Advertisement

Facebook commerce usage intention: a symmetric and asymmetric approach

  • 79 Accesses

Abstract

This study explores the antecedents of usage intentions to use Facebook commerce from an asymmetric point of view. The methodology consists of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) asymmetric methods as well as structural equation methods (SEM). This study employs the SEM partial least squares analysis method to validate existing theories that examine the relationships between variables such as electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), trust, perceived value, and usability of the new technology discussed in this study. The results from the fuzzy-set QCA show that not all the variables are necessary conditions for influencing F-commerce usage intention, with the variables of usability × perceived value × trust being the most important for obtaining valid and useful results, while in SEM analysis, trust, perceived value and eWOM have been shown to be influential variables in usage intentions. The novelty of this study has to do with an analysis of a growing context such as e-commerce through Facebook, in order to contribute to its understanding so that such information is useful for the management of this context of social networks, for a better use in terms of trade, improving the effectiveness and efficiencies of management decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Turban E, Strauss J, Lai L (2015) Social commerce: marketing, technology and management. Springer, Cham

  2. 2.

    Liang T-P, Turban E (2011) Introduction to the special issue social commerce: a research framework for social commerce. Int J Electron Commer 16:5–14. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415160201

  3. 3.

    Tedeschi B (2006) Like shopping? Social networking? Try social shopping. N Y Times 11:9

  4. 4.

    Stephen AT, Toubia O (2010) Deriving value from social commerce networks. J Mark Res 47:215–228. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.2.215

  5. 5.

    Huang Z, Benyoucef M (2013) From e-commerce to social commerce: a close look at design features. Electron Commer Res Appl 12:246–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2012.12.003

  6. 6.

    Huang Z, Benyoucef M (2015) User preferences of social features on social commerce websites: an empirical study. Technol Forecast Soc Change 95:57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.03.005

  7. 7.

    Chui M, Manyika J, Bughin J et al (2012) The social economy: unlocking value and productivity through social technologies. McKinsey Glob Inst 4:35–58

  8. 8.

    Hajli N, Shanmugam M, Papagiannidis S et al (2017) Branding co-creation with members of online brand communities. J Bus Res 70:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.026

  9. 9.

    Busalim AH, Hussin ARC (2016) Understanding social commerce: a systematic literature review and directions for further research. Int J Inf Manag 36:1075–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.06.005

  10. 10.

    Xiao B, Huang M, Barnes AJ (2015) Network closure among sellers and buyers in social commerce community. Electron Commer Res Appl 14:641–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2015.10.001

  11. 11.

    Zhang H, Lu Y, Gupta S, Zhao L (2014) What motivates customers to participate in social commerce? The impact of technological environments and virtual customer experiences. Inf Manag 51:1017–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.07.005

  12. 12.

    Molinillo S, Liébana-Cabanillas F, Anaya-Sánchez R (2018) A social commerce intention model for traditional e-commerce sites. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 13:80–93. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762018000200107

  13. 13.

    Smith C (2015) Facebook is leading the way in social commerce. In: Bus. Insid. http://www.businessinsider.com/social-commerce-2015-report-2015-7. Accessed 13 Dec 2016

  14. 14.

    Marsden P (2011) The f-commerce FAQ. In: Digit. Wellbeing. https://digitalwellbeing.org/f-commerce-faq-all-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-facebook-commerce-but-were-afraid-to-ask/. Accessed 8 Mar 2016

  15. 15.

    Shin D-H (2013) User experience in social commerce: in friends we trust. Behav Inf Technol 32:52–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.692167

  16. 16.

    Leong L-Y, Jaafar NI, Ainin S (2018) The effects of Facebook browsing and usage intensity on impulse purchase in f-commerce. Comput Human Behav 78:160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.033

  17. 17.

    Marsden P (2010) A new age of enlightenment. In: Marketing (00253650). http://socialcommercetoday.com/. Accessed 23 June 2016

  18. 18.

    Gajewski AS (2013) A qualitative study of how Facebook storefront retailers convert fans to buyers. Walden University

  19. 19.

    Bucci L (2014) From e-commerce to social commerce: exploring global trends. LUISS Guido Carli

  20. 20.

    Heinemann G, Gaiser C (2015) Social commerce as base factor no. 1 for SoLoMo. In: Heinemann G, Gaiser C (eds) Social—local—mobile: the future of location-based service. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–54

  21. 21.

    Lee D, Hosanagar K, Nair HS (2018) Advertising content and consumer engagement on social media: evidence from Facebook. Manag Sci 64:5105–5131. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2902

  22. 22.

    Flavián C, Guinalíu M, Gurrea R (2006) The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Inf Manag 43:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.002

  23. 23.

    Liang T-P, Lai H-J (2002) Effect of store design on consumer purchases: an empirical study of on-line bookstores. Inf Manag 39:431–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00129-X

  24. 24.

    Thakur R (2018) The role of self-efficacy and customer satisfaction in driving loyalty to the mobile shopping application. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 46:283–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-11-2016-0214

  25. 25.

    Zhou L, Zhang P, Zimmermann H-D (2013) Social commerce research: an integrated view. Electron Commer Res Appl 12:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.02.003

  26. 26.

    Lu Y, Yang S, Chau PYK, Cao Y (2011) Dynamics between the trust transfer process and intention to use mobile payment services: a cross-environment perspective. Inf Manag 48:393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2011.09.006

  27. 27.

    Hsiao K, Chuan-Chuan Lin J, Wang X et al (2010) Antecedents and consequences of trust in online product recommendations: an empirical study in social shopping. Online Inf Rev 34:935–953. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521011099414

  28. 28.

    Liébana-Cabanillas F, Sánchez-Fernández J, Muñoz-Leiva F (2014) Antecedents of the adoption of the new mobile payment systems: the moderating effect of age. Comput Human Behav 35:464–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.022

  29. 29.

    Li H, Gupta A, Zhang J, Sarathy R (2014) Examining the decision to use standalone personal health record systems as a trust-enabled fair social contract. Decis Support Syst 57:376–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.043

  30. 30.

    Everard A, Galletta DF (2005) How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. J Manag Inf Syst 22:56–95. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222220303

  31. 31.

    Zhou T (2011) An empirical examination of initial trust in mobile banking. Internet Res 21:527–540. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111176353

  32. 32.

    Bansal G, Zahedi FM, Gefen D (2016) Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Inf Manag 53:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.08.001

  33. 33.

    Hennig-Thurau T, Gwinner KP, Walsh G, Gremler DD (2004) Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? J Interact Mark 18:38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10073

  34. 34.

    Hansen SS, Lee JK (2013) What drives consumers to pass along marketer-generated eWOM in social network games? Social and game factors in play. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 8:53–68. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762013000100005

  35. 35.

    Jalilvand MR, Samiei N (2012) The impact of electronic word of mouth on a tourism destination choice: testing the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Internet Res Electron Netw Appl Policy 22:591–612. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211271563

  36. 36.

    Hsu C, Chuan-Chuan Lin J, Chiang H (2013) The effects of blogger recommendations on customers’ online shopping intentions. Internet Res 23:69–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241311295782

  37. 37.

    Hung KH, Li SY (2007) The influence of eWOM on virtual consumer communities: social capital, consumer learning, and behavioral outcomes. J Advert Res 47:485–495. https://doi.org/10.2501/S002184990707050X

  38. 38.

    Ali SY, Hussin ARC, Ghazali M (2018) Antecedents and consequences of eWOM in social commerce. J Theor Appl Inf Technol 96:149–161

  39. 39.

    Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means–end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 52:2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302

  40. 40.

    Ruiz-Molina ME (2009) Valor percibido, actitud y lealtad del cliente en el comercio minorista. Universia Bus Rev 1:102–117

  41. 41.

    Wu L-Y, Chen K-Y, Chen P-Y, Cheng S-L (2014) Perceived value, transaction cost, and repurchase-intention in online shopping: a relational exchange perspective. J Bus Res 67:2768–2776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.007

  42. 42.

    Okazaki S, Blas SS, Castañeda JA (2015) Physicians’ adoption of mobile health monitoring systems in Spain: competing models and impact of prior experience. J Electron Commer Res 16:194–217

  43. 43.

    Hajli N, Shanmugam M, Powell P, Love PED (2015) A study on the continuance participation in on-line communities with social commerce perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change 96:232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.014

  44. 44.

    Yang H, Yu J, Zo H, Choi M (2016) User acceptance of wearable devices: an extended perspective of perceived value. Telemat Inform 33:256–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.007

  45. 45.

    Gan C, Wang W (2017) The influence of perceived value on purchase intention in social commerce context. Internet Res 27:772–785. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2016-0164

  46. 46.

    Doha A, Ghasemaghaei M, Hassanein K (2017) Social bundling: a novel method to enhance consumers’ intention to purchase online bundles. J Retail Consum Serv 35:106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.11.008

  47. 47.

    Ringle C, Wende S, Becker J-M (2015) SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS, Hamburg

  48. 48.

    Alonso Dos Santos M, Calabuig Moreno F, Rejón Guardia F, Pérez Campos C (2016) Influence of the virtual brand community in sports sponsorship. Psychol Mark 33:1091–1097. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20943

  49. 49.

    Eng S, Woodside AG (2012) Configural analysis of the drinking man: fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analyses. Addict Behav 37:541–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.034

  50. 50.

    Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 19:139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

  51. 51.

    Villanueva L, Montoya-Castilla I, Prado-Gascó V (2017) The importance of trait emotional intelligence and feelings in the prediction of perceived and biological stress in adolescents: hierarchical regressions and fsQCA models. Int J Biol Stress 20:355–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890.2017.1340451

  52. 52.

    Lisboa A, Skarmeas D, Saridakis C (2016) Entrepreneurial orientation pathways to performance: a fuzzy-set analysis. J Bus Res 69:1319–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.099

  53. 53.

    Calabuig Moreno F, Prado-Gascó V, Crespo Hervás J et al (2016) Predicting future intentions of basketball spectators using SEM and fsQCA. J Bus Res 69:1396–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.114

  54. 54.

    Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod Methods Bus Res 295:295–336

  55. 55.

    Ragin CC (2009) Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  56. 56.

    Wells WD (2014) Measuring advertising effectiveness. Psychology Press, London

  57. 57.

    Beerli A, Martín J (1999) Técnicas de medición de la eficacia publicitaria. Ariel, Barcelona

  58. 58.

    Crespo E (2011) Eficacia de la promoción de ventas on-line. Influencia del tipo de incentivo promocional y la experiencia de uso web. Universidad de Granada

  59. 59.

    Shin D-H (2009) Towards an understanding of the consumer acceptance of mobile wallet. Comput Human Behav 25:1343–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.001

  60. 60.

    Liébana-Cabanillas F, Muñoz-Leiva F, Sánchez-Fernández J, Viedma-del Jesús MI (2016) The moderating effect of user experience on satisfaction with electronic banking: empirical evidence from the Spanish case. Inf Syst E-bus Manag 14:141–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-015-0277-4

  61. 61.

    Pavlou PA (2002) A theory of planned behavior perspective to the consumer adoption of electronic commerce. MIS Q 30:115–143

  62. 62.

    Chu S-C, Kim Y (2011) Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int J Advert 30:47–75. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075

  63. 63.

    Kim DJ, Ferrin DL, Rao HR (2008) Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-commerce relationships: a longitudinal exploration. Inf Syst Res 20:237–257. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0188

  64. 64.

    Dai H, Luo X, Liao Q, Cao M (2015) Explaining consumer satisfaction of services: the role of innovativeness and emotion in an electronic mediated environment. Decis Support Syst 70:97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.12.003

  65. 65.

    Llanos-Contreras O, Alonso-Dos-Santos M (2018) Exploring the asymmetric influence of socioemotional wealth priorities on entrepreneurial behaviour in family businesses. Eur J Int Manag 12:576–595. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2018.094458

  66. 66.

    Giménez-Espert M del C, Prado-Gascó VJ (2018) The role of empathy and emotional intelligence in nurses’ communication attitudes using regression models and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis models (fsQCA). J Clin Nurs 27:2661–2672. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14325

  67. 67.

    Woodside AG (2013) Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J Bus Res 66:463–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021

  68. 68.

    Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2016) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage, Thousand Oaks

  69. 69.

    Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43:115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

  70. 70.

    Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

  71. 71.

    Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc Ser B 36:111–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x

  72. 72.

    Geisser S (1975) The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J Am Stat Assoc 70:320–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865

  73. 73.

    Henseler J, Dijkstra TK, Sarstedt M et al (2014) Common beliefs and reality about PLS: comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organ Res Methods 17:182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928

  74. 74.

    Aguilera-Caracuel J, Fedriani EM, Delgado-Márquez BL (2014) Institutional distance among country influences and environmental performance standardization in multinational enterprises. J Bus Res 67:2385–2392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.005

  75. 75.

    Woodside AG (2014) Embrace perform model: complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. J Bus Res 67:2495–2503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.006

  76. 76.

    Mathwick C, Malhotra N, Rigdon E (2001) Experiential value: conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment. J Retail 77:39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00045-2

  77. 77.

    Lin H-H, Wang Y-S (2006) An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce contexts. Inf Manag 43:271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.08.001

  78. 78.

    Liebana-Cabanillas F, Muñoz-Leiva F, Sanchez-Fernandez J (2015) Payment systems in new electronic environments: consumer behavior in payment systems via SMS. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 14:421–449. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622015500078

  79. 79.

    Rejón Guardia F (2014) La respuesta del consumidor a la publicidad en redes sociales: análisis del efecto de la presión publicitaria y la experiencia. Universidad de Granada

  80. 80.

    Muñoz Leiva F (2008) La adopción de una innovación basada en la web. Análisis y modelización de los mecanismos generadores de confianza. Universidad de Granada

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to M. Alonso-Dos-Santos.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Website form used

Factors affecting consumer purchases on social networks

The University of Granada is performing research on the level of acceptance of online purchasing systems in social media; this research is specifically targeting the users of Facebook. We are kindly asking you to spend a few minutes responding to a simple survey after viewing an online video that explores the use of online purchasing systems in social media.

figurea

As you already know, social media has become part of our daily lives and is fully integrated in our daily routines. We are wondering about the quick, easy and simple process that users approach when purchasing through business pages of social networks.

The following explanatory video shows the different advantages and features that the different social networks might contribute to the field of electronic commerce.

All the collected data will be processed in aggregated form and will be evaluated in full confidence, in compliance with the technical and organizational measures required by current data protection regulations. If you have any questions or doubts about this research, please contact us through the following e-mail addresses: franlieb@ugr.es.

Your participation in this research study should not take longer than 6 or 7 min.

Appendix 2: Scales used

Perceived value [63, 64, 76, 77]

Regarding the viewed F-commerce platform, score your level of agreement or disagreement on a scale of 1 to 7:

  • The time it would take to make purchases on F-commerce platforms is very reasonable (PerVal1).

  • The effort associated with the use of these platforms to make online purchases is worth it to me (PerVal2).

  • The perceived experience in the use of platforms F-commerce is positive (PerVal3).

  • I would find the use of F-commerce platforms to be valuable (PerVal4).

Usage intention [59, 78]

Regarding the possibility of using an F-commerce platform, score your level of agreement or disagreement on a scale of 1 to 7:

  • I would use F-commerce in the future to make online purchases (IntUse1).

  • I would recommend that other consumers use F-commerce to make online purchases (IntUse2).

  • My intention is to use F-commerce in the future as an online purchase tool (IntUse3).

E-wom [62, 79]

  • In the purchasing of products, I generally buy brands I think other people will approve of (EW1).

  • If other people can see me using a product, I frequently buy the brand they expect me to buy (EW2).

  • I find a sense of belonging through buying the same products and brands that others buy (EW3).

Trust [61, 78, 80]

  • I believe that F-commerce platforms will keep the promises and commitments they make (Trust1).

  • F-commerce platforms are trustworthy (Trust2).

  • I would rate F-commerce platforms as honest (Trust3).

  • I think that the F-commerce is responsible (Trust4).

  • Generally, I have confidence in the F-commerce platforms (Trust5).

Usability [22]

  • In the F-commerce platform, everything is easy to understand (USA1).

  • Finding the information, I need to make the purchase is easy in the F-commerce platforms (USA2).

  • The structure and content are easy to understand (USA3).

  • In F-commerce platforms, everything is easily understandable (USA4).

  • The organization of contents of this type of platform allows me to know where I am when I browse its pages (USA5).

  • I feel that I control what I can do when I use these platforms (USA6).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alonso-Dos-Santos, M., Alguacil Jiménez, M. & Carvajal-Trujillo, E. Facebook commerce usage intention: a symmetric and asymmetric approach. Inf Technol Manag (2019) doi:10.1007/s10799-019-00311-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Facebook
  • Usage intention
  • S-commerce
  • Social networks
  • Symmetric
  • Asymmetric