Facebook commerce usage intention: a symmetric and asymmetric approach

  • M. Alonso-Dos-SantosEmail author
  • M. Alguacil Jiménez
  • E. Carvajal-Trujillo


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.


Facebook Usage intention S-commerce Social networks Symmetric Asymmetric 



  1. 1.
    Turban E, Strauss J, Lai L (2015) Social commerce: marketing, technology and management. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tedeschi B (2006) Like shopping? Social networking? Try social shopping. N Y Times 11:9Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stephen AT, Toubia O (2010) Deriving value from social commerce networks. J Mark Res 47:215–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chui M, Manyika J, Bughin J et al (2012) The social economy: unlocking value and productivity through social technologies. McKinsey Glob Inst 4:35–58Google Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith C (2015) Facebook is leading the way in social commerce. In: Bus. Insid. Accessed 13 Dec 2016
  14. 14.
    Marsden P (2011) The f-commerce FAQ. In: Digit. Wellbeing. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marsden P (2010) A new age of enlightenment. In: Marketing (00253650). Accessed 23 June 2016
  18. 18.
    Gajewski AS (2013) A qualitative study of how Facebook storefront retailers convert fans to buyers. Walden UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bucci L (2014) From e-commerce to social commerce: exploring global trends. LUISS Guido CarliGoogle Scholar
  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 13–54Google Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou L, Zhang P, Zimmermann H-D (2013) Social commerce research: an integrated view. Electron Commer Res Appl 12:61–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhou T (2011) An empirical examination of initial trust in mobile banking. Internet Res 21:527–540. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ali SY, Hussin ARC, Ghazali M (2018) Antecedents and consequences of eWOM in social commerce. J Theor Appl Inf Technol 96:149–161Google Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ruiz-Molina ME (2009) Valor percibido, actitud y lealtad del cliente en el comercio minorista. Universia Bus Rev 1:102–117Google Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 16:194–217Google Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gan C, Wang W (2017) The influence of perceived value on purchase intention in social commerce context. Internet Res 27:772–785. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ringle C, Wende S, Becker J-M (2015) SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Eng S, Woodside AG (2012) Configural analysis of the drinking man: fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analyses. Addict Behav 37:541–543. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 19:139–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lisboa A, Skarmeas D, Saridakis C (2016) Entrepreneurial orientation pathways to performance: a fuzzy-set analysis. J Bus Res 69:1319–1324. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod Methods Bus Res 295:295–336Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ragin CC (2009) Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wells WD (2014) Measuring advertising effectiveness. Psychology Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Beerli A, Martín J (1999) Técnicas de medición de la eficacia publicitaria. Ariel, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  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 GranadaGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shin D-H (2009) Towards an understanding of the consumer acceptance of mobile wallet. Comput Human Behav 25:1343–1354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pavlou PA (2002) A theory of planned behavior perspective to the consumer adoption of electronic commerce. MIS Q 30:115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2016) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc Ser B 36:111–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Geisser S (1975) The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J Am Stat Assoc 70:320–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Woodside AG (2014) Embrace perform model: complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. J Bus Res 67:2495–2503. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 GranadaGoogle Scholar
  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 GranadaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Administration DepartmentUniversidad Católica de la Santísima ConcepciónConcepciónChile
  2. 2.Catholic University of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Universidad de HuelvaHuelvaSpain

Personalised recommendations