Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1287 2023-07-14 12:36:23 |
2 layout -93 word(s) 1194 2023-07-17 04:55:40 | |
3 layout -12 word(s) 1182 2023-07-17 05:41:50 | |
4 rollback to version 1 + 105 word(s) 1287 2023-07-18 02:10:43 | |
5 layout -105 word(s) 1182 2023-07-18 03:10:43 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Huang, H.; Nan, G. Factors in Expectation Confirmation Model. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 25 June 2024).
Huang H, Nan G. Factors in Expectation Confirmation Model. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed June 25, 2024.
Huang, Huiping, Ganlin Nan. "Factors in Expectation Confirmation Model" Encyclopedia, (accessed June 25, 2024).
Huang, H., & Nan, G. (2023, July 14). Factors in Expectation Confirmation Model. In Encyclopedia.
Huang, Huiping and Ganlin Nan. "Factors in Expectation Confirmation Model." Encyclopedia. Web. 14 July, 2023.
Factors in Expectation Confirmation Model

Bhattacherjee studied the continuance intention of online banking by using the ECM, which added the perceived usefulness variable in the technology acceptance model, and established a model for inspecting users’ continuance intention of an information system (IS). The ECM has four constructs: confirmation, perceived usefulness, satisfaction, and IS continuance intention. Among them, confirmation refers to the consistency between users’ expectations and the actual performance of the IS. Perceived usefulness refers to users’ expected benefits from using an IS. This construct is similar to performance expectancy in UTAUT, as both describe users’ perceived benefits from using an IS. Satisfaction refers to users’ feelings while using the IS. Finally, IS continuance intention refers to users’ intentions to continue using the IS.

car sharing continuance intention electric vehicles expectation

1. Introduction

In the context of electric car sharing, empirical findings show that offline service quality and facilitating conditions had the greatest impact on the perceptions of usefulness and satisfaction users have for car sharing. Perceived usefulness and satisfaction positively predicted continuance intention. Among customer variables, environmentalism, familiarity, and trust in peers positively predicted the perceived usefulness of car sharing. Psychological ownership played a subtle function by negatively affecting perceived usefulness but positively affecting satisfaction [1].

Improving service quality has always been an essential strategy in corporate competition [2]. Measuring service quality using specific attributes can help managers improve consumers’ perceived value of services. Past research [3] has differentiated online and offline service quality based on the contexts in which consumers use car-hailing services, which consists of five key factors, including structural assurance, platform responsiveness, information congruity, competence, and empathy. Huang and Nan [1] referenced the online and offline service quality of mobile car-hailing services in the evaluation of car-sharing service quality. Also, to align service quality measurement to consumer needs, the study replaced the variable “competence” and “empathy” with “vehicle condition” based on preliminary interviews with car-sharing users. Vehicle condition refers to the appearance and maintenance status of the electric vehicle’s equipment when reserved by users. Previous studies have found that the better the service quality provided by an IS, the more significant its positive impact on the perceived usefulness and subsequent satisfaction of the IS [3]. Therefore, both online and offline service quality show positive effects on user satisfaction.

2. Car Sharing, the Expectation Confirmation Model, and Consumers’ Internal and External Environmental Factors

Facilitating conditions refer to the degree of resource support individuals believe they can obtain while using a certain information technology. If users can obtain comprehensive technical support, they will perceive the usage process as convenient [4]. Car sharing becomes more attractive to consumers when parking spaces are included in the service [5]. The success of electric car sharing also calls for a sound rental and charging network. In China, however, an insufficient number of rental stations and the small coverage of car-sharing services are obstacles to the service’s development [6].
Facilitating conditions while using car-sharing services is a type of external environmental variable that will affect user experience and their final behavioral intentions. Limiting factors, such as inconvenient charging and parking facilities, can increase user costs to varying degrees and reduce their satisfaction and perceived usefulness of car-sharing services. Therefore, facilitating conditions positively affect perceived usefulness and satisfaction of car sharing.

Environmentalism is the intent and actual effort toward protecting the environment [7]. Environmental awareness affects individuals’ behavioral intentions through norms, beliefs, and attitudes [8]. Consumers’ perceptions of a product’s environmental impact can influence their purchase decisions. That is, how much the consumers are environmentalists affects their subsequent consumption behavior [8][9]. Car sharing reduces the idle time of a single car by letting others use it. In the long run, this can effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions [10] and, to some degree, change people’s travel habits. Past studies have confirmed the impact of environmental awareness on the use of low-carbon emission travel modes [11][12][13][14][15]. Thus, users who are more environmentally conscious are more likely to perceive the ecological value of car sharing, which will positively impact its perceived usefulness and consumer satisfaction.

In the context of car sharing, familiarity covers two aspects: users’ familiarity with (1) car-sharing apps and (2) electric vehicles. The former refers to a user’s ability to skillfully use car-sharing apps to reserve a vehicle, obtain its location, and return the vehicle, among other actions. The latter refers to a user’s ability to complete pre-driving inspections and other related procedures upon receiving the vehicle. Familiarity from learning is a type of external variable apt to influence the perceived ease of use and usefulness of a system [16]. That is, the more familiar users are with car sharing, either through prior experiences or gathering relevant product knowledge, the more confident they are in using car-sharing services, thereby making these services easier to use. When users perceive new technologies to be easier to use, their perceived usefulness toward them will be higher [17][18][19]. Also familiarity had a positive impact on car2go satisfaction [20]. Therefore, familiarity is found to have a positive impact on perceived usefulness and satisfaction.
In the sharing economy, the concept of trust includes trust in sharing economy platforms (trust in the platform) and trust in other consumers who participate in sharing economy activities (trust in peers) [21] . Trust reduces perceived risks and grants a sense of security during usage or transaction [22][23]. Consumers’ trust in car-sharing platforms and other users can give rise to the belief that car sharing is a less problematic mode of transport, which improves its perceived usefulness. The positive impact of trust on satisfaction has been supported [24]. Therefore, trust has a positive impact on consumers’ perceived usefulness and satisfaction. In the study by Huang and Nan [1], trust in peers positively predicted the perceived usefulness of car sharing.
The concept of psychological ownership refers to the to them [25]. People can develop a strong sense of ownership over material and immaterial properties, and this ownership is not completely equal to de facto ownership. When acquiring ownership through a purchase, the buyer obtains full rights over the property. Not only can they use the item, but they can also allow or prohibit others from using, renting, or selling it [26]. Under the sharing economy model, consumers obtain the right to use goods rather than the right to own them [27]. Car sharing allows people to use cars without buying them. Research has indicated that people often hold strong emotional attachments to private vehicles [28], and consumers with higher levels of psychological ownership also possess a greater willingness to choose private cars as their mode of transport. Conversely, those with lower levels of psychological ownership consider car sharing as the closest substitute to private vehicles.
The relationship between levels of psychological ownership and attitudes toward car sharing has been discussed little in the past. A few studies have found that car ownership has a negative influence on users’ acceptance of car-sharing services, especially for roundtrips [14][29]. Thus, the higher the levels of psychological ownership, the greater the attention paid toward vehicle ownership, which will cause consumers to ignore the usefulness of car sharing and decrease their satisfaction with it. In the study by Huang and Nan [1], psychological ownership negatively influenced perceived usefulness but positively influenced satisfaction.


  1. Huang, H.; Nan, G. Factors Influencing Continuance Intention of Time-Sharing Cars. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10625.
  2. Gould-Williams, J. The impact of employee performance cues on guest loyalty, perceived value and service quality. Serv. Ind. J. 1999, 19, 97–118.
  3. Cheng, X.; Fu, S.; de Vreede, G.-J. A mixed method investigation of sharing economy driven car-hailing services: Online and offline perspectives. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 41, 57–64.
  4. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. Kaspi, M.; Raviv, T.; Tzur, M. Parking reservation policies in one-way vehicle sharing systems. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 2014, 62, 35–50.
  5. Kaspi, M.; Raviv, T.; Tzur, M. Parking reservation policies in one-way vehicle sharing systems. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 2014, 62, 35–50.
  6. Xu, C. The interconnection and interoperability of electric vehicle charging equipment and the new national standard as a solution to the charging problem. China Strateg. Emerg. Ind. 2016, 3, 46–48.
  7. Abdul-Muhmin, A.G. Explaining consumers’ willingness to be environmentally friendly. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 237–247.
  8. Bamberg, S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 21–32.
  9. Nijland, H.; van Meerkerk, J. Mobility and environmental impacts of car sharing in the Netherlands. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 84–91.
  10. Mont, O. Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 50, 135–153.
  11. Paundra, J.; Rook, L.; van Dalen, J.; Ketter, W. Preferences for car sharing services: Effects of instrumental attributes and psychological ownership. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 53, 121–130.
  12. Hjorteset, M.A.; Bocker, L. Car sharing in Norwegian urban areas Examining interest, intention and the decision to enroll. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2020, 84, 102322.
  13. Mattia, G.; Mugion, R.G.; Principato, L. Shared mobility as a driver for sustainable consumptions: The intention to re-use free-floating car sharing. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117404.
  14. Yoon, T.; Cherry, C.R.; Jones, L.R. One-way and round-trip carsharing: A stated preference experiment in Beijing. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2017, 53, 102–114.
  15. Shaheen, S.A.; Cohen, A.P. Carsharing and personal vehicle services: Worldwide market developments and emerging trends. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2013, 7, 5–34.
  16. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003.
  17. Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 1993, 38, 475–487.
  18. Taylor, S.; Todd, P. Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1995, 12, 137–155.
  19. Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decis. Sci. 1996, 27, 451–481.
  20. Möhlmann, M. Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 14, 193–207.
  21. Möhlmann, M. Digital Trust and Peer-to-Peer Collaborative Consumption Platforms: A Mediation Analysis. Available online: (accessed on 24 July 2018).
  22. Lee, M.K.; Turban, E. A trust model for consumer Internet shopping. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 6, 75–91.
  23. Wirtz, J.; Lwin, M.O. Regulatory focus theory, trust, and privacy concern. J. Serv. Res. 2009, 12, 190–207.
  24. Zhao, J.; Cai, X.; Zhao, S. The impact of organization trust on job satisfaction—Using organizational justice as a moderator. Soft Sci. 2013, 27, 89–93.
  25. Pierce, J.L.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K.T. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2003, 7, 84–107.
  26. Demsetz, H. Monopolistic competition: A reply. Econ. J. 1967, 77, 412–420.
  27. Belk, R.W. Extended self in a digital world. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 40, 477–500.
  28. Dwayne Ball, A.; Tasaki, L.H. The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 1992, 1, 155–172.
  29. Curtale, R.; Liao, F.; van der Waerden, P. User acceptance of electric car-sharing services: The case of the Netherlands. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2021, 149, 266–282.
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : ,
View Times: 275
Revisions: 5 times (View History)
Update Date: 18 Jul 2023
Video Production Service