The Impact of Homophily and Herd Size on Decision Confidence in the Social Commerce Context

  • Mariam Munawar
  • Khaled HassaneinEmail author
  • Milena Head
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1160)


Online shopping creates uncertainty in consumers, negatively impacting their decision confidence. Social commerce is a new variant of e-commerce, fitted with social media technologies that allow users to observe how others are behaving in the online shopping space. These observations may drive herd behaviour, a tendency of people to imitate others in an effort to reduce uncertainty. Various characteristics of a herd can result in the propagation of herd behaviour. This work-in-progress paper hones in on how homophily and herd size, as characteristics of a herd, can drive herd behaviour and ultimately impact a consumer’s decision confidence in the social commerce context. A research model is proposed and an experimental methodology is outlined. Potential contributions to both theory and practice are discussed.


Social commerce Decision confidence Herd behaviour Homophily 


  1. 1.
    Orendorff, A.: Global ecommerce statistics and trends to launch your business beyond borders (2019).
  2. 2.
    Zhang, K.Z., Benyoucef, M.: Consumer behaviour in social commerce: a literature review. Decis. Support Syst. 86, 95–108 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramachandran, M.: The evolution of social shopping in the ecommerce landscape (2018).
  4. 4.
    Smith, A., Anderson, M.: Social media use in 2018.
  5. 5.
    Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H., Xue, Y.: Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective. MIS Q. 31, 105–136 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, A.S.: Editorial. MIS Q. 25(1), iii–vii (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hajli, N.: Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 35(2), 183–191 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oney, E., Oksuzoglu-Guven, G.: Confidence: a critical review of the literature and an alternative perspective for general and specific self-confidence. Psychol. Rep. 116(1), 149–163 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laroche, M., Kim, C., Zhou, L.: Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: an empirical test in a multiple brand context. J. Bus. Res. 37(2), 115–120 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Locander, W.B., Hermann, P.W.: The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on information seeking in consumer risk reduction. J. Mark. Res. 16(2), 268–274 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Munawar, M., Hassanein, K., Head, M.: Understanding the role of herd behaviour and homophily in social commerce. In: SIGHCI 2017 Proceedings, vol. 11 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hogg, M.A.: Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: a motivational theory of social identity processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 11(1), 223–255 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hogg, M.A., Abrams, D.: Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hajli, N., Lin, X., Featherman, M., Wang, Y.: Social word of mouth: how trust develops in the market. Int. J. Mark. Res. 56(5), 673–689 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baddeley, M.: Herding, social influence and economic decision-making: socio-psychological and neuroscientific analyses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 365(1538), 281–290 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheung, C.M., Xiao, B.S., Liu, I.L.: Do actions speak louder than voices? The signaling role of social information cues in influencing consumer purchase decisions. Decis. Support Syst. 65, 50–58 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hogg, M.A.: Uncertainty–identity theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 69–126 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hogg, M.A.: Uncertainty-identity theory. Handb. Theor. Soc. Psychol. 2, 62 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R.: Relationships between providers and users of market research: dynamics of trust. J. Mark. Res. 29(3), 314–328 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rook, D.W.: The buying impulse. J. Consum. Res. 14(2), 189–199 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chu, S.C., Kim, Y.: Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int. J. Advert. 30(1), 47–75 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M.: Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 27(1), 415–444 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phillips, K.W., Northcraft, G.B., Neale, M.A.: Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: when does deep-level similarity help? Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 9(4), 467–482 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ensher, E.A., Grant-Vallone, E.J., Marelich, W.D.: Effects of perceived attitudinal and demographic similarity on protégés’ support and satisfaction gained from their mentoring relationships. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32(7), 1407–1430 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Stilwell, D.: A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. J. Appl. Psychol. 78(4), 662 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Severin, W.: Another look at cue summation. AV Commun. Rev. 15(3), 233–245 (1967)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ruef, M., Aldrich, H.E., Carter, N.M.: The structure of founding teams: homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68, 195–222 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brown, J.J., Reingen, P.H.: Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behaviour. J. Consum. Res. 14(3), 350–362 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsuo, Y., Yamamoto, H.: Community gravity: measuring bidirectional effects by trust and rating on online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 751–760. ACM (April 2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Golbeck, J.: Trust and nuanced profile similarity in online social networks. ACM Trans. Web (TWEB) 3(4), 12 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taylor, D.A., Altman, I.: Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use in studies of interpersonal relations. Psychol. Rep. 19(3), 729–730 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Byrne, D.: An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 14(3), 417–431 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Davidson, W.B., Cotter, P.R.: Psychological sense of community and support for public school taxes. Am. J. Community Psychol. 21(1), 59–66 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sniezek, J.A.: Groups under uncertainty: an examination of confidence in group decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 52(1), 124–155 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C.: Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 13(3), 334–359 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McMillan, D.W., Chavis, D.M.: Sense of community: a definition and theory. J. Community Psychol. 14(1), 6–23 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R.: A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 14(2), 189–217 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peterson, N.A., Speer, P.W., McMillan, D.W.: Validation of a brief sense of community scale: confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. J. Community Psychol. 36(1), 61–73 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DeGroote School of BusinessMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations