 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...)
Correlation coefficient
,223* 1,000 ,276** ,427** ,228* ,124 ,174 ,118 ,127
Sig. (2 ends) ,025 ,005 ,000 ,022 ,218 ,082 ,240 ,206 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes.
Correlation coefficient
,209* ,276** 1,000 ,156 ,079 -,032 ,057 -,199* -,106
Sig. (2 ends) ,036 ,005 ,120 ,435 ,754 ,573 ,046 ,292 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things.
Correlation coefficient
,226* ,427** ,156 1,000 ,044 ,252* ,211* ,162 ,167
Sig. (2 ends) ,023 ,000 ,120 ,662 ,011 ,034 ,105 ,096 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources.
Correlation coefficient
-,024 ,228* ,079 ,044 1,000 ,395** -,050 ,160 ,210*
Sig. (2 ends) ,810 ,022 ,435 ,662 ,000 ,621 ,110 ,035 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs.
Correlation coefficient
,133 ,124 -,032 ,252* ,395** 1,000 ,091 ,247* ,146
Sig. (2 ends) ,185 ,218 ,754 ,011 ,000 ,365 ,013 ,144 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
Correlation coefficient
-,046 ,174 ,057 ,211* -,050 ,091 1,000 ,182 ,190
Sig. (2 ends) ,645 ,082 ,573 ,034 ,621 ,365 ,068 ,058 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
121
Correlation Matrix 2/5
Guest and host shared an equal
role in determining the outcome of the
process.
We had to be proactive in our interaction with
the host (...)
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him
in its business processes.
The stay could improve if the
Guest could try new things.
The outcome of the service is
dependent on the available
resources.
It’s important that the host
tries to satisfy guests’
individual needs.
I think I fell short on using the resources I
had access and that damaged
the host (…)
I expected the host to do something
that I had to do on my own.
I felt bad because something didn't
work the way I was expecting to.
I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own.
Correlation coefficient
,036 ,118 -,199* ,162 ,160 ,247* ,182 1,000 ,496**
Sig. (2 ends) ,721 ,240 ,046 ,105 ,110 ,013 ,068 ,000 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to.
Correlation coefficient
,010 ,127 -,106 ,167 ,210* ,146 ,190 ,496** 1,000
Sig. (2 ends) ,923 ,206 ,292 ,096 ,035 ,144 ,058 ,000 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
Correlation coefficient
,177 ,323** ,142 ,108 -,093 -,022 ,040 -,161 -,251*
Sig. (2 ends) ,076 ,001 ,156 ,284 ,357 ,827 ,690 ,108 ,011 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
Correlation coefficient
,074 ,354** ,201* ,209* ,043 -,026 ,018 -,125 -,042
Sig. (2 ends) ,463 ,000 ,044 ,036 ,667 ,798 ,861 ,215 ,675 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives.
Correlation coefficient
,101 ,207* ,216* ,037 ,040 -,007 ,019 -,199* -,124
Sig. (2 ends) ,313 ,038 ,030 ,712 ,689 ,944 ,852 ,047 ,219 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb.
Correlation coefficient
,168 ,124 ,123 -,145 -,091 -,134 -,045 -,418** -,238*
Sig. (2 ends) ,092 ,215 ,221 ,147 ,368 ,181 ,656 ,000 ,017 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option.
Correlation coefficient
,219* ,162 ,128 -,112 -,050 -,261** -,036 -,213* -,159
Sig. (2 ends) ,028 ,105 ,201 ,264 ,620 ,008 ,721 ,033 ,112 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations.
Correlation coefficient
,140 ,038 ,057 -,159 -,111 -,145 -,034 -,344** -,525**
Sig. (2 ends) ,163 ,709 ,573 ,112 ,271 ,149 ,732 ,000 ,000 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
122
Correlation Matrix 3/5
Guest and host shared an equal
role in determining the outcome of the
process.
We had to be proactive in our interaction with
the host (...)
The host allowed
sufficient guest to interact with him
in its business processes.
The stay could improve if the
Guest could try new things.
