A Mediation and Moderation Model of Social Support, Relationship Quality and Social Commerce Intention
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Study Design and Data Collection Procedure
3.2. Measurement
3.3. Participants
3.4. Method Bias Test
4. Analysis and Results
4.1. Measurement Model Test
4.2. Structural Model Test
4.3. Mediation Model Test
4.4. Moderation Model Test
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Theoretical Contribution
5.2. Practical Contributions
6. Limitations and Future Research Guidelines
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Trust [4,23] |
The performance of my SNS meets my expectations. My SNS can be counted on as a good SNS. My SNS is a reliable SNS. I believe that SNS keeps my personal data safe. SNS is trustworthy to shop. |
Satisfaction [3,4] |
I am satisfied with using my favorite social networking site. I am pleased with using my favorite social networking site. I am happy with my favorite social networking site. My social networking sites fulfil my needs Overall, I feel satisfied in using my social networking site over others. |
Commitment [4] |
I am proud to belong with my SNS I feel sense of belonging to my SNS I care about long-term success of my SNS |
Emotional support [23] |
My friends on SNS encourage me in difficult situations. My friends on SNS take care of me in difficult situations. My friends on SNS listen to my private feelings. |
Informational support [1] |
On SNS, some people would offer suggestions when I needed help. When I encountered a problem, some people on SNS would give me information to help me overcome the problem. When faced with difficulties, some people on SNS would help me discover the cause and provide me with suggestions. |
Social sharing intention [1] |
I am willing to share my own experiences with my friends on SNS I am willing to recommend a product that is worth buying to my friends on SNS. |
Social commerce intention [1,23] |
I am willing to buy the products recommended by my friends on SNS. I consider the shopping experience of my friends on SNS when I want to shop. I intend to ask my friends on SNS to provide me with their suggestions before I go shopping. |
References
- Liang, T.-P.; Turban, E. Introduction to the Special Issue Social Commerce: A Research Framework for Social Commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2011, 16, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, C.-Y.; Ku, Y.-C. The Power of a Thumbs-Up: Will E-commerce Switch to Social Commerce? Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 340–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheikh, Z.; Liu, Y.; Islam, T.; Hameed, Z.; Khan, I.U. Impact of social commerce constructs and social support on social commerce intentions. Inf. Technol. People 2019, 32, 68–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajli, N. The role of social support on relationship quality and social commerce. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 87, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, L. A Cross-Cultural Study of Interpersonal Trust in Social Commerce. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2020, 60, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, W.M. The Influence of Internet Advertising and Electronic Word of Mouth on Consumer Perceptions and Intention: Some Evidence from Online Group Buying. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2015, 55, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Yahia, I.; Al-Neama, N.; Kerbache, L. Investigating the drivers for social commerce in social media platforms: Importance of trust, social support and the platform perceived usage. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, C.S.-P. Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: A cross-regional study. Inf. Manag. 2013, 50, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Cheung, C.M.; Lee, M.K.O. An empirical investigation of information sharing behavior on social commerce sites. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 686–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leong, L.-Y.; Hew, T.-S.; Ooi, K.-B.; Chong, A.Y.-L. Predicting the antecedents of trust in social commerce – A hybrid structural equation modeling with neural network approach. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 110, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CM Commerce. Available online: https://cm-commerce.com/academy/5-handy-steps-to-optimize-your-social-revenue/ (accessed on 24 March 2020).
- Smart Insights. Social Commerce Trends for 2020. Available online: https://www.smartinsights.com/ecommerce/social-commerce/social-commerce-trends-for-2020-you-need-to-look-out-for/ (accessed on 24 March 2020).
- Business Insider. Social Commerce Market Report: How Social Media Is Driving Economic Sales in 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.businessinsider.com/social-commerce-report (accessed on 24 March 2020).
- Hennig-Thurau, T. Relationship Quality and Customer Retention through Strategic Communication of Customer Skills. J. Mark. Manag. 2000, 16, 55–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, T.-P.; Ho, Y.-T.; Li, Y.-W.; Turban, E. What Drives Social Commerce: The Role of Social Support and Relationship Quality. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2011, 16, 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palmatier, R.W.; Dant, R.P.; Grewal, D.; Evans, K.R. Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 136–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J. Mark. 2006, 58, 20–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustafsson, A.; Johnson, M.D.; Roos, I. The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.; Chen, X.; Davison, R.M. Social Support, Source Credibility, Social Influence, and Impulsive Purchase Behavior in Social Commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2019, 23, 297–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirazi, F.; Adam, N.A.; Shanmugam, M.; Schultz, C.D. The importance of trust for electronic commerce satisfaction: An entrepreneurial perspective. Br. Food J. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bugshan, H.; Attar, R.W. Social commerce information sharing and their impact on consumers. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 153, 119875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.Z.; Benyoucef, M.; Zhao, S.J. Building brand loyalty in social commerce: The case of brand microblogs. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2016, 15, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Tit, A.A.; Omri, A.; Hadj, T.B. The driving factors of the social commerce intention of Saudi Arabia’s online communities. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2020, 12, 1847979019899746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lim, W.M. Untangling the relationships between consumer characteristics, shopping values, and behavioral intention in online group buying. J. Strat. Mark. 2016, 25, 547–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Shen, X.-L. Consumers’ decisions in social commerce context: An empirical investigation. Decis. Support Syst. 2015, 79, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobb, S. Social Support as a Moderator of Life Stress. Psychosom. Med. 1976, 38, 300–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hsiao, M.-H. Influence of interpersonal competence on behavioral intention in social commerce through customer-perceived value. J. Mark. Anal. 2020, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- House, J.S. Work Stress and Social Support; Addison Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, Y.; Sohn, D.; Choi, S.M. Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. App. Psych. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; William, C.B. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.-T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steenkamp, J.E.M.; Baumgartner, H. Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25, 78–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Characteristics | Full Sample (n = 511) | USA Sample (n = 232) | Korea Sample (n = 279) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||
Female | 257 (50.29%) | 103 (44.4%) | 151 (54.1%) |
Male | 254 (49.70%) | 129 (55.6%) | 128 (45.9%) |
Age group | |||
20–30 | 174 (34.05%) | 101 (43.53%) | 71 (25.44%) |
31–40 | 188 (36.79%) | 91 (39.22%) | 114 40.86%) |
41–50 | 116 (22.70%) | 33 (14.22%) | 65 (23.29%) |
Above 50 | 33 (6.45%) | 7 (3.01%) | 29 (10.39%) |
Experience | |||
Less than 6 months | 28 (5.47%) | 14 (6%) | 14 (5%) |
6 months to 1 year | 75 (14.67%) | 37 (15.9%) | 38 (13.6%) |
1–3 years | 106 (20.74%) | 43 (18.5%) | 63 (22.6%) |
3–5 years | 109 (21.33%) | 35 (15.1%) | 74 (26.5%) |
More than 5 years | 193 (37.76%) | 103 (44.4%) | 90 (32.3%) |
Source: Survey results |
TR | SAT | COM | EMS | IMS | SS | SSP | Kurtosis | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tr1 | 0.867 | −0.389 | ||||||
tr2 | 0.845 | −0.290 | ||||||
tr3 | 0.843 | 0.598 | ||||||
tr4 | 0.820 | 0.005 | ||||||
tr5 | 0.758 | 0.165 | ||||||
sat1 | 0.865 | −0.016 | ||||||
sat2 | 0.868 | 0.084 | ||||||
sat3 | 0.858 | −0.262 | ||||||
sat4 | 0.827 | 0.309 | ||||||
sat5 | 0.804 | 0.830 | ||||||
com1 | 0.789 | −0.287 | ||||||
com2 | 0.698 | 0.008 | ||||||
com3 | 0.733 | −0.309 | ||||||
ems1 | 0.765 | −0.353 | ||||||
ems2 | 0.817 | 0.685 | ||||||
ems3 | 0.848 | 0.265 | ||||||
ims1 | 0.879 | −0.429 | ||||||
ims2 | 0.882 | 0.043 | ||||||
ims3 | 0.847 | −0.423 | ||||||
ss1 | 0.855 | 0.181 | ||||||
ss2 | 0.731 | −0.015 | ||||||
ssp1 | 0.860 | 0.139 | ||||||
ssp2 | 0.831 | 0.322 | ||||||
ssp3 | 0.873 | 0.621 | ||||||
Multivariate | 94.814 | |||||||
Cronbach’s alpha | 0.913 | 0.924 | 0.781 | 0.851 | 0.902 | 0.765 | 0.890 | |
Composite reliability | 0.915 | 0.926 | 0.785 | 0.852 | 0.903 | 0.808 | 0.891 | |
Average variance extracted | 0.685 | 0.714 | 0.549 | 0.657 | 0.756 | 0.585 | 0.731 |
Constructs | Mean | Std. Deviation | TR | SAT | COM | EMS | IMS | SS | SSP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TR | 4.653 | 1.174 | 0.83 | ||||||
SAT | 5.147 | 1.008 | 0.60 | 0.85 | |||||
COM | 5.079 | 0.980 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.74 | ||||
EMS | 5.153 | 0.990 | 0.59 | 0.78 | 0.66 | 0.81 | |||
IMS | 4.719 | 1.304 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.87 | ||
SS | 4.897 | 1.134 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.63 | 0.60 | 0.71 | 0.77 | |
SSP | 4.897 | 1.096 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.56 | 0.69 | 0.66 | 0.71 | 0.86 |
Constructs | Relationship Quality | Social Support | S-Commerce Intention |
---|---|---|---|
TR | 0.87 | ||
SAT | 0.92 | ||
COM | 0.96 | ||
EMS | 0.96 | ||
IMS | 0.87 | ||
SS | 0.83 | ||
SSP | 0.94 | ||
Cronbach’s alpha | 0.885 | 0.822 | 0.912 |
Composite reliability | 0.941 | 0.885 | 0.867 |
Average variance extracted | 0.842 | 0.723 | 0.688 |
H | Path | Path Coefficient | t-Value | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1a | Relationship quality --> S-commerce | 0.385 | 1.894 * | Support |
H2a | Social support --> Relationship quality | 0.872 | 17.704 *** | Support |
H2b | Social support --> S-commerce | 0.412 | 2.007 ** | Support |
Variables | Estimate | Error | Bootstrapping | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bias-Corrected | Percentile | |||||||
95% CI | 95% CI | |||||||
Lower | Upper | p-value | Lower | Upper | p-value | |||
Indirect effect Social support | 0.318 | 0.095 | 0.135 | 0.510 | 0.001 | 0.136 | 0.511 | 0.001 |
Paths | The USA | Korea | X2 Difference Test | Results of Multi-Group Comparison |
---|---|---|---|---|
Social support --> Relationship quality | 0.849 (13.497) *** | 0.791 (13.497) ** | ΔX2 = 4.281 ** | USA > Korea (H3a) |
Relationship quality --> S-commerce | 0.252 (2.364) ** | 0.494 (5.085) *** | ΔX2 = 0.518 n.s. | USA = Korea (H3b) |
Social support -- > S-commerce | 0.571 (5.125) *** | 0.280 (3.029) *** | ΔX2 = 7.383 *** | USA > Korea (H3c) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hossain, M.A.; Jahan, N.; Kim, M. A Mediation and Moderation Model of Social Support, Relationship Quality and Social Commerce Intention. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239889
Hossain MA, Jahan N, Kim M. A Mediation and Moderation Model of Social Support, Relationship Quality and Social Commerce Intention. Sustainability. 2020; 12(23):9889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239889
Chicago/Turabian StyleHossain, Md. Alamgir, Nusrat Jahan, and Minho Kim. 2020. "A Mediation and Moderation Model of Social Support, Relationship Quality and Social Commerce Intention" Sustainability 12, no. 23: 9889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239889
APA StyleHossain, M. A., Jahan, N., & Kim, M. (2020). A Mediation and Moderation Model of Social Support, Relationship Quality and Social Commerce Intention. Sustainability, 12(23), 9889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239889