Understanding information system success model and valence framework in sellers’ acceptance of cross-border e-commerce: a sequential multi-method approach

  • Yi Cui
  • Jian MouEmail author
  • Jason Cohen
  • Yanping Liu


As cross-border e-commerce becomes more popular among global consumers and more important to global trade, there is a growing need for e-commerce research that explores the factors contributing to the success of global electronic markets. Yet, most extant literature on cross-border e-commerce is carried out from a buyer’s perspective. In this study, we contribute by arguing that the success of cross-border e-commerce is also determined by the behavior of sellers and their decision on which platforms to participate. To accomplish our research, we apply a sequential multimethod approach and draw on the information system success model and valence framework to conceptualize our work. We carried out interviews in a qualitative study of Chinese cross-border e-commerce sellers to uncover the key factors about which these sellers may be concerned, and the reasons why they engage in cross-border e-commerce. Our work then develops new operational definitions for concepts of system quality, service quality, perceived benefit and perceived cost relevant to the context of cross-border e-commerce. Next, we develop and test a research model to identify the most salient factors using data collected from a sample of 198 sellers in a Chinese cross-border e-commerce platform. Our quantitative results explain over 67% of seller intentions to participate in cross-border platforms, with trust and perceived benefits most important to that decision process. While other factors such as service quality were also found important, perceived costs had no direct effect. The theoretical contributions of the work and the practical implications for cross-border platforms are presented.


Cross-border e-commerce Trust Information system success model Valence framework Sequential multimethod approach 



We would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which have greatly improved our paper. This study supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of No. 20103176477 [BX180604]; the National Natural Science Foundation of China [71573199]; the National Social Science Fund of China [18BTQ089] .


  1. 1.
    Najberg, A., & Erickson, J. (2015). Cross-border e-commerce to reach $1 trillion in 2020. Accessed March 1, 2018.
  2. 2.
    Mooney, T. (2016). E-commerce, FTZ buoy Tianjin recovery. Accessed March 1, 2018.
  3. 3.
    Cho, H., & Lee, J. (2017). Searching for logistics and regulatory determinants affecting overseas direct purchase: An empirical cross-national study. Asian Journal of Shipping & Logistics, 33(1), 11–18.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herrera, E. G., Martens, B., & Turlea, G. (2013). The drivers and impediments for cross-border e-commerce in the EU. Information Economics and Policy, 28(1), 83–96.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ho, S. C., Kauffman, R. J., & Liang, T. P. (2007). A growth theory perspective on b2c e-commerce growth in Europe: An exploratory study. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(3), 237–259.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alt, R., & Zimmermann, H. D. (2016). Electronic markets on electronic markets in education. Electronic Markets, 26(4), 311–314.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laudon, K. C., & Traver, C. G. (2015). E-commerce: Business. Technology, society (11th global ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson education.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Terzi, N. (2011). The impact of e-commerce on international trade and employment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 745–753.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turban, E., Whiteside, J., King, D., & Outland, J. (2017). Implementation issues: From globalization to justification, privacy, and regulation. In N. Levine (Ed.), Introduction to electronic commerce and social commerce (pp. 383–413). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mou, J., Cohen, J., Dou, Y., & Zhang, B. (2017). Predicting buyers’ repurchase intentions in cross-border e-commerce: A valence framework perspective. In Proceedings of the 25th European conference on information systems (ECIS).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). Model of information system success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2009). Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-commerce relationships: A longitudinal exploration. Information Systems Research, 20(2), 237–257.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, Y. S. (2008). Assessing e-commerce systems success: A respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Journal, 18(5), 529–557.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guo, Y., Bao, Y., Barnes, S. J., & Le, K. (2018). To sell or not to sell: Exploring sellers’ trust and risk of chargeback fraud in cross-border electronic commerce. Information Systems Journal, 28(2), 359–383.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fong, J., & Burton, S. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of electronic word-of-mouth and country-of-origin effects. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 233–242.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang, A. (2017). A risk detection system of e-commerce: Researches based on soft information extracted by affective computing web texts. Electronic Commerce Research, 18(1), 143–157.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liang, K., Jiang, C., Lin, Z., Ning, W., & Jia, Z. (2017). The nature of sellers’ cyber credit in C2C e-commerce: The perspective of social capital. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(1), 133–147.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ke, D., Chen, A., & Su, C. (2016). Online trust-building mechanisms for existing brands: The moderating role of the e-business platform certification system. Electronic Commerce Research, 16(2), 189–216.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sun, H. (2010). Sellers’ trust and continued use of online marketplaces. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(4), 182–221.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang, X., Zhang, J., & Sun, D. (2017). The “Internet+” based study on the development strategy about Sino-Russian cross-border E-commerce. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Forum on Decision Sciences. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tmogroup. (2015). Differences between cross border e-commerce & Haitao. Retrieved from Accessed 3 Nov 2017.
  24. 24.
    Ma, S., Chai, Y., & Zhang, H. (2018). Rise of cross-border e-commerce exports in China. China & World Economy, 26(3), 63–87.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gomez-Herrera, E., Martens, B., & Turlea, G. (2014). The drivers and impediments for cross-border e-commerce in the EU. Information Economics and Policy, 28(1), 83–96.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huang, S. L., & Chang, Y. C. (2017). Factors that impact consumers’ intention to shop on foreign online stores. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ángel, V., Pérez-Amaral, T., Garín-Muñoz, T., García, I. H., & López, R. (2018). Drivers and barriers to cross-border e-commerce: Evidence from Spanish individual behavior. Telecommunications Policy, 42(6), 464–473.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ai, W., Yang, J., & Wang, L. (2016). Revelation of cross-border logistics performance for the manufacturing industry development. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 14(6), 593–609.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen, N., & Yang, J. (2017). Mechanism of government policies in cross-border e-commerce on firm performance and implications on m-commerce. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 15(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, L., Yang, J., & Yin, S. (2015). Electronic commerce international logistics performance influence factor analysis. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 13(5), 498–509.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wan, X., & Chen, J. (2017). The relationship between platform choice and supplier’s efficiency—Evidence from china’s online to offline (o2o) e-commerce platforms. Electronic Markets, 3, 1–14.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mingers, J. (2001). Combining is research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240–259.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peter, J. P., & Tarpey, L. X. (1975). A comparative analysis of three consumer decision strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 29–37.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 236–263.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(4), 60–95.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang, W. T., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, E. R. (2016). The stickiness intention of group-buying websites: The integration of the commitment-trust theory and e-commerce success model. Information & Management, 53(5), 625–642.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fang, Y. H., Chiu, C. M., & Wang, E. T. G. (2011). Understanding customers’ satisfaction and repurchase intentions: An integration of is success model, trust, and justice. Internet Research, 21(4), 479–503.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mou, J., Shin, D. H., & Cohen, J. (2016). Health beliefs and the valence framework in health information seeking behaviors. Information Technology & People, 29(4), 876–900.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P. Y. K., & Cao, Y. (2011). Dynamics between the trust transfer process and intention to use mobile payment services: A cross-environment perspective. Information & Management, 48, 393–403.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Benamati, J., Fuller, M. A., Serva, M. A., & Baroudi, J. (2010). Clarifying the integration of trust and tam in e-commerce environments: Implications for systems design and management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(3), 380–393.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen, H. J. (2010). Linking employees’ e-learning system use to their overall job outcomes: An empirical study based on the is success model. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1628–1639.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Petter, S., & Mclean, E. R. (2009). A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean is success model: An examination of is success at the individual level. Information & Management, 46(3), 159–166.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Morris, S. A., Marshall, T. E., & Jr, R. K. R. (2002). Impact of user satisfaction and trust on virtual team members. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 22–30.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544–564.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hadaya, P. (2008). Determinants and performance outcome of SMEs’ use of vertical B2B e-marketplaces to sell products. Electronic Markets, 18(3), 260–274.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gefen, D. (2002). Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers. AcmSigmis Database, 33(3), 38–53.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Antony, S., Lin, Z., & Xu, B. (2006). Determinants of escrow service adoption in consumer-to-consumer online auction market: An experimental study. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1889–1900.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bhattacherjee, A. (2002). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 211–241.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105–136.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 1–78.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schermellehengel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementXidian UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.School of Economic and Business SciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations