MSc Environment and Sustainable Development

Collaborative consumption as a new economic model and the

challenge of building trust between strangers

Camila Jorge Haddad

camilajh@gmail.com

September 2011

Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to thank everyone who participated in the survey carried out
for this dissertation. They devoted time and effort in answering all questions and sharing
valuable information without which this research would not have been possible.
My sincere appreciation also goes to Pr Andler, from Netcycler, Jessica Marquez and Micki
Krimmel, from Neighborgoods, Alice Amies, from Streetbank, and John Atcheson, from
Getaround, as well as all the teams they represent, for believing in and supporting my work,
providing constructive feedback and opening up a channel of communication with their
users.
Finally, I would like to thank my supervisor Mathew Kurian, who encouraged me to pursue
innovative grounds for my research and pushed me to constantly improve my work, and to
all the DPU team and colleague students, for the countless learning experiences throughout
the year.

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 1 - The rise of alternative patterns of consumption ............................................. 7
1.1. The problem of overconsumption ............................................................................. 7
1.2. The new ways of collaborative consumption .......................................................... 8
1.2.1. Redistributive markets ......................................................................................... 10
1.2.2. Product-service systems ...................................................................................... 10
1.2.3. Collaborative lifestyles ......................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2 - Trust in economic relationships and the implications for collaborative
consumption ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.1. The role of trust in social life ................................................................................... 14
2.2. The role of trust in the economy ............................................................................. 15
2.2.1. Cooperation ......................................................................................................... 15
2.2.2. Group formation ................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3. Efficiency .............................................................................................................. 18
2.3. The creation of trust in economic relationships .................................................... 18
2.3.1. Generalised trust.................................................................................................. 18
2.3.2. Relational trust ..................................................................................................... 20
2.3.3. Systems trust ....................................................................................................... 21
2.4. Trust, Internet and implications for collaborative consumption .......................... 22
2.4.1. More interaction and formation of networks ......................................................... 22
2.4.2. Political decentralisation and democracy ............................................................. 23
2.4.3. Reputation ............................................................................................................ 23
2.4.4. Information about the counterparty ...................................................................... 24
2.4.5. Incentives ............................................................................................................. 24
2.4.6. System security .................................................................................................... 24
2.4.7. System knowledge ............................................................................................... 25
2.5. Methodology.............................................................................................................. 25
Chapter 3 Building trust between strangers: successful case studies ....................... 28
3.1. Profile of the sample................................................................................................. 28
3.2. Demographic variables and collaboration ............................................................. 29
3.3. Generalised trust and collaboration ....................................................................... 29
3.4. Incentives and collaboration ................................................................................... 31
3.5. Mechanisms of trust ................................................................................................. 32
3.5.1. External control .................................................................................................... 33
3.5.2. Self-regulating communities................................................................................. 33
3.5.3. Emphasis on information disclosure .................................................................... 34
3.6. What is next?............................................................................................................. 35
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix 1. Brief description of the case studies ........................................................... 42
Appendix 2. Survey questionnaire ..................................................................................... 43
Appendix 3. Statistical tests ............................................................................................... 49
Appendix 4. Distribution of collaboration variables ......................................................... 60

Table of Figures
Figure i. Social web evolution .................................................................................................. 9
Figure ii. Network density and benefits .................................................................................. 17
Figure iii. Analytical scheme .................................................................................................. 27
Graph i. Distribution of countries ........................................................................................... 28
Graph ii. Distribution of gender .............................................................................................. 28
Graph iii. Distribution of education levels ............................................................................... 28
Graph iv. Distribution of age .................................................................................................. 28
Graph viii. Social trust histogram ........................................................................................... 30
Graph v. Collaborative behaviours ........................................................................................ 60
Graph vi. Frequency of engagement ..................................................................................... 60
Graph vii. Online engagement ............................................................................................... 60
Table i. The size of the movement ......................................................................................... 12
Table ii. Trust and implications for collaboration on the Internet ........................................... 22
Table iii. Collaboration variables ............................................................................................ 26
Table iv. Independent variables of generalised trust ............................................................. 30
Table vi. Categorisation of trust mechanisms ........................................................................ 33
Table vii. Other mechanisms suggested by the survey respondents .................................... 35

Introduction
In history, the creation of modern states, which went hand in hand with the development of
modern market economies, brought with it great changes in the way societies were
organised. However, along with knowledge and wealth, the current market model has
produced exclusion and environmental degradation, and the high levels of consumption
required to sustain it are not ethically desirable neither practically viable in the long term.
For some, frugal and austere lifestyles are the only answer to that problem, but to actually
produce this radical shift in culture, changes in mind sets and behaviours would be required.
However, an alternative scenario spawned by various trends is already in its rising as old
consumption patterns sharing, swapping, bartering and renting are being reinvented with
the mediation of communication technologies.
This movement, which we will refer to as collaborative consumption (Botsman and Rogers,
2010), is characterised by the resurgence of communities and peer-to-peer relationships
powered by the idea that consumers, or rather citizens, can have an active role in
marketplaces by interacting directly with each other and disrupting established forms of
organisation and bureaucracy.
But if in the past community cohesiveness was based on political centralization and
reciprocity systems embedded in family and kinship ties; that is no longer true in the context
of modernity (Polanyi, 2001). Thus, in the years to come, the development of a new
economic model built upon a network of decentralized relationships between peers will
greatly depend on overcoming one main challenge: the creation of trust between strangers.
Several scholars have studied the issue of trust in the economic realm, both in the micro
level of individual behaviour (Ostrom and Walker, 2003; Hardin, 2002; Berg et al, 1995) and
the macro level of societal and cultural norms (Coleman, 1988; Putnan, 2000; Fukuyama,
1995). More recently, academics started to look at trust in institutions and abstract systems,
as well as the particularities of the Internet and computer mediated communications.
However, current theory has mainly addressed trust building in conventional buyer-seller
interactions, which are just replications of traditional economic relationships in the online
environment.
Therefore, the objective of this dissertation is to understand the phenomenon of collaborative
consumption in the context of Internet mediation; analyse the central role of trust, as
understood by current literature, in making economic relationships possible; and finally
investigate how this new model can foster the creation of trust in order to have meaningful
impact on peoples lives in the offline world.
5

In the first Chapter, we will begin by describing the movement of collaborative consumption
and the historical factors that led to its emergence, as well as its promises and
shortcomings. The current body of literature on trust will be explored in Chapter 2 in order to
develop the framework of analysis and the research methodology used to collect and
examine data produced by surveying 203 users of four different collaborative consumption
platforms. Finally, in Chapter 3, the results of the research will be presented and analysed
with the aim of drawing conclusions about the drivers of engagement in collaborative
consumption and the factors that influence the creation of trust for different groups of people.

Chapter 1 - The rise of alternative patterns of consumption

The significance of crises is the indication they provide that an

occasion for retooling has arrived. (Kuhn, 1996, p. 76)
1.1. The problem of overconsumption
After the Second World War, the rush for economic growth was based on constantly
escalating levels of consumption, driven especially by Europe, the United States and Japan.
Mass production made all sorts of consumer goods, from kitchen appliances to personal
automobiles, accessible to a great number of people for the first time. Furthermore, the
availability of cheap and disposable products was soon linked with values such as
convenience and freedom of choice, resulting in the creation of a throw away lifestyle,
which guaranteed ever increasing demand and, consequently, the sustenance of growing
economies (Fontenelle, 2002).
That approach, however, did not give consideration to the environmental limits of the
progressive intensification of economic activities. From that period on, the demand for
natural resources on the planet started to grow exponentially. According to Wackernagel et
al (2001), in early 1980s humanity had already entered overshoot, which means anthropic
activities started to transform natural resources into products and waste faster than nature's
capacity of regeneration.
Societies can remain in overshoot for some time, either through the discovery of new
resources or incremental efficiency improvements. However, the overuse of an environment
sets up forces that will necessarily, in time, reduce the load to match the shrinkage of
carrying capacity (Catton, 1980, p.5). Thus, eventually, societies will begin to enter an era of
peak everything and consequences will be felt in every aspect of human life (Heinberg,
2007).
The global recognition of the environmental crisis dates back to the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992,
when it became clear that the reversal of such scenario required a radical shift not only in
production practices, but also consumption patterns. In response to this challenge, UNCED
published Agenda 21, a comprehensive blueprint of action for sustainable development to be
used at all levels of government and by relevant sectors of civil society.
Since Rio 92, a number of other global conventions, declarations and treaties have
addressed environment related issues, devised instruments and proposed solutions (United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 1994; Energy Charter Treaty, 1994; Kyoto
7

Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1997, later
complemented by the Copenhagen Accord, 2009; to name a few) (CEDAC, 2011).
Nevertheless, relevant players have so far failed to act in order to transform abstract goals
into concrete actions as biodiversity losses persist, forestlands are yet shrinking and carbon
emissions continue to soar (WWF, 2010).
According to Catton (2008, p.475), such inaction can be explained by the fact that our
values, institutions and lifestyles are shaped by a cultural heritage which was formed in an
era of abundance, when the planets carrying capacity was greater than human demands.
Although those conditions have changed, the cultural heritage remains unaltered. In that
context, he adds (2008, p. 475) that
all of the familiar aspects of human societal life are under compelling
pressure

to

change

().

Social

disorganization,

friction,

demoralization, and conflict will escalate.

Among many other scholars (Horkheimer and Adorno, 2002; Georgescu-Rogen, 1975;
Leiss, 1994), Catton (1980, 2008) critiques the idea of mans dominance over nature and the
belief of an eventual technological panacea. By highlighting the centrality of social norms, his
argument entails that a cultural revolution is necessary in order to bring about change. And if
that is indeed the case, then the next logical question seems to be one of how much of their
lifestyles people are willing to sacrifice for the sake of future survival.
The concept of sacrifice and the shift to more frugal lifestyles has been central to the
sustainability debate and a point of important divergences (Maniates and Meyer, 2010).
Quite often, however, the debate is embedded in a Northern perspective and fails to
address distributive justice (who sacrifices what) and to envision innovative social
configurations and economic paradigms. Moreover, as long as the question is posed in selfsacrificial terms, individuals will be confronted with an apparent trade-off between personal
and broader social well-being, and it is farfetched to expect they will systematically choose
the latter.
1.2. The new ways of collaborative consumption
There are indications, however, that an alternative future may come to be, which differs from
both the conflictive society described by Catton (2008) or the austere and frugal
communities envisioned by Maniates and Meyer (2010). A new economic groundswell based
on collaboration and efficient resource use is emerging, engendered by a convergence of
factors other than environmental sustainability, namely the economic crisis and the
maturation of social networks.
8

Botsman and Rogers (2010, p.xv) call this movement collaborative consumption, which is
described as traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting and swapping
() redefined through technology and peer communities.
An important principle of the movement is the one of idling capacity. Often people have
underutilised assets, from physical goods and space, to intangibles like time and skills,
which means that there is a lot of monetary and social value being lost. Collaborative
consumption is the creation of new marketplaces that tackle this very issue, tapping into
assets idling capacity and modifying the way people engage in communities (Botsman and
Rogers, 2010, p. xvi).
Although there are other factors that influenced the movement, its rapid growth has only
been made possible by the rise of networking technologies. The Internet creates a space
where individuals can meet and engage despite the geographical boundaries. Moreover, it
helps to create critical mass, significantly reducing the transaction cost of matching wants
and needs in individual-to-individual exchange relations.
With the evolution of the social web, detailed in the figure i, what started as experienced
users sharing code (Linux), evolved to regular people sharing media (Napster), content
(Wikipedia) and later their own lives (Facebook). Now, people are already moving towards a
new stage, which is characterised by the use of the same technology to leverage the sharing
of real physical assets.
Figure i. Social web evolution

It is important to note, though, that a number of different phenomena can be characterised

as collaborative consumption. Therefore, in order to allow for a more systematic analysis,
Botsman and Rogers (2010, p. 71) organise them in three different categories, or
collaborative consumption systems, which are described below.
1.2.1. Redistributive markets
Redistributive markets are dedicated to reallocating pre-owned goods from where they are
not needed/used to where they are. Traditionally these markets include, for instance, garage
sales and second-hand shops. With the advent of the Internet, however, online businesses
like Ebay revolutionised that market, and were soon followed by other peer-to-peer
platforms, like the online classifieds Craigslist and Gumtree, or Reuseit Network and
Freecycle, which are dedicated to free exchanges.
Most recently, innovative bartering spaces have emerged, usually segmented by categories,
such as Netcycler (consumer goods), Swap (games, CDs, DVDs), threadUp (baby goods
and toys) and Bookmooch (books), to name a few. Although business giants view such
platforms as secondary markets, Haque (2011) argues that they connect consumers in order
to bypass the corporate middlemen. This allows for a wider social change, which is the
dismantling of boundaries between traditional roles of producer and consumer, or what
Santos (2011) defines as prosumption.
1.2.2. Product-service systems
Product-service systems are based on the provision of services that can substitute for
private ownership. Traditional car rental or heavy machinery lease are examples of such
systems that have existed for a long time. But if before rentals were limited to a few high
value assets in order to justify the transaction costs, once technology came in, it allowed for
shared use of smaller items, like tools, sports gear and home appliances, as well as
products that are part of our daily routine, like it is often the case with car and bicycle
sharing.
An unprecedented change in the structure of economic relationships is taking place based
on the realization that the benefits a product provides can be detached from the product
itself, or, in other words, that use does not necessarily require ownership. Although this may
seem straightforward, Rifkin (2000) highlights how the idea of access trumping ownership
disrupts the way traditional markets have always worked, which is through the transfer of
property from sellers to buyers.
Nevertheless, Rifkin (2000) draws attention to the danger of corporate control given that
nearly everything has the potential to become a paid for experience. In the context of the
10

age of access, thus, it is important to consider if we [will] become more embedded in

networks of relationships, only to become more dependent on powerful networks of
corporate suppliers (Rifkin, 2000, p. 130).
Fortunately, the emergence of neighbourhood platforms, like Neighborgoods and Frents;
peer rental services, such as Rentcycle and Ecomodo; and even peer-to-peer car and
bicycle renting, like Getaround and Byke, are a strong indication that the exact opposite is
actually happening, and people are taking more control over what, when, and why they
consume.
1.2.3. Collaborative lifestyles
Beyond the consumption of products and services collaboration is becoming a lifestyle.
Again with the help of technology, people with similar interests are getting together not only
to exchange goods, but also to share skills, time, space and even money. A number of
enterprises can illustrate this system, like Streetbank and Share some Sugar, for
neighbourhood support; Skillshare and Tradeschool, for sharing skills; Timebank and Quid,
for time and social currencies; Zopa and Prosper, for peer-to-peer lending; Loosecubes and
The Hub, for working spaces; and Airbnb and Couchsurfing, for hospitality and travelling.
Besides redefining the concept of neighbourhood and community, such platforms can have
great impact in real world societies, because they enable online connections to have
meaningful results offline, by and encouraging people to get to know each other and creating
networks of mutual support.
In all three systems, an entirely new generation of businesses is taking shape by connecting
individuals with complementary interests, thus paving the road for peer-to-peer to become
the primary way people exchange.
Although the described trends may seem of little relevance for the average consumer,
collaborative enterprises are already sprawling all around the world. Not in a structured
fashion, but at great speed nonetheless. The figures on table i below help to shed a light on
the scale of the movement and its growth rate.

11

Table i. The size of the movement

Redistribution markets

$500 billion US dollars was the estimated market for the

exchange of used goods (2009).
Freecycle has 7 million users in 86 countries giving over 9.1
million items per year.
In 2010, 23.000 books were swapped in the period of one month
in BookMooch only.

Product-service systems

Bike sharing is the fastest growing transportation mode in the

world.
Membership in car sharing platforms increased by 51.5% in 2009
and is projected to become a $12.5 billion US dollars market by
2015.

Collaborative lifestyles

$5.8 billion US dollars was the estimated value of peer-to-peer

lending in the end of 2010, which equals 10% of the total
personal loans market.
- 8.2% average return for lender
- 0.7% of default
- 20% average decrease in interest rates (in comparison
to commercial banks)
There are 40 million page views every day on Couchsurfing.org,
making it the most visited hospitality website in the world.

Source: information from CCLab, 2011. Table elaborated by the author.

The numbers give us reason to believe there is a revolution on its way. However, this
movement has its own shortcomings and is not the response to all social and environmental
problems. Gradual changes in the way we consume might not reflect in an immediately
lower global consumption level.
However, in this new context, the sacrificial characteristic of environmentally friendly
behaviours is significantly reduced, if not completely removed. An illustrative example is the
one of transportation. Instead of renouncing the comfort of individual transportation by not
owning an automobile, one can now resort to systems of ride or car sharing. And the more
efficient those sharing services become, the more ownership turns into a burden, instead of
a luxury.
One could argue that collaborative consumption practices are limited to high-income nations,
or to the digitally included population. This is indeed a big problem, but only partially true.
The Internet is at the heart of the movement because it is creating conditions for the growth
and sprawl of collaborative enterprises. However, the principles behind such enterprises are
very much applicable the world over. Moreover, collaboration can create systems that allow
12

people to access assets they could not afford otherwise. This is the reason why sharing
behaviours spring up so rapidly in moments of crisis.
Interesting examples of micro businesses that fit into collaborative consumption systems but
function exclusively offline, and in a context of resource deprivation, are the minuto celular
vendors in Bogota, Colombia, which are located near major public transport stations renting
mobile phones by the minute, and the Maya Pedal project, in Guatemala, that turns old
bicycles into different machines, such as pumps, grinders and blenders, for shared
community usage (Ullmann, 2008).
This study, however, will be focused on the role of the Internet and one of the biggest
challenges that online endeavours pose to the sharing economy, which is trust. If
collaborative lifestyles are to become the norm, online transactions have to translate into
deeper ties being created and the sense of community being revived. And trust is at the
heart of that process.
Although the mainstreaming of online shopping was a first step, letting a stranger borrow
your car or sleep in your couch requires a different level of trust, which usually works only
when there's reputation involved.
What the next chapters will try to accomplish is explore this problem through the lenses of
established bodies of theory on trust in economic relationships and analyse the experiences
of users from four enterprises introduced earlier in this chapter Getaround, Neighborgoods,
Netcycler and Streetbank in order to better understand their motivations and the process of
trust creation for different groups of people.

13

Chapter 2 - Trust in economic relationships and the implications for collaborative

consumption
You got a lotta nerve/ To say you got a helping hand to lend/ You
just want to be on/ The side thats winning (Dylan, 1965)
Trust is a really complex issue that has been studied by scholars in a variety of disciplines,
such as sociology, economics, psychology, to name a few. If we are to understand the
phenomenon of trust creation in the economic realm, it is important to evaluate why trust is
central in the functioning of economies.
But, as Weber (2009) and other scholars of economic sociology defended, economies do not
exist independently of society. The theory of embeddedness states that economic
relationships can only be understood in the context of pre-existing social structures. It is,
thus, crucial to first look into how trust plays a major role in the construction of social life.
2.1. The role of trust in social life
Trust is a cornerstone of social life. By examining the theory of social contract dating back
to the seventeenth century (Hobbes, 1998; Rousseau; 1968) it is possible to infer the major
role of trust in the very structuring of modern societies. The central assertion of the social
contract theory is that, at one point in history, individuals made a conscious decision of
forming a political unit, in order to get protection from violence and other types of harm. In
return, they agreed to renounce their right to all things (Hobbes, 1998, p. 28), and abide by
a common set of rules. Mutual commitment is, therefore, at the heart of such contract, as an
individual would only give up some of his freedoms in the confidence that others would do
the same.
The nature of political authority that would result of such contract is, however, a matter of
divergence between different authors.

Hobbes (1998) believed that man are inherently

ruthless and self-interested, and thus argued for the need of a strong sovereign government
that would enforce the rules. Rousseau (1968), conversely, defended that human nature is
pure and benevolent and it was, in fact, the artificial greed brought by civilization that had the
power to corrupt it. The political implication of such proposition was that individuals should
subscribe to a government that embodied the desire and interest of people as a whole, or
what Rousseau (1968, p.35) referred to as general will.
Similarly, Durkheim (1997, pp.34-35) stated that social order was maintained based on what
he referred to as collective consciousness, which is

14

the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average

members of a society [that] forms a determinate system with a life of
its own.
In that concern, the concept of collective consciousness differs from general will in the sense
that it is formed by a mass of individual values, but as it becomes its own entity, it also
influences those values. Consequently, ones purely autonomous consciousness becomes
intertwined with internalised collective beliefs. Therefore, although Durkheim (1997) shared
Hobbes assumption that men are naturally selfish, he reasoned that solidarity and mutual
commitment would exist as long as autonomous individuals understood their own identity in
the context of a common morale.
What seems to be consensual in such debate is that, benevolent or ruthless in nature, social
men tacitly face a trade-off between freedom (natural rights) and order (civil rights). And the
establishment of the latter rests heavily on peoples ability to assume a shared set of values
and trust one another to comply.
2.2. The role of trust in the economy
If social life, at its most primordial level, is predicated on the existence of trust, the same
applies for the economic aspects of it. Although this is seldom realised, it required trust for
commerce to develop and market pattern economies to prosper from the very beginning.
Trust was essential, for instance, in the development of currencies as the primary way
people trade. In the Middle Age Europe, paper currencies were born as bills of exchange,
which were mere promises of future payment. Furthermore, for international commerce to
advance, a standard of weights and measures had to be agreed among countries and
followed by all individual traders (Davies, 2002).
That centrality of trust in economic life can be explained in the light of three main elements,
namely cooperation, group formation and efficiency. In the first case, trust allows individuals
to cooperate in situations of mutual gain, thus overcoming the dangers of self-interest.
Secondly, trust is paramount for people to come together into groups and organisations of
any kind, including businesses. Finally, trust improves social efficiency by reducing what
institutional economists call transactions costs.
2.2.1. Cooperation
Economic theory defines man as rational, self-interested and utility maximising, which
means that, in every interaction, parties have the single goal of getting the best possible
individual outcome. In noncooperative game theory, one major economic implication of the
15

rationality model is that individuals will not collaborate even when it is in their best interest to
do so, as illustrated by the prisoners dilemma (PD) game.1
When facing social dilemmas of such type, a rational self-interested individual has no
incentive to choose towards higher group results. How can the fact be explained that, in
practice, collaboration does indeed take place? Trust and the formation of generalised
norms of reciprocity, or what Tocqueville (1969 cited in Putnam, 2000, p. 135) meant by selfinterest rightly understood, are a fundamental part of the answer.
Those individual benefits that arise from trust, when embedded in a system of reciprocity,
can be understood as
() a combination of what one might call short-term altruism and
long term self-interest: I help you now in the expectation that you will
help me out in the future. Reciprocity is made up of a series of acts
each of which is short-run altruistic, but which together typically make
every participant better off. (Taylor, 2000, pp.28-29)
Experiments described in the works of Ostrom and Walker (2003) somewhat confirm this
empirically. In one study conducted by Berg et al (1995) almost all participants acted against
what would be the rational prediction, and inputted a certain level of trust in their
counterparty. Furthermore, those who trusted their counterparties more were also more
likely to leave the experiment with a positive net return.
In situation of social dilemmas, cooperative behaviours go against the economic equilibrium
and generate better than optimal results. But, as the empirical evidences suggest, it is only
because people trust each other to cooperate that each individual can achieve better yields.
2.2.2. Group formation
All economic activities, from services and retail to production and infrastructure, are carried
out by a group of people united in some form of organisation. And the element that allows
members of a given society to trust one another and cooperate in the formation of new
groups and associations (Fukuyama, 1995, p.90) is referred to, by many authors, as social
capital.
The sociologists Pierre Bourdieu (1977) and James Coleman (1988) were among the first to
employ the term social capital to refer to the value embedded in social networks. The

For a more detailed explanation on different PD games see Kuhn, S., 2009. Prisoner's
Dilemma. The
Stanford
Encyclopedia
of
Philosophy,
Spring
2009.
Available
at:
<plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma>.

16

concept was better developed by Robert Putnam, which he used to analyse the decay in
associational life in the United States. He defined social capital as the connections among
individuals-social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from
them (Putnam, 2000, p.19).
But different types of social networks affect social capital differently. Among several other
authors, Putnam (2000) discusses that distinction through the concepts of bonding (dense
networks) and bridging (open networks). Dense networks are based on personal relations,
kinship and territorial proximity and help to reinforce exclusive identities in more
homogeneous groups. Less dense networks, on the contrary, are made of weaker ties
between individuals, but tend to outreach geographical boundaries and encompass more
diversity. (Putnam, 2000; Coleman, 1988; Beckert and Zafirovski, 2006)
The benefits associated with each type of network diverge accordingly. Dense networks are
usually correlated to social cohesion, and are a powerful way of mobilising people for
specific types of cooperation and solidarity. Open networks are more efficient for information
diffusion, access to diverse resources and, thus, related to market competitiveness. (Beckert
and Zafirovski, 2006)
Figure ii. Network density and benefits
Network Density

Benefits

Source: Adapted from Beckert and Zafirovski, 2006.

The theoretical scheme is, of course, not intended to create pure types, as they are
observed in reality. Ties of solidarity also bring economic benefits and open networks can
contribute to a generalised sense of reciprocity, and therefore, result in civic engagement. In
general terms, social capital bolsters participation in different types of groups and
organisations, and whether they come in the form of market exchange or personal
relationships, the gains of association depend on the willingness of individuals to take risks
by placing their trust in others (Ostrom and Walker, 2003, p.7).

17

2.2.3. Efficiency
A society characterized by generalized reciprocity is more efficient
than a distrustful society, for the same reason money is more
efficient than barter. If you dont have to balance every exchange
instantly, we can get a lot more accomplished. (Putnam, 2000, p.21)
This efficiency mentioned by Putnam (2000) is related to the concept of transactions costs,
which are all expenditures incurred to realise an economic exchange. They could be related,
for instance, with the costs of getting information, finding an adequate supplier, bargaining,
writing a contract, and penalising an eventual noncompliance. Although transaction costs are
not explicit in the cost of a purchase, which would be the asking price of the product itself,
they can be significantly impactful in terms of efficiency.
High levels of social capital, therefore, create economic efficiency because trust reduces the
dependency on institutions and bureaucratic procedures to guarantee the success of a
transaction. Individuals who trust each other are more likely to act cooperatively without the
cost of supervision.
In addition, if reciprocity structures are created, there is a moral enforcement of
agreements and contracts, and less chance of noncompliance. In a trustful society contracts,
policing, courts and other legal apparatus are no longer indispensable elements, but rather a
support structure of economic health and stability (Fukuyama, 1996).
Having realised the ubiquity of trust in the economic realm, the next step is to investigate
how it is created. At this point it is important to distinguish different levels of trust for there
are different theoretical implications when looking at each level. Throughout the next section,
we will adopt the three categories used by Bierhoff and Vornefeld (2004), which are:
generalised trust, relational trust and systems trust.
Generalised trust refers to trust in people in general, in the macro social level; relational trust
is about trust in a specific individual, in the micro level of personal relationships; and, finally,
systems trust is related to trust in an abstract institution or system, which is especially
relevant in the case of the Internet.
2.3. The creation of trust in economic relationships
2.3.1. Generalised trust
Different authors have discussed trust as a central feature of traditional community life and
contrasted it with the anonymity and individualism of modern societies (Giddens, 2001;
Coleman, 1988; Polanyi, 2001). Looking into the economic structures of such societies can,
18

hence, be useful in identifying what the elements were that fostered trust creation, and
examining their applicability in the modern context.
In his investigation of traditional Western Melanesian communities, Polanyi (2001) clearly
identified the element of magic or religion as a powerful social binder, responsible for the
creation of Durkheims collective consciousness. He also attributed a great deal of social
cohesiveness to the existence of strong family and kinship ties and a clear division of labour.
In Polanyis observation, pre-market economies rested in three main principles:
householding, reciprocity and redistribution. The last two are characterised by engrained
relationships of trust. When hardworking men shared their production with another family, it
was in the expectation that their families would later receive the same treatment. Likewise,
giving a part of their crop to the central authority was a way of building reputation and
avoiding disapproval from their peers. Hence, the creation of trust in such economies relied
heavily on social approbation and peer pressure, mutual commitment, and, finally, on
centralisation (Polanyi, 2001).
Dense social networks, geographical proximity and how they affect reputation are, therefore,
one answer for the creation of trust and generalized reciprocity norms. Answers from the
past, however, do not suffice, as, in the modern world, people are no longer bound by magic;
their activities are not coordinated by a central authority; and their commitments and
responsibilities are increasingly private and immediate rather than public and long-term.
To understand trust in the context of modernity Fukuyama (1995, 1996) takes a cultural
perspective, by investigating and contrasting the history of high trust and low trust nations.
What he finds is that cultural norms usually stimulate either family and kinship ties, like in the
case of Italy and China, or outside-of-kinship bonds, like in the United States and Japan.
There are nations, however, where social capital is weak both inside and outside kinship,
which has been the case with many African countries where urbanisation undermined family
bonds. Historically, it seems like the majority of those nations have been through a period of
highly centralized states or even dictatorships, which had devastating effects on the existing
social capital. In those cases, undemocratic social structures and centralisation had highly
negative impacts in the creation of generalised trust. (Fukuyama, 1995)
It is clear that history and culture explain a large part of how social capital and the correlated
norms of trust and reciprocity are created, but we are interested in exploring if and how
those norms affect collaborative actions at the individual level. One experiment by Kurzban
(2003) found that subjects who showed a greater cultural orientation towards group
outcomes would also be more prone to trusting relationships at the individual level.
19

Therefore, generalised trust and relational trust have to be examined in the context of their
interaction.
2.3.2. Relational trust
The literature suggests that there are several factors influencing individuals when choosing
whether or not to cooperate. But to understand those factors it is important to analyse two
elements: trust and trustworthiness. There are different reasons why an individual A chooses
to take a risk by trusting individual B; but there are also factors influencing why individual B
fulfils that trust with honest behaviour.
To explain the decision to trust, Pruitt and Kimmel (1977) use the goal-expectations theory.
According to them, individual A assesses the decision to trust individual B based on the
following factors: B has communicated his or her intention to cooperate; there are reasons to
believe B has an interest in cooperating for mutual gain; B has cooperated before with
others; B has been in a conflictive situation that was agreeably solved.
What those factors point at is that trust is built on the expectation of trustworthy behaviour
justified either by previous personal contact or third party experiences, which is basically the
concept of reputation. Experiments based on game theory, which simulate PD situations
confirm that to some extent. In experiments with multiple rounds of interaction, whenever an
agents trusting behaviour was repaid with his or her counterpartys honesty, positive
reputations were created, improving the yields of the following interaction (Ostrom and
Walker, 2003).
The construction of reputation, nevertheless, presumes the existence of knowledge from
direct or indirect past experience. What the goal-expectation theory does not take into
account is that in anonymous first time interactions, such knowledge does not exist. In those
cases, experiments showed that just the opportunity to communicate something about ones
self and learn personal information about the counterparty already had a positive effect on
collaboration (Ostrom and Walker, 2003).
Now, to understand trustworthiness, a different set of motivations has to be looked into.
According to Hardin (2002), such motivations can be either material or normative. Material
motivations can be in the form of immediate payoff or gains that would come from a
sustained relationship between parties. One example could be contractual arrangements
between A and B in which half of the payment is due after service completion. An immediate
motivation for B to fulfil his duties would be the monetary gain of the other half of the contract
value. Nevertheless, a long-term gain would be to maintain commercial relations with A in
the future.
20

Normative motivations, on the other hand, are related to either internal or collective norms
and how much a group values honesty as a virtue. They are made present especially in what
Hardin (2003, p.93) calls thick relationships, which involve bonds of family, kinship and
community. In this case, he explains
I expect you can be trustworthy toward me not only because you
value further interaction with me, but also because you value your
reputation, which secures the possibility of continued cooperative
interaction with others in our community.
For Ostrom and Walker (2003) both trust and trustworthiness can be understood as
behavioural, evolutionary and human nature characteristics. However, they also
acknowledge that different experimental conditions showed a high variance in results,
suggesting such attributes are neither fixed nor universal, but the result of complex
interactions between personal qualities and external incentives. Thus, as argued previously,
they have to be examined together with the social contexts, which might promote or erode
trust.
Yet, what is difficult to understand is the causality relationship between macro and micro
level trust. Is it the sum of trustful individual behaviours that makes a high-trust society, or is
it that individuals living in high-trust societies are more likely to trust other people? Although
experiments show the connection, apparently there are no studies which have unpacked the
direction of the causal arrow.
What one could rationally imply is that there is a complex feedback relationship between the
two and, in the same way that it is individual people that make the whole of society,
generalised norms the collective consciousness could influence the identity and, thus,
behaviour of individual people.
2.3.3. Systems trust
Besides people in general and a specific person, one can trust or distrust a system. What
Bierhoff and Vornefeld (2004) call systems trust can be understood in the context of the
perceived reliance on an abstract construct. Although organisations can be understood
within this concept, we will focus on technological systems, which are more relevant for its
application on the case of the Internet.
There are two main issues concerning systems trust that influence peoples behaviours:
security and knowledge. Security concerns can be connected with the assurance there will
be no harm to ones interest, including the one of privacy. Knowledge, on the other hand,
similar to the case of relational trust, is based on the idea that previous interaction with a
21

system can reduce the risks of being trustful. In the case of technology, the problem is that
not everyone understands how a certain system or gadget works. This could be one reason
why early adopters of technology-based products and services tend to be experts, or why
older generations are more suspicious of the safety and security of specific technologies.
2.4. Trust, Internet and implications for collaborative consumption
As we have seen, the creation of trust is influenced by a number of factors in each different
level. Table ii summarises the elements uncovered in the previous sections to facilitate the
analysis of specific implications for the case of relationships of collaborative consumption
through the Internet. Such implications were classified as positive, negative or neutral, the
latter being used whenever there were arguments on the side of both.

Table ii. Trust and implications for collaboration on the Internet

Level of trust

Generalised trust

Relational trust

Influencing factors

Implications

Culture of interaction and formation of networks

(dense or open)

Neutral

Political decentralisation and democracy

Positive

Past experience and reputation

Negative

Information about the counterparty

Negative

Material or normative incentives

Neutral

Security

Negative

System knowledge

Neutral

Systems trust

In the case of generalised trust we will discuss both the impact of different factors in the use
of the Internet and the Internet itself as a social phenomenon which might influence and alter
those factors.
2.4.1. Interaction and formation of networks
In this case, the use of Internet can be seen as a positive influence on trust for it can
increase the number of interactions between individuals across geographical boundaries,
creating large, dense and fluid groups. Besides space, it liberates social ties from time
boundaries, as it allows for asynchronous communication. Some argue, however, that the

22

creation of purely virtual bonds may stimulate isolation from the real world, undermining
civic engagement and social capital and, therefore, trust.
A couple of studies have found evidence of the opposite. Bauernschuster et al (2011) proved
that Internet broadband access had either neutral or positive effects in a number of social
capital indicators in Germany. Similarly, in a survey conducted with over 2000 Americans,
Hampton et al (2011) found that Internet users are two times more likely to think that most
people can be trusted.
With regards to the types of networks created, given that communities are now being formed
on the base of interest rather than physical proximity, Internet use can bolster exclusion
instead of cohesiveness, as discussed with the differentiation between bonding and bridging.
Aspects of filtering and targeted information, for instance, may take away the role of
serendipitous encounters and creating less diverse social groups (Pariser, 2011).
Nevertheless, the hyperlocal trend may be a sign that geographical proximity still has a great
significance for people and is just being reinvented with location-based technology.
Anecdotes from neighbourhood support websites, for instance, demonstrate that because of
technology people are starting to break social barriers and getting to know their neighbours,
which could be one first step for wider community engagement. (Botsman and Rogers,
2010)
2.4.2. Political decentralisation and democracy
Democratic political structures are an essential factor when concerning the right to freedom
of speech and information. Authoritarian governments have the power to shut down
communication channels at their will, as well as control content and access to the web.
When the media is used as a political tool, social trust is significantly reduced. Conversely,
access to communication technology can play a positive supporting role in conquering
participation rights, and possibly democratic structures, as demonstrated by popular
revolutions that have been in place since December 2010, in countries like Tunisia and
Egypt.
2.4.3. Reputation
Reputation is one of the main challenges for collaboration on the Internet. When transacting
with someone they have never met personally, people have no past experience or third-party
references to support their decision. Most sharing platforms try to resolve this issue by
building a self-policing community through a number of different tools including rating
systems and community endorsements, such as badges or insignias, which reward positive
engagement.
23

Many studies suggest such systems can be highly effective in creating trust. In a quantitative
research on eBay auctions, Kollock (1999 cited in Cheshire and Kook, 2004) showed that, in
the case of high value products, people were significantly likely to pay more when the offer
was from a seller with a positive reputation.
2.4.4. Information about the counterparty
The facelessness of online interactions negatively impacts the creation of trust. One
common solution is the creation of personal pages or profiles and mechanisms that allow
people to exchange messages before engaging in a transaction. Research shows that just
the inclusion of a picture and a personal description highly impacts the perception of
trustworthiness of a website user (Cheshire and Kook, 2004). Real name policies and
address verification are additional instruments that have been used, but little is known about
their effectiveness.
2.4.5. Incentives
If we consider material incentives, since behaviours related to sharing, swapping and
bartering usually have economic benefits, there are justifications why one should choose
being both trustful and trustworthy. And the existence of reputation systems ensures that
material incentives are considered in the long-term. However, since the consequences of
being dishonest are not as seriously felt as in real life, one could argue that there are also
motivations for opportunistic behaviour. Third party mediation can help overcome that
problem. Two main examples are the use of systems in which the seller only gets the
payment once the product arrives, in the case of purchases, and the option of insuring
particular goods, in the case of sharing or renting.
Regarding normative incentives, again, there are arguments for both positive and negative
implications. Online communities are less effective in the creation of thick relationships,
which means less peer pressure towards being trustworthy. Conversely, people usually
engage in collaborative activities on the basis of personal interest, which is likely to involve
identity aspects. And when platforms manage to turn collaborative behaviours into a lifestyle
they foster thick community bonds and trust. Several enterprises have already done that
successfully, creating communities of Etsiers (Etsy), Zipsters (Zipcar), couchsurfers
(Couchsurfing.org) and Streeties (Streetbank), rather than just users.
2.4.6. System security
Security is a major concern when addressing online transactions. The possibility of being
affected by trojans, viruses, dialers and other type of invasive softwares has clear negative
effects on trust. There are many mechanisms to ensure Internet security, such as Secure
24

Socket Layer (SSL), data encryption and digital signatures, to name a few. However,
Bierhoff and Vornefeld (2004) suggested that trust or distrust is more affected by the
perceived security than the actual method being employed.
In that case, when financial exchanges are involved, the use of accreditation or established
systems such as Paypal can increase the perception of safety (Whitelaw, 2010). With
regards to privacy issues, customisable settings and confidentiality policies seem to have a
positive effect on trust, though they do not guarantee against stolen data.
2.4.7. System knowledge
The influence of system knowledge can be divided into knowledge regarding the Internet as
a system, and knowledge of a particular community, website or enterprise. In the first case,
the technical processes behind the functioning of the Internet are not familiar to most people.
As has been argued before, limited information about a technology may be a source of
distrust. Bierhoff and Vornefeld (2004, pp. 56) argue that when system knowledge is lacking
people are influenced by their past experience with technology, forming rather an illusion of
security than an objective judgement. From that we can presume that the more an individual
uses the Internet, the more they would trust the system behind it.
The same assumption is valid in the case of specific online communities. What evidence
suggests is that once the barrier to make the first transaction is broken, people start trusting
that specific platform and are more likely to engage in the future (Botsman, 2010). Like in
relational aspects of trust, several elements influence on that first risky choice, but an
interesting aspect in the case of systems is the fact that trusting the platform that is being
used might positively sway the decision of trusting other individuals that are part of it.
2.5. Methodology
Once we have understood the elements of trust that are especially relevant in the case of
collaborative consumption, as well as mapped the mechanisms that can be used to leverage
them, the next step is to unpack how, in practice, all those variables interact in affecting
peoples behaviours.
For that purpose a survey was conducted with 203 users2 of four different platforms, namely
Getaround, Neighborgoods, Netcycler and Streetbank3. Every day, someone signs up or
logs in to their websites to engage in some kind of collaboration, be it renting someone
elses car, borrowing a ladder from a neighbour or giving away used DVDs. Therefore, the

Although there were 203 complete responses to the survey, all of which were qualitatively evaluated,
the quantitative analysis was restricted to those which had valid answers for all questions, totalling
191 observations.
3
The four case studies are described in Appendix 1.

25

survey was based in the underlying assumption that, in different degrees, those people were
successful in creating trust.
The rate of such success was measured by three different variables: number of behaviours
encountered (cooperative behaviours), frequency of those behaviours (frequency of
engagement), and frequency of engagement specifically in online platforms (online
engagement), as detailed in table iii below.

Table iii. Collaboration variables

Cooperative behaviours

Frequency of engagement

Online engagement

Question 13. Which of the

following collaborative activities
have you ever engage in?

Question 14. How often do you

engage in such activities?

Question 15. How often do you

use online platforms to facilitate
such activities?

Furthermore, information on three other categories of variables was collected: generalised
trust aspects (social trust, civic engagement and perceived engagement); incentives
(motivations for engagement and for non-engagement); and the use of mechanisms
addressing both relational and system trust issues (external control, self-regulating
communities and information disclosure). A few demographic questions were also included
in the questionnaire (gender, age, country of residence and education level) in order to
understand the profile of the respondents in the analysed sample as well as to make sure
they would not to interfere in the attained results.
The information obtained was used in two different analyses. Firstly, a series of linear
regressions were performed in order to understand how and if those three categories of
variables

affected

cooperative

behaviours,

frequency

of

engagement

and

online

engagement. Later on, all variables were used in logistic regressions in order to predict what
mechanism a certain respondent would rate as more useful in creating trust. Those analyses
are graphically represented in figure iii.

26

Figure iii. Analytical scheme

Analysis 1

Analysis 2

Independent variables
Generalised
trust

Incentives

Mechanisms
of trust

Independent variables
Demographi
c data

Generalised
trust

Incentives

Dependent variables
Collaborative
behaviours

Frequency of
engagement

Collaboration
(coop behaviours,
frequency and online
engagement)

Demographic
data

Dependent variables
Online
engagement

External control

Self-regulating
communities

Emphasis on
information
disclosure

The complete questionnaire can be found in appendix 2, and the results of the survey are
described in the next chapter.

27

Chapter 3 Building trust between strangers: successful case studies

Negative experiences cannot be avoided in life. We can work
through them by learning to communicate and respect each other.
Having the courage to trust is usually worth it (survey respondent, 20
August 2011).
3.1. Profile of the sample
As described in the methodology section, demographic information was collected in order to
outline a profile of the sample. The distribution of those characteristics can be visualised in
the graphs below.

Graph i. Distribution of countries

Graph iii. Distribution of education levels

Graph ii. Distribution of gender

Graph iv. Distribution of age

The average respondent was female, American, around forty years old and with at least a
college degree. This could be interpreted as an indication that there is a certain profile of
28

people who engage in collaborative consumption, which is not the case, as we will later
demonstrate. The fact that the four case studies are based either in the United States or in
the United Kingdom4 also might have had some influence in that profile. The focus of the
survey on developed countries will restrict our ability to validate results in the context of the
Global South, however, it will allow us to identify tendencies and examine possible
implications.
3.2. Demographic variables and collaboration
To understand if collaborative behaviours were, in fact, influenced by demographic
characteristics, a series of linear regressions were run for each dependent variable
(collaborative behaviours, frequency of engagement and online engagement). The only
influence found was a small inverse correlation5 between age and frequency in the use of
online platforms. This means that, although they adopt as many cooperative behaviours and
in the same frequency as other, older people dont use online platforms as much to facilitate
such activities. As discussed in the previous chapter, that could be related to the familiarity
with technology. Nevertheless, it is important to note that age has just a minor overall
influence in predicting online engagement (R square 2.1%)6.
Furthermore, contrary to what one could imagine, gender and level of education have no
correlation with any of the dependent variables. Such finding points out the fact that old
structures and notions of hierarchy are being challenged. Regardless of identity aspects,
anyone can and does engage in collaboration, and technology could be democratising the
access to production and consumption spaces.
3.3. Generalised trust and collaboration
In the first section of the questionnaire people were asked a number of questions that tried to
measure social capital, partially based on the index used by Putnam (2000). The idea was to
understand how the social context influenced peoples behaviour. The different variables that
derived from those questions are detailed in table iv below.

The selection of the case studies was also influenced by the fact that the research was conducted in
English. For more details about them, see Appendix 1.
5
For all analysis, a significant result is one with "p<0.05", or 95% confidence.
6
The variable age was controlled during the remaining analyses to make sure it would not interfere in
other possible correlations.

29

Table iv. Independent variables of generalised trust

Social trust

Perceived civic engagement

People were asked to rate 1-5

(completely disagree to
completely agree) to sentences
like Most people are honest

People were asked to rate 1-5

(completely disagree to
completely agree) to sentences
like Im an active citizen

Factual civic engagement

Index composed with three
information: membership in
community and voluntary
associations, voting in the past
two elections and frequency of
volunteering

Differently from what was emphasised in the theoretical discussion, there was no correlation
between social trust and any of the three dependant variables (cooperative behaviours,
frequency of engagement and online engagement). Two factors could explain that result: the
first is that 92% of the respondents were from only two countries, therefore responses
tended to be homogeneous; the second is that the sample itself could be biased, as people
who engage in collaboration already have higher levels of social trust than those who dont.
If social trust is already high, minor changes in individual perceptions might not affect the
way people behave. In fact, the compiled responses on social trust had low variance (0.5
points) and a rather high average (3.6 out of 5 points) as shown on graph viii below.

Graph v. Social trust histogram

3.6

Concerning the other variables, a positive correlation was found between factual civic
engagement and i) the number of collaborative behaviours and (R square 3.6%) ii) the
frequency of engagement in such behaviours (R square 4.2%). The perception of
engagement also positively influenced the number of behaviours adopted (R square 2.5%).
30

The perception of civic engagement and factual civic engagement were highly correlated as
independent variables, so it is important to note that their prediction of the number of
collaborative behaviours may overlap.
What we can identify in a broad sense, however, is that people who see themselves as
active citizens de facto engage more in community activities, as well as in different forms of
collaborative consumption and do so more frequently. That reinforces the argument that
online communities have not alienated people from real civic commitments and political
participation. On the contrary, it seems to be either a first step to get people engaged or
broaden the impact of those who are already active citizens. Testimonies from the survey
respondents like the ones below strengthen that understanding even further.
I've had the pleasure of borrowing some very good DVD's and now
have much more fun running with a partner than I did when I went
running alone () all of these interactions have improved my quality
of life and trust in my local community quite considerably... each
interaction makes me keener to do another. (1st August 2011)
Connecting person-to-person is a magical experience. To connect
with the natural world is a magical experience. I try to use the digital
medium helps make those moments happen more frequently in my
life. (19 August 2011)
3.4. Incentives and collaboration
In order to understand the aspect of incentives, the survey mapped two different elements:
main motivations for engaging in collaborative consumption and main motivations for not
doing it more often. The positive and negative incentives were used as independent
variables in order to understand their correlation with cooperative behaviours, frequency of
engagement, and online engagement.
In the case of the positive incentives, the only correlation found was between the use of
online platforms and high ranking of economic benefits, in detriment of other motivations.
What we could derive from such a result is that the convenience of easy engagement via
online platforms attracts those who cooperate for rational economic reasons. If, for instance,
an individual wants to give away some products in order not to pay for storage, he or she is
more likely to do it only if the transaction cost is lower than the actual expenditure; therefore,
online communities are a good solution as they facilitate interactions in a fast and low cost
manner.

31

Similarly, the results of the regressions on motivations for non-engagement showed a

positive correlation between online engagement and high ranking of the factor too much
time and effort. Again, the convenience brought by communication technologies seems to
be breaking one of the barriers for collaboration. By assessing that the gain can be greater
than the effort, people decide to take the risk of trusting one another.
Still regarding reasons for non-engagement, high ranking of security concerns was
negatively correlated with the number of cooperative behaviours adopted. Even for people
who were frequently engaged in online cooperation, those more concerned with security
took up fewer types of collaboration. As discussed on the first chapter, the level of trust
necessary for swapping books online, for instance, is very different from the one required to
let a stranger sleep in your house. That understanding can be corroborated by testimonials
from qualitative responses, such as I have 2 small children and sometimes worry that it may
put them at risk (survey respondent, 10 August 2011).
3.5. Mechanisms of trust
After looking at different variables that affect collaboration, logistic regressions were used to
understand how they influenced the rating of trust mechanisms (See Appendix 2, survey
question 19). Although each mechanism was rated separately, and new ones were
suggested by respondents, three recognisable categories arose: external control, selfregulating communities and emphasis on information. The following section analyses those
three categories and the variables that are able to predict an individuals preference towards
a particular category.7

To predict the probability of a certain respondent preferring mechanisms of a given category, the

observations had to be transformed into qualitative variables (yes/no or 1/0 type). For that, an
average weighing of the mechanisms inside each category was used, and later compared to the
average weighting of the other two categories. The higher weight was given a value 1, and the others
a value 0.

32

Table v. Categorisation of trust mechanisms

External control

Self-regulating communities

Emphasis on information
disclosure

External verification

Rating systems

Personal information

Third party mediation in

transactions

Badges systems

Profile picture

Insurance mechanisms

Previous face-to-face
interaction
Previous relationship
Recommendations from friends

3.5.1. External control

Mechanisms such as accreditation, mediation and insurance policies are the focus of
external control. The emphasis is on building systems trust in order to provide for the lack of
relational trust, given the circumstances of online transactions. In practice, they are usually
used in conjunction with self-regulation mechanisms.
The value of such mechanisms can be perceived in affirmations from the respondents such
as I think web platforms must be prepared with strong security systems to provide good
service to users and some kind of system of monitoring and security [should] be deployed.
Through the quantitative analysis it was possible to establish a positive correlation among
ranking economic benefits as one of the top three incentives, and favouring external
control. Results showed that a person who gave high importance to economic gains was 1.2
times more likely to choose that type of mechanism than respondents with other motivations.
Going back to the rationality theory, it is understandable that some kind of formal assurance
is more required for those who assess risk versus payoff. As one of the respondents put it,
the idea is to minimise the possible loss in the worst case scenario.
Other interesting mechanisms to build this type of trust were suggested by respondents in
open answer questions. They are listed on the table vii.
3.5.2. Self-regulating communities
Self-regulating mechanisms emphasise the members role in controlling themselves by
rewarding positive actions and punishing negative behaviours. There are different ways of
creating this dynamic, but the most common one is the rating/reputation systems that were
popularised by eBay. Qualitative answers given to the questions 20 and 22 (see Appendix 2)
can also be grouped as part of this category of mechanisms, as shown on table vii.
33

Among all the variables tested, cooperative behaviours was the only one that significantly
and positively affected the preference towards self-regulating communities. For every 1 point
scored on that variable (one more type of behaviour adopted) individuals were 1.3 times
more likely to prefer those mechanisms. Although the frequency of engagement did not
interfere, we can infer that the more accustomed an individual gets to collaborative
consumption, the more likely he/she is to trust the communities created through the
movement. Affirmations like the following support that understanding.
It restores your faith in people when you get to know people in your
area through sharing and small kind gestures. It is easy to think the
worst of society () but most people are good, honest and kind.
(survey respondent, 07 August 2011).
3.5.3. Emphasis on information disclosure
In the theoretical discussion on the previous chapter it was established that information is
one of the essential elements in the creation of trust in every level (generalised, relational,
systems). It guides people into assessing risks and, despite the incentives or internal
parameters, deciding if it is wise or not to take a chance.
The quantitative data showed that no variable could predict an emphasis towards higher
information disclosure. That could be especially because mechanisms of such sort were
usually highly rated, independently of other variables. Most of the qualitative answers
emphasised the importance of getting to know your counterparty, if not personally, by online
communication, which is clear in the number of suggestions inserted in table vii.
One dilemma, however, seems to be the issue of transparency versus privacy. As trusters
people clearly want as much information as they can get, but as trustees they value
confidentiality and privacy. Two responses to question 20 (see Appendix 2) show that very
clearly: rating system [are useful] though that would take away the memberlessness of
craigslist which I enjoy and sadly, the only answer I can think of is ''lack of privacy''. Or
rather a mandatory abundance of honesty.

34

Table vi. Other mechanisms suggested by the survey respondents

External control

Self-regulating communities

Emphasis on information
disclosure

Extra cost or higher transaction

fees for sellers with negative
feedback in order to fund an
insurance scheme.

Rating and feedback systems.

Less anonymity and greater

accountability.

Strict code of conduct and

communication templates.
Security deposit or a
reimbursement policy from
third-party to compensate for
possible damages.

Using community and not

commerce as the focus of
transactions.
Removing members who break
community rules.
Flexible deadlines for people to
reach agreeable solutions
amongst themselves.
Constant community evolving
and learning.

Online presence of the

members (complete profiles
with quality information).
Email interactions between
counterparties.
Shared vocabulary and value
systems, memes and lineages.
Connecting people via realworld relationships, such as
common friends and affinity
groups.
Referrals from acquaintances,
with a longer term online
relationship.
Helping people to communicate
and agree on meeting times
and places whenever physical
interaction takes place.
Possibility of communication via
telephone.

3.6. What is next?
Although theory has lead us to test a handful of variables, the analysis of the survey results
show that predicting individual behaviour is not a straightforward task. People are unique
and diverse. They get involved in collaboration for distinct and multiple reasons and have
different experiences as a consequence.
What the results suggest is that, to cater for diversity, a platform needs to start off with
efficient external control mechanisms in order to generate systems trust, which will help to
acquire members and gain critical mass. As more people adopt collaborative behaviours and
get comfortable with the existing support structure, the confidence in the system helps to
leverage relational trust. If those mechanisms work and positive results are felt, people are
more likely to care for continuous improvement of that community and thus find motivation
for self-regulation. Reaching this new stage, in which individuals start feeling like members
of a group rather than users of a platform, is essential to build relationships that go beyond
"one-off" interactions, create healthy communities (real or virtual), and have overarching
effects in peoples lifestyles.
35

A more careful look at the respondents comments hints that exchange of information is the
lubricant of all those mechanisms. Long-term trust is established when individuals have a
sense of familiarity with each other, which is harder to recreate in computer mediated
relationships. The role of platforms, in this case, is to generate as many opportunities and
channels for communication as possible.
The peril with information disclosure, as we have seen, is regarding the right to privacy.
There is no common understanding about what should be facilitated by a platform and is to
be left to individuals discretion and responsibility. And this is one of the main challenges
every enterprise will have to face when setting up structures for collaboration.

36

Conclusion
The overconsumption era is coming to an end. Communication technologies are helping
people to connect with each other and access the benefits of products and services, defying
traditional market structures. That unprecedented movement is challenging even secular
service models, such as banking and retail.
Collaborative consumption can pave the road for true change, or just create another way of
doing business. And for the first to happen, online interactions have to be translated into real
communities being formed by engaged and participative citizens rather than self-centred
passive consumers. That is only possible through the creation of trust.
This study set out to understand how trust is traditionally built in social and economic life,
and later to determine the implications of this process when Internet mediation is the starting
point, specifically in the case of collaborative behaviours.
Multiple regression analysis revealed that three types of mechanisms can be used to bolster
the creation of trust: external control, self-regulating communities, and emphasis on
information disclosure. The use of all three in different moments of a platforms evolution can
achieve great results in encouraging participation and improving community cohesiveness.
What was also found is that the possibility of easy online engagement breaks barriers for
collaboration, especially for those who seek economic benefits or are discouraged to get
involved because of time and effort commitments. Furthermore, the research showed that
individuals who take part in collaborative consumption are also more engaged in politics and
in their local communitys life. Taken together, these results suggest that the Internet is not
only a platform for easy in, easy out participation, but a means for the revival of a more
dynamic civil society.
Finally, gender and education levels were showed to pose no barriers for engagement and
age had a minor negative influence. This indicates that the studied movement is not
restricted to a certain profile of people and has the potential to halt existing power relations.
An issue that was not addressed in this study, however, was whether income is a restricting
factor in creating trust and fostering online collaboration, fact that is especially relevant in the
context of developing and emerging economies. Future research should therefore
concentrate on investigating the particularities of the Global South, in order to understand if
collaborative consumption can indeed be a model for all social backgrounds, hence having
the potential to revolutionise the way we understand, theorise and experience economies.

37

Bibliography
Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O. and Woessmann, L., 2011. Surfing alone? The Internet and
social capital: evidence from an unforeseeable technological mistake. IZA Discussion
Papers 5747, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Beckert, J., Zafirovski, M., eds., 2006. International encyclopedia of economic sociology.
New York: Routledge.
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., and McCabe, K., 1995. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games
and Economic Behavior, 10(1), pp.122-142.
Bierhoff, H. and Vornefeld, B., 2004. The social psychology of trust with applications in the
Internet. Analyse and Kritik, 26(1), pp.48-62.
Botsman, R. and Rogers, R., 2010. Whats mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live. London: Harper Collins.
Botsman, R., 2011. Ideas for modern living: collaborative consumption. The Guardian
[online] 30 January. Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/30/ideasmodern-living-collaborative-consumption> [Accessed 1st August 2011].
Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Catton, W., Jr., 1980. Overshoot: The ecological basis of revolutionary change. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Catton, W., Jr., 2008. A retrospective view of my development as an environmental
sociologist. Organization & Environment, 21 (4), pp.471-477.
CCLab, 2011. Collaborative consumption groundswell video. [video online] Available at:
<http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/spreadables/video.php>

[Accessed

23

June

2011].
CEDAC, 2011. Treaties Database. Available at: <http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/>
[Accessed 10 August 2011].
Cheshire, C. and Cook, K., 2004. The emergence of trust networks under uncertainty:
implications for Internet. Analyse and Kritik, 26(1), pp. 220-240.
Coleman, J., 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology. Supplement 94, pp. 95-120.

38

Davies, G., 2002. A history of money: from ancient times to the present day. 3rd. ed. Cardiff:
University of Wales Press.
Durkheim, E., 1997. Division of labour in society. Reprint edition. New York: The Free Press.
Dylan, B., 1965. Lyrics. Positively 4th street. Music by composer Bob Dylan. Masterpieces.
Sony Music. 1991. CD.
Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A. and Wackernagel, M., 2010. The
ecological footprint atlas. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
Fontenelle, I., 2002. O nome da marca: Mcdonald's, fetichismo e cultura descartvel. So
Paulo: Boitempo.
Fukuyama, F., 1989. The end of history? The National Interest, Summer 1989, pp. 3-18.
Fukuyama, F., 1995. Social capital and the global economy. Foreign Affairs, 74(5), pp.89103.
Fukuyama, F., 1996. Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. London:
Penguin.
Gauthier, D., 1968. Morals by agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1975. Energy and economic myths. Southern Economic Journal,
41(3), pp. 347-380.
Giddens, A., 2001. Sociology. 4th edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hampton, K., Goulet, L., Rainie, L. and Purcell, K., 2011. Social networking sites and our
lives. Pew internet Report. Available at: <http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Technologyand-social-networks.aspx>. [Accessed 30 July 2011].
Haque, U., 2011. The new capitalist manifesto: building a disruptively better business.
Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Hardin, R., 2002. Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Hardin, R., 2003. Gaming trust in trust and reciprocity. In: E. Ostrom and J. Walker, eds.,
2003. Trust and reciprocity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Chapter 3.
Heinberg, R., 2007. Peak Everything. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

39

Hobbes, T., 1998 [1642]. On the citizen. Edited and translated from Latin by Richard Tuck
and Michael Silverthorne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horkheimer, M and Adorno, T. W., 2002 [1947,1969]. Dialectic of enlightenment. Translated
from German by Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B. and Hanna, B. A., 1996. Collective trust and collective action:
the decision to trust as a social decision. In: R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler, eds. Trust in
organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp.357389.
Kuhn, T. S., 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kurzban, R., 2003. Biological foundations of reciprocity. In: E. Ostrom and J. Walker, eds.,
2003. Trust and reciprocity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Chapter 4.
Leiss, W., 1994. The domination of nature. 2 ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Maniates, M. and Meyer, M., eds. The environmental politics of sacrifice. Boston: The MIT
Press.
McGeer, V., 2004. Developing Trust on the Internet. Analyse and Kritik, 26(1), pp.91-107.
Pariser, E., 2011. Have Progressives Lost Faith in the Internet? Interviewed by Andrew Keen
[Internet] TechCrunch TV, 15 June 2011.
Polanyi, K., 2001. The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time.
2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press.
Putnam, R., 2000. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. London:
Simon and Schuster.
Pruitt, D. and Kimmel M., 1977. Twenty years of experimental gaming: critique, synthesis
and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, pp.363392.
Ostrom, E., and Walker, J. eds., 2003. Trust and reciprocity. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Rifkin, J., 2000. The age of access: how the shift from ownership to access is transforming
modern life. London: Penguin.

