Ijchm 08 2016 0481

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing platforms: the influence of motivations,
perceived trust, and past experience
Jiang Wu, Minne Zeng, Karen L. Xie,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jiang Wu, Minne Zeng, Karen L. Xie, "Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing platforms: the influence
of motivations, perceived trust, and past experience", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0481
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0481
Downloaded on: 30 August 2017, At: 23:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 23:06 30 August 2017 (PT)
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing platforms:
the influence of motivations, perceived trust, and past experience
Submitted: 31 August 2016
1st Revision: 22 November 2016
2nd Revision: 01 February 2017

3rd Revision: 13 March 2017
4th Revision: 09 April 2017
Accepted: 14 May 2017
Abstract
Purpose
Although room-sharing platforms such as Airbnb have become globally prevalent business
phenomena, no cross-cultural research has been conducted to examine how travelers outside
the “Western Bubble” perceive and respond to this sharing economy. The aim of this study is
to explore factors that affect Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing
platforms in the sharing economy.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on theories of motivation, the influences on travelers of utilitarian and hedonic
motivation, perceived trust, and past experience were investigated. Considering the
characteristics of room-sharing, utilitarian motivation is measured by service experience,

1
information acquisition, cost saving and resource efficiency. Hedonic motivation is measured
by adventure, gratification, sharing and friend seeking. Data were collected in online survey
from 445 valid samples, and analyzed by partial least squares (PLS) regression approach using
SmartPLS 3.0.
Findings
The findings indicate that although intensity varies, utilitarian motivation, hedonic motivation,
and perceived trust do have positive effects on tourists’ behavioral intentions. Past experience
with room-sharing moderates these effects.
Originality/value
There is scant research about consumers’ behaviors toward a sharing economy in Western
countries and no empirical research in this field with analyses of Chinese consumers,
although China is an emerging market in the hospitality industry. None of the previous
research was based on theories of motivation and trust, especially without a consideration of
the moderating effect of past experience. Therefore, this study aims to narrow these gaps and
to combine, organize, and extend prior studies to improve the analysis of behavioral intention
in the sharing economy. The value of this study lies in the research model and analysis with
the backdrop of China.
Keywords: Sharing economy, room-sharing service, motivation, perceived trust, past
experience
2
1. Introduction
Consumption and transaction practices are reshaped by information and
communication technologies (ICTs). Increasing concern about social connection and
sustainability has led to the growth of a peer-to-peer consumption model, which is labeled as a
“sharing economy.” The sharing economy is a social-economic model that involves
peer-to-peer sharing of access to goods and services rather than ownership (Belk, 2010;
Botsman and Rogers, 2011) . By integrating usable resource, service providers allow people to
rent or use products and services at relatively commercial prices. Several kinds of businesses
have flourished in the sharing economy, including clothing (e.g., Rent the Runway) and
transportation (e.g., Uber and DiDi), creating scalable platforms that enable individuals to
share access to their clothes or cars.
Recently, the sharing economy has emerged in the tourism and hospitality markets,
where it is known as room-sharing service. Short-term rental platforms offering this service,
such as Airbnb and XiaoZhu, are gaining much popularity in the tourism marketplace. Airbnb
users spent nearly $56 million every year in San Francisco (Geron, 2013), focusing research
and market attention on this disruptive economic force. Individuals share their usable but
unused rooms or places with travelers. Travelers can rent the room temporarily, creating
opportunity for their connectivity and communications (Tussyadiah, 2015).
It is widely believed that the economic benefit is an appealing factor for participation
in shared economic activities (Walsh, 2011), but Botsman and Rogers (2011) point that the
motivations are not just low costs. Improved experiences of connection and community attract
consumers to develop new types of transactions. They are more and more conscious of the
3
importance of sharing (Belk, 2010). With the growing concern about environmental protection
and sustainable consumption, sharing might be more acceptable (Walsh, 2011, Belk, 2014).
Therefore, the driving factors may interfere with many aspects (e.g., economic cost, sense of
interests, belonging of community, sustainability). However, previous research has
concentrated mainly on the conceptual level rather on the characteristics of sharing economies.
Moreover, they have not explored the differences between sharing economies and traditional
services (e.g. relationship exchange). Therefore, a comprehensive consideration of the reasons
to share rather than purchase is still lacking. In addition, there is little empirical research about
this in the specific context of a sharing economy, especially in hospitality industries.
With a vast number of users, China is the largest emerging tourism market in the
world (Kim et al., 2006). Chinese hotel industry has also greatly expanded in online presence
(Kim et al., 2006). In China, room-sharing service (e.g., Xiaozhu) has actually been driving
property sales and developing a unique local model (Yang and Marquis, 2014). Despite the
development of literature on drivers and motivations for participating in a sharing economy,
previous research has concentrated on Western countries rather than those of Asia, and
particularly, in Chinese context. Responding to this gap, this paper undertakes an empirical
study of Chinese travelers. It is meaningful for Chinese markets to understand stimuli for
travelers to participate in room-sharing, because they can gain valuable commercial
information about their latent consumers, and improve the quality of products and services.
Therefore, the goal of this study is to systematically explore the motivational factors of
Chinese tourists to participate in room-sharing service. The research framework is based on
motivations, perceived trust and past experience in the sharing economy.
4
2. Theoretical background
2.1 The sharing economy and room-sharing services
Sharing activities involve the distribution of our possessions to others, and in turn,
gaining goods or services for our own use (Belk, 2010). The transfer of access to goods and
services has begun to penetrate our commercial market. The sharing economy is often
discussed along with collaborative consumption (Botsman and Rogers, 2011, Belk, 2014,
Cheng, 2016). Collaborative consumption is defined primarily as the situations in which
individuals or groups consume together by participating in joint activities (Felson and Spaeth,
1978). Botsman and Rogers (2010) argue that it is an economic model that includes sharing,
lending, bartering, renting and swapping.
In the tourism market, room-sharing service is provided through platforms such as
Airbnb and XiaoZhu (Wang and Nicolau, 2017). Local people share their extra rooms or other
accommodations with travelers in exchange for a fee. Thus, the platforms are regarded as a
monetary network for hospitality (Ikkala and Lampinen, 2015). Research studies about the
services have focused on different aspects. From consumers’ perspectives, Liang et al. (2017)
explores consumers perceived value, and perceived risk in relation to Airbnb. Tussyadiah and
Pesonen (2016) find that economic and social appeal are driving factors of it. However, there
is, thus far, no comprehensive and empirical research on travelers’ behavioral intentions
toward room-sharing service, therefore this study aims to explore this topic from the
perspectives of motivations, perceived trust and past experience.
5
2.2 Motivation
Motivation is related to fulfilling human demands from health guarantee to social
interactions (Deci and Ryan, 1975). Utilitarian and hedonic gratification are two basic reasons
to purchase products and services (Voss and Grohmann, 2003). Therefore, based on
self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan, 1975), the motivation for consumption can
be classified as the dichotomization of the utilitarian and the hedonic.

Utilitarian motivation is recognized as goal oriented and task critical (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 2010). It includes practical values such as reputation, praise, or monetary rewards
of work (Ryan and Deci, 2000). For example, cost saving, convenience and customization are
incentives for online shopping (To et al., 2007).
Hedonic motivation delineates behaviors for enjoyment, fantasy, and happiness
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 2010). It typically consists of gratification and inner-satisfaction
factors such as self-interest, desire, and expectation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Hedonic
motivation is about fantasy fulfillment, social value, and emotional worth (Barry et al., 1994).
Utilitarian and hedonic motivations are considered fundamental to understanding
consumers’ evaluations of the consumption experience. Accommodation establishments
provide both utilitarian and hedonic attributes through satisfying customers’ physical and
emotional needs (Gursoy et al., 2006). Travelers seek both utilitarian and hedonic benefits
from short-term stays.
To date, studies have been conducted to understand the motivational factors in
sharing activities. By studying the cases of Airbnb, Stene (2014) identifies five main
categories of reasons for Norwegians to participate in the sharing economy. Hamari et al.
6
(2016) point that participation is motivated by sustainability, enjoyment, and economic gains.
The likelihood of using Airbnb is explained mainly by utility, cost saving, trust and
familiarity (Mohlmann, 2015). Both the drivers and deterrents of the consumption of
short-term rental services are discussed by Tussyadiah (2015). In addition, Tussyadiah (2016)
finds that travelers’ behavioral intention was determined significantly by enjoyment and
value.
In summary, motivations toward sharing activities include economic (e.g., cost
saving), ecological (e.g., sustainability), social (e.g., communication, community) and
hedonic (e.g., enjoyment) motivations. In this study, the motivational constructs are
operationalized as utilitarian (i.e., service experience, information acquisition, cost saving,
and recourse efficiency) and hedonic (i.e., adventure, gratification, sharing, and friend
seeking), with more additional details to be developed in the subsequent sections.
2.3 Perceived trust
Trust is an expectation that other individuals or groups will perform ethical, socially
appropriate and dependable behaviors (Gefen et al., 2003). Perceived trust is a subjective sense
that refers to a feeling of trustworthiness and safety (Mayer et al., 1995). In the Internet
environment, online trust is regarded as consumers forming positive impressions of
e-commerce sites (Urban et al., 2009).
The prominence of trust in the business relationship can be explained by social
exchange theory (SET). According to SET, people will participate in an activity when the
expected social benefits exceed their subjective social-emotional cost. As online business
7
environments lack conventional trust-inducing features facilities (Riegelsberger et al., 2003),
online companies must demonstrate their credibility to customers (Chen and Law, 2006). The
greatest barrier deterring online purchasing behaviors is lack of trust (Urban et al., 2009).
Therefore, trust is a pivotal concern if the business involves admitting strangers to one’s own
residence (e.g., Airbnb) (Botsman and Rogers, 2011).
3. Research model and hypotheses

Based on the discussion above, a conceptual model of the determinants (motivations
and perceived trust) of behavioral intentions toward room-sharing platforms is initially built.
To pre-test the model, 15 tourists were interviewed randomly in a travelling group using
WeChat; they were asked about their motivations, trust toward room-sharing and whether they
had experienced it before. The results show that motivations demonstrate a difference between
travelers with past experience and without, so past experience is considered to be a moderating
factor in later study. Eight of them classified utilitarian and hedonic motivations, such as cost
saving, enjoyment and friend seeking. Therefore, motivations, perceived trust, and past
experience are included in the research model.
3.1 Utilitarian motivation and behavioral intention
The utility and usefulness that result from a sharing economy encourage consumers’
behavioral intentions. Economic benefits and service quality are quite attractive for users
(Botsman and Rogers, 2010, Lamberton and Rose, 2012, Owyang et al., 2013). Sharing
information is also a driving factor (Tussyadiah, 2015). Since a sharing economy reduces the
8
consumption of raw materials, it is believed to be a greener consumption model to enhance
redistribution and sustainability (Buczynski, 2013, Botsman and Rogers, 2010). Thus,
utilitarian motivation can be classified as service experience, information acquisition, cost
saving, and resource efficiency.
As an experiential service, room-sharing shows intangibility, heterogeneity, and
perishability (Grove et al., 2003, Lovelock and Gummesson, 2004). Similar to bed and
breakfast (B&B) accommodations, the main concern of room owners is to provide the personal
hospitality service (Dawson and Brown, 1988). This service makes the experience of
room-sharing more friendly and interesting. Unlike homogeneous hotel, short-term rental
houses are different in decorating style, and more complete accommodation facilities (e.g.
kitchen, living room, laundry) are provided. Therefore, traveling becomes more active and
humanizing (Morrison et al., 1996). The increasing experience quality can be regarded as a
positive factor that builds customers’ satisfaction in sharing activities (Mohlmann, 2015).
Thus, this study proposes:
H1a.Service experience in utilitarian motivation positively influences travelers’ behavioral
intentions.
Sharing leads individuals to communicate and to meet physically (Tussyadiah, 2015).
Direct interactions facilitate tourists to improve their tourism arrangements. As local people,
hosts are familiar with transportation and scenic areas, so they can serve as free guides for
travelers (Morrison et al., 1996). Room-sharing services create opportunities for access to
9
tourism information for travelers, such as route plans and ticket information about scenic spots.
Therefore, the aspiration for this information may lead travelers to participate in room-sharing
activities.
H1b.Information acquisition in utilitarian motivation positively influences travelers’
behavioral intentions.
Cost saving is relating to self-benefits, which is a decisive factor in collaborative
consumption (Mohlmann, 2015). Sharing space with hosts creates benefits because consumers
only get access to resources rather than owning them (Hamari et al., 2016). Sharing rather than
staying in professionally furnished hotel rooms significantly reduces the cost of
accommodations for consumers. Besides costs saved on products, consumers can also save on
services. Compared to hotels that hire teams of employees to deliver services to guests,
peer-to-peer room-sharing services rely on individual hosts to fulfill the entire service process.
Such a cost-effective service model also directly reduces the cost of stay for consumers.
Travelers can rent a cheaper apartment or house during their trip (Stene, 2014). Accordingly,
the hypothesis is proposed.
H1c.Cost saving in utilitarian motivation positively influences travelers’ behavioral
intentions.
Sharing goods and services is considered as economical and as ecological (Hamari et
10
al., 2016). Collaborative consumption platforms are helpful for developing sustainable
marketplaces and optimizing environmental resources (Phipps et al., 2013, Luchs et al., 2011).
The misuses of resources lead to many environmental problems; therefore, awareness of
resource redistribution that concentrates on sustainable consumption has grown (Tussyadiah,
2015). The attitude shaped by ideology and environmental protection may influence
participation and collaboration in sharing platforms (Hamari et al., 2016). Thus, the study
proposes:
H1d.Resource efficiency in utilitarian motivation positively influences travelers’ behavioral
intentions.
3.2 Hedonic motivation and behavioral intention
Hedonic motivation consists of emotional and social drivers. As Arnold and
Reynolds (2003) suggest, hedonic motivation can be divided into adventure and gratification.
Adventure is grounded in stimulation theory (Berlyne, 1969) and refers to the sense of
stimulation and freshness. Adventure can produce hedonic value (Barry et al., 1994), and
gratification involves feeling excited (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). Gratification activities are
considered to release stress and improve mood (Lee et al., 2001). Sharing may offer many
unforgettable memories and feelings. Tourists who are novelty seekers may try this new
activity. In addition, collaborative consumption has been acknowledged in the literature that
can be enjoyable (Hamari et al., 2016). Enjoyment is a primary factor to explain and predict
continuous participation behaviors (Luchs et al., 2011, Hamari et al., 2016). Thus, the
11
following hypotheses are made:
H2a. Adventure in hedonic motivation positively influences travelers’ behavioral intentions.
H2b.Gratification in hedonic motivation positively influences travelers’ behavioral
intentions.
Social drivers always satisfy needs virtually but not physically. They are related to
users sharing and relationship-building with others (Kim et al., 2013). Johnson and Yang
(2009) pointed out that social motivation is consists of sharing and friend seeking. Sharing is
talking with others and making direct interaction. Friend seeking is a demand to expand one’s
social circle. Sharing economy is a social-economic model which facilitates users to develop
connections to acquire social capital and reputation (Botsman and Rogers, 2011, Heylighen,
2017) . Airbnb allows participants to share personal experience to create new communities
(Tussyadiah, 2015). Furthermore, it is helpful for them to expand their social circles and ties.
Therefore, the study proposes:
H2c.Sharing in hedonic motivation positively influences travelers’ behavioral intentions.
H2d.Friend seeking in hedonic motivation positively influences travelers’ behavioral
intentions.
3.3 Perceived trust and behavioral intention
Trust is decisive in the development of the sharing economy (Ert et al., 2016). A lack
12
of trust between peers is a barrier to collaborative consumption (Owyang et al., 2013,
Mohlmann, 2015). Only with a higher level of trust between service providers and consumers
can consumers participate in sharing (Mohlmann, 2015, Botsman and Rogers, 2011).
Therefore, the hypothesis is proposed.
H3. Perceived trust positively influences travelers’ behavioral intentions.

3.4 The moderating effects of past experience
Past experience makes consumers more familiar with the system and process (Hartel,
1999). More exposure and involvement provide more experience about products and services.
Personal experience is considered to influence the effect of motivation (Petty, 1983). The
evaluation of utility and function may change with different involvement (Bennett et al.,
2005). Therefore, past experience is expected to moderate the effect from utilitarian
motivation on behavioral intentions. In our study, past experience is defined as an experience
of staying in short-term rental accommodations. If a traveler has experienced a room-sharing
service before, he or she is regarded as an experienced user. Therefore, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H4a.Past experience moderates the influence of service experience in utilitarian motivation
on behavioral intentions.
H4b.Past experience moderates the influence of information acquisition in utilitarian
motivation on behavioral intentions.
13
H4c.Past experience moderates the influence of cost saving in utilitarian motivation on
H4d.Past experience moderates the influence of resource efficiency in utilitarian motivation
on behavioral intentions.
The effect of hedonic motivation is also expected to be moderated by past

experience. Novelty seekers are related to the tendency of interests to seek exciting things
(Hirschman, 1980). The influence of hedonic motivation will be differ with increasing
experience because the attracting effect of novelty (adventure) decreases (Venkatesh et al.,
2012). The effect of tension reduction and self-gratification is also different as experience
increases. Sharing activities create opportunities for people to share and make friends with
others (Tussyadiah, 2015). The connections during the experience of room-sharing may
influence the effect of their friend making motivation. Therefore, the study proposes:
H5a.Past experience moderates the influence of adventure in hedonic motivation on
H5b.Past experience moderates the influence of gratification in hedonic motivation on
H5c.Past experience moderates the influence of sharing in hedonic motivation on behavioral
intentions.
H5d.Past experience moderates the influence of friend seeking in hedonic motivation on
14
People with more experience have greater commitment compared to inexperienced
groups (Lee and Chang, 2013). Therefore, experience plays an important role in risk
reduction. The perceived risk associated with purchasing behavior is affected by more
experience and involvement (Bennett et al., 2005). Such greater familiarity is related to more
trust and reduced risk. Accordingly, the hypothesis is proposed:

H6. Past experience moderates the influence of perceived trust on behavioral intentions.
The hypotheses are shown in Figure 1. The model predicts and examines the
influence of motivational factors and perceived trust on behavioral intention.
Social-demographic characteristics also influence behaviors (Panzone et al., 2016). They (e.g.,
gender, age), in particular, are verified to influence tourists’ values, behaviors, and
satisfaction (McCleary et al., 2007). Therefore, age, gender and educational level are added
as control variables in the proposed model.
(Insert Figure 1 about here)
4. Research methodology
4.1 Measurements
A questionnaire with items measuring proposed constructs in four dimensions,
including utilitarian, hedonic motivation, perceived trust and behavioral intention, was
15
designed to test the hypotheses. Constructs are measured by multi-item scales because
compared with single-item scales, multi-item scales lead to more reliability and validity
(Devellis, 2003). All scales are adapted from prior studies. In order to ensure that respondents
can easily understand the meaning of items, previous applications of all adapted scales are
measured to perform Cronbach’s alpha above 0.80 (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012). In addition,
the adapted scales are applied for analysis of consumers’ behaviors or behavioral intentions
in publication (e.g., Voss et al., 1998).
Since the target population is Chinese travelers, the questionnaire was provided in
Chinese. The whole process of creating the final version of questionnaire was followed by
Venkatesh et al. (2012). The questionnaire was first created in English to keep the originality
of measurements. Then a professional translator and two academics were invited to translate
the questionnaire into Chinese independently. They analyzed three independent versions
together and reached the agreement on the final Chinese version. Another professional
translator translated the Chinese questionnaire back into English to ensure translation
accuracy (Brislin, 1970). The Chinese questionnaire was pretested by a pilot group of 30
Chinese travelers who were not included in the respondents in the main survey. Based on the
feedback, several questions were revised and improved. The final questionnaire includes 14
items about utilitarian motivation, 12 items about hedonic motivation, 4 items about perceived
trust, and 3 items about behavioral intentions with demographic information for the whole
sample. The measurement items and all scales of constructs are shown in Table I.
(Insert Table I about here)
16
4.2 Data collection
The data were collected online by recruiting participants from five Chinese online
travel communities, including Ctrip.com, Qunar.com, and Mafengwo.com, plus Airbnb and
Xiaozhu forums on Baidu.com. The first three are leading travel websites in China, while the
Airbnb and Xiaozhu forums on Baidu.com are online communities for travelers sharing their
experience. Users on these five travel websites are representatives for the most active and
massive group of Chinese travelers. Therefore, links to the online questionnaire were posted
on them, and the questionnaire was open for participation from March 20 to April 3, 2016.
This convenient sampling method resulted in 538 viewers (identified by unique IP addresses)
who clicked on the questionnaire link. Among these 538 viewers, 485 (or 90.1% of) viewers
participated in the online survey. After deleting missing data, non-engaged responses, and
outliers from the responses received, a valid sample of responses was reached from 445
respondents for data analysis.
The frequency analysis was conducted by SPSS 19.0. The results indicate that
among all respondents, 49% are male and 51% are female. The ages range from 18 to 55.
Most have a bachelor degree or an advanced educational background (89%). 65% prefer
leisure trips. In the past, about 46% of the participants experienced the room-sharing, while
54% did not. Table II shows the demographics of respondents.
(Insert Table II about here)
17
5. Results and Findings
Partial least squares (PLS) was used to examine the corresponding relationships
among proposed constructs. PLS supports minimal sample size and requires the size of a
given sample to be at least ten times the number of latent variables (Cassel et al., 1999). In
addition, PLS supports both reflective and formative models with interaction effects (Temme
et al., 2006). The formative-reflective model in this research is appropriate for analyzing by
PLS (Wan, 2014). As Asyraf and Afthanorhan (2013) point out, PLS path modeling is reliable
and valid for conducting structural model analysis. Therefore, PLS is widely used in
information system and consumers’ behavior analyses (e.g., Kim et al., 2013, Venkatesh et al.
2012). In addition, the PLS modeling path is an alternative to covariance-based SEM
(Kroonenberg, 1992). These merits make PLS a good fit for our analysis needs. SmartPLS
software was used in two-stage analysis. First, the researchers estimated and analyzed the
measurement model. Then, the structural model was tested for the hypotheses.
5.1 Measurement model testing
The PLS method by SmartPLS 3.0 was used to analyze 445 responses in the
measurement model. No data were missing after all samples were entered in SmartPLS. To
ensure the appropriateness of all latent constructs, test of reliability, discriminant and
convergent validity, outer factor loading analysis, common method bias were examined
before structural model testing. Table III summarizes the measurement model testing results
as well as the descriptive analyses of latent constructs.
18
(Insert Table III about here)
The reliability was tested by Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR). Both
Cronbach’s alpha and CR must be higher than 0.7 to be considered adequate (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). All scores of Cronbach’s alpha and CR are beyond 0.7, and the smallest is
0.803 (cost saving) and 0.882 (cost saving) respectively. The analysis of validity consists of
discriminant and convergent validities (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Average variance estimate
(AVE) and correlations among all constructs are calculated. All AVEs are between 0.662 and
0.887, exceeding the threshold score of 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The correlations are
between 0.033 and 0.620. The square root of AVE is higher than every correlation among all
latent constructs, indicating that discriminant validity is achieved in the measurement model
(Asyraf and Afthanorhan, 2013). To check convergent validity, exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) was conducted and all are higher than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Therefore, the
reliability and validity are acceptable. Table IV shows square root of AVE and correlations.
(Insert table IV about here)
The fitness of the model was also analyzed by PLS as the check of construct validity.
Model fit indices calculated by SmartPLS software show whether the proposed model fits the
empirical sample or not. According to information theory, the fitness is measured similarly
between PLS and covariance-based SEM (Garson, 2012). The results show that the fit of the
model is acceptable, with SRMR =0.048, NFI =0.927, and GFI =0.975, all supporting the
19
goodness of fit of our model (Hu and Bentler, 1998).
The self-reported data have potential common-method bias. Two methods were used
to check the CMB. The first was simply to check the correlation matrix. Many reports show
that CMB exists when the correlation of any two constructs exceeds 0.9 (e.g., Kim et al.,
2013). However, the highest correlation is 0.620 (Adventure and Gratification). Secondly, the
Harmon single-factor test was performed with two steps. Step one is that all latent constructs
were examined by principal component analysis (PCA) using SPSS 19.0. The results
demonstrated that more than one factor existed after dimension reduction and the variance
contribution of the first factor was less than 40% (27.1%), therefore, CMB could be ignored
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). Step two is followed by Liang and Xue (2007). Samples were
analyzed to test the method factor and substantive factors using SmartPLS. Specifically, a
method factor including indicators of all observed constructs was added. As shown in Table V,
the average variance explained by substantive factors is 0.662, while by method factor is
0.050. Therefore, the results indicate that CMB is not a serious concern in our study.
(Insert table V about here)
Multicollinearity was checked among all latent constructs in the measurement model
by computing values of variance inflation factors (VIFs). The results of VIFs were between
3.528 and 4.790, which were smaller than the threshold score of 10 (O’Brien, 2007). It
suggests that multicollinearity is not a problem in our study.
20
5.2 Structural model analysis
The hypotheses are examined by structural equation model analysis using PLS
regression. Table VI demonstrates the structural model testing results including path
coefficients and R-squares. As for moderator effect, travelers who experienced room-sharing
service before are regarded as experienced, and others are considered inexperienced.
Therefore, past experience is a categorical variable instead of a continuous variable. The

multiple term of moderator was taken for estimating the moderation effect of past experiences
(PE) on the proposed relationships.
(Insert Table VI about here)
H1, H2 and H3 are tested by PLS analysis of all samples. Except for H1d and H2c
being rejected, the remaining from H1 to H3 are statistically supported. From the perspective
of utilitarian motivation, H1a, H1b and H1c are supported. IA influences BI most
significantly (β=0.155, t=3.626). CS and SE also have positive impacts (β=0.112, t=3.356;
β=0.102, t=2.351), while RE does not (β=0.046, t=1.433). H2a, H2b and H2d are supported
while H2c is rejected. AH, FH and GH show significant effect (β=0.317, t=6.872; β=0.110,
t=2.791; β=0.101, t=2.331) whereas sharing is not (β=0.042, t=0.939). PT shows the
strongest effect (β=0.548, t=15.251). The variance in BI explained by these factors is quite
good at 53.2 percent.
The researchers controlled social-demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender,
education) to make a more accurate evaluation (Kim et al., 2015). Age and education are
21
coded as ordinal variables with gender as dummy variable (male is 0, female is 1)
(Yalonetzky, 2014, Venkatesh et al., 2012). Only age shows a significant effect (β=0.098,
t=2.173) while gender and education not (β=0.000, t=0.014; β=0.026, t=0.942).
For the rest of the hypotheses, moderating effects are tested. The adjusted R2 of
model including moderator variable is 0.547. H4a, H4b, and H4d are supported. With
experience increasing, the influence of SE, IA, and RE is enhanced (β=0.156, t=3.948;
β=0.093, t=2.049; β=0.119, t=3.461). But H4c is rejected (β=0.002, t=0.052). The influence
of AH and FH becomes weaker as experience increases (β=-0.171, t=4.242; β=-0.116,
t=3.261), while sharing shows an increasing impact (β=0.092, t=2.017). Therefore, H5a, H5c
and H5d are supported. Last, H6 is supported (β=-0.103, t=2.867).
6. Conclusions and implications
6.1 Conclusions
The main purpose of this study is to examine influences of motivations and
perceived trust on Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing platforms
and how the influences are moderated by past experience. A number of key conclusions can
be revealed. First, the analysis supports and extends prior researches by highlighting that
utilitarian motivation significantly affects tourists’ behavioral intentions. Specifically,
room-sharing services provide special service experiences, such as abundant family facilities
and caring attention (Belk, 2010, Dawson and Brown, 1988). Such SE motivation positively
influences BI (Owyang et al., 2013). As Tussyadiah (2015) proposes that information sharing
and sustainability influence intentions, the study verified that travelers care a lot about
22
information acquisition. Tourists are also motivated by saving money and time (Lamberton
and Rose, 2012). Resource sharing improves environmental protection (Hamari et al., 2016),
but the results indicate that Chinese tourists are not significantly affected by RE.
Second, tourists are positively affected by hedonic motivation. Their curiosity about
room-sharing attracts them to participate in. Enjoyment and gratification influences people’s
intentions (Hamari et al., 2016). The motivation of sharing personal events does not draw
intention directly. However, travelers look forward to expanding social ties through it
(Tussyadiah, 2015).
Third, trust plays an essential role in behavioral intention (Owyang et al., 2013,
Mohlmann, 2015). People are unsure of conditions in room-sharing, so the best way to reduce
risk and uncertainty is to improve the trustworthiness of platforms (Bostman and Rogers,
2010). In the study, trust has also been found to be the strongest factor in Chinese travelers’
room-sharing intention.
Fourth, the effects of motivation and perceived trust are different between
experienced and inexperienced tourists. Experience makes consumers more familiar with
activities and commercial systems (Hartel, 1999). With travelers’ experience increasing, the
effect of SE, IA, RE and SH becomes stronger, while AH, FH and PT becomes weaker. The
conclusions discussed above warrant the attention of both researchers and practitioners.
6.2 Theoretical implications
The research also makes a few theoretical implications. First, this research extends
prior studies of the influential factors to behavior intention towards sharing activities through
23
systematic, deeper, and more specific analysis. Specifically, it combines, organizes, verifies
and extends external (e.g., economic benefits, ecology) (Lamberton and Rose, 2012, Owyang
et al., 2013, Hamari et al., 2016), and inner factors (e.g., enjoyment, social connection)
(Hamari et al., 2016, Tussyadiah, 2016) and trust which influence intention (Mohlmann, 2015,
Botsman and Rogers, 2011). The new settings are beneficial for enhancing and enriching the
literature. The results of analysis also complement the recent studies based on the extended
research model.
Second, the study advances the understanding of the moderating effect of experience
in the formulation of room-sharing intention. Different from previous researches that focus
mainly on effect of antecedents on the sharing (e.g., Hamari et al., 2016, Tussyadiah, 2016),
this study also analyzes the moderating effect of past experience. The results indicate that
experience enhance the effect of utilitarian motivation (e.g., SE, IA, RE) while weaken
hedonic motivation (e.g., AH, FH). Therefore, these findings also extend other studies by
highlighting the importance for researchers to notice the difference between the experienced
and inexperienced in the room-sharing service.
Finally, despite the existence of several prior researches on intention in the sharing
economy, they focus mainly on Western consumers (e.g., Mohlmann, 2015, Lamberton and
Rose, 2012, Hamari et al., 2016). This research is the first to propose and examine how
Chinese tourists are affected by motivations and trust in room-sharing service. China is the
largest emerging tourism market in the world (Kim et al., 2006). Therefore, it is meaningful
to explore Chinese behavior in the sharing economy.
24
6.3 Managerial implications
The findings also reveal managerial implications especially for practitioners as both
hosts and entrepreneurs. First, hosts need to aware that it is important to target and engage a
certain type of travelers based on their motivations. Hosts can be guided in accordance with
tourists’ various demands, including offering more facilities and caring attention, preparing
more useful information about local trips. It is expected that pull-and-push motivations can
build satisfaction and repeat purchasing.
Second, platforms benefit from the understanding of tourists’ expectations. The
results reveal that tourists are strongly influence by CS. Hence, platforms are supposed to
designing practical suggestions regarding price for hosts who may not be familiar with the
commercial strategy. In addition, since trust is a key factor in the sharing economy (Owyang
et al., 2013), it is expected that platforms improve trustworthiness through various ways, such
as building strict management for hosts and rooms. Furthermore, they can help hosts to
distinguish and divided potential consumers into the experienced or inexperienced to satisfy
the different demands of two groups.
Third, China has been developing a unique local model in the hospitality market
(Kim et al., 2006, Yang and Marquis, 2014). It is important for international platforms (e.g.,
Airbnb) to be familiar with the perceptions and expectations of Chinese tourists. They are
encouraged to establish product and operation strategies more locally. For example, Chinese
tourists are motivated to expand their social ties. These cross-cultural platforms can build
online communities to facilitate communication among tourists. It is beneficial to carry out
targeted marketing for Chinese to achieve a rapid development. Practitioners can make use of
25
the findings in this research.
6.4 Limitations and future directions
There are several limitations to discuss. First, only behavioral intentions and not
actual behaviors are measured, future research could test through a deeper analysis in the
design besides a questionnaire. Second, the results indicate the important role of trust for the
use of room-sharing services, so future research can further explore it in depth. Third, the
sample is limited to Chinese travelers. Comparison regarding the determinants of
room-sharing intentions in the context of China and other countries (e.g., the United States)
should be analyzed in the future. Fourth, in order to provide more valid suggestions for local
and cross-cultural platforms, future analyses of comparisons including business models, value
propositions and organizational structures can be conducted.
Acknowledgement:
This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant Numbers: 71373194 and 71332001).
Reference
Arnold, M. J. and Reynolds, K. E. (2003), "Hedonic shopping motivations", Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 77-95.
Asyraf, M. and Afthanorhan B. W. (2013), “A comparison of partial least square structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance based structural equation modeling
(CB-SEM) for confirmatory factor analysis’’, International Journal of Engineering

26
Science & Innovative Technology, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 198-205.
Barry J. B., Darden W. R. and Grrffin A. M. (1994), "Measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Belk, R. (2010), "Sharing", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 715-734.
Belk, R. (2014), "You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption
online", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1595-1600.

Bennett, R., H Rtel, C. E. J. and Mccoll-Kennedy, J. R. (2005), ''Experience as a moderator of
involvement and satisfaction on brand loyalty in a business-to-business setting
02-314R'', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 97-107.
Berlyne, D. E. (1969), "Laughter, humor, and play", in G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
Handbook of Social Psychology, Reading, Addision Wesley, MA, pp. 795-852.
Botsman, R. and Rogers, R. (2010), "Beyond zipcar: Collaborative consumption", Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 10, pp. 30.
Botsman, R. and Rogers, R. (2011), "What's mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live", London: Collins.
Brislin, R. W. (1970), ''Back-translation for cross-cultural research'', Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 185-216.
Buczynski, B. (2013), "Sharing is good: How to save money, time and resources through
collaborative consumption", New Society Publishers, NY.
Cassel, C., Hackl, P. and Westlund, A. H. (1999), ''Robustness of partial least-squares method
for estimating latent variable quality structures'', Journal of Applied Statistics, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 435-446.
27
Chen, C. F. and Law, R. (2006), "Identifying significant factors influencing consumer trust in
an online travel site", Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 197-214.
Cheng, M. (2016), ''Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research'',
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 60-70.
Dawson, C. P. and Brown, T. L. (1988), "B&Bs: A matter of choice", The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 17-21.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1975), "Intrinsic motivation", Wiley Online Library, Wiely.
Devellis, R. F. (2003), ''Scale development: Theory and applications'', Journal of Educational
Measurement, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 79-82.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P. and Kaiser, S. (2012),
''Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct
measurement: A predictive validity perspective'', Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 434-449.
Ert, E., Fleischer, A. and Magen, N. (2016), ''Trust and reputation in the sharing economy:
The role of personal photos in Airbnb'', Tourism Management, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp.
62-73.
Felson, M. and Spaeth, J. L. (1978), "Community structure and collaborative consumption: A
routine activity approach", The American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41 No. 21, pp.
614.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981), "Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
28
Garson, D. (2012), ''Partial least squares: Regression and path modeling'', Asheboro, NC:
Statistical Publishing Associates.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D. W. (2003), "Trust and TAM in online shopping: An
integrated model", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Geron, T. (2013), "Airbnb and the unstoppable rise of the share economy", avalibale at:
http://www. forbes.
com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-and-theunstoppable-rise-of-the-share-econo
my/ (accessed 23 January 2013).
Grove, S. J., Fisk, R. P. and John, J. (2003), "The future of services marketing: Forecasts
from ten services experts", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 107-121.
Gursoy, D., Spangenberg, E. R. and Rutherford, D. G. (2006), "The hedonic and utilitarian
dimensions of attendees' attitudes toward festivals", Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 279-294.
Hartel, C. E. (1999), "Development and test of the two-stage model of performance
appraisal", Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 76-91.
Hamari, J., Sjklint, M. and Ukkonen, A. (2016), "The sharing economy: Why people
participate in collaborative consumption", Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 2047-2059.
Heylighen, F. (2017), "Towards an intelligent network for matching offer and demand: From
the sharing economy to the global brain", Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 74-85.
Hirschman, E. C. (1980), ''Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity'', Journal
29
of Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 283-95.
Hirschman, E. C. and Holbrook, M. B. (2010), "Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,
methods and propositions", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101.
Hu, L. T. and Bentler, P. M. (1998), ''Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity
to underparametrized model misspesification''. Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No.4 ,
pp. 24-453.
Ikkala, T. and Lampinen, A. (2015), "Monetizing network hospitality: Hospitality and
sociability in the context of Airbnb", in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, New York, 2015, NY:
ACM, pp. 1033-1044.
Johnson, P. R. and Yang, S. (2009), "Uses and gratifications of Twitter: An examination of
user motives and satisfaction of Twitter use", Communication Technology Division of
the Annual Convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication in Boston, MA.
Kim, M. J., Jung, T., Kim, W. G. and Fountoulaki, P. (2015), ''Factors affecting British revisit
intention to crete, greece: High vs. low spending tourists'', Tourism Geographies, Vol.
17 No. 5, pp. 815-841.
Kim, W. G., Ma, X. and Kim, D. J. (2006), "Determinants of Chinese hotel customers’
e-satisfaction and purchase intentions", Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp.
890-900.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D. and Choi, S. M. (2011), "Cultural difference in motivations for using social
network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students",
30
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 365-372.
Kim, Y. H., Kim, D. J. and Wachther, K. (2013), "A study of mobile user engagement
(MoEN): Engagement motivations, perceived value, satisfaction, and continued
engagement intention", Decision Support Systems, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 361-370.
Knutson B, S. P., Patton M. and Thompson C. (1993), "Consumers' expectations for service
quality in economy, mid-price and luxury hotels", Journal of Hospitality & Leisure
Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 27-43.
Kroonenberg, P. M. (1992). ''Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares'',
Heidelberg, Germany.
Lamberton, C. P. and Rose, R. L. (2012), "When is ours better than mine? A framework for
understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 109-125.
Lee, C. C. and Chang, J. W. (2013), ''Does trust promote more teamwork? Modeling online
game players' teamwork using team experience as a moderator'', Cyberpsychology
Behavior & Social Networking, Vol. 16 No. 11, pp. 813-819.
Lee, E., Moschis, G. P. and Mathur, A. (2001), "A study of life events and changes in
patronage preferences", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Liang, L. J., Choi, H. S. C., and Joppe, M. (2017), "Understanding pepurchase intention of
Airbnb consumers: Perceived authenticity, EWoM and price sensitivity'', Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Liang, H. and Xue, Y. (2007), "Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional
pressures and the mediating role of top management", Mis Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 31,
31
pp. 59-87.
Lovelock, C. and Gummesson, E. (2004), "Whither services marketing? In search of a new
paradigm and fresh perspectives", Journal of service research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp.
20-41.
Luchs, M., Naylor, R. W., Rose, R. L., Catlin, J. R., Gau, R., Kapitan, S., Mish, J., Ozanne, L.,
Phipps, M. and Simpson, B. (2011), "Toward a sustainable marketplace: Expanding

options and benefits for consumers", Journal of Research for Consumers, Vol. 19 No.
1, pp. 1-4.
Mohlmann, M. (2015), "Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the
likelihood of using a sharing economy option again", Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 193-207.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. and Schoorman, F. D. (1995), "An integrative model of
organizational trust", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 20, pp. 709-734.
Morrison, A. M., Pearce, P. L., Moscardo G, Nadkardi, N. and O'leary, J. T. (1996),
"Specialist accommodation: Definition, markets served, and roles in tourism
development", Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 18-26.
McCleary, K. W., Weaver, P. A. and Hsu, C. H. C. (2007), ''The relationship between
international leisure travelers' origin country and product satisfaction, value, service
quality, and intent to return'', Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2-3,
pp. 117-130.
Owyang, J., Tran, C. and Silva, C. (2013), "The collaborative economy: Products, services,
and market relationships have changed as sharing startups impact business models",
32
available at: http://www.slideshare.net/Altimeter/the-collaborative-economy
(accessed 8 August 2014).
O’brien, R. M. (2007), ''A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors'',
Quality & Quantity, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 673-690.
Panzone, L., Hilton, D., Sale, L. and Cohen, D. (2016), ''Socio-demographics, implicit
attitudes, explicit attitudes, and sustainable consumption in supermarket shopping'',

Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 77-95.
Petty, R. E. (1983), ''Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The
moderating role of involvement'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp.
135-146.
Phipps, M., Ozanne, L. K., Luchs, M. G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S., Catlan, J. R., Gau,
R., Naylor, R. W., Rose, R. L. and Simpson, B. (2013), "Understanding the inherent
complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework", Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1227-1234.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. Y. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003), ''Common
method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M. A. and Mccarthy, J. D. (2003), "The researcher's dilemma:
Evaluating trust in computer-mediated communication", International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 759-781.
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000), "Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions", Contemporary educational psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
33
Stene, A. K. (2014), "Why do Norwegian consumers participate in collaborative
consumption?", Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian School of Economics.
Temme, D., Kreis, H. and Hildebrandt, L. (2006), "PLS path modeling: A software review",
Handbook of partial least squares concepts, Methods and Applications, Springer,
Berlin.
To, P. L., Liao, C. and Lin, T. H. (2007), "Shopping motivations on Internet: A study based on
utilitarian and hedonic value", Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 774-787.
Tussyadiah, I. P. (2015), "An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative
consumption in travel", Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2015. Springer International publisher.
Tussyadiah, I. P. (2016), "Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer
accommodation", International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp.
70-80.
Tussyadiah, I. P. and Pesonen, J. (2016), ''Drivers and barriers of peer-to-peer accommodation
stay – an exploratory study with American and Finnish travellers'', Current Issues in
Tourism, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Urban, G. L., Amyx, C. and Lorenzon, A. (2009), "Online trust: State of the art, new frontiers,
and research potential", Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 23, pp.
179-190.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L. and Xu, X. (2012), ''Consumer acceptance and use of
information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology'', Mis Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-178.
34
Voss, G., Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (1998), "The role of price and quality perceptions
in prepurchase and postpurchase evaluation of services", Journal of Marketing, Vol.
62 No. 62, pp. 46-61.
Voss, K. E. and Grohmann, B. (2003), "Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of
consumer attitude", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 310-320.
Walsh, B. (2011), "Today’s smart choice: Don’t own. Share", Time International, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 49.
Wan, M. A. (2014), ''Hierarchical component using reflective-formative measurement model
in partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)'', International
Journal of Mathematics & Statistics Invention, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 55-71.
Wang, D. and Nicolau, J. L. (2017), ''Price determinants of sharing economy based
accommodation rental: A study of listings from 33 cities on Airbnb.com'',
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 120-131.
Yalonetzky, G. (2014). ''Conditions for the most robust multidimensional poverty
comparisons using counting measures and ordinal variables'', Social Choice and
Welfare, Vol. 43 No. 44, pp. 773-807.
Yang, Z. and Marquis, C. (2014), "The sharing economy in China: Toward a unique local
model", China Policy Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 109-111.
35
Figures and Tables:
Utilitarian motivation
SE
IA
PE
CS
RE
Hedonic motivation
AH
GH H2a H2b H2c H2d
BI
SH
FH
PT
Control Variables
Age
Gender
Education
Notes:
(1) SE = service experience, IA = information acquisition, CS = cost saving, RE =
resource efficiency, AH = adventure, GH = gratification, SH = sharing, FH = friend
seeking, PT = perceived trust, PE = past experience, BI = behavioral intention.
(2) Three control variables of age, gender and education are linked to BI.
Figure 1. Research model
36
Table I. Measurement items and scales
Dimensions Constructs Scales Adapted from
Utilitarian SE To experience attractive living Knutson et al., 1993
motivation areas.
To experience complete facilities
and equipment.
To experience caring and
individualized attention.
To experience neat personnel
quality.
IA To keep me informed and Kim et al., 2013
updated about tourism
information.
To keep me organized about
tourism information.
To save and use my time more
efficiently and effectively.
To get information I’m interested
in.
CS To save my money. Voss et al., 1998;
Cost of short-term rental is Tussyadiah, 2015
reasonable.
37
Cost of short-term rental is
acceptable.
RE To decrease use of resource in Tussyadiah, 2015
trip.
To improve efficiency of
resource utilization.
To be a more socially responsible
traveler.
Hedonic AH To have an adventure. Arnold and Reynolds,
motivation To make me excited and 2003
stimulated.
To feel like in a new universe.
GH To relieve stress. Arnold and Reynolds,
To get my mind off what 2003;
stressing me out. Kim et al., 2013
To feel happy and better in
mood.
SH To share information with Kim et al., 2013;
others. Tussyadiah, 2015
To share experience/events.
To have a meaningful interaction
with others.
38
FH To connect people with similar Kim et al., 2011;
interests. Kim et al., 2013
To meet new friends.
To expand my social ties.
PT I trust the information from Kim et al., 2011;
room-sharing platforms. Mohlmann, 2015

Hosts can provide enough
safeguards.
The other users are trustful.
Overall, room-sharing is
trustworthy.
BI I plan to participate in Kim et al., 2013
room-sharing.
Participation of room-sharing is
a good choice.
I will recommend room-sharing
to others.
Notes:
SE = service experience, IA = information acquisition, CS = cost saving, RE = resource
efficiency, AH = adventure, GH = gratification, SH = sharing, FH = friend seeking, PT =
perceived trust, BI = behavioral intention.
39
Table II. Demographics of respondents (N=445)
Measure Items Frequency Percent
Gender Male 218 49%
Female 227 51%
Age <18 years old 28 6%
19-25 years old 285 64%

26-35 years old 99 22%
46-55 years old 25 6%
>55 years old 8 2%
Education High school and below 51 11%
College 292 66%
Master and above 102 23%
Preferred trip style Leisure 360 81%
Group 22 5%
Both 63 14%
Past experience Have 203 46%
Not have 242 54%
40
Table III. Descriptive analyses and summarized measurement model testing results
Constructs Items Mean SD Cronbach’ Composite AVE Factor
Alpha Reliability Loadings
SE SE1 3.770 0.860 0.830 0.886 0.662 0.809
SE2 0.769
SE4 0.875
SE4 0.796
IA IA1 3.740 0.860 0.903 0.932 0.774 0.871
IA2 0.899
IA3 0.900
IA4 0.849
CS CS1 3.850 0.760 0.803 0.882 0.714 0.846
CS2 0.896
CS3 0.790
RE RE1 3.900 0.840 0.906 0.940 0.840 0.923
RE2 0.917
RE3 0.910
AH AH1 3.960 0.880 0.873 0.926 0.799 0.908
AH2 0.928
AH3 0.844
GH GH1 3.870 0.760 0.849 0.909 0.769 0.846
GH2 0.898
41
GH3 0.886
SH SH1 3.870 0.850 0.936 0.959 0.887 0.946
SH2 0.942
SH3 0.937
FH FH1 3.800 0.850 0.856 0.910 0.773 0.906
FH2 0.924
FH3 0.824
PT PT1 3.460 0.800 0.891 0.924 0.754 0.882
PT2 0.896
PT3 0.871
PT4 0.878
BI BI1 3.770 0.760 0.839 0.903 0.757 0.907
BI2 0.832
BI3 0.870
Notes:
SE = service experience, IA = information acquisition, CS = cost saving, RE = resource
efficiency, AH = adventure, GH = gratification, SH = sharing, FH = friend seeking, PT
= perceived trust, BI = behavioral intention.
42
Table IV. Square root of AVE and correlations
SE IA CS RE AH GH SH FH PT BI
SE 0.814
IA 0.490* 0.880
**
CS 0.459* 0.442 0.845

** ***
RE 0.033 0.182 0.288 0.917
AH 0.487* 0.496 0.376 0.327 0.894
** *** ** *
GH 0.448* 0.111 0.242 0.410 0.620 0.887
** * *** ***
SH 0.512* 0.414 0.162 0.103 0.441 0.494 0.942
** *** *** ***
FH 0.463* 0.450 0.297 0143 0.328 0.442 0.146 0.879
** *** * ** ***
PT 0.475* 0.432 0.372 0.132 0.467 0.334 0.418 0.490 0.870
** *** ** *** *** *** ***
BI 0.303* 0.356 0.339 0.236 0.402 0.306 0.286 0.361 0.508 0.870
* *** ** * *** ** * *** ***
43
Notes:
(1) SE = service experience, IA = information acquisition, CS = cost saving, RE =
resource efficiency, AH = adventure, GH = gratification, SH = sharing, FH = friend
seeking, PT = perceived trust, BI = behavioral intention.
(2) * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.

44
Table V. Common method bias analysis
Constructs Items Substantive R12 Method R22
Factor Factor
Loading Loading
SE SE1 0.809 0.621 0.227 0.051
SE2 0.769 0.523 0.164 0.037

SE4 0.875 0.642 0.297 0.053
SE4 0.796 0.553 0.166 0.047
IA IA1 0.871 0.674 0.261 0.046
IA2 0.899 0.633 0.306 0.056
IA3 0.900 0.701 0.325 0.047
IA4 0.849 0.652 0.253 0.043
CS CS1 0.816 0.678 0.233 0.040
CS2 0.775 0.526 0.169 0.033
CS3 0.900 0.710 0.326 0.051
RE RE1 0.923 0.784 0.366 0.047
RE2 0.917 0.771 0.354 0.036
RE3 0.910 0.755 0.331 0.037
AH AH1 0.908 0.770 0.327 0.058
AH2 0.928 0.781 0.386 0.060
AH3 0.844 0.667 0.255 0.058
GH GH1 0.846 0.655 0.257 0.053
45
GH2 0.898 0.694 0.304 0.059
GH3 0.886 0.691 0.300 0.058
SH SH1 0.946 0.767 0.402 0.046
SH2 0.942 0.761 0.399 0.042
SH3 0.937 0.760 0.395 0.045
FH FH1 0.906 0.706 0.382 0.047

FH2 0.924 0.753 0.374 0.035
FH3 0.824 0.603 0.242 0.030
PT PT1 0.822 0.603 0.241 0.065
PT2 0.882 0.682 0.299 0.064
PT3 0.896 0.689 0.302 0.066
PT4 0.871 0.677 0.286 0.068
BI BI1 0.907 0.704 0.382 0.041
BI2 0.831 0.658 0.255 0.066
BI3 0.870 0.686 0.285 0.068
Average 0.875 0.662 0.296 0.050
Notes:
SE = service experience, IA = information acquisition, CS = cost
saving, RE = resource efficiency, AH = adventure, GH =
gratification, SH = sharing, FH = friend seeking, PT = perceived
trust, PE = Past experience, BI = behavioral intention.
46
Table VI. Structural model results
DV: BI β T value β T value
SE 0.102* 2.351 0.097* 2.372

IA 0.155*** 3.626 0.167*** 4.095
CS 0.112** 3.356 0.108** 3.135
RE 0.046 1.433 0.037 1.107
AH 0.317*** 6.872 0.211*** 5.718
GH 0.101* 2.331 0.108** 3.194
SH 0.042 0.939 0.031 0.626
FH 0.110** 2.791 0.131*** 3.715
PT 0.548*** 15.251 0.377*** 10.363
Age 0.098* 2.173 0.095* 2.134
Gender 0.000 0.014 0.009 0.293
Education 0.026 0.942 0.026 0.092
SE*PE 0.156*** 3.948
IA*PE 0.093* 2.049
CS*PE 0.002 0.052
RE*PE 0.119** 3.461
AH*PE -0.171*** 4.242

47
GH*PE -0.018 0.451
SH*PE 0.092* 2.017
FH*PE -0.116** 3.261
PT*PE -0.103** 2.867
Adjusted R2 0.532 0.547

Notes:
(1) SE = service experience, IA = information acquisition, CS =
cost saving, RE = resource efficiency, AH = adventure, GH =
gratification, SH = sharing, FH = friend seeking, PT = perceived
trust, PE = Past experience, BI = behavioral intention.
(2) * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
48

Ijchm 08 2016 0481

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijchm 08 2016 0481

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

the influence of motivations, perceived trust, and past experience

Submitted: 31 August 2016

1st Revision: 22 November 2016

2nd Revision: 01 February 2017

3rd Revision: 13 March 2017

4th Revision: 09 April 2017

Accepted: 14 May 2017

platforms in the sharing economy.

Based on theories of motivation, the influences on travelers of utilitarian and hedonic

characteristics of room-sharing, utilitarian motivation is measured by service experience,

with room-sharing moderates these effects.

the backdrop of China.

Keywords: Sharing economy, room-sharing service, motivation, perceived trust, past

Consumption and transaction practices are reshaped by information and

communication technologies (ICTs). Increasing concern about social connection and

“sharing economy.” The sharing economy is a social-economic model that involves

share access to their clothes or cars.

opportunity for their connectivity and communications (Tussyadiah, 2015).

interests, belonging of community, sustainability). However, previous research has

services (e.g. relationship exchange). Therefore, a comprehensive consideration of the reasons

this in the specific context of a sharing economy, especially in hospitality industries.

development of literature on drivers and motivations for participating in a sharing economy,

travelers to participate in room-sharing, because they can gain valuable commercial

Chinese tourists to participate in room-sharing service. The research framework is based on

motivations, perceived trust and past experience in the sharing economy.

2.1 The sharing economy and room-sharing services

Cheng, 2016). Collaborative consumption is defined primarily as the situations in which

lending, bartering, renting and swapping.

In the tourism market, room-sharing service is provided through platforms such as

perspectives of motivations, perceived trust and past experience.

Motivation is related to fulfilling human demands from health guarantee to social

be classified as the dichotomization of the utilitarian and the hedonic.

incentives for online shopping (To et al., 2007).

Hedonic motivation delineates behaviors for enjoyment, fantasy, and happiness

(Hirschman and Holbrook, 2010). It typically consists of gratification and inner-satisfaction

Utilitarian and hedonic motivations are considered fundamental to understanding

consumers’ evaluations of the consumption experience. Accommodation establishments

from short-term stays.

To date, studies have been conducted to understand the motivational factors in

In summary, motivations toward sharing activities include economic (e.g., cost

saving), ecological (e.g., sustainability), social (e.g., communication, community) and

operationalized as utilitarian (i.e., service experience, information acquisition, cost saving,

seeking), with more additional details to be developed in the subsequent sections.

2.3 Perceived trust

environment, online trust is regarded as consumers forming positive impressions of

e-commerce sites (Urban et al., 2009).

The prominence of trust in the business relationship can be explained by social

residence (e.g., Airbnb) (Botsman and Rogers, 2011).

3. Research model and hypotheses

Based on the discussion above, a conceptual model of the determinants (motivations

experience are included in the research model.

3.1 Utilitarian motivation and behavioral intention

utilitarian motivation can be classified as service experience, information acquisition, cost

saving, and resource efficiency.

As an experiential service, room-sharing shows intangibility, heterogeneity, and

Thus, this study proposes:

H1a.Service experience in utilitarian motivation positively influences travelers’ behavioral

Sharing leads individuals to communicate and to meet physically (Tussyadiah, 2015).

H1b.Information acquisition in utilitarian motivation positively influences travelers’

Cost saving is relating to self-benefits, which is a decisive factor in collaborative

staying in professionally furnished hotel rooms significantly reduces the cost of