Journal Code Article ID Dispatch: 13.10.14 CE: C B 1 4 9 9 No. of Pages: 9 ME: 1 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. (2014) 66 2 Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1499 67 3 68 4 69 5 Giving and sharing in the computer-mediated economy 70 6 71 7 JOHN HARVEY1*, ANDREW SMITH2 and DAVID GOLIGHTLY3 72 8 1Horizon Digital Economy Research, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK 73 9 2Business School, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham University, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK 74 10 3Human Factors Research Group, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK 75 11 76 12 77 13 ABSTRACT 78 14 The paper examines how digital technology mediates the behaviour of consumers in three online systems that facilitate offline gift giving 79 15 and sharing (Freecycle, Couchsurfing, and Landshare). Findings derived from a netnography and depth interviews reveal how technology is 80 16 used to enact and influence the management of identity, partner selection, ritual normalisation, and negotiation of property rights. The findings 81 17 have significant implications for the design and management of systems that encourage non-monetary forms of collaborative consumption. 82 18 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 83 19 84 20 85 21 86 22 INTRODUCTION research objective is to understand how technology mediates 87 23 the ambiguities that arise from this hybridization in order 88 24 A variety of informal offline exchange systems have been to create and perpetuate structured, ritualised behaviour. 89 25 facilitated by the internet. Consumers with common interests The following section reviews the principal dimensions of 90 26 come together online before meeting offline for the purpose giving and sharing. The research design is then discussed, 91 27 of exchanging, giving or sharing goods. Many of the services prior to an exposition of the results of the netnographies 92 28 are designed and positioned as being explicitly pro-social, and depth interviews. 93 29 i.e. the participants who offer their possessions to others do 94 30 so at a personal cost and without immediate gain (Penner 95 31 et al., 2005). As mobile technology has become ubiquitous, FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF GIVING AND 96 32 the number of these systems appears to be increasing in SHARING 97 33 number as a result of the improved potential to match 98 34 people across space and time. Recently, there has been a The phenomenon of gift giving has received an enormous 99 35 surge of commercial activity in the field of ‘collaborative amount of cross-disciplinary attention over the past century. 100 36 consumption’—atermfirstcoinedbyFelsonandSpaeth Because seminal work by Mauss (1925) and Malinowski 101 37 (1978) and popularised in Botsman and Rogers, 2011 by (1922) scholars in anthropology, sociology, economics, 102 38 Botsman and Rogers. These systems help consumers to exploit philosophy, and consumer research have examined the 103 39 a spare pool of resources; they can reduce the cost of acquisi- antecedents of giving. Sharing in contrast has received less 104 40 tion and the environmental impact of consumption in com- explicit attention than gift giving but has been the focus of 105 41 parison to the more typical product lifecycle. Crucially, many studies in numerous different disciplines (e.g. Benkler, 2004; 106 42 of these systems eschew or even prohibit monetary-based Widlock, 2004; Belk, 2010). Despite this wealth of research, 107 43 transactions, favouring deliberate redistribution of resources the scope of gift giving and sharing is so diverse and complex 108 44 without formalised quid-pro-quo exchange (Albinnson and that application of universal rules or typologies is difficult, if 109 45 Perera, 2012). Unlike comparable transactions (that rely on not impossible. However, there are a number of dimensions 110 46 money to create equivalence through a shared understanding that can be used to classify these types of economic exchanges, 111 47 of quantified value), technology helps to mediate the transfer, including agency, structure, ritual and property. These are 112 48 aiding both donor and recipient alike. Despite the wealth of now discussed in turn. 113 49 research into gift giving and sharing as well as the abundance 114 50 of computer-mediated pro-social exchange systems, the role 115 51 that technology plays in these economic transfers has received AGENCY AND STRUCTURE 116 52 little attention in the consumer research literature. Dobscha 117 53 and Arsel (2011) have described the emergence of these Yan (2005) suggests that a core classification variable of gift 118 54 systems as a form of hybridised exchange that does not giving behaviour is the agency of social actors, that is, do 119 55 correspond to a singular prototypical behaviour such as people exchange gifts on behalf of the respective groups that 120 56 giving, sharing, or commodity exchange (refer to Belk, 2010) they belong to, such as family, lineage or community? Or, 121 57 but instead demonstrate characteristics of each. The core alternatively, is the gift exchanged between two autonomous 122 58 individuals? Much of the anthropological research into gift 123 59 giving examines intercommunity gifting and describes how 124 *Correspondence to: John Harvey, Horizon Digital Economy Research Hub, 60 University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. giving as a means of economic distribution within archaic 125 61 E-mail: [email protected] societies creates social bonds that form important macro- 126 62 127 63 128 64 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 129 65 130 1 2 J. Harvey et al. 66 2 67 3 level structures. Contemporary research into gifting has resource? Subtractability defines the potential of a resource 68 4 primarily focused on dyadic perspectives because giving to be consumed repeatedly, that is, if one person consumes 69 5 as a means of economic distribution has largely been re- a resource, is it then possible to be consumed again, either 70 6 placed with immediate reciprocity, that is, secularised mar- by the original consumer or another? Because of the ease 71 7 ket economies. Within the field of consumer research of replicating digital information, consumption by one 72 8 Sherry (1983) developed a processual model of giving that person does not necessarily diminish the consumption 73 9 provided a conceptual springboard for others in the field. quality for another—it is therefore not beleaguered by 74 10 Here, the gift is viewed as a continuous act of reciprocity, subtractability like most physical resources. A property right 75 11 whereby the act of giving provides a dialectical chain be- is an enforceable authority to undertake particular actions in 76 12 tween dyads. The process can be studied across three phases a specific domain (Commons, 1968). “Property rights define 77 13 through which the relationship between giver and receiver actions that individuals can take in relation to other individuals 78 14 progresses: gestation, prestation, and reformulation. Much regarding some ‘thing’. If one individual has a right, someone 79 15 of the research in this area emphasises the importance of else has a commensurate duty to observe that right” 80 16 giving and receiving as a means of fostering and maintain- (Ostrom, 2003, p.249). Research into sharing and giving 81 17 ing interpersonal connections with family and friends often focuses on alienability as the predominant means of 82 18 (Wooten, 2000; Joy, 2001; Wooten and Wood, 2004; Brad- understanding consumer behaviour, or as Barthes (1972, p.73) 83 19 ford, 2009). once criticised the bourgeoisie, property is seen as nothing 84 20 Recently, attention has been paid to the concept of “but a dialectical moment in the general enslavement of 85 21 intracommunity gifting, that is, non-reciprocal or asymmet- Nature.” It makes little sense to speak of alienability (or 86 22 ric relationships of economic transfer between an individual inalienability) as a simple dualism; property rights are much 87 23 and a community. These types of gifts are perhaps best de- more nuanced than simple changes of ownership. Many 88 24 scribed as a form of sharing. According to Weinberger and actors (either individual or grouped) can simultaneously lay 89 25 Wallendorf (2011), previous research has primarily focused claim to aspects of a resource. This has been called ‘tenure 90 26 on gifting in which the central goal is interpersonal relation- niche’ and can be construed in different ways depending on 91 27 ship maintenance. Intracommunity gifting occurs when the type of resource being appropriated (Bruce, 1995). 92 28 community members in one social position give to commu- Ostrom and Hess (2007), updating Ostrom and Schlager, 93 29 nity members in another position in which the central goal 1996) recognise a hierarchy of seven positions that can be 94 30 is intracommunity, rather than interpersonal. Most of the associated with bundles of property rights: access, contri- 95 31 research into giving online has been explored in relation bution, extraction, removal, management, exclusion, and 96 32 to crowd sourcing projects and peer-to-peer networks, alienation. The most basic right ‘Access’ is defined as the 97 33 where gifts manifest virtually. In his study of Napster, right to enter a defined physical area and enjoy non- 98 34 Giesler (2003, 2006) acknowledges that the traditional subtractive benefits. The highest property right that a person 99 35 models of dyadic gift giving offer only a limited insight can attain over a resource is that of alienation, that is, the 100 36 into the digital sphere as a result of the one-to-many right to sell, lease or give away extraction, management, 101 37 forms of giving made possible by networked technologies and exclusion rights. Crucially, the right of alienation is 102 38 such as the internet.