Anticipated emotions and resistance to innovations: the case of p2p car sharing☆
Introduction
Peer-to-peer car sharing (P2P car sharing hereafter) is proposed as a sociotechnical innovation that could facilitate a transition to a more sustainable mobility regime (Axsen and Sovacool, 2019). P2P car sharing may effectively address some of the societal and environmental problems associated with mobility (Shaheen and Cohen, 2013), namely, increasing congestion and reduced parking space (Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014; Glotz-Richter, 2016; Shaheen and Cohen, 2013) while also reducing emissions per household (Shaheen et al., 2012). These schemes have been proven especially valuable in places where public transportation and business-to-consumer (B2C) car-sharing schemes are scarce (Hampshire and Gaites, 2011). Moreover, participation in these schemes may create individual benefits, such as accruing economic gains for owners (Wilhelms et al., 2017a,b) or expanding mobility alternatives with more affordable choices for renters (Münzel et al., 2019; Shaheen et al., 2018).
Given the potential societal and individual benefits of P2P car sharing, understanding the factors that could inhibit the adoption of this innovation is of particular importance (Clausen and Fichter, 2019; Hazée et al., 2017), especially considering that in many countries, P2P car sharing has low, albeit growing, penetration rates (Huber 2017; Rodenbach et al., 2017). Past scholarship has shown that potential adopters anticipate risks such as liability issues, vehicle damage or vehicle availability (Ballús-Armet et al., 2014; Dill et al., 2017; Hampshire and Gaites, 2011; Shaheen et al., 2018; Shaheen and Cohen, 2013; Prieto et al., 2017). These perceived risks explain the resistance to adopt an innovation, because the greater the perceived risks are, the more negative the attitude will be toward an innovation and the less likely its adoption (Clausen and Fichter, 2019; Heidenreich and Handrich, 2015).
Past studies have implicitly assumed that individuals perform a rational assessment of risks, weighing the pros and cons of adopting the innovation (Heidenreich and Spieth, 2013). This assumption reflects the already noted prevailing rational choice paradigm to understand adoption of innovations (Huber, 2017). However, this assumption is not entirely correct, as demonstrated by risk-as-feelings theories: risk assessments prior to choice-making are far from being a rational analysis of the severity and likelihood of possible outcomes (Loewenstein et al., 2001); rather, risk assessment is infused with feelings and future choices are affected by anticipated emotions (Mellers et al., 1999).
Whereas other studies have established the relevance of experienced emotions (in particular, emotional attachment to vehicles) (Prieto et al., 2017) as barriers for the participation of car owners in shared mobility schemes, this study offers a complementary view; in particular, it focuses on the anticipated emotions or the prospective emotions arising in the absence of actual engagement with the innovation. The study of anticipated emotions to understand transitions to shared mobility regimes is relevant for two reasons.
First, anticipated emotions influence individuals’ choices (Mellers et al., 1999) and thus would influence the decision to take part in this form of collaborative consumption. Emotions, together with meanings or understandings, are part of the sense-making of an innovation (Huber, 2017) and, as such, they should affect the recruitment or defection of potential adopters. Following the risk-as-feelings theory, we would expect that the feelings experienced when assessing risks affect the perceived probability of the occurrence of these risks and, with it, the desirability of a given choice. As has been demonstrated in many studies, cognitive and emotional responses to risk diverge, as individuals are cognizant that the occurrence of a given risk is very unlikely and still suffer acute fear and anxiety, which may affect their choice (Loewenstein and Lerner, 2003). Similarly, as demonstrated by decision affect theory (Mellers et al., 1997, 1999), anticipated regret negatively affects a future choice, as individuals tend choose alternatives that they expect would provide the greatest average pleasure.
Past research has discussed the intrapersonal role of emotions, showing that they affect the individual’s decision to adopt collaborative schemes (e.g., Beria et al., 2017; Huber, 2017). We argue that anticipated emotions are also relevant at the interpersonal level because they affect the diffusion process and, ultimately, the institutionalization of an innovation. When a person communicates her anticipated emotions to others, a process of affect diffusion begins (Peters and Kashima, 2015). If these emotions are dominantly negative, and they spill over to others, the progressive adoption of the innovation may be hampered. Moreover, as more individuals communicate similar (negative) emotions towards an innovation, these emotions may be reified as sentiments. Sentiments are “collectively shared emotional dispositions towards marketplace elements” (Gopaldas, 2014: 998). Once established, marketplace sentiments operate as structures of feeling that are systematically reproduced by actors in a market. In other words, sentiments are institutionalizing—as well as institutionalized—market forces (Gopaldas, 2014). Thus, if a negative sentiment toward the innovation takes root in the market, the diffusion process will be halted.
Drawing from psychological theories of anticipated emotions and choice as well as sociocultural approaches to emotions, this paper examines the role of anticipated emotions in the adoption of peer-to-peer car sharing (P2P car sharing) at two levels: intrapersonal (anticipated emotions affecting the individual’s decision to participate in P2P car-sharing schemes) and interpersonal (anticipated emotions communicated and shared with others regarding P2P car sharing). This twofold analysis implies understanding emotions as both a psychological and a sociocultural construct, examining their role in individual decision-making and, more broadly, in the institutionalization of the P2P car-sharing market. This dual analysis of emotions does not aim to replace but to complement extant explanations of the diffusion of innovations (Clausen and Fichter, 2019; Huber, 2017).
The study of anticipated emotions at the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels demands an ideographic approach (Gopaldas, 2014; Rogers, 1986; Selwyn, 2003) to understand potential adopters’ subjective and emotional sense-making of P2P car sharing. This subjective assessment, even if it is biased or incorrect, is what determines the (non)adoption of innovations (Rogers, 1983; Selwyn, 2003). More specifically, intrapersonal emotions were identified in 20 in-depth interviews with individuals who had not previously participated in P2P car sharing but who fit the profile of actual and intended early adopters described by the past studies (e.g., Prieto et al., 2017; Shaheen et al., 2018). Emotions at the interpersonal level were studied through media analysis (i.e., news, videos and marketplaces’ websites and press kits) and naturally occurring conversations in social media (i.e., Forocoches, the largest discussion forum in Spain and the third largest in the world, with more than 21 million monthly visitors1).
This study shows that potential adopters, both owners and renters, anticipate the burden of sharing or the stress associated with their potential participation in P2P car sharing. Their rejection of P2P car sharing is a strategy to avoid the emotions of worry, fear and anxiety they anticipate experiencing if they were to enter the schemes. Furthermore, the findings show that some of the mechanisms implemented by marketplaces are not able to fully relieve the anticipated stress. The study also shows that these negative emotions are shared with others in social media, which suggests that a sentiment of anxiety may emerge that could hamper the adoption of the innovation. The insights of this study complement existing frameworks of barriers to the adoption of sociotechnical innovations (Clausen and Fichter, 2019) and could be useful for policymakers and organizations in institutionalizing P2P car-sharing schemes.
Section snippets
Review of P2P car sharing: profiles, motives, and barriers
P2P car sharing is a form of collaborative consumption, as “peers engage in direct transactions” and “draw on the units of material goods or services for performing their practices” (Huber, 2017: 55). In P2P car sharing, “privately owned vehicles [are] made temporarily available for shared use by an individual or members of a peer-to-peer company, with pickup and drop-off locations agreed on between the two parties (typically round trip)” (Ballús-Armet et al., 2014: 28). Usually, these
Context
This study was carried out in Spain. At the time of data collection, there were three P2P car-sharing marketplaces (SocialCar, Drivy—now Getaround—and Amovens), and four more have gone defunct since 2012 (Eccocar, MovoMovo, Whipcar and Ridelink). A short description of these companies is offered in Table 2. At the moment, there is no specific policy or regulation regarding P2P car sharing (Rodenbach et al., 2017). Moreover, there are no studies on the penetration of these schemes among the
The burden of sharing anticipated by owners
Our findings (see a summary in Fig. 1) indicate that the informants anticipate the burden of sharing or expected stress for sharing out their vehicle. In their discourse, we observe that the anticipated experience of anxiety and worry overrides the potential benefits of obtaining extra income, positively impacting the environment, or facilitating others’ projects (Wilhelms et al., 2017a, b)—benefits that informants recognize.
Moreover, consistent with the affect-as-information theory (
Contribution, limitations and future research lines
This study makes a threefold contribution to the literature. Whereas past work has identified the “burdens of ownership” (Berry and Maricle, 1973), this study has shown that resistance to adopting P2P car sharing is explained by the “burden of sharing” or the anticipated stress associated with the participation in these schemes. Whereas past studies have portrayed the perceived functional risks (e.g., Ballús-Armet et al., 2014) by potential adopters, this study emphasizes that the anticipated
Conclusion
Complementing the past studies on the reasons for adopting P2P car sharing and the value created for participants, this study reveals the emotional reasons why potential owners and renters reject this innovation. Potential owners and renters perceive a series of risks that provoke immediate and anticipated emotions of tension, fear and anxiety, so entering these schemes is perceived as a stressful activity. This anticipated stress overrides the potential perceived benefits and becomes the
Declaration of Competing Interest
I hereby declare that I have no conflict of interest
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the funding received by Observatorio del Vehículo Eléctrico y la Movilidad Sostenible (Universidad Pontificia de Comillas) and the support of Juanma Sánchez-Rojas in data collection. I am also grateful to Isabel Carrero and Martina G. Gallarza for their valuable comments to earlier versions of this manuscript.
References (67)
- et al.
Determinants of negative word-of-mouth communication using social networking sites
Information & Management
(2016) - et al.
The diffusion of environmental product and service innovations: Driving and inhibiting factors
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
(2019) - et al.
How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought
Trends in cognitive sciences
(2007) - et al.
Putting the sharing economy into perspective
Environmental Innovations and Societal Transitions
(2017) Reclaim street space!–exploit the European potential of car sharing
Transportation Research Procedia
(2016)Theorising the dynamics of collaborative consumption practices: A comparison of peer-to-peer accommodation and cohousing
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
(2017)- et al.
An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents
Journal of economic psychology
(2009) - et al.
An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
(2019) - et al.
Different business models–different users? Uncovering the motives and characteristics of business-to-consumer and peer-to-peer carsharing adopters in The Netherlands
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
(2019) A mechanism based transition research methodology: Bridging analytical approaches
Futures
(2018)
Car sharing adoption intention in urban areas: What are the key sociodemographic drivers?
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
Apart from technology: understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life
Technology in society
Personal vehicle sharing services in North America
Research in Transportation Business & Management
Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
From ‘freedom of the open road’ to ‘cocooning’: Understanding resistance to change in personal private automobility
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
To earn is not enough: A means-end analysis to uncover peer-providers’ participation motives in peer-to-peer carsharing
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Yours, mine, and ours: A user-centric analysis of opportunities and challenges in peer-to-peer asset sharing
Business Horizons
Consumer adoption of technological innovations: Effects of psychological and functional barriers in a lack of content versus a presence of content situation
European Journal of Marketing
The roles of users in electric, shared and automated mobility transitions
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
Peer-to-peer carsharing: Exploring public perception and market characteristics in the San Francisco Bay area, California
Transportation Research Record
Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing
Journal of Consumer Research
Analysis of peer-to-peer car sharing potentialities
Electric Vehicle Sharing Services for Smarter Cities
Consumption without ownership: what it means for business
MSU Business Topics
Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy
Organization & Environment
Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria
Qualitative sociology
Perceived value of service innovation: a conceptual framework
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Peer-To-Peer Carsharing: Short-Term Effects on Travel Behavior in Portland, OR. TREC-RR-1144. Portland, OR: Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC)
Triangulation in qualitative research
Affect
Marketplace sentiments
Journal of Consumer Research
The Psychology of the car. Automobile admiration, attachment and addiction
Peer-to-peer carsharing: Market analysis and potential growth
Transportation Research Record
What’s social about social emotions?
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour
Cited by (16)
Measuring the adoption and discontinuance of low carbon digitally-enabled innovations: Exploring repeat survey quality
2024, Journal of Cleaner ProductionBlends of emotions and innovation (Non)adoption: A focus on green energy innovations
2023, Environmental Innovation and Societal TransitionsExploring Consumer-Robot interaction in the hospitality sector: Unpacking the reasons for adoption (or resistance) to artificial intelligence
2023, Technological Forecasting and Social ChangeConsumer resistance to service robots at the hotel front desk: A mixed-methods research
2023, Tourism Management PerspectivesDriving the environmental extra mile – Car sharing and voluntary carbon dioxide offsetting
2022, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and EnvironmentCarsharing services in sustainable urban transport: An inclusive science map of the field
2022, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :For instance, Münzel et al. (2018) highlighted four different business models for carsharing services, including (i) cooperative with a not-for-profit orientation and interest for sharing vehicles, (ii and iii) B2C divided into roundtrip and one-way models, which refers to a company owning a fleet of cars to rent them on-demand for temporary use, and (iv) P2P carsharing that addresses sharing cars between individuals with the help of a company as a mediating platform, mainly enabled by using online platforms. Most notably, P2P carsharing, as a socio-technical innovation, has gained momentum intending to support a transition from the traditional to a more sustainable urban mobility system (Valor, 2020). According to Yun et al. (2020), the idea of promoting carsharing services until 2000 was mainly focused on addressing environmental concerns, such as emission reduction through decreasing car ownership and providing eco-efficient services.
- ☆
Senior Lecturer at Universidad Pontificia Comillas and leader of the research group ESOST, her main research interest is on transitions to sustainability and consumption. Her work has been published in journals such as Journal of Cleaner Production, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management or Journal of Business Ethics.