How Product Acquisition Modes Influence Consumers' Subleasing Intentions

Affiliations:
* Business School, Henan University (450046)
* School of Management, Lanzhou University (730000)
* Economics and Management School, Wuhan University (430072)

Improving resource utilization and achieving global sustainable development are critical issues of shared concern worldwide. However, existing research has yet to examine how the mode of product acquisition influences consumers' subsequent product disposal tendencies. Through a series of studies, including a longitudinal tracking study and several experiments, this research identifies a novel effect in this domain.

Specifically, Study 1 longitudinally tracked consumers' real-life subleasing behavior regarding products they had either leased or purchased. This was followed by three online experiments (Studies 2a–2c) and one laboratory experiment (Study 3), which further confirmed the effect and revealed that it is driven by a perceived urgency for utility maximization. Furthermore, this research finds that the aforementioned effect is moderated by resource scarcity (Study 4); specifically, the effect is significant under conditions of resource scarcity (vs. control).

A single-paper meta-analysis confirms the robustness of the effect of product acquisition modes on consumers' subleasing intentions. This paper not only advances research on product acquisition modes and product disposal but also provides practical insights into how to promote circular and sustainable consumption.

Keywords

The Urgency of Utility Maximization

In the contemporary landscape of decision theory and behavioral economics, the concept of utility maximization has evolved from a static theoretical framework into a dynamic imperative characterized by a distinct sense of "urgency." This urgency stems from the increasing complexity of global markets, the rapid acceleration of technological advancement, and the diminishing temporal windows available for optimal decision-making. As agents—whether human or algorithmic—navigate environments defined by high volatility and information density, the drive to extract maximum utility is no longer merely a goal of rational self-interest; it has become a critical requirement for systemic survival and competitive equilibrium.

The traditional model of utility maximization, rooted in the von Neumann-Morgenstern framework, assumes that agents possess the computational capacity and time necessary to evaluate all possible outcomes. However, in modern contexts, the "urgency" factor introduces a temporal constraint that fundamentally alters the optimization process. When the cost of delay exceeds the marginal gain of further information acquisition, the agent must transition from exhaustive search to efficient heuristic-based maximization. This shift highlights a tension between the theoretical ideal of global optima and the practical necessity of achieving "timely utility," where the value of an action is discounted by the latency of its execution.

Furthermore, the rise of machine learning and automated high-frequency trading systems has institutionalized this urgency. In these domains, utility is often measured in microseconds, and the architecture of the decision-making system is optimized to minimize the gap between signal detection and action. This technological drive creates a feedback loop: as systems become faster, the window for utility maximization shrinks, further intensifying the urgency for all participants in the network. Consequently, the study of utility must now integrate temporal dynamics as a primary variable, recognizing that a sub-optimal decision made immediately may, in certain high-stakes environments, yield higher realized utility than an optimal decision made too late.

Ultimately, the urgency of utility maximization reflects a broader shift in the social and economic sciences toward understanding "bounded rationality" under extreme pressure. It challenges researchers to develop new models that account for the trade-offs between precision and speed. By examining how agents prioritize objectives when resources and time are scarce, we gain deeper insights into the evolutionary and structural forces that shape behavior in the 21st century. The imperative is clear: to maximize utility in the modern age, one must not only choose wisely but also choose decisively.

1 Introduction

In the context of the sharing economy and circular consumption, subleasing has emerged as a common strategy for consumers to optimize resource utilization. For instance, in international markets, an increasing number of homeowners utilize platforms such as Airbnb to sublease vacant properties on a short-term basis. Similarly, car-sharing service platforms allow vehicle owners to rent out their personal automobiles to other consumers. In the domestic market, the rise of online trading platforms such as Xianyu and Zhuanzhuan has further facilitated the subleasing of products by consumers. These platforms encompass a wide range of product categories, providing a robust infrastructure for the secondary circulation of goods and the maximization of asset value.

The range of products available for sub-leasing is extensive, encompassing items such as housing, bicycles, camping tents, and video cameras. Promoting the circular reuse of resources through sub-leasing not only conserves resources and advances social sustainability but also enhances consumer well-being \cite{Donnelly2017, HuangFishbachHuang}. Furthermore, this sustainable consumption model has garnered significant global attention \cite{Huang}. The United Nations has identified the long-term responsible use of energy and resources to achieve sustainable development as one of the most pressing challenges facing the world in the coming years \cite{UnitedNations}. Consequently, sub-leasing represents an effective method of product disposition and holds substantial practical significance.

Previous research has explored the driving factors behind consumer product disposal. For instance, studies have found that consumers are significantly more likely to dispose of products when motivated by profit \cite{Paden Stell}, when the purchased product is secondhand rather than new \cite{Huang}, or when the product is used to participate in sharing services \cite{Huang}. Conversely, consumers are more inclined to retain products rather than dispose of them when they possess a strong product retention tendency or when the products carry precious memories \cite{Winterich}. Although previous research has yielded many interesting conclusions regarding the antecedents of product disposal, most studies have focused on products where consumers acquire ownership through purchase. Another common acquisition method where consumers do not own the product—leasing—has received less attention. To advance research on product disposal, this paper focuses on the impact of the acquisition method (purchasing vs. leasing) on consumers' tendency to sublease products.

Specifically, this paper argues that leasing increases a consumer's tendency to sublease a product compared to purchasing. We propose that, relative to purchasing, leasing heightens a consumer's sense of urgency to maximize product utility, which in turn increases their inclination to sublease the item. Furthermore, this research examines the conditions under which the impact of the acquisition method on subleasing tendencies might be reversed by testing the moderating role of resource scarcity.

This paper offers significant theoretical contributions and practical implications. First, it focuses on the impact of product acquisition modes on consumer product disposal behavior and proposes the effect of these modes, thereby enriching the existing literature on product acquisition. Second, this study advances research in the field of product disposal by contributing a marketing-related antecedent—product acquisition mode—expanding the relevant literature. Departing from psychological perspectives like psychological ownership, this paper adopts an economic lens to propose that leasing increases a consumer's sense of urgency for utility maximization. Finally, by revealing the relationship between resource scarcity and the urgency of utility maximization, this paper contributes to the literature on resource scarcity and provides recommendations for the circular economy.

1.1 Product Acquisition Modes

Product acquisition refers to the specific channels or methods through which consumers obtain a particular product. According to Harding, contemporary consumers can acquire products through a diverse array of traditional and digital platforms. This process encompasses not only the physical act of purchasing but also the decision-making journey influenced by accessibility, convenience, and the integration of multi-channel retail environments. In the modern marketplace, the efficiency and variety of these acquisition methods play a critical role in shaping consumer behavior and determining the competitive advantage of a brand.

Products can be acquired through various means, with purchasing and leasing being the most common. The fundamental difference between the two lies in the fact that purchasing grants ownership of the product, whereas leasing involves only the transfer of usage rights (Durgee & O'Connor, 1995). Previous research has primarily focused on exploring the antecedents that drive consumers to choose between purchasing or leasing, such as individual intelligence scores (Aspara & Wittkowski, 2019) or situational factors like perceived product scarcity risk (Lamberton & Rose, 2012).

Although a few scholars have examined the consequences of product acquisition methods, their work has mainly centered on the immediate psychological and behavioral impacts at the time of acquisition. For instance, research has found that, compared to ownership, leasing can diminish a consumer's perception of social status (Catulli, 2009). A recent study found that when leasing a product, consumers focus more on feasibility rather than desirability (Wittkowski et al., 2013). To date, only one study has addressed how different acquisition methods influence subsequent consumption behavior, finding that leasing can enhance a consumer's mastery of skill-based products (Harding, 2019). This paper expands our understanding of the downstream effects of product acquisition methods on subsequent product disposition tendencies.

1.2 Product Disposal and Subleasing

Product disposition refers to the process by which a product is separated from the self (Young & Wallendorf, 1989). Previous research has explored drivers of disposal focusing on individual factors (Paden & Stell, 2005; Bolton et al., 2018) and product factors (Huang et al., 2024; Trudel & Winterich, 2013). At the individual level, high sensitivity to fashion trends increases disposal willingness (Lang et al., 2013), while strong product retention tendencies (Haws et al., 2012) or emotional attachment (Yang & Wang, 2015) decrease it.

