Hedonic and Utilitarian Effects of the Adoption and Use of Social Commerce

Abstract

The aim of this research is to contribute to the field of study which explores the consumer behaviour model in social commerce, introducing the social commerce concept as a new commercial formula. To study the acceptance and use of social commerce by consumers, we have proposed the Social Commerce Acceptance Model which brings together several models of technology acceptance, including the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), its successor Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) and The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), and the inclusion of hedonic and utilitarian values which will help us identify the key variables influencing the intention to use social commerce. To carry out this research, we distributed a survey answered by 486 individuals. The results obtained confirm satisfactory results on the relationships proposed, highlighting the influence of hedonic and utilitarian values on attitude and perceived usefulness.

The Effects of Mobile Advertising Alerts and Perceived Value on Continuance Intention for Branded Mobile Apps

“…This result suggests that, to increase perceived value, the MAA content must convince consumers of the potential advantages of shopping for fashion products through the branded mobile app (e.g., saving time and money, providing incentives). This result complements recent studies [100,101] that also demonstrated that perceived usefulness is a key driver of the perceived value of branded mobile apps. Ease of use had a strong impact on perceived usefulness (H4b accepted, β = 0.791**), confirming the TAM proposition [36].…”

The intentions to use social commerce from social, technology, and personal trait perspectives: analysis of direct, indirect, and moderating effects

“…Table 1 shows how previous studies have used the three foundational elements of SC including social, technological and personal trait aspects to develop a model toward understanding user intention to use and engage with the online community. Meanwhile, the personal trait was observed to have dominated the underlying framework used by most previous studies to propose the theoretical model (Kim and Park, 2013;Pöyry et al, 2013;Kabadayi and Price, 2014;Chow, 2015;Kim, 2015;Farivar et al, 2017;Hajli et al, 2017;Sharma et al, 2019;Zha et al, 2019;Wang et al, 2019;Vohra and Bhardwaj, 2019;Pelletier et al, 2020;Corrêa et al, 2020) followed by social aspect (Hajli, 2014;Shao and Ross, 2015;Shanmugam et al, 2016;Lu et al, 2016;Gibreel et al, 2018;Kucharska, 2019;Xue, 2019;Handarkho, 2020aHandarkho, , 2020b and social technology aspect (Shin, 2013;Featherman and Hajli, 2015;Han et al, 2016;Plaza-Lora and Villarejo-Ramos, 2017;Clark et al, 2017). Some others have also combined and integrated social aspect with technology or personal trait element (Sharma and Crossler, 2014;Chen and Shen, 2015;Liebana-Cabanillas and Alonso-dos-Santos, 2017;Lal, 2017;Gibreel et al, 2018;Handarkho, 2020aHandarkho, , 2020b while those from the marketing field have made use of the three to study users' intention toward the SC platform and their effect on social interaction engagement (Kabadayi and Price, ...…”

“…as the dependent variable. Moreover, several studies have successfully used accepted technology adoption models such as TAM (Plaza-Lora and Villarejo-Ramos, 2017;Featherman and Hajli, 2015;Shin, 2013), as well as theories based on social influence (Handarkho, 2020a(Handarkho, , 2020bYang, 2019;Liebana-cabanillas and Alonso-dos-santos, 2017;Shanmugam et al, 2016), trust (Kim and Park, 2013;Kabadayi and Price, 2014;Chow, 2015;Farivar et al, 2017;Sharma et al, 2019;Vohra and Bhardwaj, 2019;Vohra and Bhardwaj, 2019) and the stimulus-organism-response (Kim, 2015;Zhang et al, 2014) to develop a theoretical model. This present research, however, explicitly used social impact theory as the fundamental basis for social interaction followed by social exchange theory for the personal trait, and TAM and ISSM for the social technology aspect.…”

“…This present research, however, explicitly used social impact theory as the fundamental basis for social interaction followed by social exchange theory for the personal trait, and TAM and ISSM for the social technology aspect. These three frameworks have successfully been used by previous-related studies in the online community and marketing field (Handarkho, 2020a(Handarkho, , 2020bXue, 2019;Yang, 2019;Lal, 2017;Plaza-Lora and Villarejo-Ramos, 2017;Han et al, 2016;Featherman and Hajli, 2015).…”

“…The constructs from these perspectives introduced by previous researchers and applied in the model proposed by this study are presented in Table 1 to include those related to personal trait factors such as trust, habit and self-efficacy (Vohra and Bhardwaj, 2019;Zha et al, 2019;Sharma et al, 2019;Gibreel et al, 2018;Farivar et al, 2017;Shanmugam et al, 2016;Lu et al (2016);Chow, 2015;Kabadayi and Price, 2014;Shin, 2013;Kim and Park, 2013), social experiences such as subjective norms, social support and perceived herd (Handarkho, 2020a(Handarkho, , 2020bXue, 2019;Lal, 2017;Featherman and Hajli, 2015;Chen and Shen, 2015;Shanmugam et al, 2015;Hajli, 2014;Shin, 2013;Zhang et al, 2014) and those associated with system usage and socio-technical factors such as enjoyment, social presence, and content quality (Plaza-Lora and Villarejo-Ramos, 2017;Pöyry et al, 2013;Featherman and Hajli, 2015;Lu et al, 2016;Shin, 2013;Liebana-cabanillas and Alonso-dos-santos, 2017;Han et al, 2016;Kim, 2015).…”