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

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Najberg, A., & Erickson, J. (2015). Cross-border e-commerce to reach $1 trillion in 2020. http://www.alizila.com/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. https://www.joc.com/port-news/asian-ports/e-commerce-ftz-buoy-tianjin-recovery_20160415.html. 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Alt, R., & Zimmermann, H. D. (2016). Electronic markets on electronic markets in education. Electronic Markets,26(4), 311–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Laudon, K. C., & Traver, C. G. (2015). E-commerce: Business. Technology, society (11th global ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson education.

  8. 8.

    Terzi, N. (2011). The impact of e-commerce on international trade and employment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,24, 745–753.

    Article  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).

  11. 11.

    Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,13(3), 319–340.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

  23. 23.

    Tmogroup. (2015). Differences between cross border e-commerce & Haitao. Retrieved from https://www.tmogroup.asia/difference-between-cross-border-ecommerce-haitao/. 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Gefen, D. (2002). Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers. AcmSigmis Database,33(3), 38–53.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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] .

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian Mou.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Appendix: Questionnaire

Appendix: Questionnaire

Constructs Items Source
System quality (SysQ) 1. It is easy to use this e-marketplace website Adapted from Wang [30]
2. The interfaces of this e-marketplace website are user friendly  
3. It is easy for me to become skillful at using this e-marketplace website  
4. The product uploading system of this e-marketplace (e.g., uploading speed, draft saving function, uploading template) is convenient for me New item (product uploading)
5. The order management system of this e-marketplace (e.g., order searching, order remarks, order sort function) is convenient for me New item (order management)
6. The logistics system of this e-marketplace provides enough options for me New item (logistics)
7. The auto push function of this e-marketplace for overdue products and safe stock is convenient for me New item (product management)
Service quality (SQ) 1. This e-marketplace website shows a sincere interest in solving my problem Adapted from Wang [30]
2. This e-marketplace website service is always willing to help me  
3. This e-marketplace website service is good at providing security and privacy protection  
4. This e-marketplace website service has the appropriate knowledge to answer my questions  
5. This e-marketplace website service understands my specific needs  
6. This e-marketplace provides me with enough training and good customer service New item (e-marketplace)
Perceived benefit (PB) 1. I think using this e-marketplace is convenient Adapted from Kim et al. [13] (deleted)
2. I can generate satisfactory profits using this e-marketplace New item (financial)
3. I can increase sales volume using this e-marketplace New item (financial)
4. I can pursue proprietary brand development using this e-marketplace New item (product)
5. Selling my products through this e-marketplace is a future trend New item (strategic)
6. There is less competitive pressure in this e-marketplace New item (management)
Perceived cost (PC) 1. Selling products through this e-marketplace may cause me to incur a monetary loss (e.g., chargeback, costly rent, sales return) New item (financial)
2. Logistics costs (e.g., long duration of shipping, costly logistics, packet loss, customer clearance) in this e-marketplace create problems for me New item (logistic)
3. I cannot predict foreign market trends that can cause inventory control difficulty New item (market trends) (deleted)
4. Patent infringement creates problems for me in this e-marketplace New item (product)
5. How would you rate your overall perception of risk from this e-marketplace website? Kim et al. [13]
Trust (Tr) 1. This e-marketplace website is trustworthy Adapted from Kim et al. [13]
2. This e-marketplace website appears to keep its promises and commitments  
3. I believe that this e-marketplace website has my best interests in mind  
Intention (Int) 1. I would like to sell products on this e-marketplace website Adapted from Kim et al. [13]
2. I would like to recommend this e-marketplace website to other sellers Kim et al. [13]
3. I would like to continually use this e-marketplace website rather than use alternatives Wang et al. [36]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cui, Y., Mou, J., Cohen, J. et al. Understanding information system success model and valence framework in sellers’ acceptance of cross-border e-commerce: a sequential multi-method approach. Electron Commer Res 19, 885–914 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-019-09331-0

Download citation

Keywords

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