Social Commerce Success: Antecedents of Purchase Intention and The Mediating Role of Trust

Journal of Internet Commerce
ISSN: 1533-2861 (Print) 1533-287X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wico20
Social Commerce Success: Antecedents of

Purchase Intention and the Mediating Role of
Trust
Amal Dabbous, Karine Aoun Barakat & May Merhej Sayegh
To cite this article: Amal Dabbous, Karine Aoun Barakat & May Merhej Sayegh (2020): Social
Commerce Success: Antecedents of Purchase Intention and the Mediating Role of Trust, Journal of
Internet Commerce
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2020.1756190
Published online: 02 May 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wico20
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2020.1756190
Social Commerce Success: Antecedents of Purchase

Intention and the Mediating Role of Trust
Amal Dabbousa , Karine Aoun Barakatb , and May Merhej Sayeghc
a
Department of Economics and Finance, Faculty of Business Administration, Saint-Joseph
University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; bDepartment of Marketing, Faculty of Business
Administration, Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; cDepartment of Management,
Faculty of Business Administration, Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The past couple of years have witnessed the emergence of a Brand awareness; consumer
new phenomenon known as social commerce, which incorpo- behavior; consumer
rates the transactional aspect of e-commerce with social inter- engagement; perceived
economic benefit; purchase
actions. To date, little is known about how different factors intention; social commerce;
namely; online social interactions, consumers’ engagement on social interaction; trust
social networks, perceived economic benefit and online brand
awareness increase the purchase intention through social
commerce. Moreover, the mediating role of trust within the
social commerce literature needs further investigation. This
study fills this gap by examining the duality of social com-
merce. It uses Structural Equation Modeling to test the pro-
posed hypotheses. Findings show that the relationships
between consumer engagement, brand awareness and inten-
tion to purchase through social commerce are fully mediated
by trust. Social interactions have a direct positive impact on
purchase intentions. Whereas, perceived economic benefit has
a significant impact on both trust and intention to purchase
through social commerce.
Introduction
In recent years social networking sites have witnessed an exponential
growth on the global level, primarily because of the opportunities they give
people to connect to each other in an easy and timely manner, and to
exchange and share various kinds of information (Bortoli, Palpanas, and
Bouquet 2011). Online social networks represent social structures which
allow people who have similar interests and needs to interact, communicate
together and share knowledge (Ruas, Cardoso, and Nobre 2017). It is
expected that by 2021 the number of active users on social networks will
reach 3.02 billion per month which represents over a third of the global
population (Statista 2019). These figures indicate that social networks have
become an essential communication channel which companies can use to
CONTACT Amal Dabbous amal.dabbous@usj.edu.lb Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, 17-5208 Beirut, Lebanon.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 A. DABBOUS ET AL.
communicate with consumers as well as to increase their sales. Recently,

companies are showing a growing interest in using social networks to sell
their products (Hajli 2015). This has come to be known as social com-
merce. Social commerce consists of the utilization of social networks by e-
commerce companies. It focuses on the impact of social influence which
shapes the interaction among consumers (Kim and Srivastava 2007). The
use of social commerce by businesses is still in a nascent phase, and only a
minority of companies have succeeded in establishing themselves in this
field (Yahia, Al-Neama; and Kerbache 2018). Firms that are present in the
electronic commerce market are still trying to determine the main factors
which motivate consumers to take part in social commerce (Zhou, Zhang,
and Zimmermann 2013, Zhang et al. 2014). Despite the fact that several
studies investigated the main drivers for the adoption of social commerce
by consumers, the literature does not offer a clear understanding of which
factors influence consumers to purchase through this channel, revealing
that more studies on this topic are needed (Friedrich 2016). In addition,
few studies address the inherent complexity of social commerce which is at
the same time a space where consumers engage in meaningful relationships
with others and perform transactions. Therefore, the duality of social com-
merce needs to be explored further in order to understand the drivers that
push consumers to favor this type of commerce.
Numerous researchers consider customers as the main driving force in
the social commerce movement (Yahia, Al-Neama, and Kerbache 2018).
This makes understanding the factors that determine their willingness to
purchase through social commerce crucial to ensure the long-term success
of this type of commerce. Firstly, according to Kim and Park (2013), these
customers seek the best prices by engaging with social network platforms
to make informed purchasing decisions. Therefore, the financial motive is
considered important when deciding whether to use social commerce or
not. Secondly, social relations play an important role within social net-
works. The findings of Aydın (2019) highlight the significance of socializa-
tion motives for the social commerce intention adoption. In addition,
social network members may influence each other’s choices and opinions
(He, Karami, and Deng 2017), this is especially true given that consumers
rely on information they receive from ratings and reviews, recommenda-
tions and referrals posted by other consumers on social networks (Hajli
2015). Furthermore, they are looking for more customized and informative
shopping experiences (Zhou, Zhang, and Zimmermann 2013), and are
engaging with brands in profoundly new ways (Edelman 2010). These fac-
tors lead them to favor the use of social commerce over other types of
commerce, and additionally promotes a higher level of trust between the
users (Ba and Pavlou 2002). Thirdly, Fogg and Iizawa (2008) argue that for
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 3
an online social network to be effective and successful, it has to encourage

its users to embrace certain behaviors like connecting with other users,
sharing content and actively contributing to this network. The engagement
of customers within social networks is a main factor that ensures the viabil-
ity and continued existence of any online community. If an insufficient
number of people engage in a particular community, it will no longer exist
(Agag and El-Masry 2016). Therefore, it is crucial to account for the impact
of consumers’ engagement when analyzing the drivers of social commerce.
Fourthly, the perceived benefits of using social networks in businesses
include increasing brand awareness and online communication, in addition
to enhancing customer relationship management (Huang and Benyoucef
2013). It is thus very important to account for the impact of brand aware-
ness when determining the factors that influence the intention to purchase
using social commerce channels.
Finally, when compared to e-commerce, social commerce is considered a
new business model which is characterized by a higher level of uncertainty
and risk (Chen and Wang 2016). Its success depends on users’ ability to
reduce the social complexity and uncertainty involved in the multi-party
transactions that take place online (Sharma, Menard, and Mutchler 2019).
Within the literature, the reliance on trust has been shown to be crucial in
contexts where users are dependent on other people and are vulnerable to
their misconduct (Gefen 2000). Trust is also known to be a significant fac-
tor in forming and maintaining long-term relationships and is thus consid-
ered to be a primary antecedent of people’s intention to purchase using
social commerce (Sharma, Menard, and Mutchler 2019; Lu, Fan, and Zhou
2016). Moreover, understanding the role of trust appears interesting given
that the present study is conducted in Lebanon, a country which according
to Hofstede’s dimensions has a low score on individualism and a high
power distance, and is as such considered to be a culture where people
tend to be less trusting (Connolly and Bannister 2007a; Fukuyama 1995).
Additionally, besides the importance afforded to this factor by researchers,
practitioners also recognize the importance that consumers accord to being
able to trust online vendors (Connolly and Bannister 2007b) as an underly-
ing condition to their willingness to use this channel. This justifies the
need to include trust within the study and further examine its role as an
antecedent to purchase intention through social commerce.
The study thus offers several potential contributions while addressing the
aforementioned shortcomings within the literature. Firstly, by examining
the impact of four factors–Social Interaction, Consumer Engagement,
Perceived Economic Benefit and Brand Awareness—on consumers’ pur-
chase intention within social commerce it combines between the social
aspects and transactional dimensions of social commerce. Therefore, it
4 A. DABBOUS ET AL.
enriches our understanding of the drivers of users’ intention to use social

commerce within a new interaction paradigm. This will eventually help
businesses to better depict and target users of social network platforms and
reach potential customers through improving communication with them.
Secondly, by demonstrating the role of trust as a mediator within this rela-
tionship, most notably since trust is considered to be a critical issue in the
online context (Hajli 2015). Toward this end, the study proposes a model
which is then tested using an on-line questionnaire administered to a sam-
ple of 206 Facebook and Instagram users in Lebanon. The Structural
Equation Modeling approach (SEM) is then applied to analyze the collected
data, using IBM SPSS 20 and IBM Amos 23 statistical packages.
The paper is structured in the following manner. The first part presents
the theoretical development, definitions of social commerce and the key
concepts included in the proposed model. The second part, introduces the
research model, the hypotheses and explains the research methodology.
The third part reports the research results, main findings, discussions and
contributions. Finally, the last part concludes, discusses the research limita-
tions and the possible directions for future research.
Theoretical background
Defining social commerce
Social commerce is now considered to be a well-established concept in the
marketing literature (Huang and Benyoucef 2013). Social commerce uses
the social network environment, particularly social network and Web 2.0
software to conduct e-commerce activities and transactions (Liang and
Turban 2011). It is considered by some researchers as a subset of e-com-
merce that involves the use of social networks to assist in e-commerce
transactions and activities (Hajli 2014, Kim and Park 2013). Furthermore,
according to Laudon and Traver (2016) “social e-commerce is e-commerce
that is enabled by social networks and online social relationships created
within social networks. It is sometimes also referred to as Facebook com-
merce, but is actually is a much larger phenomenon that extends
beyond Facebook.”
This leads to the appearance of the current phenomenon within the
social network context, where businesses tend to become more consumer
oriented. Social commerce has changed traditional business models,
by adding features of progressive Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 technologies to
e-commerce in an attempt to create businesses which are purely customer-
oriented (Hajli 2015). Recently, social commerce has rapidly evolved due to
the expansion of social networks (Liang and Turban 2011).
The literature presents several definitions of social commerce that can be

