Journal of Business Research 71 (2017) 133–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

A social commerce investigation of the role of trust in a social networking

site on purchase intentions
Nick Hajli a,⁎, Julian Sims b, Arash H. Zadeh c, Marie-Odile Richard d
a
Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Iran
b
Birkbeck, University of London, United Kingdom
c
Department of Marketing, C. Vackar College of Business and Entrepreneurship, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, United States
d
State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Trust is a crucial issue in online shopping environments, but it is more important in social commerce platforms
Received 1 June 2015 due to the salient role of peer-generated contents. This article investigates the relationship between trust in social
Received in revised form 1 August 2016 commerce and purchase intentions and describes a mechanism to explain this relationship. We propose a main
Accepted 1 September 2016
and two alternative models by drawing on three concepts: social commerce information seeking, familiarity with
Available online 14 November 2016
the platform, and social presence. The models clarify the mechanisms through which trust, familiarity, social
Keywords:
presence, and social commerce information seeking influence behavioral intentions on social commerce plat-
Trust forms. Findings from a survey of Facebook users indicate that trust in a social networking site (SNS) increases in-
Social commerce formation seeking which in turn increases familiarity with the platform and the sense of social presence.
Purchase intentions Moreover, familiarity and social presence increase purchases intentions. Findings indicate that the main model
Familiarity with a platform fits the data better than the alternative ones. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
Social presence © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Information seeking

1. Introduction Several retailers (e.g. Armani Exchange, Toms', and Samsung) and
service providers (e.g. insurance, airlines, and banks) successfully used
Social commerce is the application of Web 2.0 features, such as social commerce to enhance their businesses. However, some firms
content generation tools, for the enhancement of users' interactions failed in their social commerce strategies (e.g. Walmart) and there
in e-commerce (Liang, Ho, Li, & Turban, 2011). The difference be- have been numerous complaints about trust, security, and privacy in in-
tween social commerce (e.g. Starbucks Facebook and Toms' Twitter) formation exchange (Liang & Turban, 2011; Kim & Pak, 2013). Trust – a
and e-commerce (e.g. Alibaba) is that the former involves communities belief in the reliability, truth, and ability of the exchange party – is
and conversation among members, while the latter mainly focus on in- recognized as one main reason customers refrain from electronic pur-
dividuals and one-to-one interactions to create value (Huang & chases (e.g. Gefen, 2000). However, given the context of social com-
Benyoucef, 2013). Web 2.0 technologies, as the basis of social media merce, users are notified about a product on SNSs and may engage in
and social networking sites (SNSs, e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter), purchases. Thus, trust in the SNS and embedded content provided by
facilitates the acquisition of products through supporting users' inter- peers could increase the users' purchase intentions from an e-vendor.
actions and contributions (Liang & Turban, 2011). According to the Recently Kim & Park (2013) indicated that trust in social commerce
Financial Times, social commerce usage increased by N 500% between firms (e.g. Amazon.com) directly enhanced purchase and word-of-
2007 and 2008 and social commerce firms are growing their venture mouth intentions. However, few research papers in the context of social
capital financing substantially (Stephen & Toubia, 2010). Social com- commerce, if any, indicate whether trust in SNSs influences users' pur-
merce made positive changes internationally as well, as N300 social chase intentions from e-vendors? Moreover, if there is any relationship,
commerce Korean firms created sales of $300–500 million in 2011 which mechanism carries the effects of trust on purchase intentions?
(Kim & Park, 2013). This growing popularity has led to the expansion Answering these questions and providing explanations for the rela-
of investments in social commerce for 88% of businesses (Huang & tionship between trust and purchase intentions from an e-vendor on a
Benyoucef, 2013). SNS, a model is proposed based on three concepts: 1) social commerce
information seeking (i.e. acquiring information from the information
⁎ Corresponding author.
channels in a social commerce platform); 2) familiarity with a platform
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Hajli), [email protected] (J. Sims), (i.e. comprehension of the platform's features and procedures); and
[email protected] (A.H. Zadeh), [email protected] (M.-O. Richard). 3) social presence (i.e. the sense of warmth and sociability within the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.004
0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
134 N. Hajli et al. / Journal of Business Research 71 (2017) 133–141

platform). The channels of information exchange have evolved through among customers to posting comments on other customers' reviews,
the emergence of SNSs. Given the context of social commerce, users which cannot be expanded further, such as adding other customers,
may seek information about a product through various channels, in- sending private messages, or creating communities. The second catego-
cluding peer recommendations, reviews and ratings, and forums and ry, which is the target of this study, is based on a Web 2.0 platform that
communities (Hajli & Sims, 2015). Despite this, Van Der Heide & Lim incorporates e-commerce features, such as the Armani Exchange page
(2015) indicated that users familiar with SNSs more likely rely on in Facebook. These social commerce platforms, such as Facebook and
peer-generated contents, which could motivate their purchase inten- Twitter, provide various channels of C2C and B2C connections and en-
tions on social commerce platforms. Moreover, information seeking, to- able the co-creation of contents in multiple forms by both e-vendors
gether with the social presence in SNSs – the feeling of ‘warmth’ and and customers. E-vendors are able to create and co-create their pages
‘being there’ – could increase users' purchase intentions. with the help of users, upload pictures, videos, news, and promotions
Taking different frameworks into consideration, we propose two al- on their pages and all over the social commerce platform and interact
ternative models. Using 201 Facebook users, we test the main model as with customers in various ways. Customers are also able to comment
well as the alternative models by taking advantage of two structural on, rate, react to, and share (pictures, videos, and news) an e-vendor
equation modeling methods (partial least square and covariance- or a product on the platform and interact with the e-vendor and other
based). The results of the model fit and model selection analyses indi- customers.
cated that the main model outperforms the alternative ones. This
study highlights the importance of trust in social commerce and pro- 2.2. Trust
vides recommendations to managers.
Trust is a key concept in interactions and important for companies in
2. Conceptual framework developing bonds with sellers (e.g. Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003b).
Schurr & Oznne (1985) define trust as one's confidence on the exchange
2.1. Social commerce party's capability and willingness to establish the business' adherence to
the relationship norms, and keeping promises. Ba & Pavlou (2002) posit
Social commerce is now well-established in the marketing literature that trust is an individual's belief that an exchange will happen in a
(e.g. Huang & Benyoucef, 2013); however, further clarifications could be manner consistent with one's confident expectations. Trust is viewed
helpful. Social commerce refers to “the delivery of e-commerce activities as a unidimensional or a multidimensional concept (Gefen, 2002). How-
and transactions via the social media environment, mostly in social net- ever, a better understating of trust benefits from the recognition of its
works and by using Web 2.0 software. Thus, social commerce is a subset dimensions. Cognitive and affective trusts are the major types of trust
of e-commerce that involves using social media to assist in e-commerce (Aiken & Boush, 2006). Cognitive trust is the customer's belief in and
transactions and activities” (Liang & Turban, 2011, p. 6). Similarly, willingness of dependency on an exchange partner's ability and consis-
Stephen & Toubia (2010) define social commerce as “forms of tency. Affective trust is a customer's belief about a firm's level of care
Internet-based social media that allow people to participate actively and concerns based on emotions (Kim & Park, 2013). Both cognitive
in the marketing and selling of products in online marketplaces and and affective trusts contain dimensions of credibility (one's belief that
communities” (p. 215). Social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and the exchange party is reliable) and benevolence (beliefs that the ex-
LinkedIn, provide people with a network connectivity which enables change partner is motived by seeking joint gain; Aiken & Boush,
their participation in online marketing and sales activities. 2006). In this article, trust is the sense of trusting beliefs, referring to
In social commerce, a network of interactions among actors is the the beliefs that “one can rely upon a promise made by another and
main source of value, while in e-commerce, the facilitation of connec- that the other, in unforeseen circumstances, will act toward oneself
tions among buyers and sellers is the basis for value co-creation (i.e. in- with goodwill and in a benign fashion” (Suh & Han, 2003, p. 137). In on-
tegration of resources among actors in a value network). In line with line contexts, trust is based on beliefs in the trustworthiness of an ex-
Vargo & Lusch (2016) recent modifications on fundamental premises change party and the characteristics of competence, integrity, and
of service dominant logic, resource (i.e. knowledge and information) benevolence (McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002). Given the con-
integration in social commerce is executed among “multiple actors” text of social commerce, uncertainty is usually higher due to the high
(i.e. institutions, business, people, and organizations), rather than a dyadic level of user-generated contents and the lack of face-to-face interactions
co-creation among a customer and a firm in e-commerce platforms (Featherman & Hajli, 2015). Despite this, the enhancement of experi-
(Liang & Turban, 2011). Social commerce facilitates the exchange of op- ence with exchange parties could reduce the uncertainty and increase
erant resources (i.e. nonphysical, information, ideas, and knowledge) tendencies for online commerce adoption through the increase in
among multiple actors outside the market, leading to the integration trust (Gefen & Straub, 2004).
of operand resources (i.e. physical, money, and products) between the The lack of face-to-face interactions could result in customers' suspi-
buyer and the seller. cion of truthfulness in online exchanges and the paucity of knowledge
Social commerce consists of four layers from inner to outer, includ- about the e-vendor could further heighten the adverse influence of
ing individual (personal profile/activity), conversation (information risk in online shopping (Kaiser & Müller-Seitz, 2008). Kim & Park
exchange), community (support and connection), and commerce (2013) investigate the antecedents of trust and its direct effects on pur-
(purchase) (Huang & Benyoucef, 2013). Social commerce incorporates chase intentions and word-of-mouth intentions on social commerce
all layers to co-create value among multiple actors, while e-commerce platforms. Seven social commerce characteristics are identified as the
only considers the inner layer (individual) and outer layer (commerce). key antecedents of trust: reputation, size, information quality, transac-
For example, the main goal of Alibaba (www.alibaba.com) – the world's tion safety, communication, economic feasibility, and word-of-mouth
largest e-commerce company – is commerce and interactions that are referrals. It is noteworthy that trust in the website can be facilitated by
basically limited to one-one communications among buyers and sellers. customer reviews and experiences posted in forums and communities.
In this context, there are few interactions/conversations among cus-
tomers as well as communities, if any. 3. Hypothesis development
Two types of social commerce are found in the literature (Huang &
Benyoucef, 2013). The first is inherently based on e-commerce 3.1. Purchase intention: the effects of trust
websites, such as Amazon (www.amazon.com), equipped by Web 2.0
tools in order to enhance customers' content generation and the inter- Purchase intentions in social commerce contexts refer to the cus-
activity among them. This type of social commerce limits interactions tomers' intentions to engage in online purchases from e-vendors on
 N. Hajli et al. / Journal of Business Research 71 (2017) 133–141 135