40

Rousseau, J. J., 1968 [1762]. The social contract. Translated from French by Maurice
Cranston. London: Penguim.
Santos, C., 2011. Prosumption: um conceito do sculo XXI. In: Faculdade de Letras da
Universidade do Porto, I Encontro Consumo, Cultura e Sociedade. Porto, Portugal, 8-9 April
2011.
Seligman, A., 2000. The problem of trust. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Taylor, C., 1992. Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Taylor, M., 2000. Community anarchy and liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ullmann, C., 2008. Changes in consumption behaviour, Social and environmental design
course. Instituto de Design para Desenvolvimento Sustentvel, unpublished.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), 1992. Agenda 21.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3-14 June 1992. Available at: <http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21>
[Accessed 13 June 2011].
Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N., Deumling, D., Linares, A., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda,
C., Loh, J., Myers, N., Norgaard, R. and Randers, J., 2002. Tracking the ecological
overshoot of the human economy. National academy of sciences of the United States of
America, 99(14), pp. 9266-9271
Weber, M., 2009 [1927]. General economic history. Translated from German by
Wirtschaftsgeschichte. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Whitelaw, S., 2010. The future of the web for Scottish enterprise. Available at:
<http://www.slideshare.net/sirstevie6/the-future-of-the-web-for-scottish-enterprise>
[Accessed 12 August 2011].
WWF,

2010.

Living

planet

report.

[online]

WWF

International.

Available

at:

<http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/>. [Accessed 12
July 2011].

41

Appendix 1. Brief description of the case studies

Getaround
www.getaround.com

Getaround is a marketplace for peer-to-peer car sharing. It

allows car owners to rent their vehicles to a community of
drivers by hour, day, or week through a website or
smartphones app. The company was founded in 2009 and
received seed funding in 2011. It is based in the United States,
and service is only available in California.

NeighborGoods
www.neighborgoods.net

NeighborGoods enables users to share their physical goods

with other people that live in the same area. It allows them to
create and update an inventory and a wishlist and easily
search for things they need filtered by location. It has
mechanisms to facilitate scheduling pick-ups as well as
reminders for returning borrowed items. NeighborGoods was
founded in 2009 and is also located in the United States,
where the majority of its members live. However there is no
restriction in joining and inviting your network of neighbours.

Netcycler
www.netcycler.com

Netcycler helps people to swap or give away unwanted items.

The platform creates trade rings between three or more
people, to help members find what they want and give away
what they have. It also allows them to use a delivery service
by post or choose a meeting point for the swap. The company
was established in 2008, in Finland, but currently has three
websites, providing services also in Germany and the UK.
Because of the language factor, the survey was only carried
out with UK users.

Streetbank
www.streetbank.com

Streetbank connects people with their nearby community in

order to offer unused items, share products or offer
services/skills such as music lessons or babysitting. It uses zip
code information of the members to help them find people and
things in the surrounding area. It also has a notice board
function to help community members share information.
Anyone can join the service, but the organisers are based in
the UK, as well as most of the users.

42

Appendix 2. Survey questionnaire

Introduction
This survey is part of a research on collaborative behaviours, such as sharing and swapping
products, services and skills, which can be facilitated by online communities. The objective is
to understand why you engage in these activities and use specific web platforms and what
are the mechanisms that help you trust your peers. This survey is anonymous and should
take around 8 minutes to complete.
Thank you for your time!
Perceptions
In this first section, there are a few statements about general social perceptions. Say if you
agree or disagree with them.
1) Most people can be trusted.
( ) Strongly disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Neutral
( ) Agree
( ) Strongly agree
2) Most people are honest.
( ) Strongly disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Neutral
( ) Agree
( ) Strongly agree
3) People in general today lead as good lives - honest and moral - as they used to.
( ) Strongly disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Neutral
( ) Agree
( ) Strongly agree
43

4) I feel like I am part of a community.

( ) Strongly disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Neutral
( ) Agree
( ) Strongly agree
5) I am an active citizen.
( ) Strongly disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Neutral
( ) Agree
( ) Strongly agree
6) I know people in my neighbourhood.
( ) Strongly disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Neutral
( ) Agree
( ) Strongly agree
7) I often entertain friends at my house.
( ) Strongly disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Neutral
( ) Agree
( ) Strongly agree
8) I spend a lot of time visiting friends.
( ) Strongly disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Neutral
( ) Agree
( ) Strongly agree

44

Collaborative Behaviours (1/2)

This section aims to explore a few of the social and political aspects of your life.
9) Are you currently a member of any local association, club, group or commitee? (e.g.
neighbourhood watch, sport or arts collective, parent-teacher association, community
garden, etc)
( ) Yes
( ) No
10) Are you a part of any non-profit organisation or engaged in any kind of civic campaign?
( ) Yes
( ) No
11) Have you voted in the past two elections?
( ) Yes, for both.
( ) Yes, only one.
( ) No.
12) How many times have you done any kind of volunteer work in the last 12 months?
( ) None
( ) 1 to 3 times
( ) 4 to 6 times
( ) 7 to 9 times
( ) 10+ times

Collaborative Behaviours (2/2)

Next, there are a few questions about the collaborative activities you have engaged in, and
the online resources you have used to do so.
13) Which of the following collaborative activities have you ever engaged in? (Tick all that
apply)
[ ] Sharing information/content I produced
[ ] Sharing/renting products I own
[ ] Sharing/renting products owned by others
45

[ ] Sharing skills
[ ] Swapping/bartering products
[ ] Swapping/bartering services (e.g. timebank)
[ ] Getting loans from peer-to-peer lending schemes
[ ] Investing money in peer-to-peer lending schemes
[ ] Co-working
[ ] Couchsurfing
[ ] Other
If you chose "Other", please specify.
____________________________________________
14) How often do you engage in such activities?
( ) On a daily basis
( ) At least once a week
( ) At least once a month
( ) Only when I have specific needs
( ) Have done it only a few times
15) How often do you use online platforms to facilitate such activities?
( ) Always
( ) In most cases
( ) Sometimes
( ) Never
16) Why do engage in online collaboration? (Choose and rank the ones you think are
relevant)
_______For the economic benefits (reduce expenditures or complement income)
_______For the environmental benefits
_______To get to know and relate to other people
_______To be more active in my community
_______To give a better use for my idle resources
_______To promote my skills
_______Other
If you chose "Other", please specify.
____________________________________________
46

17) Would like to share any good experiences you have had? (optional)
18) What do you think are the main obstacles to engage in such activities? (Choose and
rank the ones you think are relevant)
_______There are no/few platforms available in my city
_______There are few people engaged in it
_______I have security concerns
_______It takes too much time/effort
_______Other
If you chose "Other", please specify. (You can list more than one thing)
Trust
This final section aims to explore what helps you trust your peers, in order to collaborate with
them (by sharing products, teaching skills, lending money, etc).
19) How much does each of these factors contribute in your decision of engaging in an
online transaction with peers?
A lot

Some

Not much

Not at all

Not Applicable

Personal information
Profile picture
Previous face-to-face
interaction
Previous personal
relationship
Badges system
Rating and feedback
mechanisms
Recommendation from
friends
External verification
Third party mediation in
transactions
Insurance mechanisms
20) Is there any other factor that was not mentioned in the previous question?
47

21) Have you had any negative experiences in using web platforms to engage in peer-topeer transactions? If so, how was it solved?
22) How do you think such situations can be avoided?

Personal Characteristics
We are almost done. But, before you go, I wanted to know a little more bit about you.
23) What is your gender?
( ) Male
( ) Female
( ) Don't want to answer
24) What is your age?
( ) under 18
( ) 18-24
( ) 25-30
( ) 31-40
( ) 41-50
( ) 51-60
( ) 60+
25) Where do you live?
____________________________________________
26) What is your occupation?
____________________________________________
27) What is your current level of formal education?
( ) 12th grade or less
( ) Graduated high school or equivalent
( ) Some college, no degree
( ) College degree (Associate, BA, BSc)
( ) Post-graduate degree
( ) Don't want to answer

48

Appendix 3. Statistical tests

a) Online engagement and age

Model Summary
Adjusted
Model

.163

R Std. Error of the

R Square

Square

Estimate

.027

.021

.813

a. Predictors: (Constant), Age

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Coefficients

Std. Error

Beta

(Constant)

1.826

.188

Age

-.090

.040

Model
1

-.163

Sig.

9.689

.000

-2.273

.024

a. Dependent Variable: How often do you use online platforms to facilitate such activities?

b) Cooperative behaviours and civic engagement

Model Summary

Model
1

R
.203

R Square
a

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.041

.036

1.818

a. Predictors: (Constant), CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

B
(Constant)
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Std. Error
2.622

.349

.230

.080

Coefficients
Beta

.203

Sig.
7.520

.000

2.857

.005

49

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

Std. Error

(Constant)
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
a.

Coefficients
Beta

2.622

.349

.230

.080

.203

Sig.
7.520

.000

2.857

.005

Dependent Variable: COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOURS

c) Cooperative behaviours and perceived engagement

Model Summary

Model

.174

R Square
a

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.030

.025

1.828

a. Predictors: (Constant), PERCEIVED

ENGAGEMENT(AVERAGE)
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

B
(Constant)
PERCEIVED

Coefficients

Std. Error
1.792

.735

.485

.200

Beta

.174

Sig.

2.438

.016

2.424

.016

ENGAGEMENT(AVER
AGE)
a. Dependent Variable: COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOURS

d) Frequency of engagement and civic engagement

Model Summary

Model
1

R
.216

R Square
a

.047

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate
.042

1.210

a. Predictors: (Constant), CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

50

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

B
(Constant)

Coefficients

Std. Error

Beta

2.224

.232

.163

.054

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

.216

Sig.
9.585

.000

3.048

.003

a. Dependent Variable: FREQUENCY OF ENGAGEMENT

e) Incentives and online engagement

Variables Entered/Removed

Model
1

Variables

Variables

Entered

Removed

Economic

Method
. Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability-of-Fto-enter <= .050,
Probability-of-Fto-remove >=
.100).

a. Dependent Variable: How often do you use online platforms

to facilitate such activities?

Model Summary

Model

.175

R Square
a

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.031

.026

.812

a. Predictors: (Constant), Economic

ANOVA
Model
1

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

3.942

3.942

Residual

124.550

189

.659

Total

128.492

190

F
5.981

Sig.
.015

51

a. Predictors: (Constant), Economic

b. Dependent Variable: How often do you use online platforms to facilitate such activities?

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

Coefficients

Std. Error

(Constant)

1.267

.086

Economic

.288

.118

Beta

.175

Sig.

14.803

.000

2.446

.015

a. Dependent Variable: How often do you use online platforms to facilitate such activities?

Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Statistics

Partial
Model
1

Beta In

Sig.

Correlation

Tolerance

Environment

.041

.555

.580

.040

.943

To get to know other people -

.039

.528

.598

.038

.947

.144

1.948

.053

.141

.931

-.033

-.454

.650

-.033

1.000

.056

.762

.447

.055

.967

value
To be more active in my
community-value
Better use for resourcesvalue
Promote skills:value

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Economic

b. Dependent Variable: How often do you use online platforms to facilitate such activities?

f) Reasons for non-engagement and cooperative behaviours

Variables Entered/Removed

Model

Variables

Variables

Entered

Removed

Method

52

Time and effort-

. Stepwise

value

(Criteria:
Probability-of-Fto-enter <= .050,
Probability-of-Fto-remove >=
.100).

Security-value

. Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability-of-Fto-enter <= .050,
Probability-of-Fto-remove >=
.100).

a. Dependent Variable: COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOURS

Model Summary

Model

R Square

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.189

.036

.031

1.823

.262

.068

.059

1.797

a. Predictors: (Constant), time and effort-value

b. Predictors: (Constant), time and effort-value, Security-value

ANOVA
Model
1

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

23.250

23.250

Residual

628.121

189

3.323

Total

651.372

190

44.601

22.300

Residual

606.771

188

3.228

Total

651.372

190

Regression

Sig.

6.996

.009

6.909

.001

a. Predictors: (Constant), time and effort-value

b. Predictors: (Constant), time and effort-value, Security-value
c. Dependent Variable: COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOURS

53

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

B
(Constant)
Time and effort-value

(Constant)
Time and effort-value
Security-value

Coefficients

Std. Error
3.261

.170

.713

.269

3.485

.189

.828

.269

-.696

.271

Beta

Sig.

19.182

.000

2.645

.009

18.458

.000

.219

3.073

.002

-.184

-2.572

.011

.189

a. Dependent Variable: COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOURS

Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Statistics

Partial
Model
1

Beta In
Security-value
few people-value
No platforms available-value

few people-value
No platforms available-value

Sig.

Correlation

Tolerance

-.184

-2.572

.011

-.184

.972

.045

.629

.530

.046

.997

-.025

-.347

.729

-.025

.999

.047

.663

.508

.048

.997

-.035

-.492

.623

-.036

.996

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), time and effort-value

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), time and effort-value, Security-value
c. Dependent Variable: COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOURS

g) External control predictors

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square
Step 1

df

Sig.

Step

19.203

11

.058

Block

19.203

11

.058

Model

19.203

11

.058

54

Model Summary

Step

Cox & Snell R

Nagelkerke R

Square

Square

-2 Log likelihood

218.543

.096

.134

a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because

parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Classification Table

Predicted
Third-party
Observed
Step 1

External
control

Percentage
1

Correct

121

10

92.4

45

15

25.0

Overall Percentage

71.2

a. The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B
Step 1

COOPERATIVEBEHAVIOU

S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

-.207

.108

3.643

.056

.813

SOCIALTRUST

-.197

.236

.696

.404

.821

CIVICENGAGEMENT

-.055

.107

.262

.609

.947

Howoftendoyouengageinsuc

-.055

.157

.121

.728

.947

-.077

.223

.118

.731

.926

Economic

.180

.070

6.635

.010

1.198

Environment

.055

.069

.633

.426

1.057

Togettoknowotherpeoplevalu

.071

.070

1.035

.309

1.073

-.064

.071

.808

.369

.938

RS

hactivities
Howoftendoyouuseonlineplat
formstofacilitatesuchactivities

e
Tobemoreactiveinmycommu
nityvalue

55

Betteruseforresourcesvalue
Promoteskillsvalue
Constant

.029

.068

.182

.670

1.030

-.014

.078

.030

.862

.986

.012

1.013

.000

.990

1.012

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: COOPERATIVEBEHAVIOURS, SOCIALTRUST, CIVICENGAGEMENT,

Howoftendoyouengageinsuchactivities, Howoftendoyouuseonlineplatformstofacilitatesuchactivities, Economic,
Environment, Togettoknowotherpeoplevalue, Tobemoreactiveinmycommunityvalue, Betteruseforresourcesvalue,
Promoteskillsvalue.

Test repeated with just the economic variable

Variables in the Equation
B
Step 1

Economic
Constant

S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

.184

.063

8.659

.003

1.202

-1.575

.329

22.946

.000

.207

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Economic.

h) Self-regulatory community predictors

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square
Step 1

df

Sig.

Step

16.385

11

.127

Block

16.385

11

.127

Model

16.385

11

.127

Model Summary

Step
1

-2 Log likelihood
176.966

Cox & Snell R

Nagelkerke R

Square

Square
.082

.129

a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because

parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Classification Table
Observed

Predicted

56

Self regulatory
0
Step 1

Self regulatory

Percentage

Correct

151

99.3

35

10.3

Overall Percentage

81.2

a. The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B
Step 1

COOPERATIVEBEHAVIOU

S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

.289

.119

5.866

.015

1.335

.446

.294

2.297

.130

1.562

CIVICENGAGEMENT

-.021

.127

.026

.872

.980

Howoftendoyouengageinsuc

-.065

.195

.111

.738

.937

-.039

.267

.021

.885

.962

-.049

.080

.374

.541

.953

.117

.082

2.048

.152

1.124

-.021

.078

.073

.787

.979

-.013

.082

.024

.878

.988

Betteruseforresourcesvalue

.101

.081

1.555

.212

1.106

Promoteskillsvalue

.095

.086

1.198

.274

1.099

-4.449

1.333

11.131

.001

.012

RS
SOCIALTRUST

hactivities
Howoftendoyouuseonlineplat
formstofacilitatesuchactivities
Economic
Environment
Togettoknowotherpeoplevalu
e
Tobemoreactiveinmycommu
nityvalue

Constant

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: COOPERATIVEBEHAVIOURS, SOCIALTRUST, CIVICENGAGEMENT,

Howoftendoyouengageinsuchactivities, Howoftendoyouuseonlineplatformstofacilitatesuchactivities, Economic,
Environment, Togettoknowotherpeoplevalue, Tobemoreactiveinmycommunityvalue, Betteruseforresourcesvalue,
Promoteskillsvalue.

Test repeated with just the cooperative behaviours variable

Variables in the Equation
B

S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

57

Step 1

COOPERATIVEBEHAVIOU

.261

.096

7.451

.006

1.298

-2.352

.427

30.272

.000

.095

RS
Constant

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: COOPERATIVEBEHAVIOURS.

i) Emphasis on information predictors

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square
Step 1

df

Sig.

Step

12.148

11

.353

Block

12.148

11

.353

Model

12.148

11

.353

Model Summary

Step
1

Cox & Snell R

Nagelkerke R

Square

Square

-2 Log likelihood
251.455

.062

.082

a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because

parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Classification Table

Predicted
Counterpart information
Observed
Step 1

Counterpart information

Percentage
Correct

67

36

65.0

46

42

47.7

Overall Percentage

57.1

a. The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B

S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

58

Step 1

COOPERATIVEBEHAVIOU

-.029

.095

.095

.758

.971

-.183

.218

.706

.401

.833

CIVICENGAGEMENT

.145

.099

2.174

.140

1.156

Howoftendoyouengageinsuc

.085

.146

.342

.558

1.089

-.012

.203

.003

.953

.988

Economic

-.088

.061

2.116

.146

.915

Environment

-.075

.062

1.447

.229

.928

Togettoknowotherpeoplevalu

-.031

.061

.263

.608

.969

.080

.063

1.608

.205

1.084

Betteruseforresourcesvalue

-.026

.061

.182

.670

.974

Promoteskillsvalue

-.021

.068

.095

.758

.979

.358

.915

.153

.696

1.430

RS
SOCIALTRUST

hactivities
Howoftendoyouuseonlineplat
formstofacilitatesuchactivities

e
Tobemoreactiveinmycommu
nityvalue

Constant

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: COOPERATIVEBEHAVIOURS, SOCIALTRUST, CIVICENGAGEMENT,

Howoftendoyouengageinsuchactivities, Howoftendoyouuseonlineplatformstofacilitatesuchactivities, Economic,
Environment, Togettoknowotherpeoplevalue, Tobemoreactiveinmycommunityvalue, Betteruseforresourcesvalue,
Promoteskillsvalue.

59

Appendix 4. Distribution of collaboration variables

Graph vi. Collaborative behaviours

Graph vii. Frequency of engagement

Graph viii. Online engagement

60