Advertisement

Determining Consumer Engagement in Word-of-Mouth: Trust and Network Ties in a Social Commerce Setting

  • Patrick MikalefEmail author
  • Ilias O. Pappas
  • Michail N. Giannakos
  • Kshitij Sharma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10595)

Abstract

Prompted by the popularity of social commerce in the past few years, this study seeks to examine how online reviews influence consumer’s tendency to engage in word-of-mouth (WOM). We investigate how different aspects pertinent to online reviews affect consumers trust, and how that in turn induces WOM passing and WOM giving. The moderating influence of network ties is studied in the trust to WOM relationship. Building on survey-based study design with a sample of 385 social commerce consumers, we that specific aspects induce a sense of trust towards vendors. In turn, our study demonstrates that trust positively influences WOM passing and WOM giving and this relationship is amplified in conditions of strong network ties. We conclude the paper summarizing the findings and drawing theoretical and practical implications that arise.

Keywords

Social commerce Survey study Online reviews Trust Word-of-Mouth Network ties 

References

  1. 1.
    Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M., Pateli, A.: Shopping and word-of-mouth intentions on social media. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 8, 17–34 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhou, L., Zhang, P., Zimmermann, H.-D.: Social commerce research: an integrated view. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 12, 61–68 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stephen, A.T., Toubia, O.: Deriving value from social commerce networks. J. Mark. Res. 47, 215–228 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ng, C.S.-P.: Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: a cross-regional study. Inf. Manag. 50, 609–620 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bambauer-Sachse, S., Mangold, S.: Brand equity dilution through negative online word-of-mouth communication. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 18, 38–45 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng, Y.-H., Ho, H.-Y.: Social influence’s impact on reader perceptions of online reviews. J. Bus. Res. 68, 883–887 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dellarocas, C.: The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Manage. Sci. 49, 1407–1424 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mikalef, P., Pappas, Ilias O., Giannakos, M.: consumer intentions on social media: a fsQCA analysis of motivations. In: Dwivedi, Yogesh K., Mäntymäki, M., Ravishankar, M.N., Janssen, M., Clement, M., Slade, Emma L., Rana, Nripendra P., Al-Sharhan, S., Simintiras, Antonis C. (eds.) I3E 2016. LNCS, vol. 9844, pp. 371–386. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45234-0_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ranaweera, C., Prabhu, J.: On the relative importance of customer satisfaction and trust as determinants of customer retention and positive word of mouth. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 12, 82–90 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, S., Park, H.: Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 33, 318–332 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Awad, N.F., Ragowsky, A.: Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of mouth: an examination across genders. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24, 101–121 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan, Y.Y., Ngai, E.W.: Conceptualising electronic word of mouth activity: an input-process-output perspective. Mark. Intell. Plan. 29, 488–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    See-To, E.W., Ho, K.K.: Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: the role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust–A theoretical analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 31, 182–189 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C.: Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 13, 334–359 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hajli, N.: Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 35, 183–191 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu, F., Zhang, X.: Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: the moderating role of product and consumer characteristics. J. Mark. 74, 133–148 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Medders, R.B.: Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. J. Commun. 60, 413–439 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu, B., Fan, W., Zhou, M.: Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: an empirical research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 56, 225–237 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., Giannakos, M.N.: Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce: the enabling role of word-of-mouth and trust. In: AMCIS (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yenisey, M.M., Ozok, A.A., Salvendy, G.: Perceived security determinants in e-commerce among Turkish university students. Behav. Inf. Technol. 24, 259–274 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moody, G.D., Galletta, D.F., Lowry, P.B.: When trust and distrust collide online: the engenderment and role of consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 13, 266–282 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V.: Distrust and trust in B2C e-commerce: do they differ? In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Electronic Commerce: The New e-Commerce: Innovations for Conquering Current Barriers, Obstacles and Limitations to Conducting Successful Business on the Internet, pp. 482–491. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lu, Y., Zhao, L., Wang, B.: From virtual community members to C2C e-commerce buyers: trust in virtual communities and its effect on consumers’ purchase intention. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 9, 346–360 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dwyer, P.: Measuring the value of electronic word of mouth and its impact in consumer communities. J. Interact. Mark. 21, 63–79 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kourouthanassis, P.E., Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., Kostagiolas, P.: Explaining travellers online information satisfaction: a complexity theory approach on information needs, barriers, sources and personal characteristics. Inf. Manage. (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pappas, I., Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M.: User Experience in Personalized E-Commerce: A Configurational Approach (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W.: The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. Eur. J. Mark. 44, 838–859 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gilbert, E., Karahalios, K.: Predicting tie strength with social media. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 211–220. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pigg, K.E., Crank, L.D.: Building community social capital: the potential and promise of information and communications technologies. J. Community Inf. 1 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chu, S.-C., Kim, Y.: Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int. J. Adv. 30, 47–75 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brown, J.J., Reingen, P.H.: Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. J. Consum. Res. 14, 350–362 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Casler, K., Bickel, L., Hackett, E.: Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 2156–2160 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hauser, D.J., Schwarz, N.: Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behav. Res. Methods 48, 400–407 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Constantinides, E., Fountain, S.J.: Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing issues. J. Dir. Data Digital Mark. Pract. 9, 231–244 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M.: A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res., 39–50 (1981)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Farrell, A.M.: Insufficient discriminant validity: a comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). J. Bus. Res. 63, 324–327 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chin, W.W.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Meth. Bus. Res. 295, 295–336 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Mikalef
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ilias O. Pappas
    • 1
  • Michail N. Giannakos
    • 1
  • Kshitij Sharma
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.CHILI LabEPFLLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations