Advertisement

Effect of Shopping Value on the Susceptibility of E-Commerce Shoppers to Persuasive Strategies and the Role of Gender

  • Ifeoma AdajiEmail author
  • Kiemute Oyibo
  • Julita Vassileva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11433)

Abstract

Research has shown that persuasive strategies are more effective when personalized to an individual or group of similar individuals. However, there is little knowledge of how the value derived from consumers’ online shopping can be used for group-based tailoring of persuasive strategies. To contribute to research in this area, we conducted a study of 244 e-commerce shoppers to investigate how the value they derive from shopping online (hedonic or utilitarian value) can be used to tailor the persuasive strategies: reciprocation, commitment and consistency, social proof, liking, authority and scarcity. In addition, we investigate the susceptibility of the participants to these strategies based on their gender. Our results suggest that people that derive hedonic shopping value online are influenced by scarcity, while those that derive utilitarian shopping value are influenced by consensus. In addition, male shoppers who derive hedonic value from online shopping are influenced by commitment. The results presented here can inform e-commerce developers and stakeholders on how to tailor influence strategies to consumers based on the value the consumers derive from online shopping.

Keywords

Persuasive strategies E-commerce Hedonic value Utilitarian value 

References

  1. 1.
    Adaji, I., Oyibo, K., Vassileva, J.: Consumers’ need for uniqueness and the influence of persuasive strategies in E-commerce. In: International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Waterloo, pp. 279–284 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adaji, I., Oyibo, K., Vassileva, J.: Shopper types and the influence of persuasive strategies in e-commerce. In: International Workshop on Personalized Persuasive Technology, Waterloo, pp. 58–65 (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adaji, I., Oyibo, K., Vassileva, J.: The effect of gender and age on the factors that influence healthy shopping habits in e-commerce. In: Proceedings of the 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization - UMAP 2018, Singapore, pp. 251–255 (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adaji, I., Vassileva, J.: Evaluating personalization and persuasion in e-commerce. In: International Workshop on Personalized Persuasive Technology, Salzburg, pp. 107–113 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adaji, I., Vassileva, J.: Perceived effectiveness, credibility and continuance intention in e-commerce. A study of Amazon. In: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Amsterdam, pp. 293–306 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adaji, I., Vassileva, J.: Tailoring persuasive strategies in e-commerce. In: International Workshop on Personalized Persuasive Technology, Amsterdam, pp. 57–63 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adaji, I., Vassileva, J.: The impact of age, gender and level of education on the persuasiveness of influence strategies in e-commerce. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, April 2017, p. 10 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E.: Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retail. 79(2), 77–95 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R.: Consumer self-regulation in a retail environment. J. Retail. 71(1), 47–70 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M.: Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20(4), 644–656 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 25(3), 351 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bridges, E., Renée, F.: Hedonic and utilitarian shopping goals: the online experience. J. Bus. Res. 61(4), 309–314 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Busch, M., et al.: Personalization in serious and persuasive games and gamified interactions. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY 2015, New York, pp. 811–816 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cialdini, R.: The science of persuasion. Sci. Am. 284, 76–81 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cialdini, R.B.: Influence: Science and Practice. Pearson Education, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaptein, M.: Adaptive persuasive messages in an e-commerce setting: the use of persuasion profiles. ECIS (2011). aisel.aisnet.org
  17. 17.
    Feldman, S.: Cognitive Consistency: Motivational Antecedents and Behavioral Consequents (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gupta, S.: The psychological effects of perceived scarcity on consumers’ buying behavior. Dissertations, Thesis, and Student Research from the College of Business, July 2013Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gupta, S., Kim, H.-W.: Value-driven internet shopping: the mental accounting theory perspective. Psychol. Mark. 27(1), 13–35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hair Jr., J., Hult, T., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaptein, M., Eckles, D.: Heterogeneity in the effects of online persuasion. J. Interact. Mark. 26(3), 176–188 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaptein, M.: Personalized Persuasion in Ambient Intelligence. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Shaughnessy, J., Jackson O’Shaughnessy, N.: Marketing, the consumer society and hedonism. Eur. J. Mark. 36(5/6), 524–547 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. In: Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Hasle, P., Harjumaa, M., Segerståhl, K., Øhrstrøm, P. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5033, pp. 164–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68504-3_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Orji, R., Mandryk, R.L., Vassileva, J.: Gender, age, and responsiveness to Cialdini’s persuasion strategies. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 147–159. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Overby, J.W., et al.: The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and intentions (2006). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Overby, J.W., Lee, E.-J.: The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and intentions. J. Bus. Res. 59(10–11), 1160–1166 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simons, H.H.W., Jones, J.: Persuasion in Society. Taylor & Francis, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wong, K.: Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 24(1), 1–32 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations