What makes social shopping?: re-examining the effects of multi-attributes utility, trust and relationship on social shopping intention
Authors: 
Yanya Ruan, Qi Li, Xiaoyu XuAuthors Info & Claims
Yanya Ruan, Qi Li, Xiaoyu XuAuthors Info & ClaimsArticle No.: 11, Pages 1 - 8
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.
References
[1]
Chen, J., Shen, X. L. Consumers' decisions in social commerce context: An empirical investigation{J}. Decision Support Systems, 2015, 79:55--64.
[2]
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.
[3]
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.
[4]
Ng, S. P. Intention to Purchase on Social Commerce Websites across Cultures: A Cross-regional Study{J}. Information & Management, 2013, 50(8):609--620.
[5]
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.
[6]
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.
[7]
Sheng C. L. Some quantitative concepts of value and utility from a utilitarian point of view{J}. Theory & Decision, 1989, 26(2):175--195.
[8]
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.
[9]
Hajli, N. Social commerce constructs and consumer's intention to buy{J}. International Journal of Information Management, 2015, 35(2):183--191.
[10]
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.
[11]
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.
[12]
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.
[13]
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.
[14]
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.
[15]
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.
[16]
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.
[17]
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.
[18]
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.
[19]
Peter J. P., Tarpey Sr. L. X. Behavioral Decision Making: A Comparison of Three Models{J}. Advances in Consumer Research, 1975,2(1):119.
[20]
Constantinides E. Influencing the online consumer's behavior: the Web experience{J}. Internet Research Electronic Networking Applications & Policy, 2004, 14(14):111--126.
[21]
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.
[22]
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.
[23]
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.
[24]
Yu F., Li Y., Lou W., et al. How information search costs influence the consumers' product quaility satisfaction{J}. Information Development, 2015.
[25]
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.
[26]
Trivers R. L. The evolution of reciprocal altriusm{J}. Quarterly Review of Biology, 1971, 46(1):35--57.
[27]
Leider S., Do Q. A. Directed Altruism and Enforced Reciprocity in Social Networks{J}. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2009, 124(4):1815--1851.
[28]
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.
[29]
Vassileva J. Visualizing reciprocity to motivate participation in an online community{C}// IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration. 2012:718--723.
[30]
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.
[31]
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.
[32]
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.
[33]
Bianchi, C., Andrews, L. Risk, trust, and consumer online purchasing behaviour: a Chilean perspective{J}. International Marketing Review. 2012,29(3):253--276.
[34]
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.
[35]
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).
[36]
Harridge - March, S. Can the building of trust overcome consumer perceived risk online?{J}. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 2006,24(7):746--761.
[37]
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.
[38]
Kanniammal C. Interpersonal Relationship{J}. Alphascript Publishing, 2010, 57(226):185--188.
[39]
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.
[40]
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.
[41]
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.
[42]
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.
[43]
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.
[44]
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.
[45]
Becerra, E. P., Korgaonkar, P. K. Effects of trust beliefs on consumers' online intentions. European Journal of Marketing. 2011, 45(6): 936--962.
[46]
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.
Index Terms
- What makes social shopping?: re-examining the effects of multi-attributes utility, trust and relationship on social shopping intention
Recommendations
Investigating consumers’ online social shopping intention: An information processing perspective
Highlights- Information received from social media may have different meanings and social implications for consumers.
- Social influences and perceived information quality positively relate to the consumer’s social shopping intention.
- Social ...
AbstractOnline social media is transforming the way customers communicate and exchange product information with others. Consumers increasingly rely on the opinions and recommendations from social media members when making purchasing decisions. However, ...
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 ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
August 2016
311 pages
ISBN:9781450342223
DOI:10.1145/2971603
- Conference Chairs:
- Toru Ishida,
- Norman Sadeh,
- Jae Kyu Lee,
- Federico Casalegno,
- Wooju Kim,
- Program Chairs:
- Sohyeong Kim,
- Sung-Byung Yang
Copyright © 2016 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
- BigBang Angels: BigBang Angels
- Benple: Benple
- Women's News Inc.: Women's News Inc.
- FKII: The Federation of Korean Infomation Industries
- Korea Internet Corporations Association: Korea Internet Corporations Association
- KOFST: Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies
- NIA: National Information Society Agency, Republic of Korea
- HAREX: HAREX InfoTech Inc.
- Haitai: Haitai Confectionery & Foods Co., Ltd.
- KTO: Korea Tourism Organization
- G-MICE Bureau: Gyeonggi MICE Bureau
- IT Daily: ITMG Corp.
- Suwon City: Suwon City
- ALLWIN: ALLWIN
- DIPA: Digital Industry Promotion Agency of Yongin City
- Tech M: Moneytoday Network Inc.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 17 August 2016
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ICEC '16
Sponsor:
- BigBang Angels
- Benple
- Women's News Inc.
- FKII
- Korea Internet Corporations Association
- KOFST
- NIA
- HAREX
- Haitai
- KTO
- G-MICE Bureau
- IT Daily
- Suwon City
- ALLWIN
- DIPA
- Tech M
ICEC '16: International Conference on Electronic Commerce 2016
August 17 - 19, 2016
Suwon, Republic of Korea
Acceptance Rates
ICEC '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 44 of 55 submissions, 80%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 244 submissions, 61%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 240Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)12
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 11 Aug 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in