Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

A trust model for collaborative redistribution platforms:A platform

design issue
Associate Professor Yousra Hallem a, Associate Professor Intissar Abbes b,
Professor Lubica Hikkerova c, *, Media Planner Nadia Taga d
a
INSEEC School of Business, Lyon, France
b
IHEC Carthage, Tunisia
c
IPAG Business School, Paris, France
d
Access Content Agency, Tunisia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Key words: The aim of this research is to gain insight into trust issues within collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) by
Trust testing the impact of their design on the formation of trust and its subsequent effect on behavioral intentions. A
Seller quantitative study was conducted among 216 respondents who had made second-hand purchases on two French
Platform
websites. Findings show that design features do not all have the same influence on trust in the platform and trust
Second-hand shopping
Collaborative consumption
in the seller. Seller reputation has a positive influence on both trust in the seller and trust in the platform. Ease of
use and enjoyment influence trust in the seller, while third-party recognition is a determining factor of trust in
the platform. Trust in the platform is a significant determining factor of trust in the seller and behavioral in­
tentions are influenced by trust in the platform. Recommendations are suggested to managers to enhance trust
within collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs).

1. Introduction
Collaborative consumption is a major social and economic phe­
nomenon (De Rivera et al., 2017; Ertz et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2020) and
collaborative practices are presented as a new form of social commerce
(Hajli et al., 2015; Hamari et al., 2016). Social commerce transfers
power from the producer to the consumer (Hajli and Sims, 2015) and
involves consumers in the value chains of organizations as designers,
producers and/or distributors of their own goods. Botsman and Rogers
(2010) identified three forms of collaborative consumption based on the
type of product or service exchanged, and on transfer or non-transfer of
ownership. “Product service systems” enable access to – rather than
ownership of - different products, examples of which are car-sharing,
self-service bicycles and rental of equipment. The “collaborative life­
style” includes any way of sharing intangible resources between in­
dividuals such as space, time, or skills (e.g. couchsurfing or coworking).
Finally, “collaborative redistribution systems” enable the transfer of
goods from a person owning them to a person seeking them. Unwanted
or used goods are redistributed via dedicated shops or websites such as
Craigslist or eBay. Among these varied forms of collaborative con­
sumption, the collaborative redistribution market - which is mainly
represented by the second-hand market - is gaining increasing traction.
The second-hand market refers to transactions of buying and selling
previously owned or used products (Roux and Guiot, 2008; 2010 Benoit
et al., 2017). The French second-hand market was, for example, esti­
mated at 6 billion euros in 2016 (Xerfi, 20171). In the United Kingdom,
there are a total of 3915 stores specializing in selling second-hand goods
and it is an industry which employs approximately 32,000 people. In
2018, the sales generated in these stores saw a 9.2 percent rise in value, a
significant increase on the previous two years (Statista, 2019) .2
Central to collaborative consumption, the second-hand market is
booming with the advent of the internet, the development of peer-to-
peer e-commerce platforms (e.g., Amazon, eBay, Craigslist, etc.) and
the proliferation of social networks (e.g., Facebook groups and Facebook
Marketplace) (Barnes and Mattsson, 2016; Belk, 2014; Guo et al., 2019;
Lichy and Kachour, 2020; Oliveira et al., 2020). Indeed, online platforms

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yhallem@inseeclyon.com (A.P.Y. Hallem), abbessintissar@yahoo.fr (A.P.I. Abbes), lubicahikkerova@gmail.com (P.L. Hikkerova), taga.nadia@
gmail.com (M.P.N. Taga).
1
Xerfi, 2017, https://www.xerfi.com/presentationetude/Les-marches-de-lll-occasion_7DIS72
2
https://www.statista.com/topics/4593/second-hand-retail-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120943
Received 17 March 2020; Received in revised form 29 May 2021; Accepted 1 June 2021
Available online 16 June 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A.P.Y. Hallem et al.
have enabled the growth of collaborative consumption (Abbes et al.,
2020; Barnes and Mattsson, 2016; Belk, 2014; Guo et al., 2020; Hamari
et al., 2016; Oliveira et al., 2020; Padmavathy et al., 2019). In the
context of second-hand shopping, these online trading platforms are
called collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) (Abbes et al., 2020).
Considered as a transaction interface, these platforms are deemed to
facilitate the engagement of collaborative consumers in the sharing
process (Ertz et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2019; Oliveira et al., 2020).
The role of facilitator of online platforms, the enduring complexity of
the digital world and the nature of online transactions with invisible and
unknown consumers all require trust (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa,
2004; Ou and Sia, 2010). Indeed, several researchers (Benoit et al.,
2017; Bostsman and Rogers, 2010; De Rivera et al., 2017; Möhlmann,
2015; Oliveira et al., 2020) argue that trust is one of the main concerns
in the context of collaborative consumption. Trust is evidently a
necessary condition for online collaborative consumption practices to be
successful (Hallem et al., 2020; Keymolen, 2016; Luo et al., 2020; Oli­
veira et al., 2020). Botsman and Rogers (2010) argue that forging trust
between individuals through the power of the internet is indeed key for
the success of online collaborative platforms. Along the same lines, the
rise of collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) with their different
designs and architectures (Abbes et al., 2020), combined with
demanding consumers who seek to maximize their utility (Guiot and
Roux, 2010), further underlines this issue of trust in the context of
collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs). Thus, online collaborative
redistribution consumption requires trust, not merely between con­
sumers, but also between the consumer and the collaborative platform.
Regarding online shopping, the existing literature has highlighted the
impact of web design (Cyr et al., 2008; Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa,
2004; Ou and Sia, 2010) on the user’s degree of trust in them, but, to the
best of our knowledge, no research has yet modeled the specific impact
of the design of collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) on the
development of trust. Hofmann (2017) argued that trust, rather than
solely originating from an elaborate decision-making process, can
actually be triggered by design cues. Moreover, trust was considered
separately as an important issue in second-hand shopping (Ferraro et al.,
2016; Lee and Lee, 2005), collaborative consumption (Botsman and
Rogers, 2010; De Rivera et al., 2017; Möhlmann, 2015; Oliveira et al.,
2020) and online shopping (Cyr et al., 2008; Gefen and Straub, 2004;
Lee and Turban, 2001), but has rarely been considered in the phenom­
enon of online collaborative redistribution consumption (Luo et al.,
2020). To address this gap in understanding, this paper proposes a
research model to study trust in the context of online second-hand
shopping.
The aim of this research is to gain insight into trust issues within
collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) by testing the impact of
their design on the formation of trust and its subsequent effect on
behavioral intentions. In the first part of this paper, a literature review
on collaborative redistribution consumption, as well as on the impor­
tance of trust within the context of online second-hand shopping, is
presented. The second part presents the research hypothesis and meth­
odology. The third part comprises a presentation of the results and
discussion. Finally, in the fourth part, recommendations to address the
requirements of successful online second-hand transactions, as well as
limitations and future avenues of research, are outlined.
2. Literature review
2.1. The collaborative redistribution market: definition and insights
The success of the sharing economy is based on Collaboration Theory
(Huxham and Vangen, 2013; Ostrom, 1990) which proposes that the
strength of collaborative practices lies in the comparative advantage of
collaboration (Axelrod, 1997; Ostrom, 1998). Collaborative practices
are often assimilated as sharing, giving, trading, reselling, bartering and
having access to goods and services (Bardhi and Echkhardt, 2012;
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943
Botsman and Rogers 2010). It has been generally recognized that this
new phenomenon is redefining not only what we consume, but how we
consume it. This new way of consuming describes the desire of the
consumer to be empowered (Hajli and Sims, 2015; Jouny-Rivier and
Poutier, 2020). Collaborative consumption also describes a trend to­
wards more sustainable consumption and a shift in society "from Gen­
eration Me to Generation We" (Botsman and Rogers, 2010 p.41). The
collaborative redistribution market represents one important form of
collaborative consumption (Belk, 2014; Botsman and Rogers, 2010): it
enables the redistribution of second-hand goods between individuals.
After the product has been used, it is redistributed instead of being
destroyed. Statistics show, for example, that the worldwide clothing
resale market was forecast to register a huge increase between 2012 and
2023. In 2018, the global market value of clothing resale was estimated
to be worth 24 billion US dollars and is estimated to reach 51 billion US
dollars by 2023 (Statista, 2019) .3 Several drivers of second-hand
shopping have been identified in the marketing literature. Economic
motivations (Roux and Guiot, 2010, 2008; Williams and Paddock,
2003), such as the fact of paying a fair price and bargain hunting, are
considered to be some of the most important determining factors of
second-hand shopping. Ethical and ecological concerns are also gaining
in importance regarding buying second-hand products (Ferraro et al.,
2016; Parguel et al., 2017). Recreational and fashion motivations such
as nostalgia, uniqueness, originality and treasure-hunting (Ferraro et al.,
2016; Padmavathy et al., 2019; Roux and Guiot, 2008; Sihvonen and
Turunen, 2016) all arouse the interest of second-hand shoppers.
Collaborative consumption markets and, more specifically, collabo­
rative redistribution markets are structurally different from traditional
buyer-seller relationships as they are more triadic than dyadic (Benoit
et al., 2017). Platform providers supply the online marketplace and act
as intermediaries between the person providing a product or service and
the person receiving such product or service (Benoit et al., 2017). Acting
as transaction intermediaries, these platforms enable the consumer’s
involvement in the collaborative consumption processes (Ertz et al.,
2016). The role of the facilitator is to make the link between consumers
without intervening in the terms of the exchange, as can be seen on
Craigslist or Facebook Marketplace. Other platforms such as Amazon or
Rakuten can, however, interfere in the relationship between users by
controlling the terms of the exchange for a fee (eBay, Amazon, etc.).
Besides this facilitation role, several researchers (Benoit et al., 2017;
Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Lamberton and Rose, 2012; Möhlmann,
2015) agree that platform providers play an important role in ensuring
encounters are trustworthy, as trust is a key issue within the collabo­
rative consumption market (De Rivera et al., 2017; Lamberton, 2016;
Oliveira et al., 2019) and more specifically the collaborative redistri­
bution market.
2.2. The importance of trust within online collaborative redistribution
markets
Trust between buyers and sellers has always been considered a
sensitive and important issue. Lack of trust is, for example, one of the
major inhibitors of second-hand shopping (Becker-Leifhold and Iran,
2018). The asymmetry of information between seller and buyer is cen­
tral to the trust issue (Chantelat and Vignal, 2002). Indeed, trust is a
crucial component when uncertainties and opportunism exist (Jarven­
paa et al., 2000, Mayer et al., 1995). Uncertainty and lack of trust in the
seller may occur due to a perceived negative price-for-value ratio of
products (Catulli, 2012; Chantelat and Vignal, 2002). Trust is also a
prerequisite for consumers to feel confident about the origin, quality and
authenticity of the second-hand product (Ferraro et al., 2016; Sihvonen
and Turunen, 2016). Buyers are not usually experts and they always run
3
https://www.statista.com/statistics/826162/apparel-resale-market
-value-worldwide/
A.P.Y. Hallem et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943

the risk of obtaining a second-hand product of bad quality with hidden Table 1
defects, as well as of purchasing the product above a fair price (Guiot The main website and platform design features.
and Roux, 2010). Interest in how trust is gained has increased with the Characteristics References
advent of e-commerce (Gefen et al., 2003; Koufaris and Hampton-Sousa, Ease of use Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002); Davis
2004; Pavlou, 2003) and collaborative consumption (Botsman and Defined as the consumer’s subjective (1989); Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa
perception of the amount of effort (2004); Pavlou (2003)
Rogers, 2010; Keymolen, 2016; Möhlmann, 2016). Within the arena of
required to learn how to use the
collaborative consumption, trust is seen as a key factor for the success of website.
C2C exchanges (Hofmann et al., 2017; Lamberton, 2016; Möhlmann, Perceived usefulness Davis (1989); Koufaris and
2016). Trust is necessary for mutual interactions between peers who Defined as a subjective perception of Hampton-Sosa (2004); Loiacono et al.
have never met before (Benoit et al., 2017; Cheng et al., 2020) and who the usefulness of a website, such as in (2002); Pavlou (2003)
terms of saving time and money, as well
wish to collaborate. Trust is also relevant in the context of collaborative
as for assessing the quality of purchases
consumption because of the current absence of clear laws and regula­ made.
tions (Hofmann et al., 2017; Luo et al., 2020). Trust consequently has a Perceived enjoyment Chang et al. (2005); (Hwang et al.,
significant influence by alleviating uncertainties and risks and smooth­ Defined as the consumer’s feeling of 2007)
pleasure during the online shopping
ing the collaborative consumption process (Cheng et al., 2020; Lam­
experience.
berton, 2016; Luo et al., 2020). The remarkable progress of collaborative Visual designRefers to the graphic and Cyr (2008); Cyr et al. (2008)
consumption has been facilitated by the internet and online collabora­ esthetic aspect, such as colors, font, and
tive platforms (Barnes and Mattsson, 2016; Belk, 2014; Hamari et al., display.
2016; Hallem et al., 2020). Collaborative redistribution platforms Information design Cyr (2008); Cyr et al. (2008)
Refers to website components which
(CRPs) are trading platforms whereon individuals can buy and sell
convey reliable and relevant
second-hand products (Abbes et al., 2020). We can suppose that the information about products and
issue of trust is more important in collaborative redistribution platforms services
(CRPs) if we consider the risk associated with second-hand shopping, Navigation design Agarwal and Venkatesh (2002); Cyr
Refers to the navigation system, which (2008)
collaborative consumption and online shopping. In the context of online
enables users to access the different
second-hand shopping, we can observe a lack of information about the sections of the platform.
seller (Pantoja et al., 2016). The little information available is mainly Third-party recognition Gefen et al. (2003); Lee and Turban
limited to a pseudonym (Li et al., 2009) of the seller and a brief Certification or recognition by a trusted (2001); Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa
description or a few photos of the product (Abdul-Ghani et al., 2011). organization or a trusted person who (2004)
also uses the same platform.
The presence of a middleman - here the platform provider - can, in this
Seller’s reputation Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa (2004);
context, compensate for the lack of trust. Besides their role as inter­ Reflects the level of honesty and Ou and Sia (2010); Shiau and Luo
mediators, platform providers have a further essential role in reducing trustworthiness of the seller. (2012)
perceived risk (Benoit et al., 2017; Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Lam­ Perceived willingness to customize 2002; Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa
Refers to the ability of the platform to (2004); Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa
berton and Rose, 2012; Möhlmann, 2016). To reduce uncertainty, the
handle users’ specific queries. (2004)
platform provider should also be recognized as reliable, credible and
trustworthy (Hawlitschek et al., 2016; Keymolen, 2016; Möhlmann,
2016). We can therefore differentiate between trust in the platform and consumer purchase experiences of second-hand products online, and in-
trust in peers or sellers (Möhlmann, 2016; Pavlou and Gefen, 2004). In a keeping with the literature on collaborative platforms and their design
more general way, a review of the literature shows that trust in the features (Abbes et al., 2020; De Rivera et al., 2017; Möhlmann, 2016),
online environment (platform or seller) has been widely investigated this study investigates the impact of ease of use, enjoyment, seller
(Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004; Lee and Turban, 2001; Sahut, reputation, third-party recognition and community belonging on trust
2008a) and several studies have highlighted the importance of design building in the context of collaborative redistribution consumption.
cues in trust building (Cyr et al., 2008; Lee and Turban, 2001; Ou and Given the two-fold dynamic of trust in the context of collaborative
Sia, 2010). consumption (Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Keymolen, 2016; Möhlman,
2016), the impact of the considered design features on both trust in the
2.3. Designing to promote trust within collaborative redistribution platform and trust in the seller are investigated. The subsequent effect of
platforms trust on behavioral intentions is also explored.

Numerous studies have focused on the impact of website design
features on the formation of trust. Ou and Sia (2010), for example,
emphasized the influence of motivating factors, including perceived
enjoyment and willingness to customize, and bivalent factors, such as
ease of use and perceived usefulness, on developing trust and alleviating
distrust towards a website. Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa (2004) high­
lighted the role of several platform features such as perceived reputa­
tion, perceived willingness to customize and perceived security in the
initial development of trust in an online company. Other studies have
pointed out the effect of visual, information and navigation design on
trust (Cyr, 2008; Cyr et al., 2008). In the context of collaborative con­
sumption, platform design and architecture appear to be important
factors to attract users (De Rivera et al., 2017; Möhlmann, 2015). A set
of features have been considered in the literature, including virtual
reputation and functionality (De Rivera et al., 2017), reciprocity be­
tween consumers (Shiau and Luo, 2012), enjoyment and third-party
recognition (Abbes et al., 2020). Table 1 below summarizes the main
website and platform design features studied.
With reference to the results of a preliminary qualitative study about
3. Development of a conceptual model and hypotheses
3.1. The effects of design cues on trust
3.1.1. Ease of use
Ease of use is a subjective assessment, which reflects the consumer’s
perception that using a website should not require effort (Davis et al.,
1989; Gefen et al., 2003). It has been widely demonstrated that ease of
use is an essential component of several models of online shopping
acceptance and that it has a positive impact on behavioral intentions
(Gefen et al., 2003; Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2002; Venkatesh and
Bala, 2008; Sahut, 2008b). It has also been shown that ease of use is a
major determining factor of online trust (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa,
2004; Ou and Sia, 2010). Potential users report ease of use as being one
major concern of using technology (Dabholkar, 1996) and, for example,
websites, which are difficult to use, may cause frustration for consumers
(Bitner, 2001). A well-designed website that is easy to use can convince
users that a company will deliver good service and uphold its promises

3
A.P.Y. Hallem et al.
(Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2008). Concerning the collaborative
redistribution market in particular, we can also suppose that customers
may extrapolate these wider factors to select reliable and trustworthy
sellers. Beliefs about a company’s ability to keep its promises are seen as
a driver of customer trust in that company (Chow and Holden, 1997).
Therefore, if consumers perceive a collaborative redistribution platform
(CRP) as being easy to use, they can be expected to consider the platform
and by extension the seller, as being trustworthy. Hence, we can hy­
pothesize that:
H1a. Ease of use of a CRP is positively related to trust in the seller;
H1b. Ease of use of a CRP is positively related to trust in the platform.
3.1.2. Enjoyment
Enjoyment is defined as “an awareness of the holistic sensation when
people are totally involved in a certain activity” (Csikszentmihalyi,
1975). It is also a subjective feeling of pleasure expressed during the
online shopping process ((Hwang et al., 2007); Ou and Sia, 2010).
Perceived enjoyment is considered as being one of the main factors used
by consumers to assess the quality of a website (Loiacono et al., 2002;
Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2003). It is the emotional and affective response
of the user towards an online platform (Loiacono et al., 2002). Research
on online shopping has demonstrated the important role of perceived
enjoyment in building trust (Chtourou and Siadou-Martin, 2020).
Several studies ((Hwang et al., 2007); Ou and Sia, 2010) have, for
example, shown that pleasure experienced when using a website has a
positive influence on consumers’ trust. Within the specific context of
sharing activities and collaborative consumption, enjoyment has also
been regarded as one of the major intrinsic motivations (Abbes et al.,
2020; Hamari et al., 2016). Along the same lines, several studies (Fer­
raro et al., 2016; Roux and Guiot, 2008) have shown the importance of
recreational motivations when shopping for second-hand products.
Concerning the importance of enjoyment in online shopping, we can
suppose that the feeling of enjoyment will have a positive effect on a
consumer’s assessment of the online seller’s capacity to conduct online
transactions on the one hand, and on a customer’s assessment of the
ability of the collaborative redistribution platform (CRP) to guarantee a
successful online transaction on the other hand. Therefore, if consumers
experience joy and pleasure when visiting a collaborative redistribution
platform (CRP), they can be expected to consider both the platform and
the seller as being trustworthy. Hence, we hypothesize that:
H2a. Perceived enjoyment in using a CRP is positively related to trust
in the seller;
H2b. Perceived enjoyment in using a CRP is positively related to
trust in the platform.
3.1.3. Seller reputation
Reputation is a social process based on past interactions and conveys
the seller’s perceived degree of honesty in commercial transactions
(Doney and Cannon, 1997; Shiau and Luo, 2012). In an online context
(e.g., online purchasing), a good seller reputation is a major factor for
trust (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004; Lee and Turban, 2001;
McKnight et al., 2002). It also has a positive influence on customer
satisfaction and determines the consumer’s intention to re-purchase
from the platform (Hsu et al., 2014). Trust is therefore established
through the belief in the seller’s or the platform’s capacity to deliver on
its promises (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004; Lee and Turban, 2001).
A platform or seller reputed to fulfill promises and to honor their com­
mitments (Mayer et al., 1995) will be considered as trustworthy and
concerned about their customers (Doney and Cannon, 1997). In the
context of collaborative consumption, virtual reputation and trust have
been widely recognized as important factors of success (De Rivera et al.,
2017; Hallem et al., 2020; Möhlmann, 2016). Botsman and Rogers
(2010) talk about “reputation capital” and its important role as a
determining factor of trust. A seller reputed to be honest (Doney and
Cannon, 1997; Shiau and Luo, 2012) further reassures the consumer of
their abilities, integrity and good faith. Therefore, if consumers perceive
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943
a seller on a collaborative redistribution platform (CRP) to have a pos­
itive reputation, they are expected to consider both the platform and the
seller as being trustworthy. Hence, we hypothesize that:
H3a. The seller’s reputation is positively related to trust in the seller;
H3b. The seller’s reputation is positively related to trust in the
platform.
3.1.4. Third-party recognition
Third-party recognition is a certification or recognition by a trusted
organization or person (Gefen et al., 2003). Endorsement by a reputable
third-party reduces perceived risk (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004),
and reassures users (Pavlou, 2003). This recognition is important for
increasing consumers’ confidence and facilitating their purchasing
choices (Kozinets, 2002). It determines consumer trust in a website as
well as consumer loyalty intentions (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004;
Pavlou, 2003). Moreover, since establishing such third-party recogni­
tion is an expensive and time-consuming task, this can also be consid­
ered as proof of the company’s ability and desire to satisfy customers
and keep its promises. Consumers are therefore more likely to believe in
the trustworthiness of a seller or website that has made efforts to build
third-party recognition (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004; Ou and Sia,
2010). This study aims to explore this relationship within collaborative
redistribution platforms (CRPs). Therefore, we can suppose that if a
collaborative redistribution platform (CRP) has invested in developing
such third-party recognition, consumers can be expected to consider
both the platform and seller as being trustworthy. Hence, we hypothe­
size that:
H4a. Third-party recognition is positively related to trust in the
seller;
H4b. Third-party recognition is positively related to trust in the
platform.
3.2. The relationship between trust in the seller and trust in the platform
Several studies have conceptualized trust as a two-fold construct
encompassing trust in the platform or website and trust in the seller or
peers (Chai and Kim, 2010; Pavlou and Gefen, 2004). Other researchers
(Luhmann, 1979; Steward, 2003) have made the distinction between
system trust and personal trust. They argue the existence of a kind of
hierarchy of trust dimensions. They also talk about ‘trust transfer’ to
address the fact that trust can be transferred from one source to another
(Steward, 2003). This two-fold dynamic is also relevant in the context of
collaborative consumption activities enhanced by an online setting
(Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Möhlman, 2016). Indeed, trust online is a
primary condition for interpersonal interaction (Bostman and Rogers,
2010). The role of the platform is essential in building trust between
strangers (Keymolen, 2016), comprising the presence of a reliable and
institutional framework in which an individual’s trust is required to
enable trust-based transactions between peers (Pavlou and Gefen,
2004). The online platform could therefore be considered to be a
guarantor of trustworthy interactions (Keymolen, 2016). Based on this
evidence, Möhlmann (2016) empirically verified the hierarchy of trust
dimensions (platform and peers) and the positive impact of trust in the
platform on trust in peers within processes of collaborative consump­
tion. Given these findings, we can hypothesize that:
H5. Trust in the platform has a positive impact on trust in the seller.
3.3. The impact of trust on buying intentions
Customer trust in a company is a major factor determining the cus­
tomer’s actions towards a company. Ajzen (1991) demonstrated how
trust has a positive impact on customer intentions. Several studies have
furthermore shown how trust is positively related to behavioral in­
tentions (Doney and Cannon, 1997). In an online context, trust largely
determines behavioral and buying intentions (Ba and Pavlou, 2002;
Gefen et al., 2003; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000). Trust is viewed as a belief
A.P.Y. Hallem et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943

leading to buying intentions, considered in this study as the intention to 5. Results

engage in an online relationship with an online seller (Pavlou and
Gefen, 2004) on an online collaborative redistribution platform (CRP),
which could consequently motivate buying behavior (Sia et al., 2009).
Indeed, in a collaborative consumption context, trust refers to trust in
consumers as well as in the service provider (such as an online platform)
(Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Keymolen, 2016). Trust is also considered
to be a prerequisite for successful second-hand shopping transactions
(Chantelat and Vignal, 2002; Ferraro et al., 2016). Based on the Theory
of Reasoned Action, (Barnes and Mattson, 2016) found that trust had a
positive impact on consumer intentions to recommend a car-sharing
provider. Similarly, Luo et al. (2020) recently demonstrated a signifi­
cant impact of trust on transaction intentions regarding online
second-hand platforms. Therefore, we can suppose that trust in the
seller, as well as in the collaborative redistribution platform (CRP), will
increase buying intentions:
H6a. Trust in the seller is positively related to buying intentions;
H6b. Trust in the platform is positively related to buying intentions.
4. Method and data collection
A quantitative study was conducted in order to test the impact of
design features of collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) on trust
in the platform and trust in the seller. Consumers who had made a
second-hand purchase at least once through an online collaborative
redistribution platform (CRP) were surveyed. A convenience sample of
216 respondents who had made second-hand purchases on two French
websites (Leboncoin.fr and Vivastreet.fr) was used (see Table 2). This
study focused on these two collaborative redistribution platforms
(CRPs), given their popularity in France. An online survey was con­
ducted via Google Forms and questionnaires were disseminated on on­
line platforms and discussion groups. The period of data collection
lasted three months, between August and October 2019.
For the purposes of the study, several measurement scales were
adapted from marketing literature. To measure third-party recognition,
the scale proposed by Lee and Turban (2001) was adapted. To assess
seller reputation, the scale developed by Doney and Cannon (1997) was
used. Ease of use was measured by adapting the scale set out by (Ven­
katesh and Davis, 2000). To measure enjoyment, the scale proposed by
Koufaris (2002) was used. The scales developed by Pavlou and Gefen
(2004) and Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa (2004) were adapted respec­
tively to measure trust in the seller and trust in the platform. Finally,
behavioral intention was assessed using two items derived from the
study by Kim et al. (2013). All items were measured on five-point Likert
scales ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Exploratory
and confirmatory analyses were carried out using SPSS 23 and AMOS 23.
Table 2
Respondent profiles.
Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 103 47.6
Female 113 52.3
Age
Under 20 17 7.8
20 to 29 59 27.3
30 to 39 102 47.2
40 to 49 29 13.4
Over 49 9 4.3
Monthly income
Under 1200€ 30 13.8
1200€< <1700€ 45 20.8
1700€< <2200€ 71 33
Over 2200€ 70 32.4
5.1. Model testing and validation
Exploratory and confirmatory factorial analyses were used to test the
reliability of the measurement scales (Table 3). The Kaiser Meyer Olkin
(KMO) test and Bartlett’s sphericity test were used to assess the potential
effectiveness of Partial Component Analysis (PCA). According to Roussel
et al. (2002), the KMO test must produce a value greater than 0.5 and
Bartlett’s test must be significant in order to conduct a factor analysis (p
<5%). Good reliability was found for all the scales.
The internal consistency of the scales was examined by calculating
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. All the values were above the recom­
mended threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), and varied between 0.776
and 0.929. Similarly, composite reliability values for all the constructs
were assessed. Jöreskog’s Rhô values (Jöreskog, 1971) were all above
the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), with
values varying between 0.743 and 0.923 (Table 3). Convergent validity
was checked by examining the average of variance extracted (Rhô val­
idity). The value of the convergent validity Rhô for all latent constructs
respected the critical threshold of 0.5 suggested by Fornell and Larcker
(1981) (Table 3).
Once reliability and convergent validity had been verified, the
discriminant validity (Table 4 below) of the measurement model was
verified. The value of the average variance extracted (Rhô of the
convergent validity) relative to each construct was greater than the
square of the correlations that each construct shared with the other
constructs of the model and therefore the convergent validity was
verified.
Regarding validation of measurement models, and in order to vali­
date the conceptual model and test hypotheses, structural equations
modeling using AMOS 23 software was conducted (Jöreskog and
Sörbom, 1982). To ensure the stability of the results, the bootstrap
procedure (500 replications) was used. Confirmatory factorial analysis
(CFA) confirmed the validity of the proposed measurement model. The
model’s fit is thus considered acceptable, with indices which meet the
recommended thresholds (GFI= 0,946; AGFI= 0,906; CFI= 0,969;
RMSEA= 0,049) (Fig. 2).
5.2. Hypotheses testing
Examination of the results of the structural model (Fig. 2) shows that
ease of use has a positive effect only on trust in the seller (t = 2.55;
λ=0.17; p < 0.05), thus validating H1a and rejecting H1b. Similarly,
only the relationship between enjoyment and trust in the seller is sig­
nificant (t = 2.02; λ=0.13; p < 0.05), thus validating H2a and rejecting
H2b. Seller reputation has a significant impact on both trust in the seller
(t = 6.80; λ=0.83; p < 0.01) and trust in the platform (t = 2.98; λ=0.37; p
< 0.05). H3a and H3b are thus both accepted. Third-party recognition is
only a driver of trust in the platform (t = 2.74; λ=0.3, p < 0.05). So, only
H4b is accepted. Concerning the relationship between trust in the
platform and trust in the seller, the role of trust in the platform as an
antecedent to trust in the seller is verified (t = 1.66; λ=0.14, p < 0.1),
Table 3
Measurement model fitting index.
Measurement Model Cronbach’s Jöreskog’s Convergent
Alpha Rhô Validity Rhô
Ease of use (EOU) 0.929 0.923 0.749
Third-party 0.869 0.871 0.628
recognition (TPR)
Seller reputation (SR) 0.792 0.778 0.678
Enjoyment (ENJ) 0,886 0,795 0,886
Trust in the seller 0.819 0.849 0.588
(STRUST)
Trust in the platform 0.776 0.743 0.688
(PTRUST)

5
A.P.Y. Hallem et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943

Table 4 relationships (Hoffman et al., 2017; Lamberton, 2016) in developing

Discriminant validity. successful collaborative practices, both trust in the seller and trust in the
EOU TPR SR ENJOY STRUST PTRUST platform were considered herein. For design cues, the influence of ease
EOU 0.749* of use, enjoyment, third-party recognition and seller reputation were
TPR 0.014** 0.628 also all taken into consideration. These design features do not all have
SR 0.013 0.01 0.678
the same influence on trust in the platform and trust in the seller. Seller
ENJOY 0.006 0.001 0.059 0.886
STRUST 0.079 0.014 0.532 0.128 0.588 reputation is the only element which has a positive influence on trust in
PTRUST 0.003 0.042 0.154 0.010 0.231 0.688 the seller as well on trust in the platform (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa,
2004; Lee and Turban, 2001). Ease of use and enjoyment only have an
Note: *Convergent validity, **Square correlation.
impact on trust in the seller, while third-party recognition is only a
determining factor of trust in the platform (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa,
thus H5 is accepted. Finally, only trust in the platform is found to be a
2004; Pavlou, 2003). The relationship between trust in the seller and
determining factor of behavioral intentions (t = 2.22; λ=0.23, p < 0.05).
trust in the platform has also been studied and it seems evident that trust
The relationship between trust in the seller and behavioral intentions
in the platform is a significant determining factor of trust in the seller
was not significant. Therefore, H6a is rejected and H6b is accepted. (See
(Keymolen, 2016; Möhlmann, 2016). Finally, behavioral intentions are
Table 5 below). The R square (R2), which is the measure of fitness of the
only influenced by trust in the platform.
proposed model with the observed data, is respectively equal to 0.25,
0.74 and 0.14 for trust in the platform, trust in the seller and behavioral
intentions. This means that third-party recognition and seller reputation 6.1. The effects of platform design features on trust
explain 25% of the variance of trust in the platform. Likewise, ease of
use, enjoyment, seller reputation and trust in the platform explain 74% In line with the existing literature, seller reputation was found to be a
of the variance of trust in the seller. Finally, trust in the platform ex­ significant factor determining trust (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004;
plains only 14% of the variance of behavioral intentions. The weak Lee and Turban, 2001). A close relationship between seller reputation
percentage of explained variance for behavioral intentions means that and trust in the platform as well trust in the seller was found. In the same
other variables (not integrated in this study) could explain behavioral respect, Ertz et al. (2016) explored perceived trustworthiness to define
intentions. reputation within the context of collaborative consumption. Reputation
is also considered one of the main indicators of trustworthiness in
6. Discussion communities and consumer-to-consumer interactions (Hoffmann et al.,
2017). It is deemed to make transactions between strangers safer and
The aim of this study was to model the impact of the design of less uncertain (Belk, 2014). Indeed, a seller who is reputed to fulfill their
collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) on the formation of trust. commitments and to behave in a reliable way will convince the con­
Given the composite nature of online collaborative distribution con­ sumer of their good will, seriousness and honesty (Keymolen, 2016).
sumption (a combination of second-hand shopping, collaborative con­ Seller reputation not only increases trust in the seller, it also increases
sumption and online shopping) and the importance of interpersonal trust in the platform. We can thus conclude that consumers make a kind
of extrapolation. They may believe that a platform registering reputed

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

6
A.P.Y. Hallem et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943

Fig. 2. Effect of design cues on trust and the relationship between trust in the platform and trust in the seller and their impact on behavioral intentions. Note: *
p<0.01; ** p< 0.05; *** p<0.1 CMIN/DF= 1461; Bollen-Stine bootstrap: p = 0,575; GFI= 0,946; AGFI= 0,906; CFI= 0,969; RMSEA= 0,049.

context of online collaborative redistribution consumption given the

Table 5
combination of second-hand shopping, collaborative consumption and
Results of structural model analyses.
online shopping, and their inherent uncertainties.
Hypotheses Path t-value Supported The other design features studied either have an impact on trust in
coefficient
the platform or trust in the seller. Concerning the effect of third-party
H1a: ease of use => trust in the seller 0,17 2,55** Yes
H1b: ease of use => trust in the 0.047 0.64 No recognition, this hypothesis is partially accepted given that third-party
platform recognition only has a positive impact on trust in the platform. This
H2b: enjoyment => trust in the seller 0,13 2,02** Yes finding is aligned with previous research (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa,
H2a: enjoyment => trust in the − 0.006 − 0.09 No 2004; Pavlou, 2003) claiming that consumers will be more likely to trust
platform
H3a: seller reputation => trust in the 0.83 6.80* Yes
a website or company which makes significant efforts and invests sub­
seller stantial amounts of money in order to build third-party recognition (Ou
H3b: seller reputation => trust in the 0.37 2.98** Yes and Sia, 2010). Users do not seem to extrapolate this effect to trust in the
platform seller. The absence of effect of third-party recognition on trust in the
H4a: third-party recognition => trust 0,015 0.22 No
seller could be related to the type of product, which is second-hand, or to
in the seller
H4b: third-party recognition => trust 0.3 2.74** Yes the type of trusted organization. The main trusted organizations are
in the platform financial institutions, which guarantee safe and secure transactions.
H5: trust in the platform => trust in the 0.14 1.66*** Yes Arguably, having the support of another trusted organization, such as a
seller consumer association, can enhance trust in the seller.
H6a: trust in the seller => behavioral − 0.096 − 1.06 No
intentions
Ease of use and enjoyment only had a significant impact on trust in
H6b: trust in the platform => 0.23 2.22** Yes the seller. Surprisingly, ease of use did not influence trust in the platform
behavioral intentions as claimed by some researchers (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004; Ou
Note: * p <0.01; ** p < 0.05; *** p <0.1.
and Sia, 2010). This could be explained by the fact that other studies
(Wagner et al., 2017; Wu and Chen, 2017; Wu and Wang, 2005) have
concluded this variable does not significantly influence the behavioral
and trustworthy sellers is also a trustworthy platform. Reputation is
intentions of website users. Furthermore, in the context of collaborative
therefore an important feature, encouraging the image of a reliable
redistribution platforms (CRPs) ease of use is not considered to be a key
platform enabling strangers to collaborate (De Rivera et al., 2017). In a
factor (Abbes et al., 2020). In a more general way, we can also explain
more holistic way, Botsman and Rogers (2010) speak about “social
this given the fact that the majority of consumers are nowadays
capital” to describe reputation and its subsequent effect on trust in the
acquainted with website use, and consequently ease of use has become a
seller and trust in the platform. This “social capital” is the cornerstone of
less important factor in the online context. However, ease of use is
collaborative consumption and is required for sustainable exchanges
shown to be a driver of trust in the seller. In the context of collaborative
(De Rivera et al., 2017). Reputation is particularly important in the

7
A.P.Y. Hallem et al.
consumption, ease of use could be understood as the ease of finding a
“good seller” with a “good product” and the ease of contacting the seller.
Ease of finding and contacting a seller proposing the desired and
sought-after product arguably also induces enjoyment. In this research,
enjoyment is only shown to be a driver of trust in the seller. This result is
consistent with existing literature emphasizing the enjoyment induced
by finding the best deal when second-hand shopping (Ferraro et al.,
2016; Roux and Guiot, 2008). In the same way, the positive impact of
enjoyment on trust in the seller is also in-keeping with other studies
highlighting the role of enjoyment as a driver of consumer trust
((Hwang et al., 2007), 2007; Ou and Sia, 2010) and the importance of
pleasure and motivation within collaborative consumption (Hamari
et al., 2016). The positive impact of enjoyment on trust in the seller
could also be explained by the assumption that enjoyment is closely
related to ease of finding a bargain, and also given the positive impact of
ease of use on trust in the seller.
6.2. The relationship between trust in the seller and trust in the platform
and their impact on behavioral intentions
In accordance with the existing literature (Chai and Kim, 2010;
Möhlmann, 2016; Pavlou and Gefen, 2004) trust in the platform has a
positive impact on trust in the seller in this study. This finding confirms,
on the one hand, the two-fold dynamic of trust (Pavlou and Gefen, 2004)
and the hierarchy of trust in the context of collaborative consumption
(Keymolen, 2016; Möhlmann, 2016) on the other hand. This hierarchy
perfectly represents the notion of “trust transfer” (Steward, 2003) which
has been considered in the context of online collaborative practices
(Möhlmann, 2016) and collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) in
this case. It also supports the theory that system trust, represented by
trust in the platform in this study, is a driver of interpersonal trust or
trust between peers who wish to collaborate (Keymolen, 2016). The
platform therefore acts as a transaction intermediary, which facilitates
the engagement of consumers in collaborative consumption processes
(Ertz et al., 2016). It also has the role of relational mediator (Benoit
et al., 2017) by smoothing the conditions of the transaction. This
reasoning is also consistent with the findings of other researchers
(Chantelat and Vignal, 2002) in the context of the second-hand market.
Others have argued that the presence of an intermediary is essential to
compensate for lack of trust. Nevertheless, this third-party, in order to
obtain the trust of both parties (the seller and the buyer), must be
recognized as reliable and credible (Hawlitschek et al., 2016;
Möhlmann, 2016). Platform credibility is obviously a concept of great
importance, which could explain the strength of the relationship be­
tween trust in the platform and trust in the seller. Indeed, despite the
validation of H5, the power of the relationship could be questioned
because it is lower than expected.4 This can be explained by the resur­
gence of certain practices on second-hand shopping platforms, which
increasingly monetize their relationship with their customers. Several
platforms ask users for financial compensation in return for their ads
being showcased to gain visibility over other ads. These monetized
referencing strategies can promote sellers who are not necessarily
trustworthy and consequently can undermine the credibility of the
platform. Many users may feel uncomfortable with the commodification
of exchanges, which shifts away from the original promises of collabo­
rative consumption (Bardhi and Echkhardt, 2012; Ertz et al., 2018). Not
all consumers would approve of these practices, which are similar to
those of the business model of e-commerce giants like Amazon.
“Committed collaborative consumers”, for example, will consider these
as opportunistic behaviors, inconsistent with their ethical motivations
for collaborative consumption and second-hand shopping (Ertz et al.,
2018; Hallem et al., 2020). The concept of “intermediated trust”
4
H5 supposing a positive impact of trust in the platform on trust in the seller
is accepted at a risk level of 10%
8
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943
(Chantelat and Vignal, 2002) is therefore essential to highlight the role
of the platform as a mediator and as a trust guarantor. This role of
guarantor may explain why only trust in the platform is a determining
factor of behavioral intentions. Although these findings are in line with
previous research results finding that behavioral intentions are a
consequence of trust (Ba and Pavlou, 2002; Gefen et al., 2003), this
study was only able to validate the positive influence of trust in the
platform on behavioral intentions (Luo et al., 2010). This confirms the
role of trust in the platform within the context of collaborative redis­
tribution consumption. However, the weak value of explained variance
of behavioral intentions suggests that other variables should also be
taken into consideration, such as satisfaction (Cyr et al., 2008;
Möhlmann, 2015; Oliveira et al., 2020), attitude (Hamari et al., 2016;
Oliveira et al., 2020), engagement (Brodie et al., 2013), even distrust
(Ou and Sia, 2010) and perceived risk (Pavlou and Gefen, 2002).
7. Implications, limitations and future avenues of research
With the rise in consumer interest in sustainability and ethical costs
of the consumer goods industry worldwide, the second-hand market has
gained increasing traction over recent years (Parguel et al., 2017). From
a theoretical perspective, this research provides new contributions. It is
one of the few studies to emphasize the role of collaborative redistri­
bution platforms (CRPs) (Abbes et al., 2020; Padmavathy et al., 2019) in
the increase in second-hand shopping. It also addresses the issue of trust,
which is one of the most challenging concerns in e-commerce (Cyr et al.,
2008; Gefen and Straub, 2003; Lee and Turban, 2001), collaborative
consumption (Botsman and Rogers, 2010; De Rivera et al., 2017; Hal­
lem et al., 2020; Oliveira et al., 2020) and second-hand shopping
(Chantelat and Vignal, 2002; Ferraro et al., 2016). The originality of the
present research lies in the fact that it encompasses these three research
areas in order to increase knowledge about trust in the context of online
consumption on collaborative redistribution platforms. This research
also provides a modeling of the impact of platform design cues in the
formation of trust in the seller and trust in the platform. The design
features considered did not all influence trust in the platform or trust in
the seller. It seems that transfer and extrapolation mechanisms
(Möhlmann, 2016; Steward, 2003) are important within the field of
online consumption on collaborative redistribution platforms. In the
same way, trust transfer between a system or platform and interpersonal
trust or trust in the seller (Keymolen, 2016) is evidently a key element
required in order to understand the functioning and success of ex­
changes on online collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs). The
important role of the platform provider could be explained by the
asymmetry of information between seller and buyer (Chantelat and
Vignal, 2002): in order to trust the seller, consumers need to trust a
reliable platform provider (Benoit et al., 2017). This reliable provider
could also belong to an institution. Indeed, several researchers adopt an
institutional theory stance (Chantelat and Vignal, 2002; Möhlmann,
2016; Zucker, 1986) and claim that trust is an output of institutional
production. In addition to shared beliefs between peers, to be successful,
relationships between consumers should be arbitrated by a mediator or a
third-party adopting a kind of cognitive authority. Collaborative con­
sumption platforms are thus governed by an institutional framework
(Möhlmann, 2016; Pavlou and Gefen, 2004). Institution-based trust
(Möhlmann, 2016) is essential for concluding transactions between
consumers. This also reinforces the vision that governance is necessary
to ensure the proper functioning of collaborative consumption platforms
(Hartl et al., 2016). Finally, we can consider that the design cues studied
(enjoyment, seller reputation, third-party recognition, ease of use) are
among the main elements which play the role of “curators” of collabo­
rative consumption, as claimed by Botsman and Rogers, 2010. They are
essential to create an environment in which online trust can thrive
(Keymolen, 2016).
In terms of managerial implications, several proposals could be
suggested to managers to enhance trust. Seller reputation seems to be
A.P.Y. Hallem et al.
the most important determining factor of trust, given its positive impact
on both trust in the seller and trust in the platform. The role of “curator”
of reputation is essential to create an enduring feeling of trust in the
context of collaborative consumption (Bostman and Rogers, 2010). As