The outcome of the service is
dependent on the available
resources.
It’s important that the host
tries to satisfy guests’
individual needs.
I think I fell short on using the resources I
had access and that damaged
the host (…)
I expected the host to do something
that I had to do on my own.
I felt bad because something didn't
work the way I was expecting to.
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time.
Correlation coefficient
,145 -,062 ,023 -,085 -,087 -,064 -,014 -,262** -,207*
Sig. (2 ends) ,149 ,539 ,818 ,399 ,386 ,526 ,887 ,008 ,038 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb.
Correlation coefficient
,155 -,098 ,099 -,039 -,068 -,021 ,106 -,155 -,146
Sig. (2 ends) ,121 ,331 ,324 ,699 ,497 ,837 ,291 ,121 ,145
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
Correlation coefficient
,158 ,081 ,057 ,020 ,042 ,085 ,143 -,044 -,032
Sig. (2 ends) ,115 ,420 ,570 ,839 ,680 ,396 ,155 ,664 ,747
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I felt bad because
something didn't work the
way I was expecting to.
Compliance with the
implicit and explicit rules allowed for a
better outcome.
Cognitive activities like
finding solutions to
problems or positive
thinking help me.
Communicating and Relating with the host
was important for my
objectives.
Overall, I am satisfied with
Airbnb.
Airbnb represents
the ideal version of an accommodat
ion sharing option.
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled
my expectations.
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing
option the next time.
In the future I will prefer a sharing
option like Airbnb.
In the future I'm likely to choose a
sharing program like Airbnb instead of a
hotel.
We shared an equal role in determining the outcome of the process.
Correlation coefficient
,010 ,177 ,074 ,101 ,168 ,219* ,140 ,145 ,155 ,158
Sig. (2 ends) ,923 ,076 ,463 ,313 ,092 ,028 ,163 ,149 ,121 ,115 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
We had to be proactive in our interaction with the host (...)
Correlation coefficient
,127 ,323** ,354** ,207* ,124 ,162 ,038 -,062 -,098 ,081
Sig. (2 ends) ,206 ,001 ,000 ,038 ,215 ,105 ,709 ,539 ,331 ,420 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
123
Correlation Matrix – 4/5
I felt bad because
something didn't work the
way I was expecting to.
Compliance with the
implicit and explicit rules allowed for a
better outcome.
Cognitive activities like
finding solutions to problems or
positive thinking help me.
Communicating and Relating with the host
was important for my
objectives.
Overall, I am
satisfied with
Airbnb.
Airbnb represents the ideal version of
an accommodatio
n sharing option.
My last use
of Airbnb fulfilled my
expectations.
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing
option the next time.
In the future I will prefer a sharing
option like Airbnb.
In the future I'm likely to choose a
sharing program like Airbnb instead of a
hotel.
The host allowed sufficient guest to interact with him in its business processes.
Correlation coefficient
-,106 ,142 ,201* ,216* ,123 ,128 ,057 ,023 ,099 ,057
Sig. (2 ends) ,292 ,156 ,044 ,030 ,221 ,201 ,573 ,818 ,324 ,570 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
The stay could improve if the Guest could try new things.
Correlation coefficient
,167 ,108 ,209* ,037 -,145 -,112 -,159 -,085 -,039 ,020
Sig. (2 ends) ,096 ,284 ,036 ,712 ,147 ,264 ,112 ,399 ,699 ,839 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
The outcome of the service is dependent on the available resources.
Correlation coefficient
,210* -,093 ,043 ,040 -,091 -,050 -,111 -,087 -,068 ,042
Sig. (2 ends) ,035 ,357 ,667 ,689 ,368 ,620 ,271 ,386 ,497 ,680 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
It’s important that the host tries to satisfy guests’ individual needs.
Correlation coefficient
,146 -,022 -,026 -,007 -,134 -,261** -,145 -,064 -,021 ,085
Sig. (2 ends) ,144 ,827 ,798 ,944 ,181 ,008 ,149 ,526 ,837 ,396 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I think I fell short on using the resources I had access and that damaged the host (…)
Correlation coefficient
,190 ,040 ,018 ,019 -,045 -,036 -,034 -,014 ,106 ,143
Sig. (2 ends) ,058 ,690 ,861 ,852 ,656 ,721 ,732 ,887 ,291 ,155 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I expected the host to do something that I had to do on my own.
Correlation coefficient
,496** -,161 -,125 -,199* -,418** -,213* -,344** -,262** -,155 -,044
Sig. (2 ends) ,000 ,108 ,215 ,047 ,000 ,033 ,000 ,008 ,121 ,664 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I felt bad because something didn't work the way I was expecting to.
Correlation coefficient
1,000 -,251* -,042 -,124 -,238* -,159 -,525** -,207* -,146 -,032
Sig. (2 ends) ,011 ,675 ,219 ,017 ,112 ,000 ,038 ,145 ,747 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Compliance with the implicit and explicit rules allowed for a better outcome.
Correlation coefficient
-,251* 1,000 ,263** ,469** ,131 ,263** ,324** ,216* ,177 ,309**
Sig. (2 ends) ,011 ,008 ,000 ,192 ,008 ,001 ,030 ,077 ,002 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
124
Correlation Matrix – 5/5
I felt bad because
something didn't work the
way I was expecting to.
Compliance with the implicit
and explicit rules allowed
for a better outcome.
Cognitive activities like
finding solutions to problems or
positive thinking help me.
Communicating and Relating with the host
was important for my
objectives.
Overall, I am satisfied with
Airbnb.
Airbnb represents
the ideal version of an accommodat
ion sharing option.
My last use
of Airbnb fulfilled my
expectations.
I am likely to choose Airbnb
or a similar sharing option the next time.
In the future I will prefer a sharing
option like Airbnb.
In the future I'm likely to choose a
sharing program like Airbnb instead of a
hotel.
Cognitive activities like finding solutions to problems or positive thinking help me.
Correlation coefficient
-,042 ,263** 1,000 ,503** -,007 ,080 -,054 ,076 -,071 ,066
Sig. (2 ends) ,675 ,008 ,000 ,941 ,425 ,594 ,448 ,482 ,514 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Communicating and Relating with the host was important for my objectives.
Correlation coefficient
-,124 ,469** ,503** 1,000 ,036 ,112 ,006 ,099 ,109 ,254*
Sig. (2 ends) ,219 ,000 ,000 ,718 ,264 ,950 ,323 ,278 ,010 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Overall, I am satisfied with Airbnb.
Correlation coefficient
-,238* ,131 -,007 ,036 1,000 ,483** ,418** ,512** ,374** ,244*
Sig. (2 ends) ,017 ,192 ,941 ,718 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,014 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Airbnb represents the ideal version of an accommodation sharing option.
Correlation coefficient
-,159 ,263** ,080 ,112 ,483** 1,000 ,346** ,454** ,424** ,459**
Sig. (2 ends) ,112 ,008 ,425 ,264 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
My last use of Airbnb fulfilled my expectations.
Correlation coefficient
-,525** ,324** -,054 ,006 ,418** ,346** 1,000 ,495** ,394** ,229*
Sig. (2 ends) ,000 ,001 ,594 ,950 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,022 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I am likely to choose Airbnb or a similar sharing option the next time.
Correlation coefficient
-,207* ,216* ,076 ,099 ,512** ,454** ,495** 1,000 ,606** ,461**
Sig. (2 ends) ,038 ,030 ,448 ,323 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
In the future I will prefer a sharing option like Airbnb
Correlation coefficient
-,146 ,177 -,071 ,109 ,374** ,424** ,394** ,606** 1,000 ,577**
Sig. (2 ends) ,145 ,077 ,482 ,278 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
In the future I'm likely to choose a sharing program like Airbnb instead of a hotel.
Correlation coefficient
-,032 ,309** ,066 ,254* ,244* ,459** ,229* ,461** ,577** 1,000
Sig. (2 ends) ,747 ,002 ,514 ,010 ,014 ,000 ,022 ,000 ,000 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101