Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

Factors that influence purchase intentions in social commerce

Jeong Woong Sohn a, Jin Ki Kim b, *
a
Korea Transport Institute, Department of Aviation Transport Research, 370 Sicheong-daero, Sejong-si, 30147, South Korea
b
Korea Aerospace University, School of Business, 76 Hanggongdaehang-ro, Deogyang-gu, Goyang City, Gyeonggi-do, 10540, South Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Social commerce has recently expanded to operate in real time. The business model associated with social
Social commerce commerce has great potential to generate big sales. In order to respond to customers’ behavior better on the
Social network service (SNS) social commerce, we need to understand social commerce attributes well. The purpose of this study is to explore
Purchase intentions
the attributes of social commerce and explain the purchase intentions of the increasing population of users. The
Multiple regression analysis
findings of this study are that a factor analysis reveals five attributes that can be used to classify social commerce
– economy, necessity, reliability, interaction, and sales promotion. Second, as a result of carrying out a multiple
regression analysis, economy, necessity, reliability, and sales promotion are shown to affect purchase intentions. The
findings uncovered in this research can enable entrepreneurs in social-commerce businesses to attract far more
customers by determining the reasons that drive purchases and needs. In addition, this research can aid in the
development of strategies to manage social commerce more effectively.

1. Introduction selling of products; on the contrary, it can simply generate word-of-

mouth via one or more SNS [5–9].
Social network services (SNSes) are well-known web-based services Social commerce created a new form of promotion in which con­
that help users to build public or semi-public profiles over the internet. sumers determine a product by themselves and contribute to its sales.
Users can share human connections with other users while exchanging Consumers can see and share other consumers’ opinions or interests for
their lists of connections with each other within the same system [1]. a product through a variety of paths, including product reviews, blogs,
Social commerce has capitalized on the increasing influence of SNSes to and SNSes. Thus, the consumption characteristics of an individual who
generate international growth. Social commerce elicits business trans­ participates in the social commerce process are potentially more
actions by connecting producers and consumers through social media. important than in any other form of commerce. Understanding con­
The popularization of internet-based social communities and users’ sumer behavior in the context of social commerce has become critical for
desire to participate in such communities have become important fac­ companies that aim to better influence consumers and harness the power
tors propelling the increase in social commerce. Consumers are now of their social ties [10].
starting to have more confidence in product popularity or recommen­ The largest providers of the web service industry who have paid keen
dations for products from other users than from one-way communica­ attention to the rapid growth of the Groupon, the representative social
tion tools such as advertisements or other information provided by commerce company, showed interest directly or indirectly in entering
product marketing companies [2,3]. To optimize social networks as a the social commerce market. Facebook launched “Facebook Deals”.
marketing strategy, apparel retailers must understand consumers’ mo­ Google, focusing on search services made an unconventional offer to
tivations to interact with retailers via social media [4]. take over Groupon at 6 billion dollars, but their offer was declined [11].
Yahoo introduced the term social commerce for the first time in Amazon, the representative leader of e-commerce announced that, after
2005. In the beginning, users equated this terminology with services the fact was known by the public that Google was trying to take over
such as the sharing of shopping lists or the evaluations of certain Groupon, they invested 175 million dollars in Living Social, the second
products. Now, however, social commerce includes commercial trans­ largest company in the social commerce industry, and agreed mutually
actions made via social media or any other social-oriented manner. In to carry out the business collaboratively [11,12].
addition, social commerce does not necessarily have to result in the The biggest change brought by social commerce is the change in the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.W. Sohn), [email protected] (J.K. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101365
Received 5 April 2020; Received in revised form 13 August 2020; Accepted 26 August 2020
Available online 1 September 2020
0160-791X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

relationship between companies and consumers. In the social commerce word-of-mouth intention [25]. Experiential shopping influences loyalty,
market, consumers not only purchase products, but also spread their but not purchase intention, that bargain perception influences neither
experiences by word-of-mouth. That is, consumers produce information purchase intention nor loyalty, that information access influences time
and spread it by themselves. This has a great impact on the sales of goods savings and loyalty, and that loyalty impacts purchase intention [4].
and services. Through information spread in real time on social net­ Consumers’ motivations for shopping on Retail Facebook Pages
works, companies can secure the advantage of maximizing the effect of (RFP) compared to traditional retail formats may differ [4]. The
verbal advertising without large costs. The objective of this study is to stimulus-organism-response model and the five-stage consumer
identify factors that affect users in terms of purchasing goods and ser­ decision-making process to propose an integrative framework for un­
vices through social commerce sites. derstanding consumer behavior in this context [10]. Prior research on
Unlike existing business transactions, the methods by which social affordances considered not much attention on the role of individual
commerce gains acceptance will determine the growth potential of so­ goals and organizational context. Socializing and personal recommen­
cial commerce in the future. Understanding consumer behavior in the dation agents positively influence purchase and WOM intentions, while
context of social commerce has become critical for companies that aim product selection is found to only enhance purchase intentions [26].
to better influence consumers and harness the power of their social ties Enterprise social media platforms (ESMPs) may both enable and hinder
[10]. In addition, even though the innovative distribution structure of knowledge sharing by affording different user behaviors contingent on
social commerce has become a worldwide sensation and seen rapid artifacts, individual goals and organizational context [27].
growth, this study is only able to include basic data drawn from research Perceived usefulness and satisfaction have a quadratic relationship.
on social commerce due to the lack of advanced research. Satisfaction and continuance use intentions also have a quadratic rela­
Previous studies related to social commerce have shown in-depth tionship. Perceived usefulness has a positive relationship with satisfac­
studies of certain aspects of social commerce [13–17]. However, these tion for females and experienced social commerce users but an inverse-U
studies lack explanation for the overall attributes of social commerce. relationship for males and inexperienced users. Satisfaction has a posi­
Therefore, to identify the comprehensive attributes of social commerce, tive relationship with continuance use intentions for females but an
this study attempts to derive and verify the attributes from existing inverse-U relationship for males [13]. News media attention plays a
services like social commerce. positive moderating effect in the relationship between investor attention
Thus, with the growth of social commerce users in mind, the purpose and the stock return. Social interaction could positively moderate the
of this study is to investigate the properties of social commerce and effect of news media’s and investor’s sentiments on stock return [28].
propose marketing and strategic directions for companies that intend to The self-reporting bias or the common research method bias may hinder
sell products or services using social commerce providers and social our understanding of the real effect of live-streaming on consumer
commerce. purchase behavior [29].
Two subdimensions of social supportive information are positively
2. Theoretical background related to consumer involvement, together promoting consumers’
engagement in the community. Involvement imposes a full mediating
Social commerce is a broad concept that includes individuals selling influence on emotional support but a partial mediating impact on
goods through SNSes as well as electronic commerce based on a specific informational support. Product presentation strengthens the effects in
site. In other words, social commerce is a new concept that was born by that the predictive effect of determinants on engagement is more pro­
combining the effects of traditional online shopping and word of mouth nounced for books with electronic versions in the social commerce
marketing [18–21]. Social commerce is a new paradigm of conducting community [14]. Links between enterprise social media (ESM) affor­
commerce using social media to reach customers and their networked dances and creative performance are mainly mediated by knowledge
friends. provision [30]. Visibility affordance, metavoicing affordance, and
As a social commerce feature, a purchase is made within a specified guidance shopping affordance influence customer purchase intention
time. When consumers are pressured by the time or the quantity of a through live streaming engagement [31].
product, there will be a need for closure in which they intend to make To develop the attributes of social commerce, this study refers to the
decisions based on the information search. This need for closure is previous research on social network service, online shopping malls, and
related to securing an answer as opposed to dealing with confusion and the study on purchase intention.
ambiguity. It is a desire to attain definitive answers regarding specific
issues [22]. 2.1. Social network service (SNS)
Offline connections link offline locations to a social network through
terminals capable of networking. By utilizing location-based services, In traditional social network theory, a social network is defined as a
consumers spread their experiences at offline stores to social networks set of social entities that includes people and organizations which are
through mobile terminals. Social webs aggressively combine commerce connected by a set of socially meaningful relationships and who interact
with social networks, making it possible to use social network functions with each other in sharing values [32]. Social networking services are
on a commerce site. Consumer activities such as purchasing, evalua­ web-based services and can connect individuals within a system. The
tions, and reviews are automatically added to the social network and nature of these connections may vary from site to site [1]. Many studies
shared with friends. Consumers are able to see what their friends in the have focused on social areas such as privacy, social capital, youth cul­
same social network do at the commerce site [23]. ture, and education [33–35]. A review of the classification of various
Social commerce trust fully mediates the relationship between social SNSes is also available [36]. There have been few attempts to define and
presence and commitment as well as loyalty in social commerce online classify business models in the SNS industry.
brand communities [15]. There is the social presence of interaction with SNSes create revenues in various ways. For example, customers pay
the sellers, income and social presence of others [16]. Social commerce for various sites. Dating related sites are one example. There are web­
information sharing activities increases the trust in sharing commerce sites categorized differently such as movie, clothing, and online business
platforms and reduces perceived privacy risk, which can significantly websites, and these websites are being studied to assess reliability, trust
improve the decision-making process and the intention to buy [17]. and web credibility. SNSes share online interactions and communication
Specific aspects trigger utilitarian (convenience and product selec­ with specific goals and patterns across different services.
tion) and hedonic (idea and adventure) motivations impact user inten­ SNS functions can be categorized as identity management and
tion to browse products on social media [24]. Browsing intention is context awareness [37]. SNSes also provide the function of content
linked in a significantly positive manner with purchasing and sharing, which enables the sharing and distribution of personal audio