for other collaborative platforms (like Airbnb), it could be interesting for
collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) to develop a categoriza­
tion of sellers (gold, silver, bronze, etc.), or to identify leaders (e.g., a
best seller of the month) to reassure buyers about the reputation and
honesty of the sellers with whom they engage. Moreover, as this
research indicates that consumers extrapolate the relationship between
seller reputation and trust in the seller to trust in the platform, it seems
evident that a ranking of sellers undertaken by the platform is important.
Selecting reliable sellers with limited opportunistic behaviors is essen­
tial to avoid fraud and reputational damage (Keymolen, 2016) which
could be irrecoverable in the online context. To avoid such reputational
damage, collaborative redistribution platforms (CRPs) can, for example,
develop a code of conduct (De Rivera et al., 2017) stipulating the main
ethical issues and code of user behaviors every registered member
should respect, failing which they will be removed from the platform.
Since third-party recognition only has an impact on trust in the platform,
managers could be advised to collaborate with trusted organizations and
not only financial institutions. For example, collaborating with
well-known physical second-hand shopping retail companies (Easy­
Cash) or consumer associations (60 Millions de Consommateurs) in
France could be crucial to enhance trust in the seller in the context of
online collaborative redistribution consumption. Given the positive
impact of ease of use on trust in the seller, it would be interesting for
managers to invest in advanced algorithms enabling consumers to easily
find the seller’s ad proposing those products which best meet their
needs. These algorithms facilitate the match between the supply and
demand of second-hand products. The positive impact of enjoyment on
trust in the seller could be enhanced by a gamification of the platform.
Gamification consists of implementing the game mechanism of ‘badges’
which users can earn by completing a variety of tasks (Hamari, 2013;
Hamari et al., 2016). Setting a level to achieve (in terms of concluded
deals) could be an example of a gamification of collaborative con­
sumption platforms. Finally, and given the hierarchy of trust found in
CRPs, it seems crucial for platform providers to build a strong platform
brand to improve trust in the seller and reduce the risks of online (Sahut
and Lantz, 2011) collaborative redistribution platforms perceived by
consumers. Strong brands could be achieved by advertising campaigns
highlighting the capacity of the platform to successfully connect with
trustworthy collaborative consumers. Limiting the monetization of ex­
changes and aggressive referencing strategies is also recommended.
Finally, this research has limitations related to the absence of
moderating variables, the absence of other independent variables and
the sample size, all of which call for further exploration. It would be
interesting for future studies to integrate the role of moderating indi­
vidual characteristics, such as familiarity with collaborative practices,
for a more detailed analysis. We could also investigate the moderating
effect of platform types. Platforms can be social (Facebook pages) or
non-social (websites dedicated to second-hand shopping). The type of
product sold could also be a moderating variable. Other independent
variables such as engagement, attitude and satisfaction should be inte­
grated into future research to better understand the behavioral in­
tentions of second-hand shoppers and to improve the predictive power
of the model.
Given the increasing globalization of markets, it is highly relevant to
study the effects of cultural variables and their impacts on the use of
second-hand products and the acceptance of CRPs. The online platform
“Vinted” is, for example, available in several European countries and
French consumers can buy clothes from sellers located in different re­
gions of Europe. The present sample remains limited, and it would be
interesting to replicate the study more widely and with other types of
collaborative redistribution platforms.
9
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Associate Professor Yousra Hallem: Writing - review & editing,
Conceptualization, Data curation. Associate Professor Intissar Abbes:
Writing - review & editing, Conceptualization, Data curation. Professor
Lubica Hikkerova: Conceptualization, Methodology. Media Planner
Nadia Taga: Writing - review & editing, Data curation.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120943.
References
Abbes, I., Hallem, Y., Taga, N., 2020. Second-hand shopping and brand loyalty: the role
of online collaborative redistribution platforms. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 52, 1–11.
Abdul-Ghani, E., Hyde, K.F., Marshall, R., 2011. Emic and etic interpretations of
engagement with a consumer-to-consumer online auction site. J. Bus. Res. 64 (10),
1060–1066.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2),
179–211.
Axelrod, R., 1997. The Complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of Competition
and Collaboration, 3. Princeton University Press.
Agarwal, R., Venkatesh, V., 2002. Assessing a firm’s web presence: a heuristic evaluation
procedure for the measurement of usability. Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (2), 168–186.
Ba, S., Pavlou, P.A., 2002. Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in
electronic markets: price premium and buyer behavior. MIS Q.. 26 (3), 243–268.
Bardhi, F., Echkhardt, G.M., 2012. Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing.
J. Consum. Rese. 39 (4), 881–898.
Belk, R., 2014. You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption
online. J. Bus. Res. 67 (8), 1595–1600.
Barnes, S., Mattson, J., 2016. Understanding current and future issues in collaborative
consumption: a four-stage delphi study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 104 (C),
200–211.
Becker-Leifhold, C., Iran, S., 2018. Collaborative fashion consumption-drivers, barriers
and future pathways. J. Fash. Mark. Manage. 22 (2), 189–208.
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. J. Bus. Res. 79, 219–227.
Bitner, M.J., 2001. Self-service technologies: what do customers expect? Mark. Manage.
10 (1), 10–11.
Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2010. What’s Mine is yours: The rise of Collaborative
Consumption. Collins, London, UK.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 (1), 105–114.
Catulli, M., 2012. What uncertainty? further insight into why consumers might be
distrustful of product service systems. J. Manufact. Technol. Manag. 23 (6),
780–793.
Chantelat, P., Vignal, B., 2002. L’intermédiation du marché de l’occasion Échange
marchand, confiance et interactions sociales. Soc. Travail. 44 (3), 315–336.
Chai, S., Kim, M., 2010. What makes bloggers share knowledge? an investigation on the
role of trust. Inter. J. Inf. Manag. 30 (5), 408–415.
Cheng, X., Su, L., Yang, B., 2020. An investigation into sharing economy enabled
ridesharing drivers’ trust: a qualitative study. Elect. Comm. Res. Appli. 40, 100956.
Chow, S., Holden, R., 1997. Toward an understanding of loyalty: the moderating role of
trust. J. Manag. 9 (3), 275–298.
Chtourou, A., Siadou-Martin, B., 2020. Considérer l’engagement affectif des clients pour
gérer les incidents de service: l’expérience de service au restaurant. Gesti. 2000 3
(3), 111–127.
Cyr, D., 2008. Modeling web site design across cultures: relationships to trust,
satisfaction, and e-loyalty. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24 (4), 47–72.
Cyr, D., Kindra, G.S., Dash, S., 2008. Web site design, trust, satisfaction and e-loyalty: the
Indian experience. Onl. Inf. Rev. 32 (6), 773–790.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Dabholkar, P.A., 1996. Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service
options: an investigation of alternative models of service quality. Inter. J. Res. Mark.
13 (1), 29–51.
Davis, F., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS. Q. 13 (3), 319–340.
De Rivera, J., Gordo, Á., Cassidy, P., Apesteguía, A., 2017. A netnographic study of P2P
collaborative consumption platforms’ user interface and design. Environ. Inno. Soc.
Transi. 23, 11–27.
Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller
relationships. J. Mark. 61 (2), 35–51.
Ertz, M., Lecompte, A., Durif, F., 2018. It’s not my fault, I am in the right!” exploration of
neutralization in the justification of the support and use of a controversial
technological collaborative consumption service. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
134, 254–264.
Ertz, M., Durif, F., Arcand, M., 2016. Collaborative consumption or the rise of the two-
sided consumer. inter. J. Bus. Manag. 4 (6), 195–209.
A.P.Y. Hallem et al.
Ferraro, C., Sands, S., Brace-Govan, J., 2016. The role of fashionability in second-hand
shopping motivations. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 32, 262–268.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18, 382–388.
Gefen, D., Straub, D.W., 2004. Consumer trust in b2c e-commerce and the importance of
social presence: experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega (Westport) 32,
407–424.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., 2003. Trust and tam in online shopping: an
integrated model. MIS. Q. 27 (1), 51–90.
Guiot, D., Roux, D., 2010. A second-hand shoppers’ motivation scale: antecedents,
consequences, and implications for retailers. J. Retail. 86 (4), 355–371.
Guo, Y., Xin, F., Barnes, S.J., Li, X., 2020. A 2020 perspective on opportunities or threats:
the rise of online collaborative consumption (occ) and its impact on new car sales.
Elect. Commer. Res. Appli. 40, 100932.
Guo, Y., Li, X., Zeng, X., 2019. Platform competition in the sharing economy:
understanding how ride-hailing services influence new car purchases. J. Manag. Inf.
Syst. 36 (4), 1043–1070.
Hajli, N., Shanmugam, M., Power, P., Love, P.E., 2015. A study on the continuance
participation in on-line communities with social commerce perspective. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 96, 232–241.
Hajli, N., Sims, J., 2015. Social commerce: the transfer of power from sellers to buyers.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 94, 350–358.
Hallem, Y., Ben Arfi, W., Teulon, F., 2020. Exploring consumer attitudes to online
collaborative consumption: a typology of collaborative consumer profiles. Canadi. J.
Admin. Sci. 37 (1), 82–94.
Hamari, J., 2013. Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: a field experiment
on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Elec. Commer. Res.
Appli. 12 (4), 236–245.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A., 2016. The sharing economy: why people
participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67 (9),
2047–2059.
Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., Kirchler, E., 2016. Do we need rules for “what’s mine is yours”?
governance in collaborative consumption communities. J. Bus. Res. 69 (8),
2756–2763.
Hawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., Weinhardt, C., 2016. Trust in the sharing economy. Die
Unternehm. 70 (1), 26–44.
Hofmann, E., Hartl, B., Penz, E., 2017. Power versus trust–what matters more in
collaborative consumption? J. Serv. Mark. 31 (6), 589–603.
Hsu, M.H., Chang, C.M., Chu, K.K., Lee, Y.J., 2014. Determinants of repurchase intention
in online group-buying: the perspectives of de lone & mclean is success model and
trust. Compu. Hum. Behav. 36, 234–245.
Huxham, C., Vangen, S.S., 2013. Managing to collaborate: The theory and Practice of
Collaborative Advantage. Routledge.
Hwang, D., Choe, Y.C., Kim, M., Moon, J., 2007. The impact of shopping motives and
emotions on online shopping behavior: shopping-experienced customer group vs.
potential shopping customer group. J. Bus. Res. 22 (2), 347–375.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., Vitale, M., 2000. Consumer trust in an Internet store. Inf.
Technol. Manag. 1 (1–2), 45–71.
Jöreskog, K.G., 1971. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychomet.
36, 409–426.
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., 1982. Recent developments in structural equation modeling.
J. Mark. Res. 19 (4), 404–416.
Keymolen, E., 2016. Trust On the line: a Philosophical Exploration of Trust in the
Networked era. Doctoral Dissertation. Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Kim, Y.H., Kim, D.J., Wachter, K., 2013. A study of mobile user engagement (moen):
engagement motivations, perceived value, satisfaction, and continued engagement
intention. Decis. Supp. Syst. 56, 361–370.
Jouny-Rivier, E., Poutier, E., 2020. Les Freins à la co-innovation: une étude de cas dans
l’hôtellerie de luxe. Gesti. 2000 1 (1–2), 77–101.
Koufaris, M., Hampton-Sosa, W.H., 2004. The development of initial trust in an online
company by new customers. Inf. Manag. 41 (3), 377–397.
Kozinets, R., 2002. The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing
research in online communities. J. Mark. Res. 39 (1), 61–72.
Lamberton, C.P., Rose, R.L., 2012. When is ours better than mine? a framework for
understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J. Mark. 76
(4), 109–125.
Lamberton, C., 2016. Collaborative consumption: a goal-based framework. Curren.
Opinion. Psy. 10, 55–59.
Lee, M.K.O., Turban, E., 2001. A trust model for consumer Internet shopping. Inter. J.
Elec. Commerce. 4 (1), 75–91.
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120943
Lee, S.M., Lee, S.J., 2005. Consumers’ initial trust toward second-hand products in the
electronic mark. J. Compu. Inf. Syst. 46 (2), 85–98.
Li, S., Srinivasan, K., Sun, B., 2009. Internet auction features as quality signals. J. Mark.
73 (1), 75–92.
Lichy, J., Kachour, M., 2020. Fake it and make it”: how gen y and z manage facebook as a
news source. Gesti. 2000 4 (4), 125–146.
Loiacono, E.T., Watson, R.T., Goodhue, D.L., 2002. WebQual: a measure of website
quality. Mark. Theo. appli. 13 (3), 432–438.
Luhmann, N., 1979. Trust and Power. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Luo, N., Wang, Y., Zhang, M., Niu, T., Tu, J., 2020. Integrating community and e-
commerce to build a trusted online second-hand platform: based on the perspective
of social capital. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 153, 119913.
Möhlmann, M., 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and
thelikelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 14 (3),
193–207.
Möhlmann, M., 2016. Digital Trust and Peer-To-Peer Collaborative Consumption
platforms: a Mediation Analysis. Available at SSRN 2813367.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1st ed.).
Oliveira, T., Tomar, S., Tam, C., 2020. Evaluating collaborative consumption platforms
from a consumer perspective. J. Clean. Prod., 123018
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of Institutions For Collective
Action. Cambridge university press.
Ou, C.X., Sia, C.L., 2010. Consumer trust and distrust: an issue of website design. Inter. J.
Hum. Compu. Stud. 68 (12), 913–934.
Padmavathy, C., Swapana, M., Paul, J., 2019. Online second-hand shopping
motivation–conceptualization, scale development, and validation. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 51, 19–32.
Pantoja, F., Bakpayev, M., Rossi, P., Yoon, S., 2016. Old, but gold! the role of aging
stereotypes on consumer’s purchase intentions in second-hand marketplaces. In:
Moreau, P, Puntoni, S (Eds.), NA – Adv. Consum. Res44. Duluth. Assoc. Consum. Res,
MN, pp. 580–581.
Parguel, B., Lunardo, R., Benoit-Moreau, F., 2017. Sustainability of the sharing economy
in question: when second-hand peer-to-peer platforms stimulate indulgent
consumption. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 125, 48–57.
Pavlou, A.P., 2003. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and
risk with the technology acceptance model. Inter. J. Elec. Com. 7 (3), 101–134.
Pavlou, P.A., Gefen, D., 2004. Building effective online marketplaces with institution-
based trust. Inf. Syst. Res. 15 (1), 37–59.
Roux, D., Guiot, D., 2008. Une mesure des motivations envers l’achat d’occasion, leurs
antécédents et leurs conséquences. Rech. App. Mark. 23 (4), 63–95.
Shiau, W.S., Luo, M.M., 2012. Factors affecting online group buying intention and
satisfaction: a social exchange theory perspective. Compu. Hum. Behav. 28,
2431–2444.
Sia, C.L., Lim, K.H., Leung, K., Lee, M.K., Huang, W.W., Benbasat, I., 2009. Web
strategies to promote internet shopping: is cultural-customization needed? MIS. Q.
33 (3), 491–512.
Sihvonen, J., Turunen, L.L.M, 2016. As good as new–valuing fashion brands in the online
second-hand markets. J.Prod. Brand. Manag. 25 (3), 285–295.
Sahut, J.M., 2008a. Internet payment and banks. Inter. J. Bus. 13 (4), 361–376.
Sahut, J.M., 2008. The adoption and diffusion of electronic wallets. J. Inter. Bank.
Commer. 13 (1), 1–10.
Sahut, J., Lantz, J., 2011. Quel business model et performance pour les banques par
internet ? Manag. Avenir. 42 (2), 232–246.
Steward, K.J, 2003. Trust transfer in the world wide web. Org. Sci. 14 (1), 5–17.
Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., 2008. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decis. Sci. 39 (2), 273–315.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204.
Wagner, G., Schramm-Klein, H., Steinmann, S., 2017. Consumers’ attitudes and
intentions toward internet-enabled tv shopping. J. Retai. Consum. Serv. 34,
278–286.
Wolfinbarger, M., Gilly, M.C., 2003. eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting
retail quality. J. Retai. 79 (3), 183–198.
Wu, B., Chen, X., 2017. Continuance intention to use moocs: integrating the technology
acceptance model (tam) and task technology fit (ttf) model. Compu. Hum. Behav. 67,
221–232.
Wu, J., Wang, S.C., 2005. What drives mobile commerce? an empirical evaluation of the
revised technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 42 (5), 719–729.
Zucker, L.G., 1986. Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure. Res.
Org. Behav. 8, 53–111.