Research regarding situational factors has found that accidental social comparisons involving identity-symbolic products significantly influence behavior. When consumers encounter others with products symbolizing a desired status, the resulting upward social comparison can trigger feelings of inadequacy, motivating compensatory consumption or disposal to restore self-esteem. Accidental similarity in status-symbol products can trigger embarrassment, leading to higher disposal intentions. Research by Huang indicates that involving owned products in sharing services leads to a perceived loss of psychological ownership, prompting faster disposal.

Regarding product-related factors, consumers are more willing to resell second-hand products compared to new ones due to lower connection (Huang, 2024). Conversely, items linked to a consumer's identity are more likely to be recycled than discarded (Trudel & Winterich, 2013). Unlike previous literature, this paper focuses on short-term disposal tendencies for leased products, proposing the mediating role of the "urgency for utility maximization."

1.3 The Urgency of Utility Maximization

Leasing a product increases the consumer's sense of urgency regarding utility maximization. Urgency refers to a state requiring immediate response, while maximization is a decision-making strategy aimed at obtaining the best possible option \cite{Goldsmith2017, Roese}. We define "urgency of utility maximization" as an individual's pressing psychological state aimed at achieving maximum utility under specific constraints, such as limited time.

Compared to purchasing, leasing increases this urgency. Leasing only grants usage rights for a limited period \cite{DurgeeConnor}. Once the lease expires, the product returns to the lessor \cite{Herbert}. Previous research indicates the primary purpose of leasing is instrumental utility \cite{BardhiEckhardt2012}. Mental accounting theory suggests leasing expenditures are viewed as operating expenses, whereas purchasing is a capital investment. This distinction prompts consumers to feel a more immediate need to maximize utility during the rental period to ensure value for money.

1.4 Impact on Subleasing Intentions

The urgency for utility maximization increases a consumer's propensity to sublease a product. This sense of urgency reflects a psychological state of needing to maximize gains to avoid waste. Similar to loss aversion \cite{Rucker2018, Thaler1980}, utility maximization emphasizes resource utilization. Subleasing helps consumers achieve maximum utility by recovering costs or ensuring the product is not idle. Based on this, we hypothesize:

• H1: Compared to purchasing, leasing increases a consumer's propensity to sublease a product.
• H2: The urgency for utility maximization mediates the effect of product acquisition mode on subleasing tendency.

1.5 The Moderating Role of Resource Scarcity

Resource scarcity is a subjective perception occurring when desired resources exceed owned resources. Scarcity prompts individuals to concentrate efforts on ensuring scarce resources yield maximum value. For instance, time scarcity encourages individuals to utilize remaining time more effectively. In contexts of resource scarcity, individuals develop a sense of urgency to fully utilize resources regardless of acquisition mode.

Therefore, under conditions of resource scarcity, the difference between purchasing and leasing regarding subleasing intentions should diminish. Conversely, in control conditions, leasing triggers a stronger sense of urgency than purchasing.

• H3: Resource scarcity moderates the impact of acquisition mode on subleasing inclination.
• H4: This moderating effect is mediated by the urgency for utility maximization.

[FIGURE:1]

2 Overview of Experiments

A series of studies were conducted to verify the hypotheses. Study 1 used a longitudinal tracking field experiment. Studies 2a–2c used online experiments with various products (gaming consoles, bicycles, tents). Study 3 was a laboratory experiment ruling out alternative explanations (emotional attachment, psychological ownership, contamination risk). Study 4 tested the moderating role of resource scarcity.

3.1 Study 1: Field Experiment

Study 1 employed a two-stage longitudinal tracking survey to examine real-world subleasing behavior.

Participants and Design: 113 participants were successfully matched across two stages ($M_{age} = 29.04$). Participants were assigned to a purchase or rental group based on their recent or planned behavior. In Stage 1, they described a product (value > 100 RMB) they recently acquired or planned to acquire. In Stage 2 (three weeks later), they reported whether they had subleased or planned to sublease the product.

Results: A Pearson’s chi-square analysis revealed that the proportion of participants in the leasing group who had subleased or planned to sublease ($92.98\%$) was significantly higher than in the buying group ($75.00\%$, $\chi^2 = 6.04, p = 0.014$). Binary logistic regression confirmed that acquisition mode significantly predicted subleasing propensity ($\beta = 1.485, p = 0.021$).

3.2 Study 2: Robustness Across Scenarios

3.2.1 Study 2a: Gaming Consoles

160 participants ($M_{age} = 33.57$) imagined acquiring a "Black Myth: Wukong" gaming console. Results showed the leasing group had significantly higher subleasing intentions than the purchase group ($t(158) = 3.86, p < 0.001$, Cohen's $d = 0.61$).

3.2.2 Study 2b: Bicycles

160 participants ($M_{age} = 30.99$) imagined acquiring a bicycle. The rental group showed a significantly higher inclination to sublease ($M_{rental} = 4.25$ vs. $M_{purchase} = 3.68$; $t(158) = 2.39, p = 0.018$).

3.2.3 Study 2c: Camping Tents

200 participants ($M_{age} = 30.87$) imagined acquiring a tent. The rental group's subleasing tendency was significantly higher ($F(1, 192) = 5.45, p = 0.021, \eta_p^2 = 0.028$).

3.2.4 Study 2d: Skateboards

201 undergraduate students ($M_{age} = 19.84$) participated. The rental group had a significantly higher subleasing tendency ($F(1, 195) = 4.66, p = 0.032, \eta_p^2 = 0.023$).

3.3 Study 3: Mediating Mechanism and Alternative Explanations

3.3.1 Snowboards and Emotional Attachment

160 participants ($M_{age} = 32.37$) were tested. The leasing group showed higher subleasing intentions ($t(158) = 5.92, p < 0.001$). Parallel mediation analysis (Model 4) showed a significant indirect effect for urgency for utility maximization ($95\% \text{ CI} = [0.1267, 0.5878]$), while emotional attachment was non-significant ($95\% \text{ CI} = [-0.0297, 0.0861]$).

3.3.2 Electric Scooters and Risk Concerns

180 participants ($M_{age} = 23.17$) were tested. The indirect effect of urgency for utility maximization was significant ($95\% \text{ CI} [0.0432, 0.3134]$). Alternative mediators—emotional response, contamination risk, contagion risk, product importance, and life necessity—were all non-significant.

3.3.3 Projectors and Psychological Ownership

160 participants ($M_{age} = 31.12$) were tested. Both urgency for utility maximization ($95\% \text{ CI} [0.1373, 0.6248]$) and psychological ownership ($95\% \text{ CI} [0.1687, 0.5114]$) were significant mediators. However, the leasing group experienced significantly higher temporal urgency ($t(158) = 4.52, p < 0.001$).

3.4 Study 4: The Moderating Role of Resource Scarcity

Design: 2 (Acquisition Mode: Purchase vs. Access) $\times$ 2 (Resource Scarcity: Scarcity vs. Control) between-subjects design ($N = 320$).

Results: A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction ($F(1, 314) = 5.45, p = 0.020, \eta_p^2 = 0.017$). In the control condition, the leasing group had a significantly higher intention to sublease ($M_{lease} = 5.29$ vs. $M_{purchase} = 4.28; p < 0.001$). In the scarcity condition, the difference disappeared ($M_{purchase} = 5.48$ vs. $M_{lease} = 5.15; p > 0.05$). Moderated mediation analysis confirmed that resource scarcity moderated the effect through the urgency for utility maximization (Index = -0.4215, $95\% \text{ CI} [-0.7814, -0.1025]$).

4 Meta-Analysis

A random-effects meta-analysis of Studies 1–4 confirmed that product acquisition mode has a significant positive impact on subleasing inclination ($\beta = 0.38, p < 0.001, 95\% \text{ CI} = [0.262, 0.498]$).

5 General Discussion

This research demonstrates that leasing (vs. purchasing) increases consumers' propensity to sublease products. This effect is driven by an increased sense of urgency for utility maximization. The effect is robust across various product types but is attenuated under conditions of resource scarcity, where the urgency to maximize utility is high regardless of the acquisition mode. These findings contribute to the literature on product acquisition, disposal, and the circular economy, providing practical insights for platforms aiming to increase resource circulation.