grouped into two categories. The first of which, tries to increase users’ con-
tent generation and interactivity. It consists of businesses that aim to
develop an online community and encourage their customers to share their
knowledge, experiences, and information about the products or services
they encounter when they engage in social commerce. The second category
consists of companies who join known social networking sites such as
Facebook or Instagram to sell their products or services through this chan-
nel and are considered to practice social commerce (Hajli 2015).
Within the present study we adopt the second definition, a previous ver-
sion of which was presented by Yadav et al. (2013) who considered social
commerce to be “exchange-related activities that occur in, or are influenced
by, an individual’s social network in computer-mediated social environ-
ments, where the activities correspond to the need recognition, pre-pur-
chase, purchase, and post-purchase stages of a focal exchange.” This
definition brings forth two major characteristics of the social commerce
concept. First, the scope of social commerce which refers to exchange-
related activities that include, but are not limited to, transactions. Second,
the presence of social commerce within computer-mediated social environ-
ments which paves the way for the creation of meaningful personal connec-
tions and sustained social interactions (Zhang and Benyoucef 2016).
Therefore, unlike traditional e-commerce where consumers usually inter-
act with online shopping sites separately, social commerce involves online
communities that support user interactions and user-generated content
(Kim and Srivastava 2007). As such, alongside factors related to online
transactions—Perceived Economic Benefit and Brand Awareness- it is inter-
esting to study the social drivers of this type of commerce which we pro-
pose to be Social Interaction and Consumer Engagement. Hence, within
the scope of this study we examine the impact of these four factors on
Purchase Intention in the social commerce context as well as the mediating
role that Trust plays.
Social interaction
Shopping has always been considered to be a social experience. One of the
shortcomings of traditional online commerce was that it lacked this social
aspect. A distinguished feature of internet shopping is its ability to allow
interactions among consumers and between consumers and companies
without having any time or space constraints (Kim and Joo 2001). In add-
ition, the development of social commerce has reintroduced the social side
into online shopping, (Lu, Fan, and Zhou 2016) as it gives customers access
to social knowledge and experiences which support them in making more
6 A. DABBOUS ET AL.
informed and accurate purchase decisions (Dennison, Bourdage-Braun, and

Chetuparambil 2009).
Social commerce involves two types of interactions. Firstly, it supposes the
presence of online communities that support social connections and enhance
conversation between customers (Kim and Srivastava 2007). Secondly, it devel-
ops more social and interactive approaches that let customers express them-
selves and share the information they have with businesses (Parise and Guinan
2008). Therefore, information delivered by brands is no longer representing the
main source of information for consumers during the decision buying process.
Now consumers heavily depend on information shared with other consumers
rather than the one provided by brands (Chi 2011). Hence, social networks
allow consumers to interact both with companies and with other consumers.
For example, Kim and Park (2013) established that communication can be con-
sidered a more influential factor in social commerce compared to other types of
e-commerce. Moreover, Coyle and Thorson (2001) found that social interaction
is considered an important factor in determining different affective and behav-
ioral outcomes such as decision-making. Furthermore, social interactions tend
to influence customers when making purchase decisions (Godes et al. 2005). In
fact, information exchanged by consumers play a crucial role in determining
purchase behavior and post purchase behavior (Divol, Edelman, and Sarrazin
2012). This leads us to propose the following hypothesis:
H1a. Social interactions will positively influence consumers’ purchase intentions
using social commerce.
Additionally, according to Park and Kang (2003) sharing experiences and

information increase consumers’ trust in online firms. Likewise, previous
studies conclude that communication and information sharing increase
trust within the e-commerce context (Kim and Park 2013; Liao, Palvia, and
Lin 2006). Finally, Harris and Dennis (2011) argue that recommendations
from friends and interactivity have an impact on building consumer trust.
While Hajli (2015) shows that recommendations and reviews enhance con-
sumers’ trust and intention to purchase.
We therefore suggest testing the following hypotheses:
H1b. Social interactions will have a positive influence on trust.
H1c. Trust mediates the relationship between social interactions and consumers’
purchase intentions using social commerce.
Consumer engagement
Customer research defines the concept of engagement as a “psychologically
based willingness to invest in the undertaking of focal interactions with
particular engagement objects” (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014).

Within the context of social networks, consumer online engagement reflects
an individual’s commitment to an active relationship with a given kind of
media (Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009, Mollen and Wilson 2010).
This includes reacting to content such as liking, commenting, and sharing
(Barger, Peltier, and Schultz 2016).
According to Chaffey (2007), the higher the consumer online engage-
ment the more time or attention an individual or prospect gives to a brand
on the web or across multiple channels. This engagement, creates deep
connections which drive purchase decisions, interaction, and participation
over time (Sashi 2012). The positive relationship between online engage-
ment and purchase intention was also explored by Li (2014) whose study
showed that consumers’ purchase intention toward products with cultural
symbols is associated with their usage intensity of social networking sites.
Moreover, Hutter et al. (2013) argue that the fan page engagement has a
positive impact on the users’ online purchase intention. Tiruwa, Yadav, and
Suri (2016) conclude that a relation exists between consumer engagement
of online brand communities on Facebook and their purchase intention.
Additionally, within the context of social network marketing in Pakistan,
Toor, Husnain, and Hussain (2017) find a significant influence of customer
engagement on consumers’ purchase intention.
We therefore propose the following:
H2a. Consumer engagement will positively influence purchase intentions using
social commerce.
Consumer engagement is also considered to affect trust, since engaged

customers are more likely to show favorable relationship quality signals in
the form of enhanced trust, satisfaction, and commitment (So, King, and
Sparks 2014). This was also proven by Islam and Rahman (2016) who
showed that in the context of social networking sites, customer engagement
plays a crucial role in driving customer trust.
Hence, we investigate whether the following hypotheses hold true:
H2b. Consumer engagement will have a positive influence on trust.
H2c. Trust mediates the relationship between consumer engagement and purchase
intentions using social commerce.
Perceived economic benefit

Perceived economic benefit reflects consumers’ belief about the degree to
which they will be better-off from contracting an online transaction with a
certain website (Kim, Ferrin, and Rao 2008). Within the context of social
8 A. DABBOUS ET AL.
commerce, economic benefit refers to benefits social commerce consumers

expect to gain by buying a product or service. These benefits comprise:
cost savings, higher convenience, time savings, and access to a wider variety
of products (Kim, Ferrin, and Rao 2008). Previous studies considered eco-
nomic benefit to be an important motivator for online purchasing, for
example, according to Soscia, Girolamo, and Busacca (2010), monetary sav-
ings are considered a major driver for online buyers, as the internet facili-
tates the task of comparing prices and makes it easier and more likely for
buyers to get a product at a lower cost. Likewise, Escobar-Rodrıguez and
Carvajal-Trujillo (2013) found that price saving is a direct driver of online
purchase intention. Therefore, the higher the economic benefit perceived
by consumers, the more the likelihood that they will make online
transactions.
We therefore posit the following:
H3a. Perceived economic benefit will positively influence consumers’ purchase
intentions using social commerce.
Furthermore, researchers argue that economic benefit can reinforce trust

in the online environment. Yahia, Al-Neama, and Kerbache (2018), showed
that economic benefit and particularly price advantage has a strong impact
on trust in the social commerce context. While Oh, Yoon, and Lee (2006)
found that consumers’ trust is enhanced in the presence of a better price
advantage and a more distinct product differentiation. Similarly, Lu, Deng,
and Yu (2006) claimed that price advantages derived from discounts or low
prices are key factors that affect consumers’ trust in online business.
Hence, we propose to test the following hypotheses:
H3b. Perceived economic benefit will have a positive influence on trust.
H3c. Trust mediates the relationship between perceived economic benefit and
consumers’ intent to purchase using social commerce.
Brand awareness
Brand awareness can be a sign of quality and commitment, it consists of
letting consumers become familiar with a brand and helping them consider
it when making a purchase (Aaker 1991). Social networks play a big role in
increasing consumers’ brand awareness (Barwise and Meehan 2010), most
notably in terms of aiding brand recognition, enhancing brand knowledge
and recall of particular brands. It incorporates individual brand recogni-
tion, knowledge and recall of particular brands (Kim, Ferrin, and Rao
2008). It refers to the strength of a brand’s presence in the consumer’s
mind (Hutter et al. 2013) and consists of the ability of consumers to recog-
nize a brand under different conditions (Keller 1993).
Within the context of social commerce users rely on information from

others to learn about a brand’s image and reputation (Kang, K.P. Johnson,
and Wu 2014). Cowart and Goldsmith (2007) found that brand-conscious
consumers were more likely to shop for apparel online. Brand awareness is
a key factor in any brand related search and directly influences consumers’
purchase decision (Kapferer 2008). According to Evans (2008), brands that
use social network platforms have the possibility to promote their brand,
generate awareness which in turn leads to actual purchase. Thus, we reason
that brand conscious consumers would seek opinions from social networks
and hold favorable attitudes toward purchasing through social commerce.
We therefore posit the following:
H4a. Brand awareness will positively influence consumers’ purchase intentions using
social commerce.
Furthermore, according to Lowry et al. (2008), brand awareness is con-

sidered as an important determinant of initial trust online. This was also
proven by Gefen (2002) and Ha and Perks (2005) who showed that brand
awareness increases trust and argued that consumers who are unfamiliar
with a sellers’ website or brand are less likely to trust it. Based on the above
we propose to test the relation between brand awareness and trust and
hypothesize the following:
H4b. Brand awareness will have a positive influence on trust.
H4c. Trust mediates the relationship between brand awareness and consumers’ intent
to purchase using social commerce.
Trust
Previous studies in the literature consider trust as a major factor in the
online environment (Mutz 2005, Pavlou 2003), this is especially true in the
context of social commerce since the rate of uncertainty is higher as a
result of the lack of face-to-face communications and the large volume of
user-generated content (Featherman and Hajli 2016). Trust, in the social
commerce context is built through social interactions with other people
and the surrounding environment (Lu, Fan, and Zhou 2016). It is a key
and significant antecedent that helps generate a positive attitude toward the
purchase behavior, which in turn can positively affect purchase intentions
(Hajli 2013). When studying consumers, Kuan and Bock (2007) proposed
various factors influencing online trust performance within e-commerce
and found that online trust has a positive effect on online purchase inten-
tions. Trust makes it easier to engage in financial transactions (Everard and
Galletta 2005) and reduces the psychological barriers associated with an
10 A. DABBOUS ET AL.
online purchase (Pavlou and Fygenson 2006). Additionally, according to

Lin et al. (2018), when consumers trust the parties involved in social com-
merce, risk concerns about sharing experiences or information will no lon-
ger be a barrier, and they are more willing to purchase through social
commerce. Moreover, trust helps users reduce the complexity of social
commerce and simplifies the potentially difficult decision to purchase
goods using social commerce, such that as trust increases, intention to pur-
chase using social commerce will also increase (Sharma, Menard, and
Mutchler 2019).
Within the Lebanese context, trust appears to be especially interesting to
study, given that according to Hofstede’s dimensions the country has a low
score on individualism and a high power distance, and is as such consid-
ered to be a culture where people tend to be less trusting (Connolly and
Bannister 2007a; Fukuyama 1995). This was confirmed by Fakhoury and
Aubert (2015) who found that that lack of trust was the most significant
determinant of acceptance intentions in the case of e-government services
in Lebanon.
In line with the above studies, we posit that trust influences the intent of
customers to purchase through social commerce, and plays a mediating
role between perceived economic benefit, consumer engagement, brand
awareness and social interaction and consumers’ purchase intention. We
therefore propose the following hypothesis:
H5. Trust will positively influence consumers’ purchase intentions using
social commerce.
Purchase intention
Purchase intention refers to the combination of consumers’ interest in a
brand or a product and the possibility of purchasing these items (Lloyd
and Luk 2010). Balakrishnan, Dahnil, and Yi (2014) consider that purchase
intention represents three statements, the consumer willingness to consider
the act of buying, the buying intention in the future and the repurchase
intention. Furthermore, it forms a part of the customer cognitive behavior
as it shows the way a customer is expected to buy a particular brand
(Huang and Su 2010), therefore it is considered the natural step that pre-
cedes the actual purchase behavior (De Magistris and Gracia 2008).
Previous research has demonstrated that consumers’ purchase intentions
heavily rely on their perception of trust (Kang and Johnson 2013). In add-
ition, according to Everard and Galletta (2005), it is seen as an important
element that positively influences users’ intentions to purchase in the
online environment. Users that trust social commerce websites have a
higher probability to purchase on these platforms (Kim and Park 2013).
Figure 1. Research model.
Finally, as discussed above, several factors could also influence consumers’

purchase intention such as social interactions, perceived economic benefit,
consumer engagement and brand awareness. It is therefore interesting to
test for these relationships within the context of social commerce. Building
on the above literature the following model is proposed (Figure 1).
Research methodology
Sample and data collection
To test the proposed conceptual model, a survey questionnaire containing
six scale measures was developed. Items presented in Appendix A were
obtained from previous studies and only slight modifications were intro-
duced to make sure they are valid within the social commerce context. All
items were measured using a five-point Likert-scale varying from
1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree except for the consumer online
engagement construct where the scale was adjusted to indicate frequency.
Due to the fact that a wide variety of social commerce platforms link con-
sumers to e-sellers and for the sake of precision prior to conducting the
survey, a focus group was held to determine the most popular social net-
working site. All participants mentioned Facebook and Instagram as their
preferred social networking sites. Survey respondents included in the sam-
ple were therefore restricted to those who have an active Instagram or
Facebook account. This was achieved by adding a filter question within the
questionnaire in order to screen respondents: “Do you have a Facebook or
Instagram account that you have accessed during the last month?” (Simon
and Tossan 2018).
The questionnaire was then placed online, and a link was sent by email
to a database of alumni of a prominent Lebanese university. The data col-
lection was done between February and March 2019. 350 questionnaires
were sent of which a total of 206 were analyzed after eliminating respond-
ents who did not have a Facebook or Instagram account and unengaged
respondents.
In order to ensure that the sample size was used fulfilled the necessary
condition for the required sample size, several methods were applied.
Generally, some researchers determine the appropriate sample size by using
ten responses per indicator, Bentler and Chou (1987) indicate that a ratio
as low as 5 cases per variable would be satisfactory when latent variables
have multiple indicators. For additional accuracy the Soper (2019) software
statistical algorithm was used to calculate the minimum sample size. By
considering 6 latent variables and 19 indicators, and a statistical power and
significance levels of 0.80 and 0.05 respectively, the recommended lower
bound on the sample size for the model used in this study appeared to be
177 cases. Therefore, the sample of 206 observations fulfills the suggested
minimum sample size for sampling adequacy (Soper 2019).
The respondents’ demographic profile revealed that 44.2% were male and
55.8% were female. All the respondents were holders of a university degree
and aged between 21 and 55 years. Since social commerce is still in a nas-
cent phase, the choice of a sample of university alumni improved the likeli-
hood that the respondents would have adequate disposable income and
education to engage in social commerce in the near future. In addition, by
focusing on a certain subgroup of the overall population, we will be able to
reach a high consistency in sample characteristics as suggested by Taras,
Rowney, and Steel (2009). Accordingly, the chosen sample will be rather
homogenous; allowing us to minimize potential effects of other external
variables such as culture or education.
Methodological information and model building

The structural equation modeling (SEM) approach using IBM SPSS 20 and
IBM Amos 23 statistical packages was chosen to simultaneously test the
relationships between the various model variables (Hair et al. 2010). SEM
based methods are considered very convenient when trying to develop and
extend theory, particularly in the case of second or third order factors as
they provide a deeper understanding of the relations that might not be evi-
dent initially (Astrachan, Patel, and Wanzenried 2014). The SEM technique
allows the simultaneous evaluation of various variables and their
relationships. Moreover, it enables the assessment of the relationships

among several latent constructs while reducing the error in the model
(Hair et al. 2014).
The research model was examined using the two step procedure: a meas-
urement model and a structural model. First, exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to test the reliability and validity of
the individual constructs. Second, SEM was performed to validate the pro-
posed hypotheses.
The data was first screened for any missing values. Collected data was
checked for normality prior to analysis. Multivariate normality could be
assumed as the values of skewness and kurtosis obtained were between 2
and þ2 (Byrne 2010). Additionally, to avoid any bias due to possible non-
normality of the variables, this study used the maximum likelihood (ML)
estimation method with nonparametric bootstrapping to estimate the model
parameters. Nevitt and Hancock (2001) show that bootstrap estimates for
the model are generally less biased when compared with those obtained
from standard ML estimation under conditions of non-normality and for
sample sizes of N 200.
This study also checked for multicollinearity for each variable. Moreover,
as the data is generated from the same set of respondents, common method
bias might exist (Podsakoff et al. 2003), the study therefore checked for
common method bias. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then per-
formed to assess all the items and constructs adopted in this study. For fur-
ther interpretation of the items used, an oblique rotation was conducted on
all the measured items and the data was checked for any cross-loading or
for the existence of items with communalities less than 0.2. (Child 2006).
Then confirmatory factor analysis was performed.
In addition, following Hair et al. (2010), this study adopted an incremen-
tal model-building technique to explore the importance of adding trust as a
mediator and test the model hypotheses. First the model without mediator
was tested. Second, the model which takes into account the mediating role
of trust was also tested. Thus, Model 1 only includes the direct effects of
social interaction, perceived economic benefit, consumer engagement and
brand awareness on purchase intentions. Model 2 includes trust as a medi-
ator and tests both the direct and indirect effects. Finally, the study con-
ducted a comparison between the two models to assess if adding the
mediating effect of trust enhances the model fit, leads to better fit indices
and increases the percentage of the variance explained of purchase inten-
tion. In order to check if the model fit improves, the study compared the
values for v2 and degrees of freedom for both models. Results shown in
Table 1 reveal that the overall fit of model 2 is higher compared to model
1. Furthermore, the difference between the two models is significant.
Table 1. Sequential model comparison.

Model v2 Df D v2 D df p value D v2
Model 1 155.3 94 – – –
Model 2 v/s Model 1 234.4 137 79.1 43 .001
Table 2. Convergent validity and reliability of the constructs.

Construct Items Loadings Cronbach’s a CR AVE
Social Interactions (SI) SI1 .758 0.755 0.757 0.510
SI2 .730
SI3 .651
Consumer Engagement (CE) CE1 .580 0.703 0.752 0.523
CE2 .977
CE3 .527
Perceived Economic Benefit (PEB) PEB1 .876 0.872 0.874 0.699
PEB2 .806
PEB3 .824
Brand Awareness (BA) BA1 .789 0.752 0.755 0.508
BA2 .672
BA3 .671
Trust (TR) TR1 .702 0.750 0.752 0.503
TR2 .657
TR3 .765
Purchase Intention (PI) PI1 .832 0.868 0.871 0.629
PI2 .722
PI3 .786
PI4 .827
This table displays the results for Factor loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha Values, Composite Reliability (CR) and
Average Extracted Variance (AVE).
Additionally, model 2 explains 54.4% of the variance of purchase intentions

using social commerce compared to model 1 which explains only 47.8% of
this variance. As a result, the model assessing both direct and indirect rela-
tionships between dependent and independent variables and including trust
as a mediator explains better the data. Therefore, model 2 is used to discuss
the results of this study.
Finally, since model 2 is selected, this study adopts the bootstrapping
approach with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals to test for the medi-
ating effects of trust and quantitatively investigate the indirect effects in the
model (Preacher and Hayes 2008). The bootstrapping technique is a non-
parametric approach used to test indirect effects. It is considered a reliable
and powerful technique as it makes no assumptions on the shape of the
distribution (MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams 2004).
Data analysis and results

Common method bias, multicollinearity
Multicollinearity is assessed using 2 steps. First, the AVEs for all variables
have a value higher than 0.5 as indicated in Table 2. Second, the variance
inflation factors (VIF) range from 1.19 to 2.94 as shown in Table B1 in

Appendix B, which are below the cutoff of 5 (Hair et al. 2012).
This study uses Harman’s single factor test (Harman 1976) to test for
common method bias. This technique uses exploratory factor analysis
where all variables are forced to load into a single factor and are con-
strained so that there is no rotation (Podsakoff et al. 2003). This test
resulted in 28.593% of the variance explained as indicated in Table B2 in
Appendix B. Since this factor did not account for the majority of the vari-
ance, it can be assumed that common bias method is not an issue for this
study (Chang, Van Witteloostuijn, and Eden 2010). In addition, an extrac-
tion with eigenvalues larger than 1 with Promax rotation confirmed this
result as all items loaded on their respective scales.
This study also uses the common latent factor technique as confirmatory
method to capture the common variance among all the variables in the
model. This technique introduces a new latent variable and then connect it
to that all observable variables, the paths are constrained to be equal and
the variance of the common factor is constrained to be 1. The common
variance is the square of the common factor for each path before standard-
ization. The common threshold is set to 50%. Results obtained indicate a
variance of 18%, therefore, we conclude that there is no evidence for a
common bias method (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Exploratory factor analysis

This study uses a total of 19 items to explore the drivers of consumers’
social commerce purchase intention. EFA with promax rotation was used
to identify the number of factors to extract (Hair et al. 2015). The main
objective of the EFA is to confirm if the items used are loaded correctly to
their corresponding constructs. The results largely support the structure of
the measurement model used. The EFA exhibited KMO measure of sam-
pling adequacy of .843 and the Barlett’s test of sphericity for the correlation
matrix indicated that v2 ¼ 1723.785 with df ¼ 171 and p ¼ .000.
The factor extraction suggests the existence of six factors which explain
60.048% of the variance extracted as shown in Tables B3 and B4 in
Appendix B. These results support the existence of six distinct factors. The
confirmatory factor analysis conducted in the next section will verify
whether the expected factor structure can be confirmed and will evaluate
the representativeness of the items used for each variable.
Reliability and validity: measurement model

The reliability of the model is assessed using two criteria: the Cronbach’s
Alpha and the composite reliability (CR). The Cronbach’s alpha values for
all the constructs exceeded the threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally 1978). Internal
consistency is therefore assumed.
Next, the study conducts the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess
the convergent and discriminant validity. The model indicates a very good
fit using Hu and Bentler (1999) cutoff criteria, v2 ¼ 234.426 df ¼ 137, p ¼
.000, v2/df ¼ 1.711, CFI ¼ 0.94, SRMR ¼ 0.063, RMSEA ¼0.059 and
PClose ¼ 0.126.
First the convergent validity is examined. Three criteria are used to
ensure convergent validity: the CR which should exceed the value 0.7, the
average extracted variance (AVE) which should have values of 0.5 (Hair
et al. 2017), and the factor loadings of all items which should be greater
than 0.7 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). However, Stevens (1992) argues that a
cutoff value of 0.4 is acceptable, irrespective of the sample size. In addition,
to ensure validity, the constructs used in the model must have at least three
items with a loading greater than 0.4 (Streiner 1994). Results reported in
Table 2 indicate that the convergent validity is sufficient in this model. All
the constructs meet the requirements for reliability and convergent validity.
The CR values exceed 0.7 and the AVE value for each construct is greater
than 0.5. All items have high loadings on their items with individual values
above 0.65, except for two items in the consumer engagement construct
who had loadings above 0.52. Results for factor loadings are therefore con-
sidered satisfactory as the loadings are all above the threshold limit of 0.5.
In fact, numerous studies reported that factor loadings should be greater
than 0.5 to be considered appropriate (Truong and McColl 2011; Chen and
Tsai 2007). In addition, Ertz, Karakas, and Sarig€ oll€
u (2016) have considered
a cut off value of 0.4 for the factor loadings in their confirmatory factor
analysis while exploring pro-environmental consumer behavior. Finally, as
suggested by Stevens (1992) a cutoff value of 0.4 is acceptable, irrespective
of the sample size.
Second, the discriminant validity is tested. Discriminant validity is
deemed acceptable if the square root of the AVE for a construct is greater
than any of its correlations with other latent variables (Fornell and Larcker
1981). As indicated in Table 3 discriminant is sufficient for the model. The
square root of AVE for each construct is above its correlations with
other constructs.
Table 3. Discriminant validity- inter-construct correlation matrix.

CE TR PEB BA PI SI
CE 0.723
TR 0.312 0.709
PEB 0.134 0.530 0.836
BA 0.220 0.578 0.266 0.713
PI 0.298 0.608 0.630 0.314 0.793
SI 0.259 0.382 0.348 0.437 0.440 0.714
This table displays the results for Factor loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha
Values, Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Extracted Variance (AVE).
This table displays the discriminant validity results. Diagonal values rep-
resent the square roots of AVE. All off diagonal values correspond to the
correlations between the constructs of the model.
Results
Structural model results
The structural model is examined using the standardized path coefficients
which are considered an indicator for the strength of the relationships
between the various variables (Wixom and Watson 2001) and the squared
multiple correlation (R2) for the dependent variable of interest which shows
the explanatory power of the constructs used in the model (Chin 1998).
In terms of the squared multiple correlation (R2), perceived economic
benefit, consumer engagement and brand awareness explained 51.1% of the
variance of trust. Furthermore, the variables in the model accounted for
54.4% of the variance of the purchase intention construct. R2 values
obtained from the research model demonstrated a substantial explanatory
power as they both exceeded 0.26 (Cohen 1988).
Results are reported in Table 4 and summarized in Figure 2. Estimation
results demonstrated that social interactions have a significant positive
impact on purchase intentions (b ¼ .184, p < .05) which provide support
for hypothesis H1a. However social interactions did not have an influence
on trust (b ¼ .017, p > .05), Hypothesis H1b is rejected. Therefore, hypoth-
esis H1c will not be tested for mediation. Social interactions are therefore
an important factor that directly affects the intent to purchase using social
networks and it is not mediated by trust.
Furthermore, results show that consumer engagement does not have a
direct significant impact on purchase intentions (b ¼ .109, p > .05),
hypothesis H2a is not supported. However, consumer engagement
Table 4. Estimation results (SEM).

Relationships Hypothesis Estimate SE CR p value Hypothesis Verification
(SI) ! (PI) H1a .184 .101 2.206 .027 Supported
(SI) ! (TR) H1b .017 .091 .176 .860 Not Supported
(CE) ! (PI) H2a .109 .071 1.678 .093 Not Supported
(CE) ! (TR) H2b .160 .063 2.175 .030 Supported
(PEB) ! (PI) H3a .391 .075 4.614 Supported
(PEB) ! (TR) H3b .388 .059 4.633 Supported
(BA) ! (PI) H4a .099 .117 1.014 .311 Not Supported
(BA) ! (TR) H4b .432 .095 4.310 Supported
(TR) ! (PI) H5 .354 .147 3.042 .002 Supported
Note: indicates that the coefficient is highly statistically significant (p < .001), shows that the coefficient
is significant at the 1% significance level (p < .01) and shows that the coefficient is significant at the 5%
significance level (p < .05).
Figure 2. Structural model results.
influences trust positively (b ¼ .160, p < .05), hypothesis H2b is supported.

Results show that consumer engagement has an indirect effect on purchase
intentions through trust, therefore hypothesis H2c will be tested
for mediation.
In addition, the model estimation results indicate that perceived eco-
nomic benefit has both a significant direct and an indirect effect on pur-
chase intention with a stronger direct effect (b ¼ .391, p < .001 versus b ¼
.388, p < .001) respectively, providing support for hypotheses H3a and H3b.
Hence, trust partially mediates the relationships between these 2 variables,
hypothesis H3c will be tested for mediation.
As for the path coefficient between brand awareness and purchase inten-
tion, it is not statistically significant (b ¼ .099, p > .05), showing that
brand awareness does not have a direct effect on purchase intention,
hypothesis H4a is not supported. However, brand awareness exerts a sig-
nificant positive impact on trust (b ¼ .432, p < .001) showing that the
impact of brand awareness on purchase intention could be mediated by
trust, hypothesis H4c will be tested for mediation.
Finally, the effect of trust on purchase intention is positive and statistic-
ally significant (b ¼ .354, p < .01). Hypothesis H5 is supported and con-
firms the major role trust plays within the social commerce context in
increasing consumers’ intention to purchase.
This table shows the estimation results for the Structural Model. The first
and second columns indicate the model hypotheses. The third column
reports the standardized estimated coefficients b’s. The fourth, fifth and six
Table 5. Bootstrap results of the mediation analysis.

Path Hypothesis Estimate Lower Bounds (BC) Upper Bounds (BC) p value Results
CE! TR ! PI H2c .062 .002 .211 .040 Full mediation
PEB! TR ! PI H3c .122 .015 .307 .026 Partial Mediation
BA! TR ! PI H4c .183 .018 .494 .027 Full Mediation
Notes: (p < .05). Results are significant at the 5% significance level. 95% bias corrected bootstrap confi-
dence intervals
columns report the standard errors (SE), the critical ratio and the corre-
sponding p-values. The last column reports if the hypotheses are supported
or not.
Mediation analysis results

As a post-hoc analysis, this section examines the mediating role of trust
using the bootstrapping technique with 95% bias-corrected confi-
dence intervals.
Bootstrapping results are shown in Table 5, the non-standardized regres-
sion weights are reported. Mediation exists if the indirect effect coefficient
is statistically significant (p-value is below 0.05) or if the value
of 0 does not figure within the bias corrected confidence interval. As
indicated in Table 5, trust fully mediates the effects of consumer
engagement and brand awareness on purchase intention. Meanwhile, the
influence of perceived economic benefit on purchase intention was partially
mediated by trust. Results highlight the fact that trust plays a crucial
mediating role in the model. Hypotheses H2c, H3c and H4c are
therefore supported.
Discussion
The findings enhance our understanding of users’ intention to use social
commerce within a new interaction paradigm, which explains the
process of using social commerce while accounting for the impact of both
social interactions and consumer engagement. Few studies have investigated
the drivers of social commerce (Kim and Park 2013). However, this
study proposes a model that integrates factors affecting possible
purchasing behavior of consumers as well as exploring the role of trust as
a mediator.
This study examined the effects of four factors, namely social interac-
tions, consumer engagement, perceived economic benefits and brand
awareness on trust and intentions to purchase using social commerce. It is
conducted using Instagram or Facebook as social commerce platforms to
match consumers and s-vendors. More specifically, it investigates the role
of trust as a mediator between drivers of social commerce and consumers’
purchase intention. Understanding drivers of consumers’ intention to pur-

chase using social networks helps businesses to better recognize and target
current users of social network platforms, reach potential buyers and
enhance their communication with them. This will eventually lead to an
increase in the sales volume and will allow companies to gain competitive
advantage and differentiate themselves from other competitors in
the market.
This study is considered among the first to show that the impact of con-
sumer engagement and brand awareness on intention to purchase using
social commerce is fully mediated by trust, hence participating in filling a
gap in the social commerce literature. Moreover, results highlight the
importance of social interactions within the social commerce context and
show that more developed social interactions have a significant positive
impact on purchase intentions and unlike previous studies it concludes that
trust does not mediate the relation between social interactions and pur-
chase intentions. In this regard, this study provides an important contribu-
tion, highlighting the importance of this construct in the context of social
commerce and providing evidence that the interactions between users and
firms as well as those between users are a key variable that determines pur-
chase intentions. Hence, companies should encourage the creation of web-
based communities centered around their brands where consumers can
socially connect and provide opportunities for utilizing the web to engage
users more effectively (Huang and Benyoucef 2013). Finally, this study
makes an important contribution by showing that perceived economic
benefit has both a direct and an indirect effect partially mediated by trust
on purchase intention using social commerce.
Overall, the results underline the importance of customers’ engagement
in social networks. In fact, with the advent of this new era where the use
of social media is very popular and where customers’ social interactions
with each other and with brands are increasing, companies are now striving
to change their branding activities and are relying on a more participatory
approach (Munnukka, Karjaluoto, and Tikkanen 2015). However, for an
online community to be successful it should have a large member base that
contributes actively to generate an efficient content (Teichmann et al.
2015). The results highlight the fact that increasing the rate of engagement
in social networks and enhancing social interactions is a major challenge
for companies in order to maintain the sustainability of their online com-
munities and has proven to play an important role in the social com-
merce context.
In terms of social interactions, the results show that it has a strong posi-
tive impact on purchase intention. Despite the fact that several studies
investigated the impact of social interactions on purchase decision, the
results in the literature remain controversial. Some studies establish a direct

link between social interactions and purchase intentions while others sug-
gest this relation could be mediated by trust. The results from this study
are is in line with Godes et al. (2005) who advocate that social interactions
can influence consumers when making a purchase decision. Moreover, they
match the results of Divol, Edelman, and Sarrazin (2012) who claim that
information exchanges by users have an important role in determining pur-
chase intentions. However, they are not in line with Moorman, Zaltman,
and Deshpande (1992) who show that active communication between con-
sumers and firms plays a major role in building successful relations
between the two parties and increases consumers’ trust. Moreover, they
contradict Park and Kang (2003) who state that consumers who share
information and experiences online will develop a higher trust in online
firms. Finally, unlike previous studies conducted within the e-commerce
context, which state that communication and information sharing enhance
trust (Kim and Park 2013, Liao, Palvia, and Lin 2006), the results of this
study confirm the direct relation between social interactions and purchase
intentions. Social interaction is therefore an important factor to consider
within the social commerce context particularly because consumers rely
heavily on this factor to make their purchase decision to a point where this
relation is not necessarily mediated by trust. The higher the social interac-
tions, the more the probability of engaging in a purchase behavior.
As for consumer engagement and brand awareness, results show that
their impact on purchase intentions is completely mediated by trust.
Hence, brand awareness and consumer engagement are considered import-
ant concepts when exploring the factors that influence consumers’ intent to
purchase using social commerce. Previous studies discussed the links
between consumer engagement, brand awareness and purchase intention,
however the mediation results offer an important contribution to the cur-
rent body of literature, which seeks to assess the impact of these two fac-
tors on the intention to purchase using social commerce.
In fact, previous works show that customer engagement in social net-
work is a major factor determining consumers’ purchase intention (Chen
2017) and that online users who are highly connected with other consum-
ers, will probably be more informed and will acquire knowledge faster
therefore they are more likely to engage in actual online purchase behavior
(Akar and Dalgic 2018, Lewis, Kaufman, and Christakis 2008 and Li, Liao,
and Yen 2013). Moreover, Richard and Guppy (2014) show that using
Facebook’s like and share buttons positively influence consumers’ pur-
chase intentions.
Regarding brand awareness, previous studies explored the links relating
brand awareness to trust or to purchase intentions and results confirm the
positive influence of brand awareness on both variables. For instance,