SNSs. Intentions are the determinants of behavior and defined as “the reviews have the potential to add value for other interested buyers
strength of one's intentions to perform a specific behavior” (Fishbein (Heinonen, 2011). Aside from peer-generated reviews, rating/reviews
& Ajzen, 1975, p.288). offered by a third party, such comparison websites are another form
Previous literature indicates that the purchase from an e-vendor de- of worth-of-mouth (Aiken & Boush, 2006); (3) Reviews and recommen-
pends on customer trust in the e-vendor (Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, dations arise when individuals visit a product webpage, based on the as-
2003a). We propose that trust in a SNS could increase customers' pur- sumption that the consumers are interested in a product and then
chase intentions. SNSs as social commerce platforms bring customers endorse it to others (Piller & Walcher, 2006). Many online customers
into contact with e-vendors and provide the facilities for the value ex- read recommendations that have been made and use them in their
change between the parties. On the SNS, customers encounter adver- search processes. Customer reviews and recommendations are key fea-
tisements, pictures/videos/news, recommendations and Likes related tures of current business to consumer websites (Piller & Walcher, 2006).
to the e-vendors. However, trust in the SNS, as the platform, could de- Previous studies identified institution-based trust (i.e., the Internet
termine the customer's reliance on the credibility of the contents and has regulatory protections for customers) and web experiences as the
of the e-vendors' activities. In line with the categorization of trusting be- determinants of trusting beliefs (Gefen et al., 2003a, b; McKnight et al.,
liefs suggested by McKnight & Chervany (2001), there could be four 2002; McKnight & Chervany, 2001). We propose that trust in a platform
trusting beliefs in SNSs: 1) competence or power of the SNS to fulfill a is required for users to seek information about the product from the
successful exchange or the provision of recovery if the failure occurs available sources. Hurtzum et al.’s (2002) research on trust and infor-
from the e-vendor side; 2) benevolence, indicating the goodwill of the mation seeking indicates that trust affects users' information seeking
SNS in doing good deeds to users, aside from an egocentric profit mo- behavior in relation to people, documents, and virtual agents. “Users'
tive; 3) integrity, originated from the SNS's ethical actions and fulfill- willingness to engage with a website is strongly dependent on the ex-
ment of promises; and 4) predictability, as the consistency of the SNS tent to which the site succeeds in conveying accountability and trust-
actions, enabling users to forecast future exchanges. These trusting be- worthiness” (Hertzum, Andersen, Andersen, & Hansen, 2002, p. 581).
liefs enhance customer's reliance on the user-generated contents, re- Accordingly, trust in a SNS motivates a customer to follow the involved
duce the uncertainty of exchange outcomes, and prolong the duration contents (Turcotte et al., 2015) and the lack of trust precludes engaging
of the relationship (Suh & Han, 2003). Despite this, if customers do in information exchange (Wang, Min, & Han, 2016).
not trust a platform but trust the e-vendor, they are less likely to engage McKnight & Chervany (2001) posits that if the trustors (customers)
in purchasing behavior with the e-vendors through the social com- hold high trusting beliefs on a trustee (platform), they will be more will-
merce platform and may chose other ways to transact with them. Con- ing to depend on the trustee. Trusting beliefs are the drivers of ‘trust-re-
sumers decide if they will transact with an e-vendor on the platform by lated behaviors’, such as information exchange (McKnight & Chervany,
evaluating its benevolence and credibility. Credibility encompasses in- 2001). Depending on the product, trust involves some levels of risk
tegrity and ability of the platform in providing the expected outcomes, that drive customers to seek information from other sources in order
which increases intentions to buy on the platform (Kaiser & Müller- to inquire about the exchange party or the product (Swan & Nolan,
Seitz, 2008). Kim and Park (2013) indicated that users who trust social 1985). “One's trust in another is likely to shape the extent to which peo-
commerce sites are more likely to spread positive worth-of-mouth and ple will be forthcoming about their lack of knowledge” (Borgatti &
purchase on these platforms. Thus, we propose: Cross, 2003). Thus, once trust in a platform is established, customers
seek information about the product through the available sources, in-
H1. Trust in a SNS increases customer's purchase intentions from e- cluding online communities, reviews, ratings, and comments to en-
vendors. hance their knowledge and assess the product. This attempt to acquire
information is geared toward the appraisal of the vendors' trustworthi-
ness through the investigation of others' experiences (Swan & Nolan,
3.2. Social commerce information seeking: the effects of trust 1985). Thus, we propose:

Information seeking is “a process of sense-making in which a person H2. Trust in a SNS increases social commerce information seeking
is forming a personal point of view” (Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 361). The per- about a product.
son attempts to actively find meanings, fitting pre-existing knowledge,
and making sense in accordance with presumptions. Social commerce
information seeking is a customer's endeavor to acquire information re- 3.3. Purchase intentions: the effects of social commerce information seeking
garding a product/e-vendor from available resources on SNSs—such as
reviews, ratings, and recommendations in online communities—to opti- Social commerce information seeking enhances the individuals'
mize purchase decisions. Information acquisition enhances customers' knowledge about a product through access to the pool of information.
knowledge of the product's various aspects and assists throughout deci- Accordingly, the increase in customers' knowledge toward a product fa-
sion making and purchases (Turcotte, York, Irving, Scholl, & Pingree, cilitates the decision making process and enhances purchase intentions
2015). Information seeking is characterized as a trade-off between the (Chiou, Droge, & Hanvanich, 2002). Given the context of social com-
costs of the search for assessing the alternatives and the benefits per- merce, user-generated contents, such as reviews, offer diagnostic
ceived from making a better decision (Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990). value for consumers in their purchase decision processes and increases
Technology contributes to both the reduction of searching costs and sales for e-vendors (Heinonen, 2011). Information seeking could en-
the enhancement of decision quality by using different information hance the individuals' knowledge about the product and e-vendors as
seeking channels. Social commerce information seeking is mainly well as their skills in using the features of the platform (Choo, Detlor,
conducted through three information channels (Hajli & Sims, 2015): & Turnbull, 2000). Previous research indicated that product reviews
(1) Forums and communities are places to share information and gain and multimedia texts—which offer the ability to interact with a product
knowledge (Chen, Xu, & Whinston, 2011). Members of online commu- before it is bought—have a positive effect on customers' purchasing be-
nities participate in different group activities and support other mem- haviors (Maria & Finotto, 2008) and increase the intentions to buy
bers through their social interactions and communications in the (Maria & Finotto, 2008). However, online purchases are inherently
platform; (2) Ratings and reviews are evaluations of a product, generated risky and uncertain (Featherman & Hajli, 2015). “The amount and na-
by peers, on the website of a company or a third party platform. Many ture of the perceived risk will define consumers' information needs,
retailers, such as Amazon.com or eBay.com encourage users to post a re- and consumers will seek out sources, types, and amounts of information
view about the products they purchase and share it with their peers. The that seem most likely to satisfy their particular information needs” (Cox,
136 N. Hajli et al. / Journal of Business Research 71 (2017) 133–141

1967, p. 607). Thus, Murray (1991) indicated that information seeking, H5. Social commerce information seeking increases the perceptions of
as a risk handling strategy, increases purchase intentions. Thus, we social presence.
propose:

H3. Social commerce information seeking increases intentions to pur-

chase from an e-vendor. 3.6. Purchase intentions: the effects of familiarity

Previous research indicated that familiarity with a product/brand

3.4. Familiarity: the effects of social commerce information seeking increases purchase intentions (e.g. Laroche et al., 1996). Thus, we
argue that familiarity with a SNS could enhance purchase intentions
Previous research investigated the role of familiarity with a brand or from an e-vendor on the SNS. Online purchase intentions are a tech-
product in users' perceptions, such as purchase intentions (Gefen, 2000; nical process, requiring specific steps such as searching for the ap-
Laroche, Kim, & Zhou, 1996). However, the effect of familiarity with the propriate product, finding other customers' reviews/comments on
online platform on customers' perceptions would benefit from further the product and e-vendor, selecting the product and e-vendor, pro-
investigation (Lim & Van Der Heide, 2015). Familiarity is the “current viding the information, and placing the order. However, depending
and/or past use, or knowledge obtained by attending some form of in- on the platform, these activities could be executed differently and
struction or through readings on the topic” (Liberatore & Titus, 1983, become more complicated. Complexity in an online environment
p. 964). Accordingly, familiarity with an online platform is the degree causes purchase avoidance, while familiarity with the platform en-
to which a consumer comprehends the website's procedures (Gefen hances customers understanding of the shopping process and re-
et al., 2003b), such as familiarity with the search engines of a website duces the intricacy of the decisions (Gefen et al., 2003a). Recently,
and the interaction channels with peers. Van Der Heide & Lim (2015) indicated that users who are familiar
Information seeking on websites deepens the users' understanding with a platform are more likely to rely on generated contents by
of contents and knowledge of the platform (Choo et al., 2000). This un- their peers for their online purchases than those who are unfamiliar.
derstanding along with the continuous engagement in channels of in- Accordingly, Martínez-López, Esteban-Millat, Cabal, & Gengler
formation seeking, such as communities/forums, enhances users' skills (2015) indicated that familiarity with a recommendation system en-
and expertise about the different aspects and tools of an online plat- hances perceived ease of use, intentions to use a recommendation
form. For instance, users who actively seek information about a product system, and purchase intentions. Thus we propose:
in different channels, such as reviews and e-vendors' forums, become H6. Familiarity with the online platform increases intentions to pur-
familiar with search tools, rating policies, contents of recommendations, chase from e-vendors on that platform.
and the purchasing process. Thus, we propose:

H4. Social commerce information seeking increases the customer's fa-

miliarity with the online platform. 3.7. Purchase intentions: the effects of social presence

Gefen & Straub (2004) indicated that social presence enhances pur-
3.5. Social presence: the effects of social commerce information seeking chase intentions in online platforms through the elevation of integrity,
predictability, ability, and benevolence. Other researchers indicated
Social presence is a key concept in social media and social commerce that social presence influences attitude toward use and e-loyalty
platforms. Social presence is the sense of warmth and sociability within through perceived usefulness, trust, and enjoyment ( Hassanein &
a website. More specifically, social presence is “the extent to which a Head, 2005). Moreover, Cheung, Chiu, & Lee (2011) showed that social
medium allows users to experience others as psychologically present” presence enhances the users' continued use of social media. Drawing on
(Hassanein & Head, 2005, p. 31). Social presence theory posits that inti- the advertising literature, Li et al. (2002) indicated that 3D advertising
macy and immediacy enhance the warmth of the media and the pres- increases the viewer's sense of social presence, thus enhancing pur-
ence is higher for interpersonal and synchronous communications chase intentions. Accordingly, the emoticons and novel features of
than for mediated and asynchronous ones (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). SNSs (e.g. Facebook new buttons) could improve the sense of warmth
A media is perceived as warm if it enables human interactions, sociabil- in interactions and subsequently purchase intentions. Thus, we
ity, and sensitivity (Hassanein & Head, 2005). propose:
Recommendations and customer reviews enable e-vendors to create
H7. Social presence increases intentions to purchase from e-vendors.
personal connections with their consumers, which is the foundation of
social presence (Piller & Walcher, 2006). Different interactional tools In proposing our model, we acknowledge that there are other plau-
in social commerce websites enhance the sense of social presence, sible theoretical frameworks that should be tested. Therefore, following
such as pictures, comments, reviews, likes, and emoticons. Naylor, Burnham & Anderson (2004), we propose two alternative models in
Lamberton, & West (2012) indicated that the Facebook Like button, as Appendix A. Based on the findings of previous studies in the area of
an indicator of ‘mere virtual presence’, enhances the customers' brand trust, familiarity, and intentions to use/purchase (Gefen et al., 2003a ;
evaluations and purchase intentions. Recently Facebook took one step Martínez-López et al., 2015), the two alternative models are developed
further and added reactions buttons (i.e. Love, Haha, Wow, Sad, and as follows: 1) it is plausible that information seeking increases familiar-
Angry), which visualize the emotional expressions toward the peer- ity and social presence and together they increase trust and subsequent-
generated contents. Users express their presence and genuine feeling ly purchase intentions. Alternative model 1 proposes a mechanism
about the contents and observe peers' animated/live reactions toward explaining the effect of social commerce information seeking on pur-
a product. The Facebook reactions buttons, the Twitter “Tweet” button, chase intentions through familiarity, social presence, and trust; 2) it is
and the Plurck “Share” button are examples of social commerce features plausible that trust enhances familiarity and social presence on a social
which enhance users' perception of social support and relationship commerce platform and these together increase social commerce
quality (Liang et al., 2011). The navigation and information seeking on information seeking and purchase intentions. Alternative model 2
these platforms expose users to the embedded vibrant and ongoing incorporates familiarity and social presence as the outcomes of trust
contents, which could instigate/improve the feeling of warmth and so- and social commerce information seeking as their consequence
cial presence throughout the purchasing process. Thus we propose: (Appendix A).
 N. Hajli et al. / Journal of Business Research 71 (2017) 133–141 137

4. Research methodology 5.1. Reliability and validity

4.1. Sample and data collection Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach alphas and compos-
ite reliability scores. In Appendix B, all Cronbach alphas and composite
Social commerce platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and eBay, reliability values are higher than 0.70 (Naylor et al., 2012). Convergent
link users to e-vendors. However, these platforms differ based on as- validity was assessed through three steps. First, all item loadings were
pects such as informational/interactional channels, privacy policies, higher than 0.5. Second the composite reliabilities were higher than
quality/quantity of peer contents generation, economic feasibility, 0.70 (Naylor et al., 2012). Third, all AVE values exceeded 0.50, indicating
size, and reputation (Kim & Park, 2013). Narrowing down the context that that the majority of the variance is accounted for by the constructs.
and reducing the effects of SNS choice, we used Facebook as the tar- In Table 1, the squares of the correlations among the constructs were
get platform, since it provides users with most content generation lower than the corresponding AVEs, which indicates discriminant valid-
tools and it is the most popular SNS worldwide. The data analysis is ity (Chin, 1998).
carried out with 201 participants (55% women and 45% men), who
were recruited among postgraduate and undergraduate students of 5.2. Common method bias and multicollinearity
a major public university. Only participants who were members of
Facebook were selected. In assessing common method bias, we followed Podsakoff,
The data were collected through an online survey and an offline sur- MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff (2003). First, scales were carefully adapted
vey for respondents who did not have access to the Internet at the time and improved by the experts familiar with the research. Second, inde-
of study and to increase the response rate. The integration of both sur- pendent and dependent variables were separated in the questionnaire,
vey methods was also used in previous studies in online contexts (e.g. using other items which are not relevant to this article. We statistically
Kim & Park, 2013). Nevertheless, a statistical analysis was conducted checked the common method biases. Unrotated exploratory factor anal-
to avoid any possible biases in the results. Following Dong, Evans, & ysis indicated five factors, explaining 67% of the total variance. This re-
Zou (2008), we examined the data gathered from each group (online jects the probability of one general factor (Chin, Thatcher, & Wright,
and offline), using Box's M test. Results indicated the Box's M value of 2012). Multicollinearity was assessed through 2 steps. First, all AVEs
120.70 was not significant (p = 0.44), indicating the equality of covari- were higher than 0.50. Second, the variance inflation factors ranged
ance matrices among the two groups of responses. Thus, there was no from 1.11 to 1.68, far below the accepted cutoff of 5 (Hair et al., 2012).
evidence that the two samples are significantly different. Thus, all 201
surveys were analyzed. 6. Findings

The result of the CB-SEM analyses indicated that the model fits the
4.2. Measures data quite well: χ2 = 144.12; df = 99; SRMR = 0.059; CFI = 0.95;
RMSEA = 0.055; TLI = 0.94; IFI = 0.96; p = 0.00. The analysis of R2
The survey uses a five-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree ranging from 0.12 to 0.43, indicated that the model explains a consider-
to 5 = strongly agree to measure the constructs included in the model. able proportion of the variance in the endogenous variables (Hair et al.,
A 4-item scale of trust was adapted from Gefen et al. (2003b), mea- 2012). Moreover, Stone-Geisser's values of blindfolding analyses indi-
suring the benevolence and credibility of Facebook. A social presence cated that Q2 ranged from 0.08 to 0.23. Following Hair et al. (2012)
4-item scale was adopted from Gefen & Straub (2004). Drawing on rule of thumb R2 and Q2 values indicate that the exogenous variables
Hajli & Sims' (2015) measures of social commerce constructs, a 4-item are moderate to powerful predictors of exogenous variables and the
scale of social commerce information seeking was developed to capture model has a high level of quality.
the information acquisition through the information channels, includ- H1 postulates a positive relationship between trust and purchase in-
ing rating/reviews, recommendations, communities, and forums. A tentions, which is supported (β = 0.37; p b 0.001). Consistent with H2,
Familiarity 3-item scale was adopted from Gefen (2000). Purchase in- the results indicate a significant positive relationship between trust
tentions were measured with the 2-item scale of Gefen et al. (2003a). and social commerce information seeking (β = 0.32; p b 0.001). So-
Since social commerce purchasing behavior is slightly different from cial commerce information seeking is positively associated with
e-commerce, items were adjusted based on the trust-related behaviors purchase intentions, providing support for H3 (β = 0.13; p b 0.01).
of McKnight et al. (2002) to capture intentions to engage in purchases We found support for H4 and H5, as social commerce information
from e-vendors on SNSs. seeking is positively associated with familiarity and social presence
Given the context of social commerce through Facebook, the original (respectively, β = 0.39; p b 0.001; β = 0.24; p b 0.01). Finally, H6
items were slightly adjusted. The content and wording of all questions and H7 were also supported, as familiarity and social presence were
were checked and corrected by three marketing faculty familiar with positively associated with purchase intentions (respectively, β =
social media and social commerce research as well as three doctoral stu- 0.18; p b 0.01; β = 0.24; p b 0.001).
dents. Finally, the items were checked by three independent judges who
did not have prior knowledge of the study aims. They gave an evaluation
of the overall questionnaire and ensured content validity.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and measurement validation.
5. Analysis
Constructs M SD AVE R2 1 2 3 4 5

We draw on two methods of structural equation modeling 1. Familiarity 3.85 0.98 0.65 0.41 0.80
(SEM), namely partial least square (PLS) and covariance-based 2. Social commerce info. 3.25 0.99 0.59 0.21 0.36 0.76
seeking
SEM (CB-SEM) to analyze the models. PLS is more suitable for a
3. Purchase intention 3.42 0.97 0.60 0.43 0.48 0.36 0.77
low-structured environment and theory development, while CB- 4. Social presence 2.95 0.95 0.65 0.1 0.14 0.23 0.38 0.80
SEM is recommended for theory confirmation (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, 5. Trust 3.58 0.91 0.61 – 0.60 0.31 0.57 0.26 0.77
& Mena, 2012). Due to the exploratory nature of this study, we used 1) AVE = average variance extracted; M = Mean; SD = standard deviation.
PLS to run the main model and CB-SEM to compare it with the rival 2) Numbers on the diagonal (in boldface) are the square root of AVEs. Other numbers are
models. correlations among the constructs.
138 N. Hajli et al. / Journal of Business Research 71 (2017) 133–141

Table 2
Mediation analyses.

Path Aa Path B Path C′ Indirect effectb (95%

Sobel testc/
(X → M) (M→Y.X) (X→Y.M) confidence interval)
Path Type
B B B Effect Lower Upper

Trust → Info. Seeking → Familiarity 0.32*** 0.20** 0.54*** 0.061† 0.026 0.110 3.01**/partial
Trust → Info. Seeking → Social Presence 0.32*** 0.18** 0.21** 0.05† 0.006 0.137 2.53*/partial
Trust → Info. Seeking → Purchase Intention 0.32*** 0.20*** 0.51*** 0.15† 0.074 0.248 3.01**/partial
Info. Seeking → Familiarity → Purchase Intention 0.37*** 0.40*** 0.22** 0.15† 0.044 0.074 3.66***/partial
Info. Seeking → Social Presence → Purchase Intention 0.24** 0.31*** 0.29*** 0.08† 0.029 0.151 2.89**/partial

Note: 2000 bootstrap samples with 95% confidence level. *p b 0.05, t = 1.96; **p b 0.01, t = 2.56; ***p b 0.001.
a
Path A = relationship between IV and mediator; Path B = relationship between mediator and DV, controlling for IV; Path C = direct effect of IV on DV, controlling for mediator.
b
Indirect effect of IV on DV, using bootstrapping technique. ‘†’ indicates the significance of the indirect effect due to the absence of 0 in the confidence interval.
c
Demonstrates the statistics of Sobel test and full/partial mediation.

In order to provide more explanations for the indirect paths, we recommendations about a product. Subsequently, the information
ran mediation analyses, using INDIRECT Macro for SPSS. In Table 2, acquisition in the SNS increases intentions to purchase from e-
social commerce information seeking partially mediates the rela- vendors. However, this effect is carried indirectly through familiarity
tionship between trust and familiarity, and between trust and social with the SNS and the sense of social presence perceived from the SNS
presence. Moreover, familiarity and social presence are partial me- environment. On one hand, the more people seek information in dif-
diators of the relationship between social commerce information ferent informational channels in a SNS, the more they become famil-
seeking and purchase intentions. iar with the procedures and functionality of the SNS. On the other
Appendix A indicates the results of the SEM analyses for the alter- hand, the more users seek information, the more they feel the
native models 1 and 2. All fit indices of the model provided in Fig. 1 warmth and social presence of the platforms. Finally, users who are
are better than the alternative models presented in Appendix A. familiar with the platform and who feel a higher level of social pres-
Moreover, we compared the three models, using Akaike Information ence have higher tendencies to engage in purchasing from e-vendors
Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) following on that platform.
Burnham & Anderson (2004). The results indicate that main model The results of the mediation analysis (Table 2) indicate that the ef-
has the best fit to the data, relative to alternative models 1 and 2, fects of trust on familiarity and social presence are partly carried
since the AIC and BIC values are the lowest; Main model: AIC = through social commerce information seeking. On one hand, trust in a
236.13, BIC = 388.08; alternative model 1: AIC = 277.53, BIC = social commerce site increases information seeking and thus familiarity
419.57; alternative model 2: AIC = 269.47, BIC = 418.12. (See with the platform, due to bettering one's knowledge of the platform. On
Fig. 2.) the other hand, trust increases information acquisition through differ-
ent channels, and the exposure to peer-generated contents enhances
the feeling of social presence within the platform. Moreover, the effect
7. Discussion of trust on purchase intentions is partially mediated by information
seeking, indicating that trust increases the use of SNS information chan-
This study contributes to the literature by investigating the role of nels to obtain useful information for a purchase. In addition, active par-
trust in customer's intentions to purchase from e-vendors on social ticipation in information seeking increases the familiarity with the
commerce platforms. In doing so, we propose a mechanism to explain platform and the sense of social presence, which increases intentions
the relationship between trust in a platform and purchase intentions. to purchase.
The mechanism encompasses three related constructs: social commerce
information seeking, familiarity with the platform, and social presence.
We used Facebook as the best known SNS and a fertile platform for so- 8. Implications
cial commerce to empirically test our model. We also validated our
model by proposing two alternative ones and comparing their fits to Social commerce has greatly expanded during the last decade and its
the data. The results of the empirical study among Facebook users indi- market has grown to $30 billion in the U.S.A. (Zhou, Zhang, &
cated that the main model presented in Fig. 1, fits the data better than Zimmermann, 2013). However, trust is one of the main reasons for pur-
the alternative ones. chasing hindrance and the firms' failures in social commerce strategies
In line with the first study question, trust in the SNS was found to (Kim & Park, 2013). Despite this, trust issues become even more impor-
be a key predictor of intentions to purchases from e-vendors in that tant in social commerce contexts due to the reliance on peer-generated
platform. The explanatory mechanism was that trust in a SNS in- contents in SNSs (Liang & Turban, 2011).
creases information seeking within the SNS through different chan-
nels, such as forums/communities, reviews and ratings, and 8.1. Research implication

In contrast to what our conceptual model suggests, most e-

commerce articles show that the concepts such as familiarity, informa-
H1
tion exchange or social presence predict trust and its behavioral conse-
H4 Familiarity H6
quences. Indeed, McKnight et al. (2002) define institution based trust
and general web experiences as antecedents to trusting beliefs, and
Trust Social commerce
H2
information seeking
H3 Purchase intentions Gefen et al. (2003a, b) view institution-based structural assurances
and knowledge-based familiarity as antecedents of trust. However,
H5 Social presence H7 this article shows that this process is not as straightforward in social
commerce platforms as the previous literature has suggested. This re-
Fig. 1. Main conceptual model. search conceptualizes trust as the antecedent of social commerce
 N. Hajli et al. / Journal of Business Research 71 (2017) 133–141 139

H4=.39** Familiarity H6=.18**

H1=.37***
R2=.15; Q2=.11

H2=.32*** Social commerce

H3=.13* Purchase intentions
Trust information seeking R2=.43; Q2=.23
R2=.17; Q2=.12

H5=.24** Social presence H7=.24***

R2=.12; Q2=.08

Fit Indices: 2=144.12; df =99; SRMR=.059; CFI =.95; RMSEA =.055; TLI=.94; IFI=.96; p=.00.

5000 bootstrap samples; # of cases =200 = # of usable responses; and 300 iterations Hair et al. (2012);
*p<0.05, t=1.96; **p<0.01, t=2.56; ***p<0.001.

Fig. 2. Results of the path analysis.

information seeking, which directly affects purchase intentions, and Familiarity with the platform is a predictor of customer purchase in-
partially mediates the effect of trust on purchase intentions through fa- tentions. Previous research indicated that unfamiliar users rely on their
miliarity and social presence. These findings corroborate research consensus heuristics rather that peer or system-generated contents for
which found that trust is required for engagement with a website their purchases (Van Der Heide & Lim, 2015), including educational
and the lack of trust inhibits participation in information exchanges tabs, explanation/instructions for the features of the platform, and on-
(Hurtzum et al., 2002; Turcotte et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016). In line chat with agents. E-vendors are able to equip their pages with
line with Kim and Park (2013), the results of the main and alterna- pull-down menus, helpful tips about the new features of the page,
tive models indicate that trust directly increases purchase inten- FAQs, graphical instructions, speech-bubbles, and ensuring that the
tions. Furthermore, consistent with and in addition to the previous site is intuitive and easy to use.
literature (e.g., Gefen et al., 2003a, b), the findings indicate that in- Social Presence – the feeling of warmth and belongingness in social
formation seeking per se does not increase trust but it increases fa- commerce platforms – increases customers' purchase intentions.
miliarity with the features of a platform and the perceived sense of Facebook has recently featured animated reactions and GIF buttons to
social presence, which in turn influences trusting beliefs and inten- enhance the expressions of feelings in the platform. Accordingly, adding
tions to purchase. visual indicators into pages/communities/forums may enhance social
presence. In line with communication and social media research (e.g.
Bente, Rüggenberg, Krämer, & Eschenburg, 2008), SNS firms could in-
8.2. Managerial implications crease the feeling of social presence in the platform by providing users
with their avatars. Users can design and name their avatars, interact
Our findings have several managerial implications for firms and so- with other avatars, and navigate into forums/communities, which en-
cial commerce managers: hances the feeling of ‘being there’.
Trust is a critical issue in a social commerce contexts and specifi- Findings from the alternative models indicate that those who use
cally it plays an important role in increasing purchase intentions. The social media information to a greater extent (information seekers)
more customers trust the platform, the more they engage in the pur- tend to more likely engage in online relationships with e-vendors in-
chasing process. Social commerce and SNS designers are able to in- dependently of their trust in that social media platform. Managers
crease customers' trust by enhancing the characteristic of the may want to identify information seekers through monitoring the
platforms, including: reputation, size, information quality, transac- activities of users and targeting them differently than other groups
tion safety, communications, economic feasibility, and word-of of consumers.
mouth-referrals (Kim & Park, 2013). However, trust is not the only
factor and other elements are also important in increasing purchase
9. Limitations
intentions:
Social commerce information seeking. Customers look into different
This study contains some limitations and recommendations for fu-
information channels within a social commerce platform to acquire in-
ture studies. First, the context is limited to Facebook as one of the
formation needed for their purchase decisions. Our findings indicate
best-known SNSs. However, future studies could test the main and al-
that the more customers seek information within a social commerce
ternative models with other SNSs, such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram,
platform, the more they are likely to purchase. Thus, e-vendors are
Xing, and Google+. Furthermore, we relied on cross-sectional survey
able to increase purchase intentions within their communities or fo-
data to test our conceptual model. Future studies could draw on longitu-
rums by providing an easy access to the search engines, channels of in-
dinal studies and experimental research to capture the effect of trust
formation, information exchange processes, and enhancing trust in the
and its consequences on purchase intentions. Moreover, future studies
embedded contents. User's participation in communities, forums, re-
may test the effects of potential moderation on the relationships in
views and ratings, and recommendation systems should facilitate infor-
the main model, such as tie strength, social media involvement, and
mation seeking and interactions with peers. SNS firms are able to
habit.
improve the integration of resources among peers and e-vendors by en-
hancing the information seeking process. Linking a search engine with
the SNSs (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn) could facilitate the Acknowledgments
search process. However, people who are familiar with the platform
are more likely to rely on the embedded contents for their decisions The authors gratefully acknowledge the very helpful comments of
(Van Der Heide & Lim, 2015). two anonymous reviewers.
140 N. Hajli et al. / Journal of Business Research 71 (2017) 133–141

Appendix A

.12*
Familiarity .17**
.36*** .55***
Social commerce
information seeking .07 Trust .36*** Purchase intentions

.23** H5=.17**

Social presence .23***

2
Fit Indices: =171.42; df =96; SRMR=.068; CFI =.92; RMSEA =.066; TLI=.90; IFI =.92; p=.00

Alternative model 1

.36***

.60*** Familiarity .17*

.28**

Trust .10 Social commerce

.12* Purchase intentions
information seeking

.17*
.26** Social presence .23***

2
Fit Indices: =179.47; df =96; SRMR =.067; CFI =.91; RMSEA =.07; TLI=.89; IFI =.912; p=.00

Alternative model 2

Appendix B. Measures Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in
electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3),
243–268.
Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-mediated net-
working: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collabora-
Items Loadings
tions. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 287–318.
Trust (CA = 0.78; CR = 0.84) Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in
Promises made by Facebook are likely to be reliable. 0.84 social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
I do not doubt the honesty of Facebook. 0.80 Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference understanding AIC and
BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 261–304.
Based on my experience with Facebook, I know it is honest. 0.75
Chen, J., Xu, H., & Whinston, A. B. (2011). Moderated online communities and quality
Based on my experience with Facebook, I know they care about users. 0.72
of user-generated content. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(2),
Purchase intentions (CA = 0.71; CR = 75) 237–268.
I am very likely to provide the online vendor with the information it 0.66 Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P. -Y., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students
use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337–1343.
needs to better serve my needs through Facebook. 0.86
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
I am happy to use my credit card to purchase from an online vendor
Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
through Facebook. Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., & Wright, R. T. (2012). Assessing common method bias:
Familiarity (CA = 0.72; CR = 0.84) Problems with the ULMC technique. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 1003–1019.
Chiou, J. -S., Droge, C., & Hanvanich, S. (2002). Does customer knowledge affect how loy-
I am familiar with searching for materials in Facebook. 0.80
alty is formed? Journal of Service Research, 5(2), 113–124.
I am familiar with buying materials in Facebook. 0.88
Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000). Information seeking on the web: An inte-
I am familiar with inquiring about material ratings in Facebook. 0.72 grated model of browsing and searching. First Monday, 5(2).
Cox, D. F. (Ed.). (1967). Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior.
Social commerce information seeking (CA = 0.74; CR = 0.81)
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
I use online forums and communities for acquiring information about a 0.75
Dong, B., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in co-created
product. 0.77
service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 123–137.
I usually use people ratings and reviews about products on the internet. 0.77 Featherman, M. S., & Hajli, N. (2015). Self-service technologies and e-services risks in so-
I usually use people's recommendations to buy a product on the internet. cial commerce era. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–19.
I trust my friends on online forums and communities. * Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and re-
view of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 888–902.
Social presence (CA = 0.83; CR = 0.88)
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725–737.
There is a sense of human contact in Facebook. 0.83 Gefen, D. (2002). Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among on-
There is a sense of sociability in Facebook. 0.82 line consumers. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 33(3), 38–53.
There is a sense of human warmth in Facebook. 0.77 Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2004). Consumer trust in B2C e-commerce and the importance
There is a sense of human sensitivity in Facebook. 0.81 of social presence: Experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega, 32(6), 407–424.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003a). Inexperience and experience with on-
Notes: CA = Cronbach's Alpha; CR = composite reliability; * = dropped.
line stores: The importance of TAM and trust. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 50(3), 307–321.
References Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003b). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An
integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.
Aiken, K. D., & Boush, D. M. (2006). Trustmarks, objective-source ratings, and implied in- Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of par-
vestments in advertising: Investigating online trust and the context-specific nature of tial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the
internet signals. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 308–323. Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
 N. Hajli et al. / Journal of Business Research 71 (2017) 133–141 141

Hajli, N., & Sims, J. (2015). Social commerce: The transfer of power from sellers to buyers. Martínez-López, F. J., Esteban-Millat, I., Cabal, C. C., & Gengler, C. (2015). Psychological fac-
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 350–358. tors explaining consumer adoption of an e-vendor's recommender. Industrial
Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2005). The impact of infusing social presence in the web Management & Data Systems, 115(2), 284–310.
interface: An investigation across product types. International Journal of Electronic McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). What trust means in e-commerce customer re-
Commerce, 10(2), 31–55. lationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of
Hauser, J. R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35–59.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16(9), 393–408. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust
Heinonen, K. (2011). Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research,
consumers' social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(6), 13(3), 334–359.
356–364. Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: Consumer information acquisi-
Hertzum, M., Andersen, H. H., Andersen, V., & Hansen, C. B. (2002). Trust in information tion activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 10–25.
sources: Seeking information from people, documents, and virtual agents. Naylor, R. W., Lamberton, C. P., & West, P. M. (2012). Beyond the “like” button: The impact
Interacting with Computers, 14(5), 575–599. of mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in social
Huang, Z., & Benyoucef, M. (2013). From e-commerce to social commerce: A close look at media settings. Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 105–120.
design features. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 246–259. Piller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to inte-
Kaiser, S., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2008). Leveraging lead user knowledge in software grate users in new product development. R&D Management, 36(3), 307–318.
development: The case of weblog technology. Industry and Innovation, 15(2), Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
199–221. biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and oppor- remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
tunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. Schurr, P. H., & Ozanne, J. L. (1985). Influences on exchange processes: Buyers' preconcep-
Kim, S., & Park, H. (2013). Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) tions of a seller's trustworthiness and bargaining toughness. Journal of Consumer
on consumers' trust and trust performance. International Journal of Information Research, 11(4), 939–953.
Management, 33(2), 318–332. Stephen, A. T., & Toubia, O. (2010). Deriving value from social commerce networks.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information ser- Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 215–228.
vices. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited Incorporated. Suh, B., & Han, I. (2003). The impact of customer trust and perception of security control
Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants on the acceptance of electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic
of purchase intention: An empirical test in a multiple brand context. Journal of Commerce, 7(3), 135–161.
Business Research, 37(2), 115–120. Swan, J. E., & Nolan, J. J. (1985). Gaining customer trust: A conceptual guide for the sales-
Liang, T. -P., & Turban, E. (2011). Introduction to the special issue, social commerce: A re- person. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 5(2), 39–48.
search framework for social commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations
16(2), 5–14. from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking.
Liang, T. -P., Ho, Y. -T., Li, Y. -W., & Turban, E. (2011). What drives social commerce: The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, 20(5), 520–535.
role of social support and relationship quality. International Journal of Electronic Van Der Heide, B., & Lim, Y. (2015). On the conditional cueing of credibility heuristics: The
Commerce, 16(2), 69–90. case of online influence. Communication Research, 3(4), 1–22.
Liberatore, M. J., & Titus, G. J. (1983). The practice of management science in R&D project Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of
management. Management Science, 29(8), 962–974. service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.
Lim, Y., & Van Der Heide, B. (2015). Evaluating the wisdom of strangers: The perceived Wang, Y., Min, Q., & Han, S. (2016). Understanding the effects of trust and risk on individ-
credibility of online consumer reviews on yelp. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com- ual behavior toward social media platforms: A meta-analysis of the empirical evi-
munication, 20(1), 67–82. dence. Computers in Human Behavior, 56(7), 34–44.
Maria, E. D., & Finotto, V. (2008). Communities of consumption and made in Italy. Industry Zhou, L., Zhang, P., & Zimmermann, H. -D. (2013). Social commerce research: An integrat-
and Innovation, 15(2), 179–197. ed view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(2), 61–68.