Deutsch
Bibtex
Cite as text
@Select Types{,
Journal = "Band-1",
Title= "Let’s Travel the World Together: Toward an Understanding of Motivational Antecedents in Business Trip Ridesharing Services",
Author= "Bernd Herrenkind, Tim-Benjamin Lembcke, Stephan Diederich, Simon Trang, and Lutz M. Kolbe",
Doi= "https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_n3-herrenkind",
Abstract= "Regarding current climate change concerns and expanding urbanization, the transport sector is expected to increasingly contribute to climate protection. A promising endeavor, in response to this, is to meet the increased mobility requirements with lower transportation means, thus augmenting the efficiency of transportation. One particularly promising approach to cut corporate-level CO2 emissions is to foster Business Trip Ridesharing (BTRS), allowing employees to jointly travel and commute. This article analyzes the underlying motivational factors correlated with adopting BTRS. Using the Self-Determination Theory, we examine intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting employees’ attitude and behavioral intention toward BTRS. Drawing on a sample from a real-world German company, our partial least square analysis indicates that enjoyment, economical viability and especially sustainability are important antecedents to foster BTRS. In summation, we discuss an integrated approach that addresses multiple motivational dispositions and provide several practical suggestions, in addition to the areas of future research.
",
Keywords= "Business Trip Ridesharing, Sharing Economy, Self-Determination Theory, Green IS, Mobility-as-a-Service.
",
}
Bernd Herrenkind, Tim-Benjamin Lembcke, Stephan Diederich, Simon Trang, and Lutz M. Kolbe: Let’s Travel the World Together: Toward an Understanding of Motivational Antecedents in Business Trip Ridesharing Services. Online: https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_n3-herrenkind (Abgerufen 26.12.24)
Open Access
Abstract
Abstract
Regarding current climate change concerns and expanding urbanization, the transport sector is expected to increasingly contribute to climate protection. A promising endeavor, in response to this, is to meet the increased mobility requirements with lower transportation means, thus augmenting the efficiency of transportation. One particularly promising approach to cut corporate-level CO2 emissions is to foster Business Trip Ridesharing (BTRS), allowing employees to jointly travel and commute. This article analyzes the underlying motivational factors correlated with adopting BTRS. Using the Self-Determination Theory, we examine intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting employees’ attitude and behavioral intention toward BTRS. Drawing on a sample from a real-world German company, our partial least square analysis indicates that enjoyment, economical viability and especially sustainability are important antecedents to foster BTRS. In summation, we discuss an integrated approach that addresses multiple motivational dispositions and provide several practical suggestions, in addition to the areas of future research.
Keywords
Schlüsselwörter
Business Trip Ridesharing, Sharing Economy, Self-Determination Theory, Green IS, Mobility-as-a-Service.
References
Referenzen
1. UN-DESA: 2014 Revision of the World Urbanization Prospects. (2014).
2. Shaheen, S.A., Cohen, A.P.: Carsharing and personal vehicle services: worldwide market developments and emerging trends. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 7, 5–34 (2013).
3. Brendel, A.B., Zapadka, P., Kolbe, L.M.: Design Science Research in Green IS : Analyzing the Past to Guide Future Research. Proc. Eur. Conf. Inf. Syst. 1–18 (2018).
4. Melville, N.P.: Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Q. 34, 1–21 (2010).
5. Furuhata, M., Dessouky, M., Ordóñez, F., Brunet, M.E., Wang, X., Koenig, S.: Ridesharing: The state-of-the-art and future directions. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 57, 28–46 (2013).
6. Teubner, T., Flath, C.M.: The Economics of Multi-Hop Ride Sharing: Creating New Mobility Networks Through IS. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 57, 311–324 (2015).
7. Schmaul, B., Steyn, J., Douglas, T., Briggs, M.: Panel Session : New Mobility Business Models. (2017).
8. Lessig, L.: Remix : making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. Penguin Press (2008).
9. Schor, J.B., Fitzmaurice, C.J.: Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. In: Reisch, L.A. and Thøgersen, J. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption. pp. 410–4225. Elgar (2014).
10. Chan, N.D., Shaheen, S.A.: Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future. Transp. Rev. 32, 93–112 (2012).
11. Agatz, N.A.H., Erera, A.L., Savelsbergh, M.W.P., Wang, X.: Dynamic ride-sharing: A simulation study in metro Atlanta. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 45 `, 1450–1464 (2011).
12. Schor, J.: Debating the Sharing Economy. J. Self-Governance Manag. Econ. 4, 7 (2017).
13. Van Malderen, L., Jourquin, B., Thomas, I., Van Devijver, E., Vanoutrive, T., Verhetsel, A., Witlox, F.: The employer mobility plans: benefits, acceptability and effectiveness. Econ. Geogr. 1–26 (2010).
14. Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Schweitzer, L.: Jobs/housing balance and employer-based travel demand management program returns to scale: Evidence from Los Angeles. Transp. Policy. 20, 22–35 (2012).
15. Hussain, I., Knapen, L., Bellemans, T., Janssens, D.: Employees’ Matching to Support Carpooling in Context of Large Companies. (2017).
16. Naoum-Sawaya, J., Cogill, R., Verago, R., Ghaddar, B., Taheri, N., Sajja, S., Tommasi, P., Shorten, R., Wirth, F.: Stochastic optimization approach for the car placement problem in ridesharing systems. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 80, 173–184 (2015).
17. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78 (2000).
18. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol. 49, 182–185 (2008).
19. Dworkin, G.: The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988).
20. Gagné, M., Deci, E.L.: Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 331–362 (2005).
21. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer Science (1985).
22. Gagné, M., Ryan, R.M., Bargmann, K.: Autonomy Support and Need Satisfaction in the Motivation and Well-Being of Gymnasts. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 15, 372–390 (2003).
23. Roca, J.C., Gagné, M.: Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace : A self-determination theory perspective. 24, 1585–1604 (2008).
24. Sørebø, Ø., Halvari, H., Gulli, V.F., Kristiansen, R.: Computers & Education The role of selfdetermination theory in explaining teachers ’ motivation to continue to use e-learning technology. Comput. Educ. 53, 1177–1187 (2009).
25. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A.: The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67, 2047–2059 (2016).
26. Lindenberg, S.: Intrinsic Motivation in a New Light. KYKLOS Int. Rev. Soc. Sci. 54, 317–342 (2001).
27. Möhlmann, M.: Collaborative consumption : determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. 207, 193–207 (2015).
28. Nov, O., Naaman, M., Ye, C.: Analysis of Participation in an Online Photo-Sharing Community: A Multidimensional Perspective. J. Am. Soc. Inforamtion Sci. Technol. 61, 555– 566 (2010).
29. Jansson, J., Marell, A., Nordlund, A.: Exploring consumer adoption of a high involvement ecoinnovation using value-belief-norm theory. J. Consum. Behav. 10, 51–60 (2011).
30. Stern, P.C.: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues. 56, 407–424 (2000).
31. Schaefers, T.: Exploring carsharing usage motives: A hierarchical means-end chain analysis. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 47, 69–77 (2013).
32. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W.E., Luchs, M.G., Ozanne, L.K., Thøgersen, J.: Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for Consumer Research and Public Policy. J. Public Policy Mark. 30, 31–38 (2011).
33. Amirkiaee, S.Y., Evangelopoulos, N.: Why do people rideshare? An experimental study. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 55, 9–24 (2018).
34. Arteaga-Sánchez, R., Belda-Ruiz, M., Ros-Galvez, A., Rosa-Garcia, A.: Why continue sharing : Determinants of behavior in ridesharing services. (2018).
35. Jacobson, S.H., King, D.M.: Fuel saving and ridesharing in the US : Motivations, limitations, and opportunities. Transp. Res. Part D. 14, 14–21 (2009).
36. Donath, J.S.: Identity and deception in the virtual community. In: Smith, M. and Kullock, P. (eds.) Communities in Cyberspace. pp. 29–59. Taylor & Francis., London and NewYork (1999).
37. Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2, 192–222 (1991).
38. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.: A Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46, 186–204 (2000).
39. Wasko, M.M., Faraj, S.: Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Q. 29, 35–57 (2005).
40. Hars, A., Ou, S.: Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open-Source Projects. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 6, 25–39 (2002).
41. Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J.: Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 104, 200–211 (2016).
42. Chudzian, J.: Importance of Economic and Noneconomic Factors in Collaborative Consumption. Econ. Manag. 7, 14–22 (2015).
43. Tussyadiah, I.P.: An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative consumption in travel. In: Information and communication technologies in tourism 2015. pp. 817–830. Springer, Cham (2015).
44. Gansky, L.: The Mesn – Why the Future of Business is Sharing. Portfolio Penguin, New York, New York, USA (2010).
45. Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991).
46. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA et al.: Addison-Wesley (1975).
47. Hsu, M., Chiu, C.: Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. 38, 369–381 (2004).
48. Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation- Confirmation Model. MIS Q. 25, 351–370 (2001).
49. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P.: Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903 (2003).
50. Gefen, D., Rigdon, E.E., Straub, D.: Editor’s comments: an update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Q. 35, iii–xiv (2011).
51. Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Straub, D.W.: Editor’s Comments: A Critical Look at the Use of PLS-SEM. MIS Q. 36, iii–xiv (2012).
52. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P.: Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 539–569 (2012).
53. Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J.: Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 114–121 (2001).
54. Schwarz, A., Rizzuto, T., Carraher-Wolverton, C., Roldán, J.L., Barrera-Barrera, R.: Examining the Impact and Detection of the “Urban Legend” of Common Method Bias. ACM SIGMIS Database. 48, 93–119 (2017).
55. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18, 382–388 (1981).
56. Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A.: An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40, 414–433 (2012).
57. Chin, W.W.: Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Q. 22, 7–16 (1998).
58. Balck, B., Cracau, D.: Empirical analysis of customer motives in the shareconomy: a crosssectoral comparison. Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management (2015).
59. Hellwig, K., Morhart, F., Girardin, F., Hauser, M.: Exploring different types of sharing: A proposed segmentation of the market for “sharing” businesses. Psychol. Mark. 32, 891–906 (2015).
60. Van der Heijden, H.: USER ACCEPTANCE OF HEDONIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS. MIS Q. 28, 695–704 (2004).
61. Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11, 342–365 (2000).
62. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., Olsen, J.P.: A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Adm. Sci. Q. 17, 1 (1972).
63. Liu, D., Santhanam, R., Webster, J.: Toward Meaningful Engagement: A Framework for Design and Research of Gamified Information Systems. MISQ. 41, 1011–1034 (2017).
64. Henkel, C., Kranz, J.: Pro-Environmental Behavior and Green Information Systems Research – Review , Synthesis and Directions for Future Research. Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Syst. 2018. 1–17 (2018).
65. vom Brocke, J., Seidel, S., Loos, P., Watson, R.T.: Green IS–Information Systems for Environmental Sustainability. BISE. 4, 47 (2013).
66. Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, New York (2010).
67. Bachmann, F., Hanimann, A., Artho, J., Jonas, K.: What drives people to carpool? Explaining carpooling intention from the perspectives of carpooling passengers and drivers. Transp. Res. part F traffic Psychol. Behav. 59, 260–268 (2018).