Advertisement

The Moderating Role of Perceived Effectiveness of Provider Recommendations on Consumers’ Satisfaction, Trust, and Online Repurchase Intention

  • Hongpeng WangEmail author
  • Rong Du
  • Shizhong Ai
  • Zhe Chi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9191)

Abstract

Despite the importance of online provider recommendations in e-commerce transactions, there is still little understanding about how provider recommendations impacts on customer retention. Addressing this gap, this study introduces a key construct, perceived effectiveness of provider recommendations (PEPRs) to investigate the differential moderating effects of PEPRs on the relationships between satisfaction, trust and repeat purchase intention. The research models are designed based on a research model and an online survey is conducted with 130 respondents. We draw conclusions that (1) PEPRs negatively moderate the relationship between satisfaction with vendor and trust in vendor and (2) PEPRs positively moderate the relationship between trust in vendor and repurchase intention. These findings are important theoretical contributions to know that first-hand experience can be to some extent replaced by supplementary information. In addition, we give some managerial countermeasures towards the new situation.

Keywords

Provider recommendations Satisfaction Trust Online repurchase intention 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China through grant 71271164 and Program for Advisors of Doctorial Students in University in China through grant 20120203110021.We are grateful to the editors and the reviewers for their insightful comments and invaluable guidance. We appreciate all other members in our research team for their contribution.

References

  1. 1.
    Aiken, L.S., Stephen, G.W.: Multiple regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions, pp. 75–87. Sage, Newbury Park (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barclay, Donald, Higgins, Christopher, Thompson, Ronald: The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technol. Stud. 2(2), 285–309 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yakov, B., et al.: Are the drivers and role of online trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study. J. Mark. 69(4), 133–152 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carte, T.A., Russell, C.J.: In pursuit of moderation: Nine common errors and their solutions. MIS Q. 27, 479–501 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, Y.-Y., et al.: Confirmation of expectations and satisfaction with the Internet shopping: the role of internet self-efficacy. Comput. Inf. Sci. 3(3), 14 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chin, W.W.: Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q. 22, vii–xvi (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Cisco internet business solutions group, catch and keep digi-tal shoppers (2013). http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/retail/Catch-and-Keep-the-Digital-ShopperPoV.pdf
  9. 9.
    Cohen, J., Cohen, P.: Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (84). Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Floyd, K., et al.: How online product reviews affect retail sales: a meta-analysis. J. Retail. 90(2), 217–232 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu, X., et al.: Hope or hype On the viability of escrow services as trusted third parties in online auction environments. Inf. Syst. Res. 15(3), 236–249 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., P, M.: Building consumer trust online. Commun. ACM 42(4), 80–85 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson, D., Grayson, K.: Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. J. Bus. Res. 58(4), 500–507 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618–644 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nanda, K., Benbasat, I.: Research note: the influence of recommendations and consumer reviews on evaluations of websites. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(4), 425–439 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Komiak, S.Y.X., Benbasat, I.: The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Q. 30(4), 941–960 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, D., Browne, G.J., Wetherbe, J.C.: Why do internet users stick with a specific web site? a relationship perspective. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 10(4), 105–141 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, X., Hitt, L.M., John Zhang, Z.: Product reviews and competition in markets for repeat purchase products. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 27(4), 9–42 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lim, K.H., et al.: Do I trust you online, and if so, will I buy? an empirical study of two trust-building strategies. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23(2), 233–266 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lohmoller, J.-B.: The PLS program system: latent variables path analysis with partial least squares estimation. Multivar. Behav. Res. 23(1), 125–127 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., Podsakoff, N.P.: Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q. 35(2), 293–334 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montaner, Ml, López, B., De La Rosa, J.L.: A taxonomy of recommender agents on the internet. Artif. Intell. Rev. 19(4), 285–330 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moore, G.C., Izak, B.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. syst. Res. 2(3), 192–222 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pavlou, P.A., Gefen, D.: Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inf. Systems Res. 15(1), 37–59 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Israr, Q., et al.: Understanding online customer repurchasing intention and the mediating role of trust–an empirical investigation in two developed countries. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 18(3), 205–222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Donnavieve, S., Menon, S., Sivakumar, K.: Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust, and choice in virtual markets. J. Interact. Mark. 19(3), 15–37 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Straub, D.W.: Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Q. 13(2), 147–169 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., Gefen, D.: Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13, 63 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wei, Y.Z., Moreau, L., Jennings, N.R.: A market-based approach to recommender systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (TOIS) 23(3), 227–266 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zboja, J.J., Voorhees, C.M.: The impact of brand trust and satisfaction on retailer repurchase intentions. J. Serv. Mark. 20(6), 381–390 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementXidian UniversityXianChina

Personalised recommendations