Al-Adwan, A. S., Alrousan, M. K., Yaseen, H., Alkufahy, A. M., & Alsoud, M. (2022)

Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity
Article
Boosting Online Purchase Intention in High-Uncertainty-Avoidance
Societies: A Signaling Theory Approach
Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan 1, * , Mohammad Kasem Alrousan 2 , Husam Yaseen 3 , Amer Muflih Alkufahy 4
and Malek Alsoud 5
1 Department of Electronic Business and Commerce, Business School, Al-Ahliyya Amman University,
Salt 19328, Jordan
2 Department of E-Marketing and Social Media, King Talal School of Business Technology, Princess Sumaya
University for Technology, Amman 11941, Jordan
3 Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Business and Finance, The American University of Madaba,
Amman 11821, Jordan
4 Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business, Jadara University, Irbid 21110, Jordan
5 Department of Marketing, Business School, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Salt 19328, Jordan
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: Despite the fact that online purchase intention has been widely investigated, little is
known about the e-retailer-based signals used to reduce online customers’ uncertainty perception
in high-uncertainty-avoidance (UA) societies. Thus, based on signaling and uncertainty literature,
this study investigates return policy leniency (RPL), cash on delivery (COD), and social commerce
constructs (SCCs) as the costly signals e-retailers use to increase perceived trust and reduce perceived
purchase uncertainty among customers in high-UA societies. An analysis of empirical data from
560 e-commerce users from Jordan reveals that RPL, COD, and SCCs are key enablers of customer
trust. Furthermore, customer trust is positively associated with customer purchase intention. The
implications for both theory and practice are highlighted.
Citation: Al-Adwan, A.S.; Alrousan,
M.K.; Yaseen, H.; Alkufahy, A.M.; Keywords: online shopping; signaling theory; uncertainty avoidance; customer trust; cash on
Alsoud, M. Boosting Online Purchase delivery; return policy
Intention in High-Uncertainty-
Avoidance Societies: A Signaling
Theory Approach. J. Open Innov.
Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 136.
1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.3390/
joitmc8030136
Over the past few years, e-commerce has become an essential component of universal
retail. The introduction of the Internet has engendered dramatic changes in the retail land-
Received: 10 June 2022 scape. In addition, the digitization of modern life has enabled customers around the globe
Accepted: 26 July 2022 to benefit from online transactions [1]. The number of online shoppers is growing yearly
Published: 4 August 2022
as the availability and usage of the Internet grow steadily. In 2020, around two billion
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral customers purchased products/services online, with worldwide e-commerce sales sur-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in passing USD 4.2 trillion [2]. Across the planet, B2C (business-to-consumer) e-commerce is
published maps and institutional affil- increasing and progressively becoming an important component in the retail landscape [3].
iations. It is attracting ever more customers due to its price advantages and convenience [4,5].
Furthermore, B2C e-commerce has been recognized as a highly significant alternative
for businesses as e-retailers benefit from the lower costs of operations [6]. E-commerce
has been already adopted by a considerable number of businesses as an essential trading
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
tool in their daily processes. However, many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) face
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
pressures in adopting e-commerce due to the intense rivalry from large firms [7]. Hence,
This article is an open access article
numerous countries have now recognized the prominence of e-commerce, particularly
distributed under the terms and
B2C e-commerce, in their economies and take account of it in their economic development
conditions of the Creative Commons
strategies [8].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
Nevertheless, the global diffusion of e-commerce remains extremely uneven across
4.0/).
nations [9]. Such imbalanced development and the readiness of e-commerce are attributed
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030136 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 136 2 of 20
to various factors at a national level, such as market factors, GDP, culture, and educational
level [10,11]. Ayob [12] points out that the diffusion of e-commerce is not only limited by
the quality of formal institutions (e.g., laws, infrastructure), but also by cultural dimensions
such as uncertainty avoidance (UA) and risk tolerance. Research has indicated that nations
with high UA are content with existing conditions and are resistant to change, consequently,
they act conservatively [13]. People in such societies are unlikely to accept risks when trying
new technologies and thus are slower in adopting them [14]. Compared to physical stores,
e-commerce as a new model of trade is recognized as more uncertain, and only customers
with a solid trust value are keen to adopt it. In general, e-commerce is less developed
in the Arab world than in other regions [15]. According to a report by [16], e-commerce
contributed to 16% and 14% of all retail sales in the UK and the USA, respectively, compared
to less than 2% in the Arab world. Although there has been a rapid growth in usage of
the Internet, e-commerce is growing at a slow rate in the Arab region [17]. Jordan is an
Arabic and developing country located in the Middle East and is considered a high-UA
country [18]. Internet penetration in Jordan stood at 66.8% in 2021 (6.84 million Internet
users), with social media penetration reaching 61.5% of the population (6.3 million) [19].
E-commerce in Jordan is considered more advanced than in its counterparts in the region.
In 2021, 8% of the population in Jordan were reported to have made online purchases
and/or paid bills online [19]. According to one report, e-commerce market revenue is
likely to report a yearly growth rate of 17.24% in 2022, resulting in an expected market
volume of USD 4646 m by 2025 [20]. Despite the development of e-commerce in Jordan, a
lack of legislation supporting the e-commerce sphere and protecting consumers has been
recognized as the main obstacle impeding e-commerce growth [21].
The primary objective of the present study is to explore how e-retailer-based signals
mitigate transaction uncertainty in e-commerce, increasing customers’ trust and subse-
quently their purchase intentions in emerging markets. This study examines e-retailer-
based signals from the perspective of e-commerce customers in the emerging market of
a developing country (Jordan). A considerable number of micro and small businesses in
emerging and developing markets have benefited from e-commerce by reaching a larger
number of customers and conducting transactions online. This study offers insights into
how, in developing e-commerce environments, customers reduce the uncertainty related
to online transactions by relying on specific signals to build trust, which in turn devel-
ops purchase intention. Given that online customers cannot physically assess products
before purchasing them online, the current study uses signaling theory (ST) and relational
signaling theory (RST) to increase knowledge of the retailer-based signals e-commerce
customers use to alleviate uncertainty by increasing their trust, thereby positively affecting
their online purchase intentions. In particular, ST and RST are used to determine whether
e-retailer-based signals such as return policy leniency (RPL), cash on delivery (COD), and
social commerce constructs (SCCs) can effectively decrease transaction uncertainty in on-
line transactions. Hence, RPL, COD, and SCCs can be employed as information signals to
mitigate uncertainty in e-commerce transactions.
The paper is organized as follows: given that the introduction is the Section 1, the
Section 2 provides a review of literature related to the current research, presents the theo-
retical foundation, and discusses the constructs of the research model and the hypotheses
formulated. The research methodology is introduced in Section 3. The statistical analysis
is presented in Sections 4 and 5 discusses the study findings. Section 6 then considers the
implications of the research The Section 7 summarizes the research objective, main findings,
and limitations.
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation

2.1. Uncertainty and E-Commerce
Uncertainty refers to the degree to which future environmental situations cannot be
correctly forecasted due to improper or incomplete information [22]. Customers’ perceived
uncertainty in the online marketplace is explained as the extent to which they cannot antici-
pate the result of a transaction due to uncertainty related to the seller and the product [23].
Seller uncertainty arises when customers are unable to fully monitor the behaviors of
sellers, particularly in terms of evaluating their true characteristics and whether they will
behave opportunistically [23–25]. In online marketplaces, seller uncertainty might lead
to moral hazards and adverse selections [26]. From a principal–agent perspective, [27]
examined uncertainty in online marketplaces and hypothesized that customers’ perceptions
of fear of information, asymmetry, seller opportunism, and concerns about information
privacy/security are all primary determinants of seller uncertainty. Thus, trust has been
recognized as an effective strategy for mitigating seller uncertainty and related risks. Be-
cause genuine quality information usually remains with sellers, customers tend to employ
various strategies to reduce risk and uncertainty in online transactions, including feedback
from previous customers [28] and a seller’s rating (negative/positive) [29].
Product uncertainty is closely related to seller uncertainty. It denotes the difficulty
of assessing a product’s attributes and anticipating its performance in the future [30].
Product uncertainty is viewed as a multi-dimensional concept that includes uncertainty
related to product performance, description, and fit. When a seller fails to accurately
explain and represent a product’s attributes online, product description uncertainty arises,
whereas the uncertainty of product performance emerges from a customer’s fears about
a product’s performance [23]. In a similar vein, [30] developed the concept of product
fit uncertainty, which refers to doubts about whether a product (or its attributes) meets
customers’ expectations and demands. Product uncertainty is a major obstacle for online
marketplaces and is amplified for products (i.e., clothing) that cannot be fully assessed and
sensed before purchase. The authors in [23] discovered that the assurance of third-party
and diagnostic product descriptions can assist in minimizing uncertainty related to prod-
uct description and performance in online second-hand automobile markets. Regarding
product fit uncertainty, online product forums and media can be used to alleviate this [30].
The increase in uncertainty perceptions among customers may have several nega-
tive consequences. For instance, high perceptions of uncertainty may lead to a sharp
decline in sales and low purchase/repurchase intention [31,32]. Furthermore, [33] found
that although some customers tend to restrict their purchases to products of low value
to minimize their losses, other customers refrain from online transactions altogether. Ac-
cordingly, the reduction in uncertainty related to online purchasing is likely to increase
purchase intentions, attract more customers, and ultimately generate greater sales [34]. Un-
derstanding online purchasing behavior has become an important consideration, especially
in light of the wide range of e-retailers [35]. According to [36], customers compare the
advantages and disadvantages of offline and online purchasing options before deciding
which to choose. Previous research has confirmed that customer uncertainty has a negative
effect on purchase and repurchase intentions [37,38]. Thus, it is critical to understand
how customers’ perceived uncertainty when making an online purchase can be alleviated.
Such an understanding can be used to develop effective marketing strategies that facilitate
purchase intention and continued online purchasing behavior. It is especially imperative to
understand customers’ perceived uncertainty with regard to online purchasing in emerg-
ing markets with high-UA cultures. This is because these cultures are more sensitive to
uncertain and unknown situations and hence are more threatened by uncertainty and
ambiguity [39]. Uncertainty is commonly introduced by change [11]. Shopping habits
have been transformed by the introduction of e-commerce, which requires customers to
use computers, smartphones, or other devices, which triggers risk and uncertainty. There-
fore, customers in high-UA cultures are more likely to resist e-commerce as such change
brings uncertainties to shopping behavior [8]. Most importantly, customers in high-UA
cultures place greater importance on structure (e.g., regulations, rules, laws) [40]. However,
e-commerce, particularly in emerging markets, remains unregulated and lacks legislation to
protect customers [41–46]. Hence, customers in these markets prefer institutional assurance.
2.2. Theoretical Foundation

This paper draws on signaling theory (ST) and relational signaling theory (RST) [47–49]
to understand customers’ online purchase intentions in emerging markets. Sellers and cus-
tomers in online purchase transactions have access to diverse information, which therefore
generates information asymmetry [50]. As suggested by Connelly et al. [51], the informa-
tion provided by a seller to targeted customers regarding the ability to complete a task
might be interpreted as a signal. Sellers often choose how they signal information, whereas
consumers decide how to infer and react to the signals they receive. ST is used in this study
to elucidate how the asymmetry of information can be decreased by return policy leniency
(RPL), cash on delivery (COD), and social commerce constructs (SSCs) as costly and visible
signals [52].
ST has been frequently employed in the fields of economics, marketing, and man-
agement to explain the impact of information asymmetry in a variety of contexts [53,54].
Signals are often thought of as the qualities of an object that can be altered and manipulated
according to the preferences of a signaler and can reveal the hidden quality information of
one object to another [55]. In terms of the relationship between customers and e-retailers,
ST has been utilized to explain the types of signals e-retailers offer to customers in order to
reduce information asymmetry and assist customers in making more accurate judgments of
quality when there is limited information about products [55–57]. Information asymmetry
in e-commerce settings is becoming increasingly prominent due to the physical separation
between sellers and customers [54]. There are two important causes of information asym-
metry in online marketplaces: seller quality and product quality [57]. In uncertain settings
such as e-commerce, ST is used to describe how signals might be utilized to impact cus-
tomers’ attitudes toward the signaling party. Advertising, branding [58], and unconditional
money-back guarantees [59] are all examples of traditional market signals. The concept of
signals in e-commerce has been extended as different forms of signals are presented such
as money-back guarantees, promotional policies [54], live streaming commerce [53], online
word-of-mouth (WOM) [60], third-party assurances, and online product descriptions [23].
The other theoretical base, RST, is used in this study as a bridge to elucidate how
trust perception may be developed by decreasing uncertainty through the costly signals
of RPL, COD payment options, and SCCs. Uncertainty avoidance is commonly linked to
risk tolerance [61] and both are significantly shaped by trust [62]. Trust is a key aspect of
e-commerce transactions between the transacting bodies (i.e., customers and e-retailers)
where there is little control over each other’s behavior and a high degree of uncertainty and
risk is involved. According to Six [49], RST is “based on the assumptions that rationality is
bounded through framing, that preferences are partially determined by altruism (through
a distinction between foreground and background goals), and that an individual’s action
is influenced by the normative context in which he or she operates” (p. 285) and is
fundamental to building trust. Through the lens of RST, signaling through RPL, COD,
and SCCs facilitates the formation of trust by limiting “opportunistic behavior, [creating]
positive relational signals, avoiding negative relational signals, [and] the stimulation of
frame resonance, or the introduction of trust-enhancing . . . policies” ([49], p. 285).
By drawing on the RST, the relationships between RPL, COD, SCCs → trust → pur-
chase intentions are explained (see Figure 1). In doing so, this study makes several contri-
butions. It hypothesizes that RPL, COD, and SCCs will reduce risk and uncertainty relating
to a current purchase while also offering a relational signaling methodology to compre-
hend how repurchase intention develops. By making costly commitments through COD,
RPL, and SCCs, e-retailers build essential trust among their customers through relational
signaling. Customers perceive higher reliability when an e-retailer is willing to accept their
vulnerability by providing more lenient return policies, allowing a COD payment method,
and enabling customers to share their purchasing experience through various SCCs as they
trust the e-retailers’ commitment to being vulnerable by offering these aspects. The impact
of lenient return policies and cash on delivery payment options on customer trust has not
been extensively explored. In the extant literature, very few studies [50] have examined the
COD, RPL, and SCCs, e-retailers build essential trust among their customers through re-
lational signaling. Customers perceive higher reliability when an e-retailer is willing to
accept their vulnerability by providing more lenient return policies, allowing a COD pay-
ment method, and enabling customers to share their purchasing experience through var-
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. ious
2022, SCCs
8, 136 as they trust the e-retailers’ commitment to being vulnerable by offering 5these of 20
aspects. The impact of lenient return policies and cash on delivery payment options on
customer trust has not been extensively explored. In the extant literature, very few studies
[50] between
link have examined the linkleniency
return policy betweenandreturn policytrust.
customer leniency and customer
Furthermore, trust.previous
although Further-
more, although previous research has operationalized cash on delivery
research has operationalized cash on delivery as a moderator of the relationships between as a moderator of
the relationships between various related factors and purchase/repurchase
various related factors and purchase/repurchase intentions [36,63], other scholars have intentions
[36,63], other
examined thescholars have of
main drivers examined
adopting the main
cash ondrivers
delivery of[64–66].
adopting cash onand
Tandon delivery
Kiran [64–
[67]
66]. Tandon
found that CODandhasKiran [67] found
a significant that COD
positive effecthas
onapurchase
significant positive
intention in effect on purchase
the Indian context.
intention in
However, nothe Indian
study context. However,
has examined COD as a no study
direct has examined
antecedent COD trust.
of customer as a direct ante-
This study
cedent of customer trust. This study hypothesizes that RPL and COD
hypothesizes that RPL and COD can facilitate costly signals to mitigate the uncertainty can facilitate costly
signals
and risktorelated
mitigateto the uncertainty
a purchase and risk related
transaction. to a purchase
Additionally, transaction.
it proposes that theAdditionally,
inclusion of
it proposes
SCCs into a that the inclusion
standard of SCCs
e-commerce into is
website a standard e-commerce
a costly signal that canwebsite is a costly
be effective signal
in boosting
that can be
customer effective in boosting customer trust.
trust.
1. Research model.
Figure 1.
Furthermore, this studystudy supports

supportsthe thenotion
notionthatthatananonline
onlinecustomer’s
customer’s trust
trust in in
anan
e-
e-retailer
retailer isisananimportant
importantaspect
aspectinintranslating
translatingCOD,
COD,RPL,RPL,andand SCCs
SCCs into
into aa future purchase
decision. The logic supporting
supporting thisthis argument
argument is is rooted
rooted in in RST, which proposes that cus-
tomers assess the e-retailer’s provision of RPL, COD, and SCCs in committing themselves
to
to future
future exchange
exchange relationships/purchase intentions. This
relationships/purchase intentions. This implies
implies that
that customers
customers whowho
have
have purchased in the presence of a COD, RPL, and SCCs from an e-retailer will
purchased in the presence of a COD, RPL, and SCCs from an e-retailer will then
then
repurchase
repurchase fromfromthat
thate-retailer.
e-retailer.As
AsFigure
Figure1 1indicates,
indicates, this
thisstudy
study proposes
proposesthat thethe
that effects of
effects
COD, RPL, and SCCs on consumer purchase intention are visible through
of COD, RPL, and SCCs on consumer purchase intention are visible through customer customer trust.
trust.
2.3. Hypotheses Development: Return Policy Leniency and Customer Trust
When engaging
2.3. Hypotheses in online
Development: shopping,
Return Policy customers rely
Leniency and on textual
Customer imageries and photos
Trust
that may not be sufficiently useful to make online purchase decisions [68]. Customers
When engaging in online shopping, customers rely on textual imageries and photos
cannot see, test, touch, or smell physical products before purchasing, generating additional
that may not be sufficiently useful to make online purchase decisions [68]. Customers can-
challenges regarding their attitudes toward e-commerce in high-uncertainty-avoidance
not see, test, touch, or smell physical products before purchasing, generating additional
societies [69,70] Thus, many e-retailers employ several strategies (i.e., virtual reality, exten-
challenges regarding their attitudes toward e-commerce in high-uncertainty-avoidance
sive descriptions) to enhance the online shopping experience, whereas customers rely on
societies [69,70] Thus, many e-retailers employ several strategies (i.e., virtual reality, ex-
WOM to reduce risk and uncertainty in online shopping [50]. Yet a considerable level of
tensive descriptions) to enhance the online shopping experience, whereas customers rely
uncertainty remains in the online shopping experience.
Return policies have become a competitive strategy and key element for online retail-
ing that can be employed to decrease the risk and uncertainty related to product quality [71].
However, product return is recognized as a key challenge for e-retailers [72]. This refers
to a product being returned to e-retailers or crediting a payment to consumers. There are
multiple reasons for a product return, including product defects, misfits, and a lack of
conformity to consumers’ expectations [73]. As a result, a product return has negative
economic effects on the profitability of e-retailers as it involves a set of reverse logistics
(i.e., packaging, shipping back, recycling) [21,74–76]. This reduces the margin of profit
from the original purchase and leads to additional costs being generated from handling the
returned product.
By contrast, lenient return policies are beneficial for e-retailers as they stimulate cus-
tomers’ purchasing proclivities [77] by decreasing their perceptions of risk and uncertainty
as a result of being unable to physically inspect products [74,78,79]. Janakiraman et al. [80]
state that despite the costs associated with processing returned products, e-retailers are
keen to provide their customers with lenient return policies because the sales stimulated
by these policies more than compensate for the costs of processing returns. Such policies
indicate that e-retailers are committed to service quality [81] and service recovery (i.e.,
wrong items, poor product quality) [82]. Furthermore, Jung and Seock [83] point out that
lenient return policies are regarded as a service recovery that is fundamental to decreasing
customer turnover and raising revenue. These policies entail the professional management
of service recovery by e-retailers [84].
This study recognizes the leniency of a return policy based on five key aspects derived
from [80] effort—“involves effortless return process”, time—“provides a longer length
of time in which to return products”, scope—“allows a wider range of products to be
returned”, money—“does impose monetary restrictions, and exchange—“allows cash
refunds”. After reviewing the related literature, it is apparent that the influence of lenient
return policies on customers’ trust has not been fully explained, except for a study by [50],
which found that customer trust mediates the relationship between return policy leniency
and Swadesh customers’ purchase intentions. Wang et al. [85] claimed that cognitive trust
is triggered by signaling through RPL. Unlike emotional trust, cognitive trust is defined as
an informed assessment of another party’s ability to perform and deliver specific behaviors
and is dependent on the perceptions of prior behaviors, exchanges, and leniency. Cognitive
trust indicates benevolence, integrity, and competence. By providing a lenient return policy,
e-retailers signal their ability and competency to address customer demands. Costly signals
conveyed by lenient returns policies also indicate they possess the integrity to continue
e-retail operations regardless of the high costs incurred from handling returns. Equally,
given that lenient return policies are costly, e-retailers signal benevolence in that these
policies are not found to cause harm.
H1. Return policy leniency (RPL) positively influences customer trust (TR).
2.4. Cash on Delivery (COD) and Customer Trust

Cash on delivery (COD) refers to a payment option that permits customers to pay cash
when the ordered product is delivered [66,67]. Because the consumer receives the products
prior to completing a payment, COD is occasionally referred to as a “post payment”
method [86]. COD has grown in popularity in recent years in a large number of developing
countries including India [63], Pakistan [64], Vietnam [87], Indonesia [88], Nigeria [89], and
Arab countries [65]. There are multiple reasons for its wide popularity and acceptance.
Given the substantial previous literature, issues with respect to trust, privacy, and security
are fundamental motives that make customers uncertain about adopting current e-payment
methods (i.e., credit/debit cards) and e-commerce [36,90–93]. In developing countries,
customers are still reluctant to use e-payment options due to an insufficient debit/credit
card penetration rate and a lack of secure e-payment systems [63,64]. Even with the
availability of credit/debit cards, many require bank pre-activation in order to be used for
e-commerce transactions, which makes the payment process more complicated. Moreover,
e-commerce in developing countries continues to evolve and customers lack experience
with e-payments. Furthermore, online payment regulations and cyber laws remain in their
infancy, failing to give customers a sufficient sense of security [64,94,95].
Although previous literature has found that customer trust has been recognized as a
key determinant of COD use for e-commerce transactions [64,66,96–99], examinations of
the impact of COD on customer trust are limited. In e-commerce transactions, mistrust may
arise owing to the absence of face-to-face interactions between the seller and the customer,
and uncertainty occurs as both parties may act unexpectedly and opportunistically [100].
As a result, avoiding opportunistic behavior [101,102], which can occur with COD, is the
key to minimizing such uncertainty and making e-commerce transactions effective. In
contrast to an e-payment transaction, COD ensures two key components of customer trust:
(1) the receipt of the expected product leading to trust building, and (2) paying by cash,
which protects customers from sharing their credit/debit card information over the Internet
and through e-payment systems [65,66].
The risk and distrust of sharing credit/debit card information and receiving a faulty
or incorrect product are alleviated to a large extent by using a COD option as customers are
allowed to check and approve the products before paying in cash [65,67,88]. Additionally,
Chiejina and Olamide [89] have claimed that COD is an effective strategy to compel online
retailers to deliver the correct orders, provide faster delivery, and improve customer service,
which increases customer satisfaction. COD is viewed as an appropriate solution for
reducing customers’ perceived risks. Many consumers fear financial hazards, such as
losing their money without receiving their products or having the right products delivered,
because they must pre-pay [87]. In the same vein, consumers using COD will have the
same traditional shopping experience whereby they can inspect the product before paying.
According to Li et al. [103], e-retailers are trusted by customers if they are able to sell and
deliver products as expected or even superior, which can be assured by offering COD.
Furthermore, through online payments, e-retailers are receiving their payments prior to
the actual delivery of the order [64]. However, the provision of COD by an e-retailer can
be realized as a costly signal of trust. Because customers may refuse to pay if they are
not satisfied with the product they have purchased, e-retailers who provide COD as a
payment option indicate that they are ready to make a costly commitment due to the costs
incurred by returning products. This costly signal is expected to contribute significantly to
developing customer trust in e-retailers.
H2. Cash on delivery (COD) positively influences customer trust (TR).
2.5. Social Commerce Constructs and Customer Trust

The rapid growth of social media and Web 2.0 technology has brought new e-commerce
developments [104,105]. This has offered an opportunity to develop new business models
that foster social interactions in terms of attracting more customers, particularly in the
sphere of e-commerce [106]. Customers’ experiences in online environments facilitated
by social media differs from that offline, as they are able to develop social interactions
with other customers [107]. In particular, social media and the advent of social platforms,
which are used for recommendations and referrals, ratings and reviews, social networks,
and communities and forums, allow customers to engage in social interactions [90,104,108].
Such social platforms are referred to as social commerce constructs (SCCs) [104] and are also
examined in this study. As explained by Hajli [109], SCCs refer to the embedded features
of an e-commerce website that allow customers to interact with other customers and rate,
comment, recommend, and shop for products. These constructs are social platforms that
enable customers to create content and share their shopping experiences. Customers are
empowered to provide advice and share their purchase experiences (opinions) after pur-
chasing through these platforms, which act as an online source of social support [110,111]
Potential customers, through SCCs, can access feedback and information regarding prod-
ucts, services, service quality, and online e-retailers that have been provided by other
customers [112]. The concept of word-of-mouth (WOM), which is facilitated by interactions
on SCCs, has become an immensely effective way to reach potential customers [113]. There-
fore, when potential customers are enabled to access the social experiences and knowledge
of previous customers, they can make more accurate informed purchasing decisions [114].
When customers experience uncertainty in online shopping, they tend to seek reliable
and trustworthy sources that provide referential and diagnostic information to overcome
this [115]. The information provided by an e-retailer is not always recognized as trustwor-
thy and reliable and is generally used by potential customers, whereas the information
provided by SCCs is viewed as trustworthy [107,112]. Research has indicated that potential
customers are inclined to rely more on WOM provided by their friends and fellow cus-
tomers on SCCs than the information provided by e-retailers when it comes to developing
a transaction intention before purchasing [116]. In the extant literature, WOM provided
through SCCs has been found to be a key predictor of customer trust [110,117,118]. Ha-
jli [104] confirms that SSCs are key enablers of trust. Furthermore, the literature confirms
that social presence, which can be conveyed through SCCs, fosters trust levels [119]. Sup-
porting this, other studies have found that the social presence and social applications of
e-commerce contribute significantly to making customers feel more secure and therefore
more likely to purchase [120].
Customers tend to trust information (WOM) obtained from other customers on SCCs
as such information is believed to be independent and safeguarded from interference by
e-retailers [115]. Potential customers may therefore have the chance to explore previous
customers’ shopping experiences, allowing them to evaluate the reliability of an e-retailer,
assess services/products before consumption, and shape the expectations of service quality-
related purchases. Furthermore, e-retailers are seen as trustworthy when they allow
customers to openly discuss and reveal their purchasing experiences and interactions with
others and access information via SCCs. Furthermore, SCCs allow e-retailers to enhance
their social support, social presence, and interaction with customers [112,121,122]. This
demonstrates that e-retailers are transparent, do not conceal information, and do not engage
in untrustworthy or opportunistic behavior toward customers.
H3. Social commerce constructs (SCCs) positively influence customer trust (TR).
2.6. Customer Trust (TR) and Purchase Intention (PI)

In e-commerce environments, it is difficult to assess whether e-retailers will be com-
mitted to protecting the personal information and privacy of customers [41] and/or the
security of online transactions [123]. The content of e-retailers’ websites can also influence
customer trust [124,125]. Furthermore, product uncertainty is largely related to e-retailers
in online markets [23,126]. Customers cannot entirely assess whether the descriptions of
products are sufficient and whether they will perform properly in the future as claimed by
e-retailers [23]. In the meantime, customers are also anxious about whether the e-retailer
has abundantly satisfied their personal demands and endorsed products that match their
preferences [30]. Thus, the decrease in e-retailer uncertainty may contribute substantially
to reducing product uncertainty. Several studies have confirmed that the development of a
close relationship and cultivation of trust toward e-retailers is an effective way to decrease
e-retailer uncertainty. Belief in the trustworthiness of e-retailers is based on three building
blocks: ability, integrity, and benevolence [127,128]. Thus, it is essential for e-retailers to
provide trustworthy transaction processes to build trust in customers, who subsequently
develop online purchase intentions [129,130].
Defining trust is complicated because it represents an abstract and multifaceted con-
cept. Accordingly, trust has been defined in different ways [131,132]. Trust in e-commerce
refers to the belief that customers are vulnerable to the honest intentions of e-retailers after
knowing their features [93]. Similarly, Gefen [133] defines trust as the general beliefs in
an e-retailer that shape behavioral intentions. Additionally, Kim [123] defines trust, the
same definition used in the current study, as a customer’s personal belief that the e-retailer
will accomplish their transactional commitments (as interpreted by the customers). This
definition is closely related to the cognitive trust definition, which denotes an informed
assessment of another party’s ability (e-retailer) to accomplish and convey expected behav-
iors based on perceptions of previous behaviors, exchanges, and leniency [85]. Research has
investigated how trust in an e-retailer drives a customer’s subsequent inclination to pur-
chase from a particular e-retailer. In online transactions, trust can be recognized as a major
predecessor belief that generates a positive attitude toward transaction behaviors [134,135],
therefore resulting in purchase intention. In previous literature, the influence of trust on
purchase intentions is clear [50,136–139]. Thus, customers’ trust in e-retailers can reduce
the vulnerability and social complexity that customers perceive in e-commerce settings.
H4. Customer trust (TR) positively influences purchase intentions.
3. Methodology
A survey method was employed for this study. The items used to measure the
research model’s constructs were adopted from previous research (see Appendix A). All
measurement items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale. Prior to administration, the
think-aloud technique was applied to discuss the questionnaire with three academicians
and four experienced e-commerce users for content and face validity. Small changes to the
phrasing and layout of the measurement items were made based on these conversations,
and the final online questionnaire was designed using Google Forms. The first part was
dedicated to collecting demographic information about the participants (see Table 1),
whereas the second section was composed of 26 items that measure the constructs of the
research model (see Appendix A).
Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents (n = 560).
Demographic Frequency %
Male 298 53%
Gender
Female 262 47%
<20 92 16%
21–25 151 27%
Age 26–30 162 29%
31–35 91 16%
>35 64 11%
Second school 54 10%
college 61 11%
Education Bachelor 372 66%
Master 41 7%
PhD 32 6%
Employed 355 63%
Occupation Student 167 30%
Unemployed 38 7%
<1 103 18%
Online shopping experience (Year) 1–2 353 63%
>3 104 19%
Data were collected in Jordan from 15 December 2021 to 18 February 2022. Due to the
absence of a sample frame for e-commerce users, the survey link was distributed to potential
participants via various WhatsApp groups and social media pages (after obtaining permis-
sion from the administrators). This ensured that all recruited participants were conversant
with social media and increased the likelihood of finding users who purchased products
through e-commerce. Most WhatsApp groups and social media members tend to belong to
numerous other groups and pages. Therefore, a snowball sampling method was adopted.
The administrators of the WhatsApp groups and social media pages were instructed to
distribute the survey link to other pages and groups and to encourage their members
to do the same. Accordingly, the online survey resulted in 573 returned questionnaires,
13 of which were discarded due to a high level of incompleteness. Consequently, a total of
560 questionnaires were valid and subjected to analysis. The respondents’ demographic
characteristics are displayed in Table 1.
In survey research, Common Method Variance (CMV) is a potential issue [140]. This is-
sue arises for various reasons, including item ambiguity, participants attempting to remain
consistent in their responses, scale length, common scale, anchors/formats, and gathering
data about independent and dependent variables from the same participant and measuring
them in the same location. According to Sharma [141], the validity of the relationships
among variables is threatened by CMV, which inflates observed correlations and provides
erroneous support for the hypotheses. Furthermore, Kock [142] states that CMV deflates
the size of correlations among variables, hence making the outcomes insignificant. As
suggested by Podsakoff [140], CMV was procedurally controlled during the questionnaire
design by utilizing clear and simple language, fragmenting the measurement items for
independent and dependent variables, eliminating “double-barreled” questions, and sep-
arating. These processes were effective in controlling CMV, as the result of a “Harman
Single Factor” analysis indicated that the total variance extracted by one factor was 49.01%
(<50%), demonstrating no bias in the dataset [140].
4. Data Analysis
The convergent validity of the constructs was assessed by examining the internal
consistency of the indicators using the Dijkstra–Henseler’s rho (rho_A) and the “average
variance extracted” (AVE). As displayed in Table 2, all rho_A, composite reliability (CR),
Cronbach’s alpha (α) (>0.7), and AVE (>0.5) values satisfied the recommended cut-off
values [143].
Table 2. Convergent validity.
Construct Mean STDEV α rho_A CR AVE

Cash on Delivery (COD) 1.44 0.45 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.73
Purchase Intention (PI) 1.45 0.44 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.66
Return Policy Leniency (RPL) 1.43 0.44 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.74
Social Commerce Constructs (SCCs) 1.44 0.42 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.68
Customer Trust (TR) 1.40 0.45 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.79
STDEV = Standard deviation.
Hair et√al. [143] state that to confirm the presence of discriminant validity, each
construct’s AVE value should be higher than the √correlations involving the constructs.
The diagonal numbers in Table 3 represent the AVE. These are larger than the off-
diagonal numbers (correlation values) in the corresponding columns and rows, indicating
discriminant validity. Additionally, the factor loadings and cross-loadings for each indicator
were calculated and are displayed in Table 4. The indicators (items) of each construct
yielded a factor loading higher than 0.707, except for RPL5 and SCCs, which had a factor
loading less than 0.707 and were consequently deleted. Furthermore, each indicator loads
higher on its intended theoretical construct than on any other construct, indicating the
presence of adequate discriminant and convergent validities [143]. Finally, the “heterotrait–
monotrait ratio of correlations” (HTMT) was employed to examine discriminant validity.
Table 5 shows that the values of the HTMT were all <0.85 [143], reconfirming the existence
of discriminant validity.
Table 3. Fornell and Larcker’s discriminant validity.
Construct COD PI RPL SCCs TR

Cash on Delivery (COD) 0.85
Purchase Intention (PI) 0.55 0.81
Return Policy Leniency (RPL) 0.67 0.66 0.86
Social Commerce Constructs (SCCs) 0.42 0.51 0.46 0.82
Customer Trust (TR) 0.72 0.67 0.72 0.49 0.89
Note: The diagonal numbers are the construct’s.
SEM-PLS modeling with Smart PLS was utilized to examine the suggested hypotheses.
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test indicates that the goodness of fitness for all the measure-
ment items was <0.05, demonstrating that the data in this study were non-normally dis-
tributed [144]. SmartPLS is widely used for SEM and can effectively manage non-normal
data and small samples [145]. The results of the hypotheses testing are presented in Table 4.
All hypotheses were supported. The RPL (β = 0.371, p < 0.001), COD (β = 0.411, p < 0.001),
and SCCs (β = 0.15, p < 0.001) exhibited a significant positive influence on TR. Furthermore,
TR (β = −0.677, p < 0.001) exhibited a significant positive influence on purchase intention.

The total variances explained for PI and TR were 45.9% (R2 = 0.459) and 64% (R2 = 0.64),
respectively (see Table 6), indicating that the research model has moderate explanatory
power [146]. The indices of model fitness were all within the recommended range [143],
including the NFI “Normed Fit Index” = 0.91 (>0.9), SRMR “Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual” = 0.063 (<0.9), and RMS Theta = 0.11 (<0.12).
Table 4. Cross loadings.
COD PI RPL SCCs TR

COD1 0.87 0.48 0.58 0.37 0.64
COD2 0.84 0.45 0.58 0.35 0.61
COD3 0.85 0.49 0.58 0.37 0.61
COD4 0.85 0.47 0.59 0.34 0.61
PI1 0.48 0.84 0.56 0.42 0.56
PI2 0.47 0.83 0.55 0.41 0.56
PI3 0.43 0.81 0.54 0.44 0.56
PI4 0.43 0.78 0.53 0.39 0.53
RPL1 0.62 0.59 0.89 0.38 0.64
RPL2 0.60 0.57 0.86 0.39 0.62
RPL3 0.60 0.61 0.88 0.40 0.62
RPL4 0.62 0.59 0.89 0.39 0.64
RPL6 0.48 0.54 0.79 0.46 0.59
SCCs1 0.34 0.42 0.35 0.81 0.42
SCCs3 0.36 0.43 0.39 0.86 0.44
SCCs4 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.79 0.43
SCCs5 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.78 0.41
SCCs6 0.34 0.49 0.42 0.88 0.41
SCCs7 0.34 0.43 0.43 0.84 0.38
SCCs8 0.34 0.44 0.40 0.82 0.38
TR1 0.67 0.58 0.65 0.47 0.90
TR2 0.65 0.62 0.65 0.43 0.89
TR3 0.65 0.63 0.65 0.44 0.90
TR4 0.63 0.60 0.63 0.43 0.87
Note: Numbers in bold represent the items loading for each construct.
Table 5. HTMT text.
Construct COD PI RPL SCCs TR

Cash on Delivery (COD) -
Purchase Intention (PI) 0.55 -
Return Policy Leniency (RPL) 0.67 0.67 -
Social Commerce Constructs (SCCs) 0.42 0.51 0.46 -
Customer Trust (TR) 0.72 0.67 0.72 0.49 -
Table 6. Hypotheses testing.
“Bias-Corrected 95%
Hypothesis Path β STDEV T Statistics p Values
Confidence Interval”
H1 COD → TR 0.411 [0.274, 0.551] 0.073 5.63 <0.001
H2 RPL → TR 0.371 [0.229, 0.506] 0.074 5.025 <0.001
H3 SCCs → TR 0.15 [0.072, 0.224] 0.039 3.834 <0.001
H4 TR → PI 0.677 [0.611, 0.741] 0.033 20.58 <0.001
As demonstrated in Table 7, all the VIF “variance inflation factor” values for the
independent variables (COD, RPL, SCCs) were <3, indicating that there were no collinearity
issues [143]. Although the effect sizes (f 2 ) of COD (0.246), RPL (0.191), and SCCs (0.048) on
TR were all medium (see Table 7), TR exerted a large effect size of 0.847 on PI [147].
Table 7. Explanatory power and effect size.
Construct VIF R2 f2
Cash on Delivery (COD) 1.90 - 0.246
Purchase Intention (PI) - 0.459 -
Return Policy Leniency (RPL) 1.99 - 0.191
Social Commerce Constructs (SCCs) 1.31 - 0.048
Trust (TR) - 0.64 0.847
5. Discussion
This study examined how RPL, COD, and SCCs affect customers’ PI through customer
trust. The analysis was based on a structured survey dataset from e-commerce users in
Jordan. SEM-PLS was used to validate the research model. The results demonstrate that
RPL has a significant positive impact on TR, indicating that H1 is supported. This is
consistent with the findings of previous research [50]. This suggests that RPL acts as an
effective mechanism to enhance customer trust. The more lenient the return policy, the
more customer trust will be increased. Customers evaluate return policies according to their
degree of leniency before committing to a purchase. Lenient return policies are considered
by customers as a signal that e-retailers are eager to share with customers the transaction-
related risks. This builds goodwill and trust, which leads to customers’ purchase intentions.
Enabling customers to easily return a wide range of products within a reasonable timeframe
and without imposing fees means they are more likely to develop trust.
H2 was also supported. This indicates that COD exerts the strongest significant
positive impact on TR. This suggests offering a COD payment option increases customer
trust. Although prior research found COD positively affects purchase intentions [67], the
effect of COD on customer trust has been less widely explored. Prior payment is likely
to be a problem for many customers as they are uncertain as to whether their order will
be dispatched or if they will receive the right products. COD solves such uncertainties
and reduces customer stress by allowing them to make the payment only after checking
the shipment. If customers receive inaccurate or low-quality products, they can instantly
return them. Furthermore, COD is a secure payment option that does not require customers
to share their financial information online [66]. The simple structure of COD makes it a
simple method for making an online transaction, which in turn enables customers with
average computer competency to engage in online shopping. Hence, the provision of a
COD payment option by e-retailers increases customer trust. Importantly, the effect of
COD is higher than RPL on customer trust. A plausible explanation for this is that COD
conveys a shopping experience that simulates an offline shopping experience as customers
can inspect products before paying and can instantly return products if they are inadequate
or faulty.
The results confirm the significant positive effect of SCCs on TR supporting H3.
This finding is confirmed by previous research [104,112,115]. It implies that providing
customers with social commerce tools (e.g., ratings, social media, recommendation systems,
reviews) to access the opinions and feedback of former customers regarding their purchase
experiences increases the trust of potential/actual customers in transacting with e-retailers.
Through SCCs, customers are able to use different channels to share their purchasing
experiences with respected e-retailers and products/services without any interruption
from e-retailers. Electronic Word-of-Mouth (EWOM) provided through SCCs is recognized
as a trustworthy information source for customers. SCCs are methods used to communicate
and exchange information online about e-retailers and products/services between senders
(former customers) and receivers (actual or potential customers). For the receivers, the
information provided by the senders (former customers) has no commercial intent, and as
such is viewed as more credible than other information sources such as advertisements or
e-retailers’ websites.
The results suggest that TR is a key enabler of PI as it has a significant positive effect on
this variable; hence, H4 is supported. This finding aligns with previous research [50,136,138,139].
This implies that the more customers’ trust increases, the more they intend to purchase.
Trust is an effective mechanism that reduces the inherent uncertainty and risk related to
e-commerce. If customers perceive the integrity, benevolence, and ability of e-retailers to
be sufficient they will develop an inclination to be vulnerable to e-retailers. If the extent
of a customer’s trust in an e-retailer surpasses their perceived risk, then the customer will
become involved in a risky relationship with the e-retailer. This means that trust is the main
antecedent of purchase intention in online shopping settings where there is a perceived
risk of a negative consequence [123].
6. Managerial Implications
The main findings of this study show that to enhance customer trust as a key deter-
minant of purchase intention, e-retailers should provide customers with COD, SCCs, and
RPL. The strategic use of return policies by retailers can generate a significant increase in
customers’ lifetime value [148]. The leniency of return policies was found in this study
to be a key predictor of customer trust. Thus, e-retail managers should actively realize
the importance of customers’ trust in converting return policies into purchase behavior.
Although customer trust is a necessary aspect to be considered in product purchasing,
e-retailers need to be aware that building higher trust will allow them to introduce new
products and renew their offers as customers will trust them in the event of a service
recovery [50]. Thus, managers should employ return policies as a method to boost the
competitive position of their businesses by gaining customer trust to increase future sales.
This requires offering lenient return policies in terms of momentary costs, longer return
windows, convenience, a wider range of products that can be returned and exchanged,
and full refunds. These aspects should be considered when developing return policies.
Furthermore, it is important to determine the main reasons for the returns as the factors
that influence the return experience will help to clarify why returns occur, facilitating
the process of identifying effective solutions [149]. Importantly, because of technological
advancements, unethical/opportunistic returns may not have a substantial impact on
e-retailers as they can detect unusually frequent returns by an individual customer.
The effect of SSCs on customer trust in this study was significant. This suggests that
Web 2.0 technologies should be considered a key element when designing e-commerce web-
sites. Increasing customer trust requires integrating Web 2.0 technologies into e-commerce
websites and connecting these websites to various social network sites (e.g., Facebook). In so
doing, customers will be allowed to access more social and trustworthy information based
on previous shopping experiences and feedback related to products and e-retailers. By
providing customers with credible sources of information other than e-commerce websites,
the perceived uncertainty of customers will be reduced. Moreover, the implementation of
SCCs will enhance the trustworthiness of e-retailers as it is an indicator of transparency
that discourages the act of information concealing from customers. SCCs can also aid
e-retailers in monitoring consumer interactions, allowing them to predict and prevent
negative WOM that might imperil their reputation and, therefore, reduce customers’ will-
ingness to buy their products [110]. Furthermore, these tools can be a valuable source of
information for two-way communication as well as assist e-retailers in successfully and
promptly resolving consumer problems. Importantly, e-retailers should identify strategies
that will encourage customers to use SCCs to generate content and enhance profits as a
result of attracting new customers [150]. Positive WOM is an effective marketing approach
employed to endorse products/services, attract more customers, and deepen relationships
with existing customers. However, e-retailers should also be aware that negative WOM
can significantly overshadow positive WOM and thus increase customer uncertainty [31].
High-quality customer service, lenient return policies, and high logistics service quality
can increase customer satisfaction, motivating customers to convey positive WOM through
SCCs [50,63,151].
The findings indicate that customer trust is increased by the availability of a COD
payment option. Thus, e-retailers, particularly new e-retailers planning to enter the e-
market, should consider providing COD as a payment option, among others. It has also
been claimed that COD could be employed as a strategic approach for e-retailers to increase
sales as it is deemed to appeal to a broader demographic [66]. Furthermore, a study
by Kidane and Sharma [152] found that nearly 67% of customers dismiss e-commerce
transactions when e-retailers request authentication of their banking information. Hence,
COD can be used by e-retailers to decrease customers’ anxieties about online fraud. Because
COD increases the risk of returns [64], e-retailers and their logistics service providers (LSPs)
should ensure that customers’ orders are checked with respect to quality and accuracy
before shipment [63]. Furthermore, LSPs should bear in mind that delivering the right
orders to customers on time with the expected condition(s) requires adequate logistics
infrastructures. In addition, it is important for e-retailers to use reliable logistics partners to
ensure the accuracy and condition of shipments.
7. Conclusions
Based on uncertainty and signaling literature, this study conceptualized return policy
leniency (RPL), cash on delivery (COD), and social commerce constructs (SCCs) as three
signals that can cultivate customer trust (TR). The three routes linking RPL, COD, SSCs,
and customer purchase intention were tested through an analysis of structured survey data
from 560 respondents. The findings indicated that RPL, COD, and SSCs were significant
facilitators of customer trust. Furthermore, customer trust was found to be a key enabler
of customers’ PI. This study verified that the three signals were effective mechanisms for
reducing purchasing uncertainty and risk and increasing customer trust, which in turn
fostered purchase intention. Finally, it is useful to consider future research related to the
development of perceived trust and purchase intention. Given that customers’ purchasing
behavior differs across product types, it is essential to replicate this study for different types
of products to generate more robust conclusions. Such research is expected to help build
product-specific strategies, as different product features need different channel capabilities
to improve customers’ purchasing experiences. This study adopted a cross-sectional design
that measured the variables of the framework at a particular point in time; further research
should validate the proposed framework using longitudinal analysis. It is also important
to test the framework of this study in different countries and to investigate potential
cross-cultural variances [153]. Further research may examine additional variables such as
information quality, e-retailer reputation, and website design.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S.A.-A.; methodology, A.S.A.-A.; software, A.S.A.-A.;

validation, A.S.A.-A., H.Y. and M.K.A.; formal analysis, A.S.A.-A.; investigation, A.S.A.-A., M.A.
and M.K.A.; resources, A.S.A.-A., H.Y., M.A. and A.M.A.; data curation, A.S.A.-A. and M.K.A.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.S.A.-A.; writing—review and editing, H.Y., M.K.A., M.A. and
A.M.A.; visualization, A.S.A.-A. supervision, A.S.A.-A.; project administration, A.S.A.-A.; funding
acquisition, A.M.A. and A.S.A.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
COD1 “Cash on delivery mode of payment facilitates easy return of defected products”.
Cash on COD2 “Cash on delivery gives me confidence for future repurchase of products”.
[36,67]
delivery (COD) COD3 “I plan to pay through cash on delivery mode of payment”.
COD4 “I think cash on delivery is a reliable mode to payment”.
“The e-commerce website returns the goods in original price under
RPL1
any circumstances”.
RPL2 “The store promises an easy return mode”.
“The e-commerce website takes charge of the shipping fee of returning the
Return policy RPL3
commodities under any circumstances.”
leniency (RPL) [50,77]
RPL4 “The e-commerce website accepts the returns of promotion items”
“The e-commerce website accepts the returns due to consumers’ preferences or
RPL5
inconsistent expectations.”
“The e-commerce website permits a relatively long period for returning
RPL6
the commodities”.
SSCs1 “I feel my friends rating and reviews are generally frank”.
SSCs2 “I feel my friends rating and reviews reliable”.
SSCs3 “I feel my friends on forums and communities are generally frank”.
SSCs4 “I feel my friends on forums and communities reliable”.
Social commerce
[104,115,150]
constructs (SSCs) SSCs5 “I feel my friends’ recommendations are generally frank”.
SSCs6 “I feel my friends’ recommendations are generally reliable”.
“I am willing to recommend a new product that is worth buying for my friends on
SSCs7
this online community”.
SSCs8 “I am interested in reading referrals from other users”.
TR1 “This e-commerce website is genuinely interested in customer’s welfare”.
Customer TR2 “If problems arise, one can expect to be treated fairly by this e-commerce website”.
[151,154]
trust (TR) TR3 “This e-commerce website operates scrupulously”.
TR4 “You can believe the statements of this e-commerce website”.
PI1 “I am very likely to buy/hire the product/service from same seller”.
“I would consider buying the product/services from the same seller and platform
Purchase PI2
in the future”. [150,155]
intention (PI)
PI3 “I intend to buy the product/service from the seller”.
PI4 “I intend to provide my personal information with the seller”.
References
1. He, P.; Zhang, S.; He, C. Impacts of logistics resource sharing on B2C E-commerce companies and customers. Electron. Commer.
Res. Appl. 2019, 34, 100820. [CrossRef]
2. Statista. E-Commerce Worldwide—Statistics & Facts; Statista: Hamburg, Germany, 2022.
3. Yahia, I.B.; Al-Neama, N.; Kerbache, L. Investigating the drivers for social commerce in social media platforms: Importance of
trust, social support and the platform perceived usage. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 11–19. [CrossRef]
4. Nanda, A.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, F. How would the COVID-19 pandemic reshape retail real estate and high streets through acceleration
of E-commerce and digitalization? J. Urban Manag. 2021, 10, 110–124. [CrossRef]
5. Luo, X.; Tu, Y.; Tang, J.; Kwong, C. Optimizing customer’s selection for configurable product in B2C e-commerce application.
Comput. Ind. 2008, 59, 767–776. [CrossRef]
6. Steel, W.; Daglish, T.; Marriott, L.; Gemmell, N.; Howell, B. E-Commerce and Its Effect upon the Retail Industry and Government
Revenue; Working Paper Series 4333; Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition
and Regulation: Wellington, New Zealand, 2013.
7. Lai, I.-S.; Huang, Y.-F.; Siang, J.-H.; Weng, M.-W. Evaluation of Key Success Factors for Web Design in Taiwan’s Bike Case Study.
J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 927–937. [CrossRef]
8. Xu, J.; Cheng, C. Uncertainty avoidance, individualism and the readiness of Business-to-Consumer E-commerce. J. Asian Financ.
Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 791–801.
9. Kwak, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, J. Legitimacy building and e-commerce platform development in China: The experience of Alibaba.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 139, 115–124. [CrossRef]
10. Rabayah, K.S.; Maree, M.; Alhashmi, S.M. Cultural factors that influence the adoption of e-commerce: A Palestinian case study.
Inf. Dev. 2021. online first. [CrossRef]
11. Lim, K.H.; Leung, K.; Sia, C.L.; Lee, M.K.O. Is eCommerce boundary-less? Effects of individualism–collectivism and uncertainty
avoidance on Internet shopping. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2004, 35, 545–559. [CrossRef]
12. Ayob, A.H. E-commerce adoption in ASEAN: Who and where? Futur. Bus. J. 2021, 7, 4. [CrossRef]
13. Steenkamp, J.B.E.; Ter Hofstede, F.; Wedel, M. A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents
of consumer innovativeness. J. Mark. 1999, 63, 55–69. [CrossRef]
14. Yeniyurt, S.; Townsend, J.D. Does culture explain acceptance of new products in a country? An empirical investigation. Int. Mark.
Rev. 2003, 20, 377–396. [CrossRef]
15. Al-Omoush, K.S.; Ancillo, A.D.L.; Gavrila, S.G. The role of cultural values in social commerce adoption in the Arab world: An
empirical study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 176, 121440. [CrossRef]
16. SaleCycle. 2018. Available online: https://www.salecycle.com/blog/featured/ecommerce-in-the-middle-east-2018-stats-and-
trends/ (accessed on 7 April 2022).
17. Makki, E.; Chang, L.C. Understanding the effects of social media and mobile usage on e-commerce: An exploratory study in
Saudi Arabia. Int. Manag. Rev. 2015, 11, 98–109.
18. Al Hawamdeh, N.; Al Qatamin, A. The effect of cultural dimensions on knowledge-sharing intentions: Evidence from higher
education institutions in Jordan. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 1079–1089. [CrossRef]
19. DataReportal. Digital in Jordan: All the Statistics You Need in 2021. 2021. Available online: https://datareportal.com/reports/
digital-2021-jordan (accessed on 8 April 2022).
20. Statista. eCommerce—Jordan | Statista Market Forecast. 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/
ecommerce/jordan (accessed on 7 April 2022).
21. Yaseen, H.; Dingley, K.; Adams, C. Capturing the growth of e-commerce in Jordan using a novel research approach. Int. J. Manag.
Commer. Innov. 2016, 3, 811–827.
22. Pfeffer, J.; Salancik, G.R. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective; Stanford University Press:
Redwood City, CA, USA, 2003.
23. Dimoka; Hong; Pavlou On Product Uncertainty in Online Markets: Theory and Evidence. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 395. [CrossRef]
24. Yaseen, H.; Dingley, K.; Alhusban, M.; Alhosban, A. E-Commerce Adoption Model for Traditional Retailers in Developing
Countries. Int. J. Infonomics 2017, 10, 1296–1306. [CrossRef]
25. Al-maaitah, T.A.; Tha’er Majali, M.A.; Almaaitah, D.A. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Electronic Commerce Users Behavior.
J. Contemp. Issues Bus. Gov. 2021, 27, 784–793.
26. Akerlof, G.A. The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 1970, 84, 488–500. [CrossRef]
27. Pavlou; Liang; Xue Understanding and Mitigating Uncertainty in Online Exchange Relationships: A Principal-Agent Perspective.
MIS Q. 2007, 31, 105. [CrossRef]
28. Ba, S.; Pavlou, P.A. Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior.
MIS Q. 2002, 26, 243–268. [CrossRef]
29. Wolf, J.; Muhanna, W. Adverse Selection and Reputation Systems in Online Auctions: Evidence fom eBay Motors. In Proceedings
of the ICIS 2005, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 11–14 December 2005; Volume 67. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2005/67.
(accessed on 14 May 2022).
30. Hong, Y.; Pavlou, P.A. Product fit uncertainty in online markets: Nature, effects, and antecedents. Inf. Syst. Res. 2014, 25, 328–344.
[CrossRef]
31. Kanani, R.; Glavee-Geo, R. Breaking the uncertainty barrier in social commerce: The relevance of seller and customer-based
signals. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2021, 48, 101059. [CrossRef]
32. Alsoud, M.A.S.; Othman, I.B.L. The Determinant of Online Shopping Intention in Jordan: A Review and Suggestions for Future
Research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2018, 8, 441–457. [CrossRef]
33. Maia, C.; Lunardi, G.; Longaray, A.; Munhoz, P. Factors and characteristics that influence consumers’ participation in social
commerce. Rev. Gestão 2018, 25, 194–211. [CrossRef]
34. Wang, C.-Y.; Lee, H.-C.; Wu, L.-W.; Liu, C.-C. Quality dimensions in online communities influence purchase intentions. Manag.
Decis. 2017, 55, 1984–1998. [CrossRef]
35. Forsythe, S.; Liu, C.; Shannon, D.; Gardner, L.C. Development of a scale to measure the perceived benefits and risks of online
shopping. J. Interact. Mark. 2006, 20, 55–75. [CrossRef]
36. Hamed, S.; El-Deeb, S. Cash on Delivery as a Determinant of E-Commerce Growth in Emerging Markets. J. Glob. Mark. 2020, 33,
242–265. [CrossRef]
37. Yang, Z.; Van Ngo, Q.; Chen, Y.; Nguyen, C.X.-T.; Hoang, H.T. Does Ethics Perception Foster Consumer Repurchase Intention?
Role of Trust, Perceived Uncertainty, and Shopping Habit. SAGE Open 2019, 9, 2158244019848844. [CrossRef]
38. Chiu, T.-S.; Chih, W.-H.; Ortiz, J.; Wang, C.-Y. The contradiction of trust and uncertainty from the viewpoint of swift guanxi.
Internet Res. 2018, 28, 716–745. [CrossRef]
39. Hofstede, G.H.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA,
2005; Volume 2.
40. Doney, P.M.; Cannon, J.P.; Mullen, M.R. Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 601–620. [CrossRef]
41. McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology.
Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 334–359. [CrossRef]
42. Sleem, A.M. E-Commerce Infrastructure in Developing Countries. In Electronic Business in Developing Countries: Opportunities and
Challenges; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2005; pp. 349–375. [CrossRef]
43. Prasetyo, E.H. Legitimacy building of digital platforms in the informal economy: Evidence from Indonesia. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ.
2021. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
44. Yaseen, H.; Al-Adwan, A.S.; Al-Madadha, A. Digital marketing adoption among SMEs in Jordan: A mixed-method approach.
J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2019, 97, 1396–1407.
45. Mareï, N.; Savy, M. Global South countries: The dark side of city logistics. Dualisation vs Bipolarisation. Transp. Policy 2020, 100,
46. Goldsmith, E.; McGregor, S.L. E-commerce: Consumer protection issues and implications for research and education. J. Consum.
Stud. Home Econ. 2000, 24, 124–127. [CrossRef]
47. Spence, M. Job Market Signaling. In Uncertainty in Economics; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978; pp. 281–306.
[CrossRef]
48. Six, F.; Nooteboom, B.; Hoogendoorn, A. Actions that Build Interpersonal Trust: A Relational Signalling Perspective. Rev. Soc.
Econ. 2010, 68, 285–315. [CrossRef]
49. Six, F.E. Building interpersonal trust within organizations: A relational signalling perspective. J. Manag. Gov. 2007, 11, 285–309.
[CrossRef]
50. Oghazi, P.; Karlsson, S.; Hellström, D.; Hjort, K. Online purchase return policy leniency and purchase decision: Mediating role of
consumer trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 190–200. [CrossRef]
51. Connelly, B.L.; Certo, S.T.; Ireland, R.D.; Reutzel, C.R. Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. J. Manag. 2010, 37, 39–67.
[CrossRef]
52. Spence, M. Signaling in Retrospect and the Informational Structure of Markets. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92, 434–459. [CrossRef]
53. Lu, B.; Chen, Z. Live streaming commerce and consumers’ purchase intention: An uncertainty reduction perspective. Inf. Manag.
2021, 58, 103509. [CrossRef]
54. Li, X.; Zhuang, Y.; Lu, B.; Chen, G. A multi-stage hidden Markov model of customer repurchase motivation in online shopping.
Decis. Support Syst. 2019, 120, 72–80. [CrossRef]
55. Kirmani, A.; Rao, A.R. No Pain, No Gain: A Critical Review of the Literature on Signaling Unobservable Product Quality. J. Mark.
2000, 64, 66–79. [CrossRef]
56. Yaseen, H.; Alhusban, M.D.; Alhosban, A.; Dingley, K. Making Sense of E-Commerce Customers Awareness in a Developing
Country Context: A Framework for Evaluation. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 2017, 20, 102–115.
57. Mavlanova, T.; Benbunan-Fich, R.; Lang, G. The role of external and internal signals in E-commerce. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 87,
59–68. [CrossRef]
58. Kirmani, A. The Effect of Perceived Advertising Costs on Brand Perceptions. J. Consum. Res. 1990, 17, 160–171. [CrossRef]
59. Lee, B.-C.; Ang, L.; Dubelaar, C. Lemons on the Web: A signalling approach to the problem of trust in Internet commerce. J. Econ.
Psychol. 2005, 26, 607–623. [CrossRef]
60. Cheung, C.; Xiao, B.S.; Liu, I.L. Do actions speak louder than voices? The signaling role of social information cues in influencing
consumer purchase decisions. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 65, 50–58. [CrossRef]
61. Frijns, B.; Gilbert, A.; Lehnert, T.; Tourani-Rad, A. Uncertainty avoidance, risk tolerance and corporate takeover decisions. J. Bank.
Financ. 2013, 37, 2457–2471. [CrossRef]
62. Fjaeran, L.; Aven, T. Creating conditions for critical trust—How an uncertainty-based risk perspective relates to dimensions and
types of trust. Saf. Sci. 2020, 133, 105008. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Jain, N.K.; Gajjar, H.; Shah, B.J. Electronic logistics service quality and repurchase intention in e-tailing: Catalytic role of shopping
satisfaction, payment options, gender and returning experience. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 59, 102360. [CrossRef]
64. Anjum, S.; Chai, J. Drivers of Cash-on-Delivery Method of Payment in E-Commerce Shopping: Evidence from Pakistan. SAGE
Open 2020, 10, 2158244020917392. [CrossRef]
65. Halaweh, M. Implementation of the COD payment method on e-commerce websites in the Arab Region. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst.
2019, 32, 145. [CrossRef]
66. Halaweh, M. Cash on Delivery (COD) as an Alternative Payment Method for E-Commerce Transactions: Analysis and implications.
Int. J. Sociotechnol. Knowl. Dev. 2018, 10, 1–12. [CrossRef]
67. Tandon, U.; Kiran, R. Study on drivers of online shopping and significance of cash-on-delivery mode of payment on behavioural
intention. Int. J. Electron. Bus. 2018, 14, 212. [CrossRef]
68. Fu, Y.; Liu, G.; Papadimitriou, S.; Xiong, H.; Li, X.; Chen, G. Fused latent models for assessing product return propensity in online
commerce. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 91, 77–88. [CrossRef]
69. Yao, Y.; Boardman, R.; Vazquez, D. Cultural Considerations in Social Commerce: The Differences and Potential Opportunities in
China. In Social Commerce; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 43–58. [CrossRef]
70. Yildirim, E. How Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance and Indulgence Affect Social Commerce Expenditure? An Investigation
Based on Facebook. Int. J. Sci. Cult. Sport 2016, 4, 403. [CrossRef]
71. Abdulla, H.; Abbey, J.D.; Ketzenberg, M. How consumers value retailer’s return policy leniency levers: An empirical investigation.
Prod. Oper. Manag. 2021, 31, 1719–1733. [CrossRef]
72. Kaushik, V.; Kumar, A.; Gupta, H.; Dixit, G. Modelling and prioritizing the factors for online apparel return using BWM approach.
Electron. Commer. Res. 2020, 1–31. [CrossRef]
73. Hsiao, L.; Chen, Y.-J. Returns Policy and Quality Risk in E-Business. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2011, 21, 489–503. [CrossRef]
74. Shao, B.; Cheng, Z.; Wan, L.; Yue, J. The impact of cross border E-tailer’s return policy on consumer’s purchase intention. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 2021, 59, 102367. [CrossRef]
75. Yan, R.; Pei, Z. Return policies and O2O coordination in the e-tailing age. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 50, 314–321. [CrossRef]
76. Samorani, M.; Alptekinoğlu, A.; Messinger, P.R. Product Return Episodes in Retailing. Serv. Sci. 2019, 11, 263–278. [CrossRef]
77. Wang, Y.; Anderson, J.; Joo, S.-J.; Huscroft, J.R. The leniency of return policy and consumers’ repurchase intention in online
retailing. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2019, 120, 21–39. [CrossRef]
78. Javed, M.K.; Wu, M. Effects of online retailer after delivery services on repurchase intention: An empirical analysis of customers’
past experience and future confidence with the retailer. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 54, 101942. [CrossRef]
79. Pham, T.S.H.; Ahammad, M.F. Antecedents and consequences of online customer satisfaction: A holistic process perspective.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 124, 332–342. [CrossRef]
80. Janakiraman, N.; Syrdal, H.A.; Freling, R. The Effect of Return Policy Leniency on Consumer Purchase and Return Decisions: A
Meta-analytic Review. J. Retail. 2016, 92, 226–235. [CrossRef]
81. Lysenko-Ryba, K.; Zimon, D. Customer Behavioral Reactions to Negative Experiences during the Product Return. Sustainability
2021, 13, 448. [CrossRef]
82. Autry, C.W. Formalization of reverse logistics programs: A strategy for managing liberalized returns. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2005, 34,
83. Jung, N.Y.; Seock, Y.-K. Effect of service recovery on customers’ perceived justice, satisfaction, and word-of-mouth intentions on
online shopping websites. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 37, 23–30. [CrossRef]
84. Rao, S.; Lee, K.B.; Connelly, B.; Iyengar, D. Return Time Leniency in Online Retail: A Signaling Theory Perspective on Buying
Outcomes. Decis. Sci. 2017, 49, 275–305. [CrossRef]
85. Wang, W.; Qiu, L.; Kim, D.; Benbasat, I. Effects of rational and social appeals of online recommendation agents on cognition- and
affect-based trust. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 86, 48–60. [CrossRef]
86. Rouibah, K. Electronic Payment Systems Use and Satisfaction in an Arabic Country: Evidence from Kuwait. Issues Inf. Syst. 2015,
16, 149–160. [CrossRef]
87. Ha, N.T.; Nguyen, T.L.H.; Pham, T.V.; Nguyen, T.H.T. Factors influencing online shopping intention: An empirical study in
Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 1257–1266. [CrossRef]
88. Indiani, N.L.P.; Febriandari, S.N.S. Key antecedents of consumer purchasing behaviour in emerging online retail market. Cogent
Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1978370. [CrossRef]
89. Chiejina, C.; Olamide, S.E. Investigating the Significance of the’Pay on Delivery’Option in the Emerging Prosperity of the Nigerian
e-commerce sector. J. Mark. Manag. 2014, 5, 120–135.
90. Al-Adwan, A.S.; Kokash, H.; Al Adwan, A.; Alhorani, A.; Yaseen, H. Building customer loyalty in online shopping: The role of
online trust, online satisfaction and electronic word of mouth. Int. J. Electron. Mark. Retail. 2020, 11, 278. [CrossRef]
91. Sullivan, Y.W.; Kim, D.J. Assessing the effects of consumers’ product evaluations and trust on repurchase intention in e-commerce
environments. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 39, 199–219. [CrossRef]
92. Fortes, N.; Rita, P. Privacy concerns and online purchasing behaviour: Towards an integrated model. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ.
2016, 22, 167–176. [CrossRef]
93. Pavlou, P.A. Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model.
Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 101–134. [CrossRef]
94. Chawla, N.; Kumar, B. E-Commerce and Consumer Protection in India: The Emerging Trend. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 1–24. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
95. Yaseen, H.; Dingley, K.; Adams, C. An empirical study of factos influencing e-commerce customers’ awareness in Jordan.
In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Information Society (i-Society), Dublin, Ireland, 10–13 October 2016;
pp. 63–67. [CrossRef]
96. Alsoud, M.A.; bin Lebai Othman, I. Factors Influencing Online Shopping Intention in Jordan: An Empirical Study Based on the
Tam Model. Int. J. Curr. Innov. Adv. Res. 2018, 1, 1–13.
97. Alsaoud, M.A. Determinants of Online Shopping Intention among Jordanian’s Academicians. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Utara
Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia, 2019.
98. Trawnih, A.; Yaseen, H.; Al-Adwan, A.S.; Alsoud, R.; Jaber, O.A. Factors influencing social media adoption among smes during
COVID-19 crisis. J. Manag. Inf. Decis. Sci. 2021, 24, 1–18.
99. Alsoud, A.R.; Al-masaeed, S.; Johar, M.G.M.; Ab-Yajid, M.S.; Abdeljaber, O.; Shukri, S.M. Moderating role of online trust on the
relationship between post purchase factors and online purchase intention in malaysia. Int. J. eBus. eGov. Stud. 2021, 13, 168–186.
100. Jang, H.Y.; Jeong, K.H.; Jeong, D.Y. The consequences of customer trust and the determinants of purchasing intention in internet
shopping mall. Asia Pac. J. Inf. Syst. 2005, 15, 23–49.
101. Halaweh, M. Intention to Adopt the Cash on Delivery (COD) Payment Model for E-commerce Transactions: An Empirical Study.
In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management, Bialystok,
Poland, 16–18 June 2017; pp. 628–637. [CrossRef]
102. Hosmer, L.T. Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20,
103. Li, Y.; Fu, Z.T.; Li, H. Evaluating factors affecting the adoption of mobile commerce in agriculture: An empirical study. N. Z. J.
Agric. Res. 2007, 50, 1213–1218. [CrossRef]
104. Hajli, N. Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 183–191. [CrossRef]
105. Liang, T.-P.; Turban, E. Introduction to the Special Issue Social Commerce: A Research Framework for Social Commerce. Int. J.
Electron. Commer. 2011, 16, 5–14. [CrossRef]
106. Busalim, A.H.; Hussin, A.C. Understanding social commerce: A systematic literature review and directions for further research.
Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 1075–1088. [CrossRef]
107. Park, D.-H.; Lee, J.; Han, I. The Effect of On-Line Consumer Reviews on Consumer Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of
Involvement. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2007, 11, 125–148. [CrossRef]
108. Lai, L.S.L.; Turban, E. Groups Formation and Operations in the Web 2.0 Environment and Social Networks. Group Decis. Negot.
2008, 17, 387–402. [CrossRef]
109. Hajli, M. A research framework for social commerce adoption. Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur. 2013, 21, 144–154. [CrossRef]
110. Hidayanto, A.N.; Ovirza, M.; Anggia, P.; Budi, N.F.A.; Phusavat, K. The Roles of Electronic Word of Mouth and Information
Searching in the Promotion of a New E-Commerce Strategy: A Case of Online Group Buying in Indonesia. J. Theor. Appl. Electron.
Commer. Res. 2017, 12, 69–85. [CrossRef]
111. Hajli, N.; Sims, J.; Zadeh, A.H.; Richard, M.-O. A social commerce investigation of the role of trust in a social networking site on
purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 71, 133–141. [CrossRef]
112. Rashid, R.M.; Pitafi, A.H.; Qureshi, M.A.; Sharma, A. Role of Social Commerce Constructs and Social Presence as Moderator on
Consumers’ Buying Intentions During COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 772028. [CrossRef]
113. Meilatinova, N. Social commerce: Factors affecting customer repurchase and word-of-mouth intentions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021,
57, 102300. [CrossRef]
114. Huang, Z.; Benyoucef, M. From e-commerce to social commerce: A close look at design features. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl.
2013, 12, 246–259. [CrossRef]
115. Al-Adwan, A.S.; Al-Horani, M.A. Boosting Customer E-Loyalty: An Extended Scale of Online Service Quality. Information 2019,
10, 380. [CrossRef]
116. Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C.; Guinalíu, M.; Ekinci, Y. Avoiding the dark side of positive online consumer reviews: Enhancing reviews’
usefulness for high risk-averse travelers. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1829–1835. [CrossRef]
117. Martínez-Navalón, J.-G.; Gelashvili, V.; Gómez-Ortega, A. Evaluation of User Satisfaction and Trust of Review Platforms: Analysis
of the Impact of Privacy and E-WOM in the Case of TripAdvisor. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 750527. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
118. Jalilvand, M.R.; Vosta, L.N.; Mahyari, H.K.; Pool, J.K. Social responsibility influence on customer trust in hotels: Mediating effects
of reputation and word-of-mouth. Tour. Rev. 2017, 72, 1–14. [CrossRef]
119. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e-Products
and e-Services. Omega 2004, 32, 407–424. [CrossRef]
120. Weisberg, J.; Te’Eni, D.; Arman, L. Past purchase and intention to purchase in e-commerce: The mediation of social presence and
trust. Internet Res. 2011, 21, 82–96. [CrossRef]
121. Liu, W.; Fan, X.; Ji, R.; Jiang, Y. Perceived Community Support, Users’ Interactions, and Value Co-Creation in Online Health
Community: The Moderating Effect of Social Exclusion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 17, 204. [CrossRef]
122. Al-Tit, A.A.; Omri, A.; Hadj, T.B. The driving factors of the social commerce intention of Saudi Arabia’s online communities. Int.
J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2020, 12, 1847979019899746. [CrossRef]
123. Kim, D.J.; Ferrin, D.L.; Rao, H.R. A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust,
perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decis. Support Syst. 2008, 44, 544–564. [CrossRef]
124. Al-Masaeed, S.; Al-Qaisi, L.; Hunaiti, Z.; Al, M. E-Commerce Adoption at Customer Level in Jordan: An Empirical Study of
Philadelphia General Supplies. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2016, 7, 196–205. [CrossRef]
125. Vila, N.; Kuster, I. Consumer feelings and behaviours towards well designed websites. Inf. Manag. 2011, 48, 166–177. [CrossRef]
126. Ghose, A. Internet Exchanges for Used Goods: An Empirical Analysis of Trade Patterns and Adverse Selection. MIS Q. 2009,
33, 263. [CrossRef]
127. Benbasat, I.; Wang, W. Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 6, 4. [CrossRef]
128. Qiu, L.; Benbasat, I. Online Consumer Trust and Live Help Interfaces: The Effects of Text-to-Speech Voice and Three-Dimensional
Avatars. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2005, 19, 75–94. [CrossRef]
129. Majali, T.; Alsoud, M.; Yaseen, H.; Almajali, R.; Barkat, S. The effect of digital review credibility on Jordanian online purchase
intention. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2022, 6, 973–982. [CrossRef]
130. Al-Adwan, A.S. Novel research framework for social commerce purchase intentions. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2018, 96,
4390–40404.
131. Corbitt, B.J.; Thanasankit, T.; Yi, H. Trust and e-commerce: A study of consumer perceptions. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2003, 2,
132. Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 51–90.
[CrossRef]
133. Gefen, D. E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega 2000, 28, 725–737. [CrossRef]
134. Lu, B.; Fan, W.; Zhou, M. Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical research. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 2016, 56, 225–237. [CrossRef]
135. Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Tractinsky, N.; Vitale, M. Consumer trust in an Internet store. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2000, 1, 45–71. [CrossRef]
136. Qalati, S.A.; Vela, E.G.; Li, W.; Dakhan, S.A.; Thuy, T.T.H.; Merani, S.H. Effects of perceived service quality, website quality, and
reputation on purchase intention: The mediating and moderating roles of trust and perceived risk in online shopping. Cogent Bus.
Manag. 2021, 8, 1869363. [CrossRef]
137. Imtiaz, R.; Alsoud, M.A.S.; Ramish, M.S.; Aziz, A.; Anwar, A. Impact of Face book on Advertising: Analysis of effectiveness of
Face book on enhancing customer purchase intention. Ilkogr. Online 2021, 20, 7130–7149.
138. Ponte, E.B.; Carvajal-Trujillo, E.; Escobar-Rodríguez, T. Influence of trust and perceived value on the intention to purchase travel
online: Integrating the effects of assurance on trust antecedents. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 286–302. [CrossRef]
139. Kim, H.-W.; Xu, Y.; Gupta, S. Which is more important in Internet shopping, perceived price or trust? Electron. Commer. Res. Appl.
2012, 11, 241–252. [CrossRef]
140. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef]
141. Sharma, R.; Yetton, P.; Crawford, J. Estimating the Effect of Common Method Variance: The Method—Method Pair Technique
with an Illustration from TAM Research. MIS Quart. 2009, 33, 473. [CrossRef]
142. Kock, N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [CrossRef]
143. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,
2–24. [CrossRef]
144. Massey Jr, F.J. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1951, 46, 68–78. [CrossRef]
145. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
146. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336.
147. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988;
ISBN 978-0-8058-0283-2.
148. Rokonuzzaman, M.; Iyer, P.; Harun, A. Return policy, No joke: An investigation into the impact of a retailer’s return policy on
consumers’ decision making. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 59, 102346. [CrossRef]
149. Rintamäki, T.; Spence, M.T.; Saarijärvi, H.; Joensuu, J.; Yrjölä, M. Customers’ perceptions of returning items purchased online:
Planned versus unplanned product returners. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2021, 51, 403–422. [CrossRef]
150. Rashid, R.M.; Rashid, Q.U.A.; Pitafi, A.H. Examining the Role of Social Factors and Mooring Effects as Moderators on Consumers’
Shopping Intentions in Social Commerce Environments. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 2158244020952073. [CrossRef]
151. Rita, P.; Oliveira, T.; Farisa, A. The impact of e-service quality and customer satisfaction on customer behavior in online shopping.
Heliyon 2019, 5, e02690. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
152. Kidane, T.T.; Sharma, R.R.K. Factors Affecting Consumers’ purchasing Decision through ECommerce. In Proceedings of the 2016
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–10 March 2016;
Volume 8, pp. 159–165.
153. Al-Adwan, A.S.; Alrousan, M.; Al-Soud, A.; Al-Yaseen, H. Revealing the Black Box of Shifting from Electronic Commerce to
Mobile Commerce: The Case of Jordan. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2019, 14, 51–67. [CrossRef]
154. Al-Adwan, A.S.; Kokash, H. The Driving Forces of Facebook Social Commerce. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2019, 14,
15–32. [CrossRef]
155. Al-Adwan, A.S. Revealing the Influential Factors Driving Social Commerce Adoption. Interdiscip. J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 14,

Al-Adwan, A. S., Alrousan, M. K., Yaseen, H., Alkufahy, A. M., & Alsoud, M. (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al-Adwan, A. S., Alrousan, M. K., Yaseen, H., Alkufahy, A. M., & Alsoud, M. (2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al-Adwan, A. S., Alrousan, M. K., Yaseen, H., Alkufahy, A. M., & Alsoud, M. (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Open Innovation:

Technology, Market, and Complexity

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030136 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation

2.2. Theoretical Foundation

Furthermore, this studystudy supports

2.4. Cash on Delivery (COD) and Customer Trust

H2. Cash on delivery (COD) positively influences customer trust (TR).

2.5. Social Commerce Constructs and Customer Trust

2.6. Customer Trust (TR) and Purchase Intention (PI)

H4. Customer trust (TR) positively influences purchase intentions.

Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents (n = 560).

Construct Mean STDEV α rho_A CR AVE

Table 3. Fornell and Larcker’s discriminant validity.

Construct COD PI RPL SCCs TR

TR (β = −0.677, p < 0.001) exhibited a significant positive influence on purchase intention.

Table 4. Cross loadings.

COD PI RPL SCCs TR

Table 5. HTMT text.

Construct COD PI RPL SCCs TR

Table 6. Hypotheses testing.

Table 7. Explanatory power and effect size.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S.A.-A.; methodology, A.S.A.-A.; software, A.S.A.-A.;

You might also like