2
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

and video content [38]. be divided into product perception, shopping experience, customer
service, and the risk associated with a purchase [54]. Product recogni­
2.2. Online shopping malls tion is also an important criterion with respect to shopping behavior
because it helps determine which shopping mall a consumer will select.
With the advent of e-commerce, the need for personalized services The most important factors are price, product quality, and product va­
has been emphasized. Business researchers have advocated the need for riety. Shopping experience is an important element in determining
one-to-one marketing [39]. One-to-one marketing attempts to improve purchase behavior [55] (see Table 1).
the nature of marketing by using technology to assist businesses in In order to draw user attributes regarding social commerce market­
treating each customer individually. Examples include recommender places from the precedent documentary research, the functions and at­
systems inside e-commerce and the function of one-to-one match-­ tributes of SNSes, four types of social commerce, internet attributes, e-
making, as well as customer royalties [40]. commerce success factors, website and homepage attributes, and shop­
The importance of reliability, the economics of price and cost, and ping mall attributes are summarized in Table 2.
customer service and convenience have been confirmed as attributes of Based on the types of social commerce, SNS functions, Internet at­
online purchase decisions [41]. There is a need to develop strategies that tributes, online shopping mall attributes, this study proposes a model of
include lower prices or reduced costs during the purchasing process to social commerce in terms of attributes.
meet the requirements of users and generate higher levels of interest in
making online purchases. 3. Social commerce attribute model
Perceptions of product value are formed by the product quality and
price comparison [42]. Perceived quality and perceived price were the It is essential to examine the intrinsic functions and related user at­
antecedents of the accumulated customer satisfaction [43]. Product tributes of social commerce marketplaces to draw attributes from it.
value perceived by product quality affects customer loyalty for a specific Upon an examination of precedent research on SNS functions, the four
store [43]. types of social commerce, internet attributes, e-commerce success fac­
Factors affecting online purchases are trust, quality, and emotion, tors, website and homepage attributes, and shopping mall attributes,
and the trust factor is the most influential [44]. Trust plays an important four attributes of social commerce marketplaces are identified.
role in securing customer loyalty, immersion, and purchase intention, There are not many academic studies related to the new type of
and trust is strongly related to purchase intention [45]. Trust is defined online social commerce, which is based on SNSes. Social commerce
by the perception of credit and the ability to patronize the trust target represents a variation in which online shopping malls are linked with
[46]. High trust includes the features of belief, confidence, assurance, SNSes. Therefore, social commerce attributes include internet attributes,
and sincerity [47]. e-commerce success factors, internet and homepage attributes, shopping
Website users place importance on four attributes - entertainment, mall attributes based on the social commerce functions, and four types of
information, structure, and design [48]. Websites become distinctive social commerce. Five attributes of social commerce are derived, as
and competitive via information, entertainment, structure, cognition, shown below. Mapped social commerce attributes are shown in Table 3.
interaction, search, and connection [49]. The purchasing motivation of It will be theoretically important to evaluate what has been studied and
consumers is derived from perceived image, shopping mall design, derive meaningful insights through a structured review of the literature
convenience of shopping, quality of information, security, and product [10].
price. The marketing attributes of web sites are classified into commu­ To discover the comprehensive attributes of social commerce, the
nication, commercialization, and promotion [50]. study referred to the basic functions of social commerce, the functions of
SNS, and compared the attributes of various services (internet, e-com­
2.3. Purchase intentions merce, website, and shopping mall) that have similar functions as social
commerce. Through this, we derived the comprehensive attributes of
Purchase intention is the anticipated or planned future behavior of social commerce. Fig. 1 shows these four attributes of social commerce
individuals, and it is the probability that beliefs and attitudes can be marketplaces. As a result, this study proposes a list of basic attributes of
moved to act [51]. Planned behavior is the main concern of marketing social commerce marketplaces.
researchers because a lot of company decisions stem from the prediction
of consumer behavior. To predict behavior correctly, studies on the
relationship of attitudes and behaviors have been carried out, and in 3.1. Economy
most of these studies, attitude changes have been identified as a pre­
disposing factor of behavioral changes. As mentioned, companies need to develop strategies that result in
The theory of reasoned action explains that there is a correlation lower prices or reduced costs during the purchasing process to satisfy
between behavioral intention and actual behavior [52]. The theory customer needs and entice users to make online purchases. Moreover,
stipulates that when humans determine whether to execute an action, these factors influence a user’s decision to choose a particular online
they predict the rational outcomes that would result from carrying out
an action. The greater extent to which it is believed that positive con­ Table 1
sequences will result, the more likely it is that the action will be carried Moves made by Groupon, Google, and Amazon related to social commerce.
out. Company Actions
The existing research on purchase intention suggests that flow should
Groupon • Considering the importance of locality due to the nature of social
be facilitated in order to increase the number of repeated website visits, commerce, entry to the world market has progressed via the
thereby increasing purchase intentions [53]. If a customer feels joy acquisition of local companies.
during visits to the website, the customer will visit the site repeatedly, • An instant sales system has been introduced through the installation
and purchase intention will likely increase. of Kiosk.
Google • Google made an unconventional offer late last year to take over
Groupon at 6 billion dollars, but the offer was declined by Groupon.
2.4. Attributes • Google Offers services began in June.
Amazon • Amazon invested 175 million dollars in Living Social, the second
Social commerce has a multiple aspects from various perspectives. largest social commerce company in America, and mutually agreed to
proceed as business partners.
Social commerce has various attributes to explain the success of social
commerce. The factors that affect a consumer’s purchase intention can Source: Websites from Groupon, Google, and Amazon.com.

3
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

Table 2
Types of social commerce; functions and attributes of SNSes; internet attributes: e-commerce success factors; website and homepage attributes; and shopping mall
attributes.
Functions & Attributes Reference

Types of social commerce Group buying, Offline connection, Social link, Social web DMC [23]
SNS functions Identity management, Expert search, Context awareness, Network awareness, Exchange, Contact management Alexander & Michael
[102]
Expert search, Communication, Connection, Content Sharing, Identity Ko, Hwang & Ji [38]
Internet attributes Interaction, Internationalization, Communication, Connection, Expense, Fun Jang [103]
E-commerce success Information value, Disintermediation, Reintermediation, Price, Maintain flexibility, Segment geographically, Get the Huff et al. [104]
factors technology right, Manage critical perceptions
Financial impact, Competitive leadership, Brand, Service, Market, Technology, Site metrics Plant [105]
Website & homepage Entertainment, Information, Structure, Design, Interaction, Perception, Search, Connection Eighmey & McCord [48]
attributes Web design, Production, Sales promotion Madlberger [106]
Information, Fun, Recognition, Interaction, Searching, Connection, Perceived usefulness Hyun [49]
Ease of use, Product information, Entertainment, Trust, Customer support, Currency Elliott & Rosenberg
[107]
Entertainment, Information, Homepage construction Chen & Wells [56]
Convenience, Interaction, Private preferences, Interaction Ghosh [57]
Information, Entertainment, Interaction Kim [108]
Shopping mall attributes Trust, Quality, Emotion Lynch, Kent & Srinivasan
[44]
Trust, Economy, Customer service, Convenience Chun & Choi [41]
Comparison of product quality and product price Monroe [42]
Geographical, Population statistics, Psychological variable, Pursuit benefit, Use conditions, Use brand Kotler [58]
Web design, Order management, Safety Yoo [50]
Convenience, Information usefulness, Security, Payment system, Communication, Customer satisfaction Chung & Ko [109]
Web design Liu & Arnett [20]

marketplace, and they also explain the importance of minimizing the 3.2. Necessity
transaction costs [59]. There are three factors that determine online
purchase decision attributes - the economy for reliability, prices, and When consumers want goods or services, they seek them out. Mar­
costs [41]. keting aims to address needs and wants via the medium of the product.
If clues about the price discount are provided, this could elicit a Thus, to understand consumer behavior, one first needs to understand
consumer’s favorable response [60]. As a main attraction of social what consumers want. During the shopping process, consumers simul­
commerce, consumers could receive large discounts through group taneously experience utilitarian and hedonic shopping values. The
buying. Price plays a role in improving consumer perceptions and utilitarian value has been treated as an important factor to influence
facilitating buying behavior [61]. There is a u-shape function for fixa­ purchase intention in an internet shopping mall related study.
tions on price and total fixations on a page with respect to price for fe­ The utilitarian value of an internet shopping mall is a determinant for
males who buy for themselves and males who buy for their partners shopping satisfaction [63]. This utilitarian value significantly influences
[62]. the frequency of site visits, which once again reinforces purchase
Among social commerce group business models, the group buying intention. Social presence factors grounded in social technologies
model works by setting a minimum purchase quantity. If this quantity is contribute significantly to the building of the trustworthy online
reached, discounts up to half price are offered. The price perceived by exchanging relationships [64].
the consumer can change the purchasing behavior of that consumer, and Companies engaged in social commerce are strengthening partner­
it is expected to elicit different behaviors than conventional internet ships with convenience stores and café living shops to take advantage of
shopping malls. We hypothesize the following regarding economy for customers that seek out specific locations (offline stores) using location-
social commerce. based services in each area. In addition, social networks are being linked
to specific offline areas to extend the influence of existing internet
Hypothesis 1. Economy makes a positive impact on the purchase
shopping malls. This can result in large ripple effects. Therefore, the
intention at social commerce site.
previous literature and leading social commerce strategies make it clear
that the properties of offline connections (necessities) and the related

Table 3
Mapped social commerce attributes.
Social commerce Four types of social SNS functions Attributes and Factors
attributes commerce
Internet E-commerce success Website and Shopping mall attributes
attributes factors homepage attributes

Economy Group buying – Price [104], Information [48] Economy of price Low price (Lee, 2004),
Expanse [103] [41] Economy of price [41]
Necessity Offiline connection – – Segment Private preference Geographical, Use
geographically [104] [57] situation [58]
Reliablity Group buying, Social Exchange [102], Content Interaction [103] Brand [105] Information [48], Reliability [41,44]
link, Social web sharing [38] Trust [107]
Interaction Social link, Social Network awareness [102], Interaction [103] – Interaction [48] -
web Communication [38]
Sales promotion Social link, Social – – – Sales promotion –
web [106]

4
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

Fig. 1. Social commerce attributes model.

business models are important. We hypothesize the following regarding otherwise been possible via the public. Social commerce facilitates
necessity for social commerce. product recommendations between acquaintances via e-mails, instant
messaging, social media message exchanges, and other sharing func­
Hypothesis 2. Necessity makes a positive impact on the purchase
tions. This enables consumers to attain confidence before ever viewing a
intention at social commerce site.
product. We hypothesize the following regarding reliability for social
commerce.
3.3. Reliability
Hypothesis 3. Reliability makes a positive impact on the purchase
The concept of trust is recognized as important in exchange re­ intention at social commerce site.
lationships. It forms the basis of strategic partnerships by improving the
quality of the interaction. It also improves the level of cooperation and
3.4. Interaction
increases the level of involvement [65]. Trust in an internet shopping
mall is defined as the cognitive aspects of trust, and it is considered to be
Interactivity has been defined as the degree that two or more
a reasonable selection process by defining trust as the intention of the
communication parties may affect each other, communication media,
consumer relying on a seller and leaving a seller in a vulnerable state
and messages, and such impacts occur simultaneously [53]; Y [76].
[66]. Trust in a social networking site increases information seeking,
Interactivity has also been defined as never-ending two-way communi­
which in turn increases familiarity with the platform and the sense of
cational characteristics between two parties, the buyer and the seller
social presence [67].
[77]. Consumers gave more positive assessments and made more
Consumers will avoid purchasing products online when they do not
favorable decisions for the sites highly perceived interactivity [78].
trust the internet shopping mall [68]. Trust is the most critical element
Interaction features of social web sites, including social networks and
in understanding successes and failures [69,70]. When consumers make
social media, enable a new kind of commerce [79]. Interactivity has a
purchasing decisions, they often rely on word-of-mouth, recommenda­
positive impact on receptive attitudes toward a website in an online
tions, and observational knowledge about other consumers [71].
environment [80–83]. In another study, the more active the interaction
Recommendations have a positive impact on purchase decisions.
became, the more the relationship between brands and customers was
When new products are launched, consumers can generate customer
shown to be enhanced [84]. Customer information sharing is influenced
referrals in a variety of situations and spread information about products
by both individual and social capital factors [85]. Social interaction
through word of mouth. In addition, when consumers make purchasing
exerts an impact on impulse buying tendencies, the social-relevant
decisions, they often refer to the opinions of others [72]. When the
features of the social commerce platform determine social interaction,
interaction between businesses and consumers increases in activity,
and perceived usefulness and social interaction both significantly affect
consumer confidence also increases [73]. Social commerce constructs
perceived enjoyment [86].
significantly affect social support, particularly emotional and informa­
Social commerce can be shared easily with other people via SNSes or
tional support [74]. This, in turn, increases trust-building. The useful­
general commerce sites, provide product information to acquaintances
ness and credibility of worth of mouth with respect to e-commerce has a
via e-mail/messenger services, and exchange comments by utilizing
positive influence on the adoption of that word of mouth. However, it
bulletin boards. We hypothesize the following regarding interaction for
has a negative influence on the electronic word of mouth for social
social commerce.
media [75].
An SNS acquaintance-based product recommendation system can Hypothesis 4. Interaction makes a positive impact on the purchase
generate increased levels of confidence and preference than would have intention at social commerce site.

5
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

3.5. Sales promotion and Twitter tying for second (10.4% each). 86.2% of SNS users report
using social commerce.
Sales promotion is designed to stimulate faster or massive purchases Only 16 of the 160 participants (10%) have never purchased a
for a product on a short-term basis to a consumer or an intermediate to product or service via social commerce. Among them, 80% accredited
encourage the sales and purchase of products or services. It is defined as their behavior to a lack of awareness regarding social commerce.
all marketing activities that stimulate the customer purchases or Nevertheless, 14 of them asserted that they intend to make purchases.
distributor efficiency, except for personal selling, advertising, and public This indicates once again that social commerce will continue to increase
relations [87]. It can be defined as marketing activities providing its market share in the future.
additional incentives such as online coupons, sweepstakes offers, dis­ Social commerce combines SNS usage and internet shopping. As
counts, and rebates in the short term to induce an immediate response such, it can reduce the uncertainty that can negatively affect purchase
from customers. behavior through SNSes alone. Likewise, it reduces the physical and
In terms of value shopping, there is also the view that the price is time costs usually incurred to obtain information. In this respect, it is
equal to the value, and this pertains to shopping for discounts and likely that the respondents with experience using social commerce feel
bargains [88]. Consumers may feel the benefits of playfulness by that social commerce enhances convenience, and they might possess
obtaining a bargain that increases sensory involvement (participation) positive feelings with respect to the intent to use social commerce again.
and interest [89]. Value shopping may also have something to do with Most of the respondents use SNSes heavily. 55% of them use at least
selection optimization because discounts or bargains can elicit satis­ one of the services more than 1 h per day. Hence, the respondents seem
faction from personal achievement [90]. Users’ continuance usage and to be qualified to analyze SNS attributes. The demographics of the re­
satisfaction on mobile social commerce are proven to be boosters for spondents are shown in Table 4.
brand loyalty [91]. The items used to measure constructs in the model are mainly
Sales promotions are classified as price-oriented promotions such as adopted from prior research. New constructs in the model are also
coupons and sales, which lower the purchase price, and non-price- constructed. All the items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale. They
oriented sales promotions such as sweepstakes and giveaways [92]. are shown in the Appendix.
Unlike advertising, sales promotions encourage or stimulate means in
the short term to induce the immediate action of other consumers. Social 5. Results
commerce has come up with strategies in which coupons are issued for
goods as a means of promoting the sale targeted for consumers. We Before running an exploratory factor analysis and reliability check,
hypothesize the following regarding sales promotion for social this study checks whether the data satisfy the assumptions for the factor
commerce. analysis. The following three checks are performed: the correlation co­
efficient among question items, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and the
Hypothesis 5. Sales promotion makes a positive impact on the pur­
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (MSA).
chase intention at social commerce site.
Validity is the extent to which a measure diverges from other similar
measures. Testing for validity involves checking whether the items
4. Data collection
measure the construct in question or other constructs. The results show
that there are no strong correlations between the constructs that can
A survey methodology is used to collect data to observe many social
incur multicollinearity among constructs.
commerce users’ behaviors for generalization of phenomena. The sam­
Reliability is the most common index of the validity of measures. It is
ples are selected from among individuals using social commerce services
used to check whether the scale items measure the construct in question
in Korea. A pre-test, pilot test, and main test are conducted sequentially.
or other (related) constructs; a value of 0.70 or above is deemed
The pre-test allows this study to refine its measurement instrument,
acceptable [93]. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is used to test the
which is derived from the previous literature. Based on the results of the
inter-item reliability of the scales used in this study. Cronbach’s alpha
pre-test, this study further modifies the instrument to measure the major
assesses how well the items in a set are positively correlated with one
constructs and then conducts a pilot test. A factor analysis is carried out
another. In general, reliability of less than 0.6 is considered poor, reli­
three times for the pre-test, the pilot test, and the main test. Then the
ability in the 0.7 range is considered acceptable, and reliability greater
study finalizes the constructs regarding measurement reliability and
than 0.8 is considered good [94]. As shown in Table 5, all the alpha
validity to verify a causal relationship model.
values are greater than the recommended level and show good reli­
For the main test, 144 usable survey responses are selected from the
ability with Cronbach’s alpha (>0.70) in each construct.
160 total responses. 57.6% of the survey participants are male, and
Factor analysis is carried out using the data collected from the first
42.3% are female. Participant age ranges from 20 to 49 years old,
version of the survey. The cut-off criteria have factor loadings of 0.6. The
although the majority are in their twenties (77.7%) and thirties (14.5%).
analysis is conducted using a stepwise approach. The question item with
The respondents mainly use Ticket Monster (40.9%) and Coupang
the lowest maximum factor loading is removed. If the lowest maximum
(34%).
factor loading is less than 0.6, the factor analysis is repeated until the
The categories mainly used in social commerce are food (43.7%),
lowest maximum factor loading is greater than 0.6. Three items are
fashion (13.8%), and performance (12.5%). 41.6% of the respondents
finally omitted. Values of 0.50 and above are recommended for the
have used social commerce twice within the last six months. In terms of
factor analysis [93]. In addition, the factor analysis is used to examine
frequency of access, 52% of the participants access social commerce
construct validity. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test and Bartlett’s test of
whenever they think of it, 20% access it one or more times per week, and
sphericity are first used to assess the appropriateness of the correlation
18% access it once a month. With respect to recommendations, virtual
matrices for the factor analysis [95].
word of mouth (stories) accounts for 59%, while instant messaging ac­
The results conclude that the data satisfy the assumptions for the
counts for 24.3%.
factor analysis. The results of Bartlett’s test of sphericity in this study
When reporting their levels of product satisfaction, the respondents
show that Sig(P) = 0.000 < α(=0.05) (χ2 = 1887.242, df = 190). This
primarily report feeling satisfied (56.9%), neutral (31.9%), and very
implies that there is no evidence that the correlation matrix is an identity
satisfied (7.6%). Overall, the level of satisfaction is measured at 64.5%.
matrix. All seven factors show high factor loading values, and all the
This indicates that the probabilities of repurchases and overall social
variables load substantially on only one factor. The results of this
commerce growth are both high.
analysis provide evidence of construct validity.
Facebook ranks first in terms of SNS usage (60.4%), with Cyworld
The results of examining the relationship between the attributes of

6
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

Table 4 promotion (β = 0.280, p < 0.01) have a significant effect on purchase

Demographics of respondents. intention for social commerce at the p < 0.01 level. Interaction does not
Items Number Percentage have a significant impact.
(%) Sales promotion is the most significant at 0.280. The regression
Gender Male 83 57.6 model produces 46.960 at the F value of p = 0.000, and the explanatory
Female 61 42.3 power for the regression model shows an adjusted R2 = 0.616 at the F
Age Under 20 0 0.0 value of p = 0.000–61.6%.
21–30 112 77.7 Unexpectedly, interaction does show the significant results from the
31–40 32 14.5
41–50 11 7.6
multiple regression analysis. Correlation results show that interaction
Over 51 0 0.0 has the significant relationship with three independent variables, such
Education High school or below 0 0.0 as economy, necessity, and reliability. It shows that interaction has
College 0 0.0 common portions with other three independent variables. It could be a
Undergraduate 35 24.3
cause of insignificant result of interaction in the multiple regression
Graduate 109 75.6
Occupation Student 77 53.4 analysis.
Manager 20 13.8
Specialized job 8 5.5 6. Conclusions
Service industry 29 20.1
Technical post 3 2.1
Housewife 5 3.4
6.1. Findings
Other 2 1.3
Mainly using social Ticket Monster 59 40.9 This study identifies five attributes - economy, necessity, reliability,
commerce Wemakeprice 9 6.3 interaction, and sales promotion - that consumers consider regarding the
Coupang 49 34.0
emergence of social commerce as a new distribution channel. It then
NowShop 11 7.6
Groupon 4 2.7 investigates impact these attributes have on purchase decisions.
Daum Social Shopping 4 2.7 The results of this study can be summarized as follows. First, re­
Other 8 5.5 spondents mainly use Ticket Monster (40.9%) and Coupang (34%). Food
Mainly using category Food 63 43.7 (43.75%) and fashion (13.8%) are the most popular usage categories,
Performance 18 12.5
Beauty 14 9.7
and 81% of the respondents have used social commerce one to two times
Leisure 8 5.5 or more within the last six months.
Travel 4 2.7 Second, in terms of frequency of access, 52% of the participants ac­
Industrial 9 6.2 cess social commerce whenever they think of it, 20% access it one or
Fashion 20 13.8
more times per week, and 18% access it once a month.
Other. 8 5.5
Number of purchases in More than one 57 39.5 When reporting their levels of product satisfaction, the respondents
the past six months More than two 60 41.6 primarily report feeling satisfied (56.9%), neutral (31.9%), and very
More than five 20 13.8 satisfied (7.6%). Overall, the level of satisfaction is measured at 64.5%.
More than ten 7 4.9 This indicates that the probabilities of repurchases and overall social
Frequency of access One or more times per 14 9.7
commerce growth are both high.
day
One or more times per 29 20.0 Third, only 16 of the 160 participants (10%) have never purchased a
week product or service via social commerce. Among them, 80% accredited
Once a month 26 18.0 their behavior to a lack of awareness regarding social commerce.
Whenever thinking of 75 52.0
Nevertheless, 14 of them asserted that they intend to make purchases.
social commerce
Recommend method E-mail 4 2.7
This indicates once again that social commerce will continue to increase
Talk 85 59.0 its market share in the future.
Messenger 35 24.3 Fourth, there are four attributes that are deemed to affect purchase
General site 15 10.4 decisions related to social commerce – economy, necessity, reliability,
Other 5 3.4
and sales promotion. This study attempts to identify the overall effects of
Product satisfaction Very satisfied 11 7.6
Satisfied 82 56.9 social commerce attributes on purchase intentions. The results indicate
Neutral 46 31.9 significance in terms of academic and application perspectives.
Dissatisfied 4 2.7
Very dissatisfied 1 0.6
6.2. Academic implications
SNS use Facebook 87 60.4
Twitter 15 10.4
Me2day 2 1.3 From an academic perspective, the social commerce concept is
Cyworld 15 10.4 relatively new, but it has garnered considerable interest. This study is
Other 5 3.4 thus relevant with respect to shedding light on a new area, and it may
No Account 20 13.8
serve as a starting point for future studies on the topic. In addition, there
is significance in showing the possibility of configuring a general theory
social commerce and purchase decision variables are shown in Table 6. by generalizing social commerce features.
Overall, the directions between the variables presented in the model and Existing studies mainly explained specific parts based on existing
research hypotheses are mostly consistent. theories, but this study extracted the characteristics of social commerce
A multiple regression analysis is carried out by employing five at­ from various services similar to social commerce and examined the basic
tributes of social commerce - economy, necessity, reliability, interaction, properties of social commerce more comprehensively. We expect such a
and sales promotion - as independent variables, and using the purchase comprehensive approach to serve as an important foundation for future
decision of social commerce as the dependent variable. The results are research in e-commerce and online business.
shown in Fig. 2 and Table 7.
Only four different attributes – economy (β = 0.233, p < 0.01), ne­ 6.3. Practical implications
cessity (β = 0.199, p < 0.01), reliability (β = 0.452, p < 0.01), and sales
From a practical perspective, it provides strategic elements to the

7
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

Table 5
Results of factor analysis and reliability check.
Component 1 2 3 4 5 Number of items Cronbach’s alpha

Reliability1 .859 .116 .199 .064 -.037 5 .931

Reliability2 .855 -.044 .184 .013 .163
Reliability3 .840 .203 .022 .103 .113
Reliability4 .837 .127 .149 -.069 .099
Reliability5 .796 .118 .118 .025 .351
Reliability6 .776 .330 .221 .126 .085
Economy1 .157 .885 .097 .071 .093 4 .891
Economy2 .077 .881 .108 .037 .108
Economy3 .148 .803 .031 .167 .128
Economy4 .247 .741 .040 .314 .183
Interaction1 .182 .056 .862 .004 .080 4 .865
Interaction2 .242 .115 .838 .036 .046
Interaction3 .083 .021 .805 .048 .157
Interaction4 .138 .074 .762 -.044 .169
Sales promotion1 .100 .162 -.065 .871 .127 3 .819
Sales promotion2 .098 .291 -.049 .852 .053
Sales promotion3 -.043 .012 .132 .803 -.113
Necessity1 .092 .101 .193 .099 .835 3 .795
Necessity2 .196 .089 .272 .053 .793
Necessity3 .202 .288 .007 -.109 .742
Eigenvalue 6.880 2.910 2.165 1.801 1.422
% of variance 34.398 14.552 10.823 9.003 7.108
KMO. 839

Note. Numbers in bold are the loading coefficients for items in each construct.

Table 6
Results of correlation analysis.
Purchase intentions Economy Necessity Reliability Interaction Sales promotion

Purchase intentions 1
Economy .571*** 1
Necessity .458*** .367*** 1
Reliability .602*** .403*** .396*** 1
Interaction .258*** .208*** .363*** .370*** 1
Sales promotion .495*** .343*** .090 .109* .062 1
Average 3.43 3.88 2.90 2.9 2.8 3.47
Standard Deviation .73 .68 .72 .66 .78 .94

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

operators of social commerce businesses, or to merchants selling goods purchase intentions based on the existing literature. However, there are
through social commerce. In other words, according to the results of this several notable limitations in this regard.
study, the social commerce operators and intermediaries should identify First, application form, application motivations, and satisfaction
the factors that impact purchase decisions by looking at social commerce levels considering the characteristics of SNS users are neither measured
attributes. nor applied in this study. However, previous studies on application
According to these analyses, social commerce providers will be able motivations and satisfaction levels for SNSes do not yet exist. Second,
to induce more customers by satisfying the purchasing factors of social the survey targets customers using social commerce in Korea, but the sex
commerce. Providers can then further prepare satisfactory information, ratio and age composition ratio of actual customers using social shop­
and then utilize that information to effectively manage their businesses ping do not match. Accordingly, there are limitations in expanding the
by carefully examining user needs and motives. This will facilitate results obtained in this study to the data of customers using nationwide
strategies that derive better business performance. social commerce.
In this study, the discovery by social commerce that four factors, Moreover, empirical studies on social commerce have thus far been
economy, necessity, reliability, and sales promotion affect a customer’s insufficient. Therefore, through this study, the attributes of social
intention to purchase goods or services has great practical implications. commerce that had previously only been explained conceptually are
This is because social commerce service providers will need to consider now verified. This will aid follow-up studies.
providing services in these four aspects. In addition, the company’s In future research, depending on the type of product used primarily,
position to sell products or services through social commerce provides customers might differ on their knowledge of attributes. Thus, the de­
meaningful implications on how to approach the specification and gree of diversity of these products will need to be considered in the
promotion and distribution of products or services. future. Economy in social commerce may have a positive effect on the
Based on the results of this study, we expect to have a signature purchase frequency of consumers for the price discounts that social
contribution to the success and activation of social commerce in the commerce companies claim. The marketing that lures customers with
future. special offers such as half price sales has been shown to stimulate cus­
tomers to open their wallets.
For the continued growth of social commerce in the future, it is
6.4. Limitations and future research essential to manage consumer satisfaction so that repetitive repurchases
can take place. Thus, it may be a problem that consumers using social
This paper endeavors to elicit improvements in management stra­ commerce for fun and convenience do not feel satisfaction in their real
tegies by deriving the influence of social commerce attributes on user

8
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

Fig. 2. Results of multiple regression.

Acknowledgements
Table 7
Results of multiple regression.
This work was supported by 2010 Korea Aerospace University fac­
Unstandardized Standardized T P ulty research grant.
coefficients coefficients

В Standard beta Appendix. Questionnaire Items

error

(Constant) -.248 .261 -.952 .343 Economy [88,96]

Economy .233 .067 .217 3.507 .001
Necessity .199 .061 .195 3.254 .001
1. Prices are economical in social commerce sites.
Reliability .452 .067 .410 6.705 .000
Interaction -.030 .055 -.032 − 0.552 -.582 2. You can buy products at a discounted price through social commerce
Sales .280 .043 .360 6.518 .000 sites.
promotion 3. Prices are comparatively lower in social commerce sites than in other
R2 = 0.630, Adjusted R2 = 0.616, F = 46.960 (p = 0.000). sites.
4. In terms of prices, social commerce products are economical.
purchase experiences. Because consumers expecting social commerce as
a means of excitement and convenience are not satisfied after the Necessity [97,98]
experience of use, we will need to carry out an in-depth study in the
future to explore factors such as poor product/service quality and high/ 1. You can purchase what you want in social commerce sites.
low consumer expectations. 2. Social commerce provides location-based services (LBSes).
As it is a form of social network-based e-commerce, studies also need 3. In social commerce sites, you can purchase products (coupons)
to be conducted on the influence of SNSes and the effects of word of suitable for an area that you want.
mouth with respect to social commerce. For the social commerce market
to continue to grow in the future, studies on the motivation and impact Reliability [99]
factors of non-purchasing consumers will be needed despite great dis­
counts, convenience, and the interesting elements of social commerce. 1. I rely on business information provided to me by social commerce
businesses.
Credit author statement 2. I rely on the information provided by social commerce sites.
3. In general, I rely on social commerce businesses.
Jeong Woong Sohn: Conceptualization, Model-building, Method­ 4. I rely on the product information provided by the social commerce I
ology, Software, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Jin Ki Kim: use.
Model-building, Supervision, Writing - review & editing. 5. I think that the social commerce products I purchase are reliable.
6. Social commerce businesses are reliable.

Interaction [56,57,100]

9
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

1. People can interactively communicate with each other through so­ [19] D. Godes, D. Mayzlin, Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth
communication, Market. Sci. 23 (4) (2004) 545–560.
cial commerce.
[20] C. Liu, K. Arnett, Assessing the customer behavioural intentions on the web: a
2. People can smoothly communicate with social commerce businesses. research model, in: Paper Presented at the the 5th Americas Conference on
3. Social commerce promptly responds to customer opinions and Information Systems, 1999.
inquiries. [21] B. Tedeschi, Like Shopping? Social Networking? Try Social Shopping, New York
Times, 2006. September 11, 2006.
4 Social commerce is interactive. [22] A.W. Kruglanski, Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge: Cognitive and
Motivational Bases, Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1989.
Sales Promotion [58] [23] DMC, Social Commerce Market Future & View, DMC MEDIA, 2011.
[24] P. Mikalef, M. Giannakos, A. Pateli, Exploring the business potential of social
media: an utilitarian and hedonic motivation approach, in: Paper Presented at the
1. I feel like buying when I see the discounted prices of social 25th Bled eConference eDependability: Reliable and Trustworthy eStructures,
commerce. eProcesses, eOperations and eServices for the Future, Bled, Slovenia, 2012.
[25] P. Mikalef, M. Giannakos, A. Pateli, Shopping and word-of-mouth intentions on
2. I think positively about the reduction in price of social commerce. social media, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research
3. I have experience in purchasing products because of their discount 8 (1) (2013) 17–34.
rates even though I have never thought of buying them. [26] P. Mikalef, M.N. Giannakos, I.O. Pappas, Designing social commerce platforms
based on consumers’ intentions, Behav. Inf. Technol. 36 (12) (2017) 1308–1327.
[27] Y. Sun, X. Zhou, A. Jeyaraj, R.-A. Shang, F. Hu, The impact of enterprise social
Purchase Intentions [101] media platforms on knowledge sharing: an affordance lens perspective,
J. Enterprise Inf. Manag. 32 (2) (2019) 233–250.
[28] Y. Sun, X. Liu, G. Chen, Y. Hao, Z.J. Zhang, How mood affects the stock market:
1. I will keep using social commerce.
empirical evidence from microblogs, Inf. Manag. 57 (5) (2020) 103181.
2. I will speak positively about social commerce to people around me. [29] Y. Sun, X. Shao, X. Li, Y. Guo, K. Nie, A 2020 perspective on "How live streaming
3. I will recommend people around me to use social commerce. influences purchase intentions in social commerce: an IT affordance perspective,
4. I am interested in social commerce products. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 40 (2020) 100958.
[30] Y. Sun, C. Wang, A. Jeyaraj, Enterprise social media affordances as enablers of
5. I connect to social commerce sites even though I do not buy anything knowledge transfer and creative performance: an empirical study, Telematics Inf.
from them. 51 (2020) 101402.
6. I am planning to buy products from social commerce if I find them [31] Y. Sun, X. Shao, X. Li, Y. Guo, K. Nie, How live streaming influences purchase
intentions in social commerce: an IT affordance perspective, Electron. Commer.
interesting. Res. Appl. 37 (2019) 100886.
[32] O. Kwon, Y. Wen, An empirical study of the factors affecting social network
Appendix. ASupplementary data service use, Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (2) (2010) 254–263.
[33] Y.-Y. Ahn, S. Han, H. Kwak, S. Moon, H. Jeong, Analysis of topological
characteristics of huge online social networking services, in: Proceedings of the
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. 16th International Conference on the World Wide Web, 2007, p. 835.
org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101365. [34] N.B. Ellison, C. Steinfield, C. Lampe, The benefits of facebook "friends": social
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites, J. Computer-
Mediated Commun. 12 (4) (2007) 1143–1168.
References [35] C. Haythornthwaite, Social networks and Internet connectivity effects, Inf.
Commun. Soc. 8 (2) (2005) 125–147.
[1] D.M. Boyd, N.B. Ellison, Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship, [36] I. O’Murchu, J.G. Breslin, S. Decker, Online social and business networking
J. Computer-Mediated Commun. 13 (1) (2007). communities, in: Paper Presented at the the ECAI 2004 Workshop on Application
[2] N. Hajli, J. Sims, Social commerce: the transfer of power from sellers to buyers, of Semantic Web Technologies to Web Communities, Valencia, Spain, 2004.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 94 (C) (2015) 350–358. August 23-27, 2004.
[3] R. Scoble, S. Israel, Naked Conversations: How Blogs Are Changing the Way [37] A. Richter, M. Koch, Functions of social networking services, in: Paper Presented
Businesses Talk with Customers, John Wiley & Sons, 2006. at the COOP08: the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative
[4] K.C. Anderson, D.K. Knight, S. Pookulangara, B. Josiam, Influence of hedonic and System, 2008.
utilitarian motivations on retailer loyalty and purchase intention: a facebook [38] S.M. Ko, B.W. Hwang, Y.G. Ji, A study on social network service and online social
perspective, J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21 (5) (2014) 773–779. capital:focusing on a Korean and Chinese case, Society for e-business Studies 15
[5] G. Dennison, S. Bourdage-Braun, M. Chetuparambil, Social Commerce Defined, (10) (2010) 103–118.
IBM Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2009. [39] P. Resnick, N. Iacovou, M. Suchak, P. Bergstrom, J. Riedl, GroupLens: an open
[6] Z. Huang, M. Benyoucef, From e-commerce to social commerce: a close look at architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews, in: Paper Presented at the ACM
design features, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 12 (4) (2013) 246–259. 1994 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Chapel Hill, NC,
[7] T.-P. Liang, E. Turban, Introduction to the special issue social commerce: a 1994.
research framework for social commerce, Int. J. Electron. Commer. 16 (2) (2011) [40] J.B. Schafer, J. Konstan, J. Riedl, Recommender systems in E-commerce, in: Paper
5–13. Presented at the the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 1999.
[8] S. Parise, P.J. Guinan, Marketing using web 2.0, in: Paper Presented at the the [41] C.S. Chun, J.S. Choi, A study on the factors affecting Customer’s repurchase
41st Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Hawaii, 2008. intention of online travel products, Korean Academic Society of Hospitality 13 (2)
[9] R.T. Wigand, R.I. Benjamin, J.L.H. Birkland, Web 2.0 and beyond: implications (2004) 239–255.
for electronic commerce, in: Paper Presented at the the 10th International [42] K.B. Monroe, Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
Conference on Electronic Commerce, Innsbruck, Austria, 2008. 1990.
[10] K.Z.K. Zhang, M. Benyoucef, Consumer behavior in social commerce: a literature [43] A.P. Parasuraman, V.A. Zeithaml, L.L. Berry, Servqual: alternative scales for
review, Decis. Support Syst. 86 (2016) 95–108. measuring servicec quality? A comparative assessment based on psychometric
[11] E.M. Lee, Social commerce global business view, Information & Communications and diagnostic criteria, J. Retailing 70 (3) (1994) 201–230.
Policy 23 (2011) 36–44. [44] P.D. Lynch, R.J. Kent, S.S. Srinivasan, The global internet shopper: evidence from
[12] Strabase, America Social Commerce Business, 2011. shopping tasks in twelve countries, J. Advert. Res. 4 (3) (2001) 15–23.
[13] B. Osatuyi, H. Qin, T. Osatuyi, O. Turel, When it comes to Satisfaction...It [45] Y.-H. Tan, W. Thoen, Formal aspects of a generic model of trust for electronic
depends: an empirical examination of social commerce users, Comput. Hum. commerce, Decis. Support Syst. 33 (3) (2001) 233–246.
Behav. 111 (2020), 106413. [46] P.M. Doney, J.P. Cannon, An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
[14] Y. Wang, J. Wang, T. Yao, M. Li, X. Wang, How does social support promote relationships, J. Market. 61 (2) (1997) 35–51.
consumers’ engagement in the social commerce community? The mediating [47] R.J. Lewicki, D.J. McAllister, Confident expectations and reasonable doubts: the
effect of consumer involvement, Inf. Process. Manag. 57 (2020), 102272. social dynamics of ambivalence in interpersonal relationships, in: Paper
[15] W. Nadeem, A.H. Khani, C.D. Schultz, N.A. Adam, R.W. Attar, N. Hajli, How Presented at the Conflict Management Division, Academy of Management
social presence drives commitment and loyalty with online brand communities? National Meetings, San Diego, 1998.
the role of social commerce trust, J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 55 (2020), 102136. [48] J. Eighmey, L. McCord, Adding value in the information age: uses and
[16] L.-Y. Leong, T.-S. Hew, K.-B. Ooi, A.Y.-L. Chong, Predicting the antecedents of gratifications of sites on the world wide web, J. Bus. Res. 41 (3) (1998) 187–194.
trust in social commerce – A hybrid structural equation modeling with neural [49] M.S. Hyun, The Effects of Tourism Information Web Site Factors on Usefulness,
network approach, J. Bus. Res. 110 (2020) 24–40, 119875. Web Site Attitude and Behavior, Sejeong university, Seoul, 2007.
[17] H. Bugshan, R.W. Attar, Social commerce information sharing and their impact [50] S.K. Yoo, The Effect of the Website Attributes on Repurchase Intention in Online
on consumers, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 153 (2020). Shopping Mall -Focusing on Online Market in china, Konkuk University, Seoul,
[18] J.A. Chevalier, D. Mayzlin, The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book 2010.
reviews, J. Market. Res. 43 (3) (2006) 345–354. [51] J.F. Engel, R.D. Blakewell, Consumer Behavior, fourth ed., Dryden Press,
Hinsdale, IL, 1982.

10
J.W. Sohn and J.K. Kim Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101365

[52] M.A. Fishbein, I. Ajzen, Belidf, Attitude, Intention and Behavior : an Introduction [81] S.J. McMillan, J.-S. Hwang, Measures of perceived interactivity: an exploration of
to Theory and Research, Addision-Wesley, Reading, Mass, 1975. the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping
[53] D.L. Hoffman, T.P. Novak, Marketing in hypermedia computer mediated perceptions of interactivity, J. Advert. 31 (3) (2013) 29–42.
environment: conceptual foundations, J. Market. 60 (3) (1996) 50–58. [82] G. Wu, Perceived interactivity and attitude toward website, in: Paper Presented at
[54] S.L. Jarvenpaa, P.A. Todd, Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the the the Annual Conference of the American of Advertising, Albuerque, 1999.
world wide web, Journal of Electronic Commerce 1 (2) (1997) 59–88. [83] C.Y. Yoo, P.A. Stout, Factors affecting users’ interactivity with the web site and
[55] D.B. Holt, How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices, the consequences of users’ interactivity, in: Paper Presented at the Conference-
J. Consum. Res. 22 (1) (1995) 1–16. American Academy of Advertising, 2001.
[56] Q. Chen, W. Wells, Attitude toward the site, J. Advert. Res. 39 (5) (1999) 27–37. [84] H. Thorbjørnsen, M. Supphellen, H. Nysveen, P.E. Pedersen, Building brand
[57] S. Ghosh, Making business sense of the internet, Harv. Bus. Rev. 76 (2) (1998) relationships online: a comparison of two interactive applications, J. Interact.
126–135. Market. 16 (3) (2002) 17–34.
[58] P. Kotler, Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and [85] L. Liu, C.M.K. Cheung, M.K.O. Lee, An empirical investigation of information
Control, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997. sharing behavior on social commerce sites, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36 (5) (2016)
[59] M.R. Ward, Will online shopping compete more with traditional retailing of 686–699.
catalog shopping? Wore Paper. Univ. of Illinois, Urban_Champaign 3 (2) (2000) [86] L. Xiang, X. Zheng, M.K.O. Lee, D. Zhao, Exploring consumers’ impulse buying
103–117. behavior on social commerce platform: the role of parasocial interaction, Int. J.
[60] E.N. Berkowitz, J.R. Walton, Contextual influences on consumer price responses: Inf. Manag. 36 (3) (2016) 333–347.
an experimental analysis, J. Market. Res. 17 (3) (1980) 349–358. [87] P. Kotler, Fremework for Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
[61] M. Kukar-Kinney, N.M. Ridgway, K.B. Monroe, The role of price in the behavior River, NJ, 2001.
and purchase decisions of compulsive buyers, J. Retailing 88 (1) (2011) 1–9. [88] M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds, Hedonic shopping motivations, J. Retailing 79 (2)
[62] R.G.V. Menon, V. Sigurdsson, N.M. Larsen, A. Fagerstrøm, G.R. Foxall, Consumer (2003) 77–95.
attention to price in social commerce: eye tracking patterns in retail clothing, [89] B.J. Babin, W.R. Darden, M. Griffin, Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
J. Bus. Res. 69 (2016) 5008–5013. utilitarian shopping value, J. Consum. Res. 20 (1) (1994) 644–656.
[63] D.M. Szymanski, R.T. Hise, E-satisfaction: an initial examination, J. Retailing 3 [90] R.A. Westbrook, W.C. Black, A motivation-based shopper typology, J. Retailing
(76) (2000) 309–322. 61 (1) (1985) 78–103.
[64] B. Lu, W. Fan, M. Zhou, Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase [91] J.-J. Hew, V.-H. Lee, K.-B. Ooi, B. Lin, Mobile social commerce: the booster for
intention: an empirical research, Comput. Hum. Behav. 56 (2016) 225–237. brand loyalty? Comput. Hum. Behav. 59 (2016) 142–154.
[65] R.E. Speckmam, Strategic supplier selection: understanding long-term buyer [92] D.R. Lichtenstein, R.G. Netemeyer, S. Burton, Assessing the domain specificity of
relationships, Bus. Horiz. 31 (4) (1998) 75–81. deal proneness: a field study, J. Consum. Res. 22 (3) (1995) 314–326.
[66] S.L. Jarvenpaa, N. Tractinsky, L. Saarinen, Consumer trust in an internet store: a [93] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluation structural equation models with unobservable
cross-cultural validation, J. Computer-Mediated Commun. 5 (2) (1999) 1–35. variables and measurement error, J. Market. Res. 18 (1) (1981) 39–50.
[67] N. Hajli, J. Sims, A.H. Zadeh, M.-O. Richard, A social commerce investigation of [94] U. Sekaran, Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 2003
the role of trust in a social networking site on purchase intentions, J. Bus. Res. 71 (NY).
(2017) 133–141. [95] J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, W. Black, Multivariate Data Analysis,
[68] D.L. Hoffman, T.P. Novak, M. Peralta, Building consumer trust in online Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998.
environments: the case for information privacy, Commun. ACM 42 (5) (1999) [96] A. Caruana, M.T. Ewing, How corporate reputation, quality, and value influence
80–85. online loyalty, J. Bus. Res. 63 (9–10) (2010) 1103–1110.
[69] R.M. Morgan, S. Hunt, The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, [97] S. Balasubramanian, R. Raghunathan, V. Mahajan, Consumers in a multichannel
J. Market. 58 (3) (1994) 20–38. environment: product utility, process utility, and channel choice, J. Interact.
[70] B. Suh, I. Han, The impact of consumer trust and perception of security control on Market. 19 (2) (2005) 12–30.
the acceptance of electronic commerce, Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7 (3) (2003) [98] R.A. Peterson, M.C. Merino, Consumer information search behavior and the
135–162. internet, Psychol. Market. 20 (2) (2003) 99–121.
[71] E. Dichter, How word-of-mouth advertising works, Harv. Bus. Rev. 44 (1966) [99] M. Koufaris, W. Hampton-Sosa, The development of initial trust in an online
147–166. company by new customers, Inf. Manag. 41 (3) (2004) 377–397.
[72] V. Mahajan, E. Muller, F.M. Bass, Diffusion of new products: empirical [100] M. Deuze, Understanding the impact of the Internet: on new media
generalizations and managerial uses, Market. Sci. 14 (3) (1995) 78–88. professionalism, mindsets and buzzwords, EJournal 1 (1) (2001).
[73] K.S. Kim, J.S. Park, An empirical study on the influencing factors of trust in the [101] B.-S. Hong, Y.-K. Na, The effect of the perceived hedonic value, usefulness and
internet shopping, J. Market. Manag. 7 (2) (2002) 135–163. ease of use on attitude toward using in internet shopping mall and purchase
[74] M. Shanmugam, S. Sun, A. Amidi, F. Khani, F. Khani, The applications of social intention of the fashion merchandise, Journal of the Korean Society of clothing
commerce constructs, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36 (3) (2016) 425–432. and Textiles 32 (1) (2008) 147–156.
[75] Q. Yan, S. Wu, L. Wang, P. Wu, H. Chen, G. Wei, E-WOM from e-commerce [102] R. Alexander, K. Michael, Functions of Social Networking Services, in: Paper
websites and social media: which will consumers adopt? Electron. Commer. Res. presented at the the COOP08: the 8th International Conference on the Design of
Appl. 17 (2016) 62–73. Cooperative System, 2008.
[76] Y. Liu, L.J. Shrum, What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? [103] D.R. Jang, Positioning effect of Internet advertising, Korea Advertisement Res. 14
Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity (1998) 425.
on advertising effectiveness, J. Advert. 31 (4) (2002) 53–64. [104] S. Huff, M. Wade, M. Parent, S.C. Schneberger, P. Newson, Cases in Electronic
[77] A. Joseph, J. Lynch, B. Weitz, C. Janiszewski, R. Lutz, A. Sawyer, S. Wood, Commerce, Irwin, McGraw-Hill, Columbus, OH, 2000.
Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to [105] R. Plant. eCommerce: Formulation of Strategy, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,
participate in electronic marketplaces, J. Market. 61 (3) (1997) 38–53. 1999.
[78] P. Berthon, L.F. Pitt, R.T. Watson, The world wide web as an advertising medium: [106] M. Madlberger. Electronic retailing, Marketinginstrumente und Marktforschung
toward as understanding on conversion efficiency, J. Advert. Res. 36 (1) (1996) im Internet, 2004. Wien.
43–54. [107] W.R. Elliott, W.L. Rosenberg, The 1985 Philadelphia Newspaper Strike: A Uses
[79] Y. Baghdadi, A framework for social commerce design, Inf. Syst. 60 (2016) and Gratifications Study, Journal. Q. 64 (1987) 679–687.
95–113. [108] M.J. Kim. The PR Effect of Company’s Hompage, Chung Ang University, 2005.
[80] C.-H. Cho, J.D. Leckenby, Interactivity as a measure of advertising effectiveness, Doctoral thesis.
in: Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Academy of [109] K.H. Chung, Y.D. Ko, A Study on the Relationship between the Characteristics
Advertising, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1999. Affecting Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty in B2C Online Shopping
Internet, Korea Internet e-Commer. Assoc. 7 (4) (2007).

11