Life for rent

Photo by Kindel Media available on Pexels

Context

Today, many platforms allow private owners to rent their possessions to other consumers (peer-to-peer rental). Such platforms concern a wide variety of products: housing, cars, bikes, campervans, boats, music instruments… and even pets! On this highly competitive and thriving market, owners try to distinguish themselves, so that renters will pick them over competitors. One popular differentiation strategy is the use of attachment cues (indications that the owner feels attached to the product) in the product’s description. For instance, this owner proves he is very attached to his guitar, by using the phrase “she’s my baby”, while this owner puts on the market “one of [his] favorite cars to drive”. While these owners expect attachment cues to improve rental likelihood, Graul and Brough frustrate these legitimate expectations in an article published in 2020 in the Journal of Consumer Psychology.

Research questions

While in a sales context, attachment cues increase the product’s value for prospective buyers, Graul and Brough argue that it may not necessarily be the case in a rental context. The authors notably expect the responsibility to safeguard a cherished possession to decrease rental intentions of products with a description including attachment cues. Therefore, the authors ask the following research questions:

– How and why do owners include attachment cues in the description of products available for rent?

– How do renters react to such cues?

– What can be done to mitigate the potential negative effect of attachment cues on rent likelihood?

Method

To answer these research questions, the authors carried out 4 studies:

– In study 1, they analyzed data from 99257 Airbnb listings to classify attachment cues. 468 participants, who had previously rented their property on Airbnb, were polled to confirm the authors’ typology and to give their opinion on several property listing.

– Study 2 was devised to assess the impact of attachment cues on rental likelihood across 5 product categories (car, tent, board game, snorkeling gear, tennis racket). 891 participants were asked to choose which product they would rather rent between two alternatives. All product pairs featured a control product and another product which was described with or without attachment cues.

– Study 3 investigated the reasons for the renters’ choices.  274 participants were presented with a description for a bike rental which features strong, weak or no attachment cues depending on the scenario. Informants were asked if they would consider renting the bikes. They explained their choice by answering both closed and open questions.

– In study 4, conducted on 372 participants, the authors searched for a way to decrease the potential negative impact of attachment cues on rental likelihood.

Results

– There are several types of attachment cues: emotional (stating that the owner love/is fond of his/her possession), historical (explaining how the product brings back memories for the owner), social (connecting the possession with the owner’s close ones).

Listings featuring attachment cues are usually priced higher than listings that do not feature attachment cues, because owners expect attachment cues to create value for renters. When owners are presented with several listings, they tend to have a better opinion of those featuring attachment cues. However, their preferences shift when they are told that these cues may have a negative impact on renters.

Consumers avoid renting products when their description features attachment cues. This is because people do not wish to take on responsibility for potential negative outcomes. They avoid the unwanted obligation to keep the product safe. Participants in the studies provided insufficient elements to support other possible explanations of their reluctance to rent products which descriptions feature attachment cues, such as concern for overpayment or feeling uneasy using a product that is special to someone else.

A price-premium can release renters from the responsibility burden. In other words, when products described with attachment cues are priced above the market, renters feel less responsible for potential negative outcomes than when these products are priced at the market.

Why is this article relevant for researchers?

This article has a novel approach to the literature about the C2C rental market (that is currently thriving, which makes it even more relevant to study) and owner attachment. First, because it focuses on how attachment is communicated and not experienced. Second, because it considers the implications of attachment from the renter’s standpoint rather than the owner’s.

Future research could confirm the authors’ attachment cues typology across product categories since it was only tested in the Airbnb context. Moreover, it could investigate which variables may moderate the effect of attachment cues on rental likelihood, such as context elements (purpose of the rental, urgency, etc) or traits of the renter’s personality (agency-communion orientation, interest in differentiation etc). In the same vein, the authors point out that other behavioral variables may be studied, such as consumption experience when renting from an owner whose attachment is known. Participants also gave little information about other possible explanations for their reluctance to rent products which description features attachment cues. Future research could investigate this area. Finally, other seemingly positive cues (such as high-quality or high-worth products) may trigger similar avoidance mechanisms from renters.

Why is this article relevant for professionals?

This article shows how a widespread practice among owners (here, including attachment cues in the product description) can backfire. It advises owners either to avoid attachment cues in descriptions of rentals, or to price these products above the market to alleviate the burden of responsibility for renters.

More broadly, it invites owners to rethink the concept of sharing economy: though the benefits of sharing should be prominently featured in descriptions to attract renters, not every information is worth sharing. Attachment cues suggest responsibilities, but other seemingly harmless cues may induce similar unconscious processes. For instance, underlying the historical heritage or the high monetary value of certain products may also deter renters. For example, this testimony shows that guilt and fear of being spotted with a precious object were serious deterrents for Dennis Green before he indulged in renting a Rolex.

Source: Graul, A. R., & Brough, A. R. (2020). Why We Don’t Rent What Others Love: The Role of Product Attachment in Consumer‐to‐Consumer Transactions. Journal of Consumer Psychology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *