Değişen Tüketici Kültüründe Yeni Trend: Ortak Tüketim

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 20, 155 - 178, 01.12.2017

Burcu Gümüş , Emine Eser Gegez

Öz

Tüketicilerin çeşitli mal ve hizmetlerin mülkiyet hakkını edinmeleri yerine diledikleri mal ve hizmetlere istedikleri zaman erişimlerinin olması temeline dayanan ortak tüketim kavramı, araba paylaşımından kredi kooperatiflerine, oyuncak kütüphanelerinden ortak ofis alanlarına kadar pek çok farklı şekillerde gündelik hayatın içerisinde yer almaktadır. Ancak tüketicilerin mülk edinme anlayışları üzerinde önemli etkisi bulunan ve tüketici davranışlarını değiştirme gücüne sahip olan bu yeni akıma -ortak tüketim anlayışına- ilişkin yapılan akademik çalışmaların dünyadaki örneklerinin artmasına rağmen, özellikle Türk pazarlama yazınında bu konudaki araştırmalar oldukça sınırlıdır. Bu çalışma, tüketicilerin ürün ve hizmetlerin sahiplenilmesine ilişkin ortak tüketim niyet ve tutumlarını incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Tüketicilerin algıladıkları ekonomik, çevresel ve psikolojik faydaların bu yeni gelişen trende yönelik tutum ve eğilimlerini etkileyeceği öngörülmüş ve beklenen ilişkileri test etmek amacıyla toplam 456 tüketiciye anket uygulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, ortak tüketime yönelik tutum ve davranışların bahsi geçen fayda beklentilerinden güçlü şekilde etkilendiği ortaya konmuş; fakat bu sisteme duyulan güvenin öngörülen ilişkilerde bir moderatör etkisi olduğu kanıtlanamamıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ortak tüketim, özerk benlik yönetimi, yapısal eşitlik modellemesi, mülkiyet, erişim

THE NEW TREND IN CHANGING CONSUMER CULTURE: COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION

Öz

Collaborative consumption concept is characterized by consumers’ access to various goods and services of in anytime and anywhere instead of actual ownership. Collaborative consumption takes place in daily lives in many different forms including car sharing, credit unions, common office spaces and toy libraries. Despite the increasing power of collaborative consumption on changing consumer behavior and reshaping of ownership understanding of consumers, there are still only limited number of research on the topic in the Turkish marketing literature. The aim of this study is to investigate the attitudes and intentions of consumers about the collaborative ownership of products and services collaborative consumption . Consumers’ perceived economic, environmental, and psychological benefits are expected to shape their attitudes and intentions towards this emerging trend. In this context 456 usable questionnaires are collected. Results show that mentioned benefits positively affect attitudes and intentions of consumers about collaborative consumption. However, the moderating role of consumers’ trust towards this consumption system on the hypothesized relationships are not supported

Anahtar Kelimeler

Collaborative consumption, self-determination theory, structural equation modeling, ownership, Access

Kaynakça

• Albinsson, P. A. ve Perera, B.Y. (2012). Alternative Marketplaces in the 21st Century: Building Community Through Sharing Events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(4): 303–315.
• Alsever, J. (2013). The “Mega Trend” that Swallowed Silicon Valley. http:// fortune.com/2012/10/03/the-mega-trend-that-swallowed-silicon-valley/ (3 Şubat 2016)
• Bardhi, F. ve Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39: 881 - 898.
• Barnes, S.J. ve Mattsson J. (2016). Understanding Current and Future Issues in Collaborative Consumption: A Four-Stage Delphi Study. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 104: 200–211.
• Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(9): 139–168.
• Belk, R. (2007). Why not Share Rather Than Own? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1): 126–140.
• Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2): 715–734.
• Belk, R. (2014a). Sharing versus Pseudo-Sharing in Web 2.0. The Anthropologist, 18(1): 7–23.
• Belk, R. (2014b). You Are What You Can Access: Sharing and Collaborative Consumption Online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8): 1595– 1600.
• Bray, J., Johns, N. ve Kilburn, D. (2011). An Exploratory Study into the Factors Impeding Ethical Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4): 597– 608.
• Black, A. E. ve Deci, E. L. (2000). The Effects of Instructors’ Autonomy Support and Students’ Autonomous Motivation on Learning Organic Chemistry: A self-Determination Theory Perspective. Science Education, 84(6): 740- 756.
• Botsman, R. ve Rogers, R. (2010). What’s Mine is Yours - the Rise of Collaborative Consumption. New york: Harper Collins.
• Chai, S., Das, S. ve Rao H.R. (2012). Factors Affecting Blogger’s Knowledge Sharing: An Investigation Across Gender. Journal of Management and Information Systems, 28(3): 309–341.
• Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and Access: Consumer Desires and Value Perceptions Regarding Contemporary Art Collection and Exhibit Visits. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4): 925–940.
• Deci, E. L. ve Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
• Etta Y. I. Chen, Nai-Chi, N. Y. ve Chih Ping W. (2008). Conspicuous Consumption: A Preliminary Report of Scale Development and Validation. Advances in Consumer Research, 34(1): 686-687.
• Gagne, M. ve Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 331–362.
• Gansky, L. (2010). The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing. New York: Penguin.
• Geron, T. (2013). Airbnb and the Unstoppable Rise of the Share Economy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-and-the- unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/#58fd09866790 (13 Şubat 2016).
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Hardin G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 163(3859): 1243–1248.
• Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M. ve Ukkonen, A. (2015). The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9): 2047–2
• Henning T. T., Henning V. ve Sattler H. (2007). Consumer File Sharing of Motion Pictures. Journal of Marketing, 71: 1–18.
• Hibbert, S., ve Horne, S. (1996). Giving to Charity: Questioning the Donor Decision Process. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(2): 4–13.
• Holbrook, M. B. ve Grayson M. W. (1986). The Semiology of Cinematic Consumption: Symbolic Consumer Behavior in Out of Africa. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(12): 374-381.
• Ingledew, D.K., Markland, D. ve Sheppard, K.E. (2004). Personality and Self-Determination of Exercise Behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36: 1921–1932.
• Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M. ve Scullion, R. (2014). The Messy Social Lives of Objects: Inter-personal Borrowing and the Ambiguity of Possession and Ownership. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(2): 131–139.
• Kaplan, A.M. ve Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the World, Unite The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1): 59–68.
• Keymolen, E. (2013). Trust and Technology in Collaborative Consumption. Why it is not just about You and Me. Leenes R. K.(Ed). Bridging distances in technology and regulation. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.
• Kleine, S. S., Kleine R. E. ve Allen C.T. (1995). How Is Possession ‘Me’ or ‘Not Me’? Characterizing Types and an Antecedent of Material Possession Attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(12): 327–343.
• Kowal, J. ve Fortier, M.S. (1999). Motivational Determinants of Flow: Contributions from Self-Determination Theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3): 355–368.
• Lamberton C.P. ve Rose R. L. (2012). When is Ours Better than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems. Journal of Marketing, 76: 109–125.
• Lakhani, K. ve Wolf, R. (2005). Why Hackers do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects. Cambridge: MIT.
• Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin Press.
• Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic Motivation in a New Light. Kyklos, 54(2/3): 317– 342.
• Moeller, S. ve Wittkowski, K. (2010). The Burdens of Ownership: Reasons for Preferring Renting. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 20(2): 176–191
• Mont, O. (2004). Institutionalization of Sustainable Consumption Patterns Based on Shared Use. Ecological Economics, 50(1-2): 135–153.
• Möhlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative Consumption: Determinants of Satisfaction and the Likelihood of Using a Sharing Economy Option Again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14:193–207.
• O’Cass, A. ve McEwen, H. (2004). Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous Consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1): 25–39.
• Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and The Theory Of Groups. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
• Ozanne, L.K. ve Ballantine, P.W. (2010). Sharing as a Form of Anticonsumption? An Examination of Toy Library Users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6): 485–498.
• Ozanne, P. M., Luchs, L., Subrahmanyan, M., Kapitan, S. ve Catlin, J. (2013). Understanding the Inherent Complexity of Sustainable Consumption: A Social Cognitive Framework. Journal of Business Research, 66(8): 1227– 1234.
• Papadopoulou, P., Andreou, A., Kanellis, P. ve Martakos, D. (2001). Trust and Relationship Building in Electronic Commerce. Internet Research, 11(4): 322–332.
• Richins, M. (1994). Special Possession and the Expression of Material Values. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(12): 522–33.
• Ronald, R. (2008). The Ideology of Home Ownership: Homeworker Societies and the Role of Housing. New York: Macmillan.
• Rowlands, R. ve Gurney, C.M. (2000). Young People’s Perceptions of Housing Tenure: A Case Study in the Socialization of Tenure Prejudice. Housing Theory and Society, 17(3): 121–30.
• Ryan, R.M. ve Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25: 54–67
• Sacks, D. (2011). The Sharing Economy. (18 Mart 2016) url:http://www. fastcompany.com/1747551/sharing-economy
• Schouten, J. W. (1991). Selves in Transition: Symbolic Consumption in Personal Rites of Passage and Identity Reconstruction. Journal of Consumer Research, 91(3): 412–25.
• Shermach, K. (1997). What Consumers Wish Brand Managers Knew. Marketing News, 31(12).
• Snare, F. (1972). The Concept of Property. American Philosophical Quarterly, 9(2): 200–206.
• Strahilevitz, M., ve Myers, J.G. (1998). Donations to Charity as Purchase incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You are Trying to Sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4): 434–446.
• Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fideli, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (Fourth Edition). Boston: Ally and Bacon.
• Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, Attitudes, and Interpersonal Behavior. In University of Nebraska (Lincoln campus). Dept. of Psychology. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (s.196-259): University of Nebraska Press.
• Walsh, B. (2011). Today’s Smart Choice: Don’t Own. Share. Time International. article/0,28804,2059521_2059717_2059710,00.html (17 Mart 2016).
• Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S. ve Oates, C.J. (2010). Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products. Sustainable Development, 18(1): 20–31.