Continuance in Portuguese Peer-To-Peer Accommodation Services Through the Lens of Process Virtualization Theory

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of respondents’ characteristics.

Measure	Value	Frequency	%
Gender	Female	154	51.9
	Male	143	48.1
Age	<24	1	0.3
	25–34	24	8.1
	35–44	80	26.9
	45–54 55–64	91 65	30.6 21.9
	>64	36	12.1
Education	1 - Primary education 2-Secondary education 3- Degree 4 - Bachelor 5 – Master’s 6 - PhD	5 71 115 16 77 13	1.7 23.9 38.7 5.4 25.9 4.4
Type of host	Private person Company	207 90	69.7 30.3
Type of property	Bedroom Apartment Vila Other	23 130 94 50	7.7 43.8 31.6 16.8
Listing experience with P2PAP	<1 year	86	29.0
	1–3 years	119	40.1
	>3 years	92	31.0

Figure 2. Structural model.

***p value < 0.01; **p value < 0.05; *p value < 0.10; Dashed line arrow represents not statistically significant path coefficients.

Table 2. Summary of hypothesis test results.

Hypotheses	Path coefficients	T-values	Effect size (f^2)	CI95%	VIF	Hypotheses testing result
H1: Sen -> Dia (+)	0.058	0.992	0.003	[−0.060;0.186]	1.422	Not supported (p-value = 0.351)
H1a: Sen -> Int (+)	0.032	0.556	0.001	[−0.086;0.140]	1.427	Not supported (p-value = 0.578)
H2: Syn -> Dia (+)	0.064	1.042	0.005	[−0.051;0.191]	1.134	Not supported (p-value = 0.298)
H2a: Syn -> Int (+)	0.095	1.764	0.013	[−0.005;0.204]	1.140	Supported (p-value = 0.078 < 0.10)
H3: Rel -> Dia (+)	0.107	1.799	0.012	[−0.011;0.223]	1.364	Supported (p-value = 0.072 < 0.10)
H3a: Rel -> Int (+)	0.100	1.903	0.012	[0.000;0.207]	1.380	Supported (p-value = 0.057 < 0.10)
H4: Ide -> Dia (+)	0.129	2.312	0.022	[0.023;0.239]	1.081	Supported (p-value = 0.021 < 0.05)
H4a: Ide -> Int (+)	−0.003	0.043	0.000	[−0.124;0.108]	1.104	Not supported (p-value = 0.966)
H5: Mon -> Dia (+)	0.356	5.116	0.119	[0.211;0.488]	1.514	Supported (p-value = 0.000 < 0.01)
H5a: Mon -> Int (+)	0.056	0.904	0.003	[−0.070;0,173]	1.695	Not supported (p-value = 0.366)
H6: Rea -> Dia (+)	−0.101	1.809	0.012	[−0.209;0.008]	1.270	Not supported (p-value = 0.000 < 0.01)
H6a: Rea -> Int (+)	0.262	4.652	0.087	[0.161;0.382]	1.285	Supported (p-value = 0.000 < 0.01)
H7: Rep -> Dia (+)	0.171	2.591	0.027	[0.045;0.303]	1.538	Supported (p-value = 0.01 < 0.05)
H7a: Rep -> Int (+)	0.337	5.244	0.116	[0.204;0.453]	1.579	Supported (p-value = 0.000 < 0.01)
H8: Dia -> Int (+)	0.085	1.732	0.008	[−0.015;0.176]	1.422	Supported (p-value = 0.083 < 0.10)

Sen: Sensory readiness; Syn: Synchronism readiness; Rel: Relationship readiness; Ide: Identification readiness; Mon: Monitoring; Rea: Reach; Rep: Representation; Dia: e-rental diagnosticity; Int: Continuance intention.

Table 3. Plspredict assessment of manifest variables.

	PLS-SEM			PLS-SEM – LM MAE
Indicator	Q^2 predict	PLS-SEM_MAE	LM_MAE
Int1	0.261	0.635	0.671	−0.029
Int2	0.064	1.326	1.361	−0.035
Int3	0.249	0.718	0.744	−0.026
Ass1	0.210	1.187	1.213	−0.026
Ass2	0.184	1.299	1.352	−0.053
Ass3	0.155	1.310	1.370	−0.060

Table

Construct	Item	Sen	Syn	Rel	Ide	Mon	Rea	Rep	Dia	Int
Sensory readiness	Sen1	0.925	0.107	0.435	0.145	0.101	0.003	−0.111	0.172	0.051
	Sen2	0.821	0.086	0.377	0.155	0.047	0.003	−0.111	0.088	0.005
	Sen3	0.938	0.104	0.418	0.124	0.081	0.042	−0.094	0.156	0.061
Synchronism readiness	Syn1	0.030	0.835	0.138	0.095	0.114	0.098	0.054	0.115	0.141
	Syn2	0.123	0.817	0.206	0.205	0.052	0.037	−0.094	0.129	0.088
	Syn3	0.127	0.531	0.142	0.115	0.073	−0.002	−0.049	0.093	0.037
Relationship readiness	Rel1	0.450	0.168	0.759	0.084	0.137	0.108	0.051	0.210	0.134
	Rel2	0.353	0.159	0.885	0.199	0.056	−0.026	−0.049	0.164	0.139
	Rel3	0.361	0.214	0.902	0.162	0.149	0.023	0.035	0.189	0.186
Identification readiness	Ide1	0.162	0.147	0.162	0.902	0.053	−0.036	−0.028	0.164	0.047
	Ide2	0.064	0.155	0.108	0.688	−0.060	−0.012	−0.113	0.105	−0.039
Monitoring	Mon1	0.042	0.069	0.125	−0.008	0.830	0.354	0.430	0.344	0.338
	Mon2	0.112	0.083	0.140	0.034	0.857	0.247	0.397	0.377	0.283
	Mon3	0.042	0.084	0.097	−0.004	0.887	0.293	0.453	0.438	0.306
	Mon4	0.118	0.133	0.116	0.024	0.853	0.275	0.430	0.406	0.311
Reach	Rea1	0.005	0.031	0.041	−0.052	0.268	0.821	0.399	0.071	0.398
	Rea2	0.020	0.109	0.043	0.043	0.266	0.768	0.256	0.069	0.335
	Rea3	0.024	0.032	0.019	−0.066	0.272	0.774	0.256	0.085	0.319
Representation	Rep1	−0.032	0.020	0.110	−0.027	0.401	0.301	0.801	0.292	0.450
	Rep2	−0.104	−0.051	−0.011	−0.049	0.452	0.326	0.869	0.273	0.387
	Rep3	−0.170	−0.065	−0.095	−0.092	0.306	0.266	0.704	0.166	0.317
	Rep4	−0.097	−0.016	0.016	−0.084	0.453	0.382	0.876	0.231	0.402
E-rental Diagnosticity	Dia1	0.142	0.144	0.195	0.139	0.469	0.079	0.295	0.937	0.261
	Dia2	0.161	0.130	0.190	0.185	0.445	0.111	0.300	0.965	0.248
	Dia3	0.164	0.158	0.246	0.169	0.386	0.080	0.262	0.944	0.244
Continuance	Int1	0.068	0.084	0.147	0.029	0.326	0.472	0.468	0.274	0.928
	Int2	−0.057	0.148	0.104	0.022	0.274	0.209	0.288	0.109	0.685
	Int3	0.079	0.125	0.205	−0.001	0.331	0.418	0.457	0.261	0.936

Sen: Sensory readiness; Syn: Synchronism readiness; Rel: Relationship readiness; Ide: Identification readiness; Mon: Monitoring; Rea: Reach; Rep: Representation; Dia: e-rental diagnosticity; Int: Continuance intention.

Table

	Mean	SD	AVE	CR	Sen	Syn	Rel	Ide	Mon	Rea	Rep	Dia	Int
Sen	4.121	2.021	0.804	0.925	0.897
Syn	4.265	1.589	0.549	0.779	0.112	0.741
Rel	4.464	1.509	0.724	0.887	0.458	0.214	0.851
Ide	3.641	1.768	0.643	0.780	0.153	0.183	0.172	0.802
Mon	5.256	1.363	0.735	0.917	0.091	0.108	0.138	0.013	0.857
Rea	6.565	0.775	0.620	0.831	0.020	0.071	0.044	−0.033	0.341	0.788
Rep	5.880	1.017	0.665	0.887	−0.115	−0.030	0.019	−0.073	0.499	0.392	0.816
Dia	4.731	1.677	0.900	0.964	0.164	0.152	0.222	0.173	0.458	0.095	0.302	0.948
Int	6.246	1.037	0.735	0.891	0.050	0.130	0.182	0.018	0.361	0.448	0.483	0.265	0.858

SD: Standard deviations; Ave: Average variance extracted; CR: Composite reliability; Sen: Sensory readiness; Syn: Synchronism readiness; Rel: Relationship readiness; Ide: Identification readiness; Mon: Monitoring; Rea: Reach; Rep: Representation; Dia: e-rental diagnosticity; Int: Continuance intention.

Table

Constructs	Sen	Syn	Rel	Ide	Mon	Rea	Rep	Dia	Int
Sen
Syn	0.179
Rel	0.538	0.316
Ide	0.220	0.358	0.275
Mon	0.097	0.159	0.160	0.108
Rea	0.051	0.134	0.098	0.122	0.437
Rep	0.147	0.129	0.127	0.165	0.578	0.505
Dia	0.169	0.205	0.254	0.250	0.500	0.118	0.333
Int	0.086	0.185	0.216	0.088	0.428	0.564	0.566	0.285

Sen: Sensory readiness; Syn: Synchronism readiness; Rel: Relationship readiness; Ide: Identification readiness; Mon: Monitoring; Rea: Reach; Rep: Representation; Dia: e-rental diagnosticity; Int: Continuance intention.

Table

Construct definitions and measurements
Process characteristics	Sensory requirements: Service provider’s perceived need to allow customers to be able to see, touch and personally experience properties offered in the market.	Overby & Konsynski, (2010)
	Sen1: I like to be able to allow customers to see the property, touch the furniture and linens, identify nice smells, etc.
	Sen2: I like to be able to allow customers to physically inspect my property before I rent it.
	Sen3: I like to be able to allow customers to touch/see/smell the properties I rent.
	Synchronism requirements: Service provider’s perceived need to which the activities that make up the renting transaction need to occur quickly with minimum delay.	Overby & Konsynski, (2010)
	Syn1: When I offer a special price, I need to get a reply from the customer on that day or the next.
	Syn2: I don’t mind if a few days pass between offering a special price and getting feedback from the customer. (reverse-coded)
	Syn3: I need to handle all bureaucratic aspects on the day I rent my property.
	Relationship requirements: Service provider’s perceived need to interact with other service providers and customers in the market.	Overby & Konsynski, (2010)
	Rel1: I enjoy the social aspects of renting my property.
	Rel2: I develop personal relationships with the customers I rent to.
	Rel3: I like to have a personal relationship with the customer when I rent my property.
	Identification and control requirements: Service provider’s need to which the transaction requires unique identification of the customer and the ability to exert control/influence their behavior.	Overby & Konsynski, (2010); Thomas et al. (2016)
	Ide1: It is possible for people to hide their identity in the virtual process.
	Ide2: Participants in the virtualization process can be properly identified. (reverse-coded)
Technological capabilities	Monitoring capability: Service provider’s perceived capacity of accommodation platform to authenticate participants and track activity.	Overby & Konsynski, (2010)
	Mon1: The authentication requirements of the accommodation platform will enable the identification of the participants if necessary.
	Mon2: The accommodation platform allows all participants to be registered with a unique identification.
	Mon3: Activities on the accommodation platform can be tracked systematically and analyzed in detail.
	Mon4: The accommodation platform allows strict control over participants’ privileges.
	Reach: Service provider’s perceived capacity of accommodation platform to allow them to rent their properties to people which they would not otherwise have access to.	Overby & Konsynski, (2010)
	Rea1: The accommodation platform allows me to rent my property to people I would not otherwise be able to meet.
	Rea2: The accommodation platform gives me access to customers that I need but cannot reach locally.
	Rea3: The accommodation platform allows me to access potential customers from all over the country/world.
	Representation: Service provider’s perceived capacity of accommodation platform to represent the characteristics of their property which are relevant to the transaction.	Overby & Konsynski, (2010)
	Rep1: I can provide the information on my property I need when I’m online.
	Rep2: The online features provide me with everything I need to present on my property.
	Rep3: I don’t need to show the property personally because I can provide enough information online.
	Rep4: Accommodation sharing services platforms provide me with everything I need to show my property’s characteristics.
e-rental diagnosticity	Perceived accommodation platform diagnosticity: Perceived capacity of accommodation platform to convey to service provider information about the customer that helps them to assess a booking inquiry.	Z. Jiang & Benbasat, (2004)
	The accommodation platform allows me to:
	Dia1: Carefully evaluate the booking inquiry
	Dia2: Thoroughly assess the booking inquiry
	Dia3: Accurately evaluate the booking inquiry
Continuation Intention	Continuance intention: Service provider’s willingness to continue using the same accommodation platform, based on their previous experiences	(Bhattacherjee, 2001; Serrano & Karahanna, 2016)
	Int1: I intend to continue to use this accommodation platform rather than stop using.
	Int2: My intentions are to continue to use this accommodation platform than use any alternative means.
	Int3: If I could, I would like to discontinue my use of this accommodation platform (reverse coded).

Overby, E. M., & Konsynski, B. (2010). Task-Technology Fit and Process Virtualization Theory: An Integrated Model and Empirical Test. SSRN Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1567097

 Google Scholar

Thomas, M., Costa, D., & Oliveira, T. (2016). Assessing the role of IT-enabled process virtualization on green it adoption. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(4), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9556-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jiang, Z, and Benbasat, I. (2004). Virtual Product Experience: Effects of Visual and Functional Control of Products on Perceived Diagnosticity and Flow in Electronic Shopping. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 111–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2004.11045817

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Serrano, C., & Karahanna, E. (2016). The compensatory interaction between user capabilities and technology capabilities in influencing task performance: An empirical assesment in telemedicine consultations. MIS Quarterly, 40(3), 597–621. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.3.04

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar