ABSTRACT
In this study, a Structural Equation Modeling was applied to empirical identify the factors predicting social shopping intention, using Amos17.0. The results confirm that product utilitarian value, shopping hedonic value, retail service quality and search costs steadily significantly affect social shopping intention regardless the level of trust and interpersonal relationship, while perceived risk never affect shopping intention in social commerce. In terms of reciprocal altruism, its positive influence on social shopping intention significantly varies under different levels of relationships and demonstrates a more important effect when the relationship between buyer and seller is close. Trust on seller is a 'threshold' variable and the effect will eliminate after the level of trust reaches a certain level. In addition, Interpersonal relationship has a moderating effect on the relation between trust and social shopping intention. Trust does not play a role in the group of close relationship.
- Chen, J., Shen, X. L. Consumers' decisions in social commerce context: An empirical investigation{J}. Decision Support Systems, 2015, 79:55--64. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jung, L. S. A Study of Affecting the Purchasing Intention of Social Commerce{J}. International Journal of Software Engineering & Its Applications, 2014,8(5):73--84.Google Scholar
- Shen J. Social comparison, social presence, and enjoyment in the acceptance of social shopping websites{J}. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 2012, 13(3):198--212.Google Scholar
- Ng, S. P. Intention to Purchase on Social Commerce Websites across Cultures: A Cross-regional Study{J}. Information & Management, 2013, 50(8):609--620. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kim, S., Park, H. Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on consumers' trust and trust performance{J}. International Journal of Information Management, 2013, 33(2):318--332.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee K. S., Tan S. J. E-retailing versus physical retailing: A theoretical model and empirical test of consumer choice{J}. Journal of Business Research, 2003, 56(01):877--885.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sheng C. L. Some quantitative concepts of value and utility from a utilitarian point of view{J}. Theory & Decision, 1989, 26(2):175--195.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lu, B., Fan, W., Zhou, M. Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical research{J}. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, 56:225--237. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hajli, N. Social commerce constructs and consumer's intention to buy{J}. International Journal of Information Management, 2015, 35(2):183--191. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kim, S. H., Park, H. S. Social Group Factors Impacting the Customer Satisfaction, Trust and Intention to Re-purchase in Social Commerce and the Moderating Effects of Utilitarian Value{J}. Journal of Information Systems, 2013, 22(2):1--24.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heijden, H. V. D., Verhagen, T., Creemers. M. Understanding online purchase intentions: contributions from technology and trust perspectives{J}. European Journal of Information Systems, 2003, 12(1):41--48. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., Lloyd, S. M. Converting Web Site Visitors into Buyers: How Web Site Investment Increases Consumer Trusting Beliefs and Online Purchase Intentions{J}. Journal of Marketing, 2006, 70(2):133--148.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., et al. Trust, Satisfaction, and Online Repurchase Intention: The Moderating Role of Perceived Effectiveness of E-Commerce Institutional Mechanisms. Mis Quarterly, 2014, 38(2):407--427. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin, J., Mortimer, G., Andrews, L. Re-examining online customer experience to include purchase frequency and perceived risk{J}. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 2015, 25:81--95.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hsu, M. H., Chang, C. M., Chuang, L. W. Understanding the determinants of online repeat purchase intention and moderating role of habit: The case of online group-buying in Taiwan{J}. International Journal of Information Management, 2015, 35(1):45--56. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Solak S., Bolat S., Sarpkaya G. A Multiattribute Utility Model for Consumer Decision Making and Optimal Product Configuration{M}// Revolution in Marketing: Market Driving Changes. Springer International Publishing, 2015:69--76.Google Scholar
- Häubl G., Trifts V. Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids{J}. Marketing Science, 2000, 19(1):4--21.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lien C. H., Wen M. J., Wu C. C. Investigating the Relationships among E-Service Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions in Taiwanese Online Shopping{J}. Asia Pacific Management Review, 2011, 16(3):1059--1066.Google Scholar
- Peter J. P., Tarpey Sr. L. X. Behavioral Decision Making: A Comparison of Three Models{J}. Advances in Consumer Research, 1975,2(1):119.Google Scholar
- Constantinides E. Influencing the online consumer's behavior: the Web experience{J}. Internet Research Electronic Networking Applications & Policy, 2004, 14(14):111--126.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boubkr A. et Chakor A. (2009), Le marketing expérientiel, une nouvelle démarche pour une valorisation de l'expérience de consommation: cas du centre commercial Mega Mall{C}, 7ème Colloque International de la Recherche en Marketing, Avril, Tunisie-Hammamet.Google Scholar
- To, P. L., Liao, C., Lin, T. H. Shopping motivations on Internet: A study based on utilitarian and hedonic value{J}. Technovation, 2007, 27(12):774--787.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maity M., Dass M. Consumer decision-making across modern and traditional channels: E-commerce, m-commerce, in-store {J}. Decision Support Systems, 2014, 61(1):34--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yu F., Li Y., Lou W., et al. How information search costs influence the consumers' product quaility satisfaction{J}. Information Development, 2015.Google Scholar
- Wu L. Y., Chen K. Y., Chen P. Y., et al. Perceived value, transaction cost, and repurchase-intention in online shopping: A relational exchange perspective{J}. Journal of Business Research, 2014, 67(1):2768--2776.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Trivers R. L. The evolution of reciprocal altriusm{J}. Quarterly Review of Biology, 1971, 46(1):35--57.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leider S., Do Q. A. Directed Altruism and Enforced Reciprocity in Social Networks{J}. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2009, 124(4):1815--1851.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Takano M., Wada K., Fukuda I. Reciprocal Altruism-based Cooperation in a Social Network Game{J}. Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 2015:1--16.Google Scholar
- Vassileva J. Visualizing reciprocity to motivate participation in an online community{C}// IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration. 2012:718--723.Google Scholar
- Kim M. J., Chung N., Lee C. K., et al. Why do smartphone shoppers help others on websites? The effects of attachments on reciprocal altruism{J}. Information Technology for Development, 2015:1--17.Google Scholar
- Jin, B. K. An empirical study on consumer first purchase intention in online shopping: integrating initial trust and TAM{J}. Electronic Commerce Research. 2012,12(2):125--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hsiao, K. L., Lin, C. C., Wang, X. Y., et al. Antecedents and consequences of trust in online product recommendations: An empirical study in social shopping{J}. Online Information Review, 2010, 34(6):935--953.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bianchi, C., Andrews, L. Risk, trust, and consumer online purchasing behaviour: a Chilean perspective{J}. International Marketing Review. 2012,29(3):253--276.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Colquitt, J. A., Salam, S. C. Foster Trust through Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity{J}. Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior: Indispensable Knowledge for Evidence-Based Management, Second, 2015:389--404.Google Scholar
- Chen Y. T., Chou T. Y. Exploring the continuance intentions of consumers for B2C online shopping: Perspectives of fairness and trust{J}. Online Information Review, 2012,36(1):104--125(22).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harridge - March, S. Can the building of trust overcome consumer perceived risk online?{J}. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 2006,24(7):746--761.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leeraphong A., Mardjo A. Trust and Risk in Purchase Intention through Online Social Network: A Focus Group Study of Facebook in Thailand{J}. Joebm Com, 2013:314--318.Google Scholar
- Kanniammal C. Interpersonal Relationship{J}. Alphascript Publishing, 2010, 57(226):185--188.Google Scholar
- Huang, Z., Benyoucef, M. From e-commerce to social commerce: A close look at design features{J}. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, 2013, 12(4):246--259.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Binzel C., Fehr D. Social distance and trust: Experimental evidence from a slum in Cairo {J}. Journal of Development Economics, 2013, 103(4):99--106.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Etang A., Fielding D., Knowles S. Does trust extend beyond the village? Experimental trust and social distance in Cameroon{J}. Experimental Economics, 2011, 14(14):15--35.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., Lai, H., et al. Re-examining the influence of trust on online repeat purchase intention: The moderating role of habit and its antecedents{J}. Decision Support Systems. 2012,53(4):835--845. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Im, S., Bhat, S., Lee, Y. Consumer perceptions of product creativity, coolness, value and attitude{J}. Journal of Business Research. 2014, 68(1):166--172.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kooli, K., Mansour, K. B., Utama, R. Determinants of online trust and their impact on online purchase intention{J}. International Journal of Technology Marketing. 2014, 9(3):305--319.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Becerra, E. P., Korgaonkar, P. K. Effects of trust beliefs on consumers' online intentions. European Journal of Marketing. 2011, 45(6): 936--962.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Charness G., Haruvy E., Sonsino D. Social Distance and Reciprocity: The Internet vs. the Laboratory{J}. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2001, 137(2):671--680.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- What makes social shopping?: re-examining the effects of multi-attributes utility, trust and relationship on social shopping intention
Recommendations
Shopping on social networks: is this the storefront of the future?
Consumers are moving towards social networking technologies as an alternative channel for shopping. This research extended the technology acceptance model (TAM) to investigate the factors that predict Facebook users' behavioural intentions towards the ...
Understanding Egyptian Consumers' Intentions in Online Shopping
The purpose of this article is to investigate the factors that impact on Egyptian consumers' attitudes and intentions to use online shopping by integrating the technology acceptance models of Davis, and Fishbein and Ajzen's theory of reasoned action. In ...
e-Shopping acceptance
Inconsistencies and contradictions in the way researchers have adapted TAM to e-shopping.An extended TAM for e-shopping is tested meta-analytically.TAM with attitude is better than basic TAM when studying e-shopping acceptance.After attitude, enjoyment ...
Comments