Barreda et al. (2015) and Lin (2013) establish that brand awareness affects
consumer choices significantly and plays an important role in consumers’
purchase decision making procedure. Furthermore, Gefen (2002) and Ha
and Perks (2005) conclude that brand awareness can increase trust and
indirectly influence purchase intentions since consumers who are unfamil-
iar with a sellers’ website or brand will be less likely to trust it and conse-
quently be reluctant to buy from it.
However, this study’s results advance prior work by establishing that
both consumer engagement and brand awareness are relevant factors that
do not directly affect the intention to purchase using social commerce,
rather they exert an indirect positive impact on this intention through
developing the users’ trust in this channel. Therefore, the need for trust in
the social commerce context becomes a crucial factor to account for when
investigating drivers of social commerce, particularly that it also acts as
a mediator.
Concerning the perceived economic benefit, results confirm that this
variable has a significant impact on both trust and purchase intentions.
Results confirm Oh, Yoon, and Lee (2006) findings that consumers’ trust
could be enhanced with a better price advantage and a more distinct
product differentiation. They are also consistent with Yahia, Al-Neama,
and Kerbache (2018) who advocate that price advantage does affect trust
positively Similarly, they match previous studies which claim that price
advantages derived from discounts or low prices are key factors affecting
consumers’ trust in online business (Lu, Deng, and Yu 2006). Moreover,
they are in line with Kim (2011) who establishes that low price is an
antecedent to trust and has a major impact on consumers’ decisions in
the e-commerce environment. This result highlights the fact that the
utilitarian motive is important within the social commerce context as it
does not only influence purchase decision but also affects trust which is
considered a major antecedent to purchase behavior. Therefore, eco-
nomic benefit is an important factor affecting consumers’ trust and pur-
chase intentions.
Finally, the structural model results highlight the importance of trust as
a factor that affects purchase intention using social commerce directly and
acts as a mediator between two key drivers of social commerce, namely,
consumer engagement and brand awareness, and the intention to purchase
using social commerce. This result helps to elucidate how trust can play a
major role within low trust cultural contexts characterized by high levels of
individualism and power distance. In addition, it is consistent with Chen
and Shen (2015) who demonstrate that trust affects consumers’ purchase
intentions through social commerce platforms. It also matches Hajli (2014)
and Hajli et al. (2017) who established that trust has a significant positive
impact in social commerce and acts as a key predictor for purchase inten-
tions from e-sellers. Furthermore, findings confirm the results of
Leeraphong and Mardjo (2013) who conduct a focus group to examine the
role of trust in social commerce and conclude that trust positively affects
consumers’ purchase intentions. However, the mediation result advances
prior work by establishing that even though consumer engagement and
brand awareness affect purchase intention positively, their impact is fully
mediated by trust and can only materialize if the trust in this channel rises.
Practical implications
The paper offers several managerial implications. Results of this study show
that social interactions have a direct impact on consumers’ intent to pur-
chase using social commerce. From a practical standpoint, this finding
reveals that the firm can profit by leveraging observed social interactions.
Since the initial concern of a firm is to identify when and to whom it
should sell its products (Hill, Provost, and Volinsky 2006), this study con-
firms the fact that social interactions and the links between existing cus-
tomers or between the customer and the firm in the online environment
are a major characteristic on which firms can rely to develop their market-
ing strategies. Thus, firms and brands will have to enhance and create new
talking points to encourage users to interact with brands or firms and with
other users. One possible way to achieve this goal is by asking users ques-
tions, or letting them give their opinions on a new product, incite them to
submit context, share information or opinions. This might generate viral
marketing that benefits from the social relations between customers (Hinz
et al. 2011). Hence, taking social interactions into account can increase the
efficiency of the firm’s marketing strategies.
Moreover, the results of this study establish the role of trust as a medi-
ator between consumer engagement, brand awareness, perceived economic
benefit and purchase intentions. Therefore, firms and managers will have
to develop their understanding for the factors that enhance social network
platforms’ users trust to be able to position their e-commerce as a trustful
business which eventually will yield a higher rate of purchases.
Furthermore, new businesses and startups should give a great emphasis on
enhancing the level of users’ trust to decrease their perceptions of risk
which will ensure the success of their businesses as many consumers will
remain reluctant to purchase using the social commerce channel due to
lack of trust even if they have high levels of brand awareness, consumer
engagement or if their perceived economic benefit is important. In
addition, they should make sure to carefully design their websites and offer
accurate, updated and clear information to generate trust in users.
Furthermore, the findings also reveal that consumer engagement appears
to be a key factor enhancing trust in social commerce and indirectly
impacting purchase intentions. Therefore, firms are advised to increase
consumers’ engagement by developing and enhancing the five consumer
motivations which increase engagement level as shown by Rohm,
Kaltcheva, and Milne (2013), namely entertainment, connection to the
brand, timeliness of information and service responses, product informa-
tion, promotions and incentives.
In addition, the results highlight the importance of perceived economic
benefit within the social commerce context as a variable affecting both trust
and purchase intentions. Firms are advised to prepare well -oriented mar-
keting messages that shed light on their products’ or services’ competitive
advantages. In addition, they can offer reward systems, member exclusive
discounts and most importantly conduct an in depth market research to
compare their prices and offers with other products or services sold
through online or traditional channels.
Finally, as brand awareness indirectly affects purchase intentions through
trust. Firms will have to deploy various marketing strategies and solutions
to increase brand awareness considered as one of the major steps when
promoting a product or service. Firms are advised to provide exclusive,
accurate and efficient information to their followers within the social net-
work platforms. In addition, they should integrate marketing communica-
tion strategies to build brand awareness through the increase in brand
exposure, e-word of mouth or brand interactivity.
Conclusion
This study substantially increases the understanding of consumers’ pur-
chase intentions within the social commerce context by capturing the
inherent complexity of this type of commerce which offers customers a
space where they engage in meaningful relationships with others and per-
form commercial transactions at the same time. It proposes a model that
examines the role of social interaction, consumer engagement, brand
awareness and perceived economic benefit in strengthening consumers’
intention to purchase using this type of commerce and elucidates the medi-
ating role played by trust.
Firstly, results highlight the positive impact of social interactions within
the social commerce context on purchase intentions which is not mediated
by trust. Secondly, the study shows that the impact of consumer engage-
ment and brand awareness on purchase intentions is completely mediated
by trust. Thirdly, it confirms the importance of perceived economic benefit

as a factor that affects both consumers’ trust and purchase intentions.
Fourthly, the results highlight the importance of trust as a factor that
affects social commerce purchase intention directly, thus reinforcing the
existent literature on trust. Moreover, the study results advance prior work
by showing that trust fully mediates the relationship between consumer
engagement and brand awareness, and the intention to purchase using
social commerce, thus proving that the impact of these two factors can
only materialize if trust in social commerce increases.
The findings also offer several practical contributions. They show that firms
can enhance the efficiency of their marketing strategies by leveraging observed
social interactions. In addition, they demonstrate the need for these firms to
increase social network platforms’ users trust as a trustful e-commerce business
will eventually generate more purchases. Finally, results shed the light on the
necessity to ensure higher levels of brand awareness and consumer engagement
through providing updated, accurate and clear information and offering con-
sumer motivations which as a result will promote users’ trust.
Limitations and future research

This study might suffer some limitations which can spawn future studies.
First, drivers of social commerce have been analyzed at a single point in
time using the cross-sectional data, future studies might be conducted by
exploring longitudinal behaviors and investigate whether drivers might be
modified over time. Second intentions to purchase are used as proxy for
the actual behavior. Future studies might be conducted using the actual
purchase behavior to analyze if any gap exists between the two concepts
and can include other variables to explain any possible divergence between
intentions and actual behaviors. Third the sample in this study was limited
to two social commerce platforms, namely Facebook and Instagram, there-
fore the generalizability of the results might be limited. Future research can
address this shortcoming by increasing the number of social network plat-
forms included in their samples and may investigate if changing the plat-
form type has an impact on social commerce. Fourth, this study might
have disregarded the possible effects of other factors such as individual
characteristics or cultural and social features. Future research can incorpor-
ate a larger number of factors that can influence both trust and purchase
intention. For instance, little or no work has tackled the impact of cultural
differences or consumer empowerment within the social commerce context.
Finally, future research can investigate the moderating effect of some latent
variables such as gender or social norms on the relations between drivers
of social commerce, trust and purchase intentions.
ORCID
Amal Dabbous http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6122-5674
Karine Aoun Barakat http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3398-8823
References
Aaker, D. A. 1991. Managing brand equity. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Agag, G., and A. A. El-Masry. 2016. Understanding consumer intention to
participate in online travel community and effects on consumer intention to pur-
chase travel online and WOM: An integration of innovation diffusion theory and
TAM with trust. Computers in Human Behavior 60:97–111. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.
02.038.
Ahmed, M. A., and Z. Zahid. 2014. Role of social media marketing to enhance CRM and
brand equity in terms of purchase intention. Asian Journal of Management Research 4
(3):533–549.
Akar, E., and T. Dalgic. 2018. Understanding online consumers’ purchase intentions: A
contribution from social network theory. Behaviour & Information Technology 37 (5):
473–487. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2018.1456563.
Astrachan, C. B., V. K. Patel, and G. Wanzenried. 2014. A comparative study of CB-SEM
and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. Journal of Family Business
Strategy 5 (1):116–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.12.002.
Aydın, G. 2019. Do personality traits and shopping motivations affect social commerce
adoption intentions? Evidence from an emerging market. Journal of Internet Commerce
18 (4):428–440. doi: 10.1080/15332861.2019.1668659.
Ba, S., and P. A. Pavlou. 2002. Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in elec-
tronic markets: Price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Quarterly 26 (3):243–268. doi:
10.2307/4132332.
Balakrishnan, B. K., M. I. Dahnil, and W. J. Yi. 2014. The impact of social media marketing
medium toward purchase intention and brand loyalty among generation Y. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences 148:177–185. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.032.
Barger, V., J. W. Peltier, and D. E. Schultz. 2016. Social media and consumer engagement:
A review and research agenda. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 10 (4):
268–287. doi: 10.1108/JRIM-06-2016-0065.
Barreda, A. A., A. Bilgihan, K. Nusair, and F. Okumus. 2015. Generating brand awareness
in online social networks. Computers in Human Behavior 50:600–609. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.
2015.03.023.
Barwise, P., and S. Meehan. 2010. The one thing you must get right when building a brand.
Harvard Business Review 88 (12):80–84.
Bentler, P. M., and C. P. Chou. 1987. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological
Methods & Research 16 (1):78–117.
Bortoli, S., T. Palpanas, and P. Bouquet. 2011. Decentralized social network management.
International Journal of Web Based Communities 7 (3):276–297. doi: 10.1504/IJWBC.
2011.041199.
Byrne, B. M. 2010. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
Calder, B. J., E. C. Malthouse, and U. Schaedel. 2009. An experimental study of the rela-
tionship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 23 (4):321–331. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002.
Carlson, J., M. Rahman, R. Voola, and N. De Vries. 2018. Customer engagement behaviors
in social media: Capturing innovation opportunities. Journal of Services Marketing 32
(1):83–94. doi: 10.1108/JSM-02-2017-0059.
Chaffey, D. 2007. Customer engagement interview with Richard Sedley of cScape. Smart
Insights. https://www.smartinsights.com/customer-engagement/customer-engagement-
strategy/customer-engagement-interview-with-richard-sedley-of-cscape/
Chang, S. J., A. Van Witteloostuijn, and L. Eden. 2010. From the editors: Common method
variance in international business research. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jibs.
2009.88
Chen, C. F., and D. Tsai. 2007. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behav-
ioral intentions? Tourism Management 28 (4):1115–1122. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.
007.
Chen, J., and X. L. Shen. 2015. Consumers’ decisions in social commerce context: An
empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems 79:55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2015.07.
012.
Chen, L., and R. Wang. 2016. Trust development and transfer from electronic commerce to
social commerce: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Industrial and Business
Management 06 (05):568–576. doi: 10.4236/ajibm.2016.65053.
Chen, Y. R. 2017. Perceived values of branded mobile media, consumer engagement,
business- consumer relationship quality and purchase intention: A study of
WeChat in China. Public Relations Review 43 (5):945–954. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.
07.005.
Chi, H. H. 2011. Interactive digital advertising vs. virtual brand community: Exploratory
study of user motivation and social media marketing responses in Taiwan. Journal of
Interactive Advertising 12 (1):44–61. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2011.10722190.
Child, D. 2006. The essentials of factor analysis. 3rd. ed. New York, NY: Continuum
Chin, W. 1998. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In
G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research, 295–336. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Connolly, R., and B. Bannister. 2007a. E-commerce trust beliefs: The influence of national
culture. Paper presented at the Proceedings of European and Mediterranean Conference
on Information Systems (EMCIS 2007), Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain.
Connolly, R., and F. Bannister. 2007b. Consumer trust in Internet shopping in Ireland:
Towards the development of a more effective trust measurement instrument. Journal of
Information Technology 22 (2):102–118. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000071.
Cowart, K. O., and R. E. Goldsmith. 2007. The influence of consumer decision-making
styles on online apparel consumption by college students. International Journal of
Consumer Studies 31 (6):639–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00615.x.
Coyle, J. R., and E. Thorson. 2001. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and viv-
idness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising 30 (3):65–77. doi: 10.1080/
00913367.2001.10673646.
De Magistris, T., and A. Gracia. 2008. The decision to buy organic food products
in Southern Italy. British Food Journal 110 (9):929–947. doi: 10.1108/
00070700810900620.
Dennison, G., S. Bourdage-Braun, and M. Chetuparambil. 2009. Social commerce defined.
White paper #23747, IBM Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Divol, R., D. Edelman, and H. Sarrazin. 2012. Demystifying social media. McKinsey
Quarterly 2 (12):66–77.
Edelman, D. C. 2010. Branding in the digital age: You’re spending your money in all the
wrong places. Harvard Business Review 88:62–69.
Ertz, M., F. Karakas, and E. Sarig€ oll€
u. 2016. Exploring pro-environmental behaviors of con-
sumers: An analysis of contextual factors, attitude, and behaviors. Journal of Business
Research 69 (10):3971–3980. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.010.
Escobar-Rodrıguez, T., and E. Carvajal-Trujillo. 2013. Online drivers of consumer purchase
of website airline tickets. Journal of Air Transport Management 32:58–64. doi: 10.1016/j.
jairtraman.2013.06.018.
Evans, D. 2008. Social media marketing: An hour a day. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing.
Everard, A., and D. F. Galletta. 2005. How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality,
trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. Journal of Management
Information Systems 22 (3):56–95. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222220303.
Fakhoury, R., and B. Aubert. 2015. Citizenship, trust, and behavioural intentions to use
public e-services: The case of Lebanon. International Journal of Information Management
35 (3):346–351. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.02.002.
Featherman, M. S., and N. Hajli. 2016. Self-service technologies and e-services risks in
social commerce era. Journal of Business Ethics 139 (2):251–269. doi: 10.1007/s10551-
015-2614-4.
Fogg, B. J., and D. Iizawa. 2008. Online persuasion in Facebook and Mixi: A cross-cultural
comparison. In International conference on persuasive technology, 35–46. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):39–50. doi:
10.2307/3151312.
Friedrich, T. 2016. On the factors influencing consumers’ adoption of social commerce–a
review of the empirical literature. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 8 (4):2. doi: 10.17705/1pais.08401.
Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Gefen, D. 2000. E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega 28 (6):725–737. doi:
10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00021-9.
Gefen, D. 2002. Customer loyalty in e-commerce. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 3 (1):27–51. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00022.
Godes, D., D. Mayzlin, Y. Chen, S. Das, C. Dellarocas, B. Pfeiffer, B. Libai, S. Sen, M. Shi,
and P. Verlegh. 2005. The firm’s management of social interactions. Marketing Letters 16
(3–4):415–428. doi: 10.1007/s11002-005-5902-4.
Gummerus, J., V. Liljander, E. Weman, and M. Pihlstr€ om. 2012. Customer engagement in
a Facebook brand community. Management Research Review 35 (9):857–877. doi: 10.
1108/01409171211256578.
Ha, H.-Y., and H. Perks. 2005. Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the
web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4
(6):438–452. doi: 10.1002/cb.29.
Hair, J. F., Jr, M. Wolfinbarger, A. H. Money, P. Samouel, and M. J. Page. 2015. Essentials
of business research methods. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2014. A primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hair, J. F., M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, and J. A. Mena. 2012. An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 40 (3):414–433. doi: 10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6.
Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin, and R. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed.
New York, NY: Pearson.
Hair, J., T. Hult, C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2017. A primer on partial least squares struc-
tural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hajli, M. 2013. A research framework for social commerce adoption.
Information Management & Computer Security 21 (3):144–154. doi: 10.1108/IMCS-04-
2012-0024.
Hajli, N. 2014. A study of the impact of social media on consumers. International Journal
of Market Research 56 (3):387–404. doi: 10.2501/IJMR-2014-025.
Hajli, N. 2015. Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy. International
Journal of Information Management 35 (2):183–191. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.12.005.
Hajli, N., J. Sims, A. H. Zadeh, and M. O. Richard. 2017. A social commerce investigation
of the role of trust in a social networking site on purchase intentions. Journal of Business
Research 71:133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.004.
Harman, H. H. 1976. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Harris, L., and C. Dennis. 2011. Engaging customers on Facebook: Challenges for e-
retailers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10 (6):338–346. doi: 10.1002/cb.375.
He, X., A. Karami, and C. Deng. 2017. Examining the effects of online social relations on
product ratings and adoption: Evidence from an online social networking and rating site.
International Journal of Web Based Communities 13 (3):344–363. doi: 10.1504/IJWBC.
2017.086591.
Hill, S., F. Provost, and C. Volinsky. 2006. Network-based marketing: Identifying likely
adopters via consumer networks. Statistical Science 21 (2):256–276. doi: 10.1214/
088342306000000222.
Hinz, O., B. Skiera, C. Barrot, and J. U. Becker. 2011. Seeding strategies for viral marketing:
An empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing 75 (6):55–71. doi: 10.1509/jm.10.0088.
Hollebeek, L. D., M. S. Glynn, and R. J. Brodie. 2014. Consumer brand engagement in
social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 28 (2):149–165. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure ana-
lysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
Huang, X., and D. Su. 2010. Research on online shopping intention of undergraduate con-
sumer in china-based on the theory of planned behavior. International Business Research
4 (1):86–92. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v4n1p86.
Huang, Z., and M. Benyoucef. 2013. From e-commerce to social commerce: A close look at
design features. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 12 (4):246–259. doi: 10.
1016/j.elerap.2012.12.003.
Hutter, K., J. Hautz, S. Dennhardt, and J. F€ uller. 2013. The impact of user interactions in
social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: The case of MINI on
Facebook. Journal of Product & Brand Management 22 (5/6):342–351. doi: 10.1108/
JPBM-05-2013-0299.
Islam, J. U., and Z. Rahman. 2016. Linking customer engagement to trust and word-of-
mouth on Facebook brand communities: An empirical study. Journal of Internet
Commerce 15 (1):40–58. doi: 10.1080/15332861.2015.1124008.
Kang, J.-Y. M., and K. K. Johnson. 2013. How does social commerce work for
apparel shopping? Apparel social e-shopping with social network storefronts.
Journal of Customer Behaviour 12 (1):53–72. doi: 10.1362/147539213X136 45550
618524.
Kang, J.-Y., K. K. P. Johnson, and J. Wu. 2014. Consumer style inventory and intent to
social shop online for apparel using social networking sites. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: An International Journal 18 (3):301–320. doi: 10.1108/JFMM-09-2012-
0057.
Kapferer, J. N. 2008. The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand
equity long term. In New strategic brand management: creating & sustaining brand
equity. 4th ed. London, UK: Kogan Page Publishers.
Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1):1–22. doi: 10.2307/1252054.
Kim, A. J., and E. Ko. 2012. Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity?
An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research 65 (10):
1480–1486. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014.
Kim, D. J., D. L. Ferrin, and H. R. Rao. 2008. A trust-based consumer decision-making
model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents.
Decision Support Systems 44 (2):544–564. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001.
Kim, S. Y., and Y. H. Joo. 2001. Perceived interactivity and website loyalty/On the role of
flow as a mediating variable. Journal of Consumer Studies 12 (4):185–208.
Kim, S., and H. Park. 2013. Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-com-
merce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance. International Journal of Information
Management 33 (2):318–332. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.11.006.
Kim, Y. A., and J. Srivastava. 2007. Impact of social influence in e-commerce decision mak-
ing. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Electronic Commerce,
Minneapolis, MN, August 2007, 293–302. New York, NY: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/
1282100.1282157.
Kim, Y. H. 2011. Market analysis and issues of social commerce in Korea. KISDI 23 (11):
41–63.
Kuan, H. H., and G. W. Bock. 2007. Trust transference in brick and click retailer: An
investigation of the before-online-visit phase. Information & Management 44 (2):
175–187. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2006.12.002.
Laudon, K. C., and C. G. Traver. 2016. E-commerce: Business, technology, society. http://
repository.fue.edu.eg/xmlui/handle/123456789/4464
Leeraphong, A., and A. Mardjo. 2013. Applying diffusion of innovation in online purchase
intention through social network: A focus group study of Facebook in Thailand.
Information Management and Business Review 5 (3):144–154.
Lewis, K., J. Kaufman, and N. Christakis. 2008. The taste for privacy: An analysis of college
student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 14 (1):79–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01432.x.
Li, C. 2014. A tale of two social networking sites: How the use of Facebook and
Renren influences Chinese consumers’ attitudes toward product packages with different
cultural symbols. Computers in Human Behavior 32:162–170. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.
004.
Li, E. Y., C. H. Liao, and H. R. Yen. 2013. Co-authorship networks and research impact: A
social capital perspective. Research Policy 42 (9):1515–1530.
Liang, T.-P., and E. Turban. 2011. Introduction to the special issue social commerce: A
research framework for social commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce
16 (2):5–14. doi: 10.2753/JEC1086-4415160201.
Liao, C., P. Palvia, and H. N. Lin. 2006. The roles of habit and web site quality in e-com-
merce. International Journal of Information Management 26 (6):469–483. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2006.09.001.
Lin, J., L. Li, Y. Yan, and O. Turel. 2018. Understanding Chinese consumer engage-
ment in social commerce. Internet Research 28 (1):2–22. doi: 10.1108/IntR-11-2016-
0349.
Lin, Y. C. 2013. Evaluation of co-branded hotels in the Taiwanese market: The role of
brand familiarity and brand fit. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 25 (3):346–364. doi: 10.1108/09596111311311017.
Lloyd, A. E., and S. T. Luk. 2010. The devil wears Prada or Zara: A revelation into cus-
tomer perceived value of luxury and mass fashion brands. Journal of Global Fashion
Marketing 1 (3):129–141. doi: 10.1080/20932685.2010.10593065.
Lowry, P. B., A. Vance, G. Moody, B. Beckman, and A. Read. 2008. Explaining and predict-
ing the impact of branding alliances and web site quality on initial consumer trust of e-
commerce web sites. Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (4):199–224. doi:
10.2753/MIS0742-1222240408.
Lu, B., W. Fan, and M. Zhou. 2016. Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase
intention: An empirical research. Computers in Human Behavior 56:225–237. doi: 10.
1016/j.chb.2015.11.057.
Lu, Y.-B., Z.-C. Deng, and J.-H. Yu. 2006. A study on evaluation items and its application
for B2C e-commerce trust. Paper presented at Proceedings of Management Science and
Engineering International Conference Lille, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France.
MacKinnon, D. P., C. M. Lockwood, and J. Williams. 2004. Confidence limits for the indir-
ect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research 39 (1):99–128. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
Mollen, A., and H. Wilson. 2010. Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online con-
sumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business
Research 63 (9–10):919–925. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014.
Moorman, C., G. Zaltman, and R. Deshpande. 1992. Relationships between providers
and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organiza-
tion. Journal of Marketing Research 29 (3):314–328. doi: 10.1177/002224379
202900303.
Munnukka, J., H. Karjaluoto, and A. Tikkanen. 2015. Are Facebook brand community
members truly loyal to the brand? Computers in Human Behavior 51:429–439. doi: 10.
1016/j.chb.2015.05.031.
Mutz, D. C. 2005. Social trust and e-commerce: Experimental evidence for the effects of
social trust on individuals’ economic behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (3):393–416.
doi: 10.1093/poq/nfi029.
Nevitt, J., and G. R. Hancock. 2001. Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model
test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 8 (3):353–377. doi: 10.1207/
S15328007SEM0803_2.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, J. H., Y. S. Yoon, and K. Y. Lee. 2006. An empirical study on the determinants of trust
and purchasing intention in online shopping. Korea Industrial Economics Association 19
(1):205–224.
Overby, J. W., and E. J. Lee. 2006. The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping
value on consumer preference and intentions. Journal of Business Research 59 (10–11):
1160–1166. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.03.008.
Parise, S., and P. J. Guinan. 2008. Marketing using web 2.0. Paper presented at Proceedings
of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008)
(pp. 281–281). IEEE.
Park, C., and B. G. Kang. 2003. Factors influencing on trust toward e-commerce by con-
sumer experience of online buying. Information Systems Review 5:81–95.
Pavlou, P. A. 2003. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and
risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce
7:101–134.
Pavlou, P. A., and M. Fygenson. 2006. Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly 30 (1):
115–143. doi: 10.2307/25148720.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended rem-
edies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5):879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods
40 (3):879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
Richard, J. E., and S. Guppy. 2014. Facebook: Investigating the influence on consumer pur-
chase intention. Asian Journal of Business Research 4 (2):1–10. doi: 10.14707/ajbr.140006.
Rohm, A., V. D. Kaltcheva, and G. R. Milne. 2013. A mixed-method approach to examin-
ing brand-consumer interactions driven by social media. Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing 7 (4):295–311. doi: 10.1108/JRIM-01-2013-0009.
Ruas, P. H. B., A. M. P. Cardoso, and C. N. Nobre. 2017. Persuasive technology in online
social networks: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Web Based
Communities 13 (4):404–424. doi: 10.1504/IJWBC.2017.089351.
Sashi, C. M. 2012. Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media.
Management Decision 50 (2):253–272. doi: 10.1108/00251741211203551.
Sharma, S., P. Menard, and L. A. Mutchler. 2019. Who to trust? Applying trust to social
commerce. Journal of Computer Information Systems 59 (1):32–42.
Simon, F., and V. Tossan. 2018. Does brand-consumer social sharing matter? A relational
framework of customer engagement to brand-hosted social media. Journal of Business
Research 85:175–184.
So, K. F., C. King, and B. Sparks. 2014. Consumer engagement with tourism brands: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 38 (3):304–329.
doi: 10.1177/1096348012451456.
Soper, D. S. 2019. A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software].
http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
Soscia, I., S. Girolamo, and B. Busacca. 2010. The effect of comparative advertising on con-
sumer perceptions: Similarity or differentiation? Journal of Business and Psychology 25
(1):109–118. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9130-4.
Statista. 2019. https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/
Stevens, J. P. 1992. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Streiner, D. L. 1994. Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. The
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 39 (3):135–140. doi: 10.1177/070674379403900303.
Taras, V., J. Rowney, and P. Steel. 2009. Half a century of measuring culture: Review of
approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for
quantifying culture. Journal of International Management 15 (4):357–373. doi: 10.1016/j.
intman.2008.08.005.
Teichmann, K., Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. Plank, A. and Strobl, A. 2015. Motivational drivers
of content contribution to company-versus consumer-hosted online communities.
Psychology & Marketing 32 (3):341–355. doi: 10.1002/mar.20783.
Tiruwa, A., R. Yadav, and P. K. Suri. 2016. An exploration of online brand community
(OBC) engagement and customer’s intention to purchase. Journal of Indian Business
Research 8 (4):295–314. doi: 10.1108/JIBR-11-2015-0123.
Tong, X., and J. M. Hawley. 2009. Measuring customer-based brand equity: Empirical evi-
dence from the sportswear market in China. Journal of Product & Brand Management
18 (4):262–271. doi: 10.1108/10610420910972783.
Toor, A., M. Husnain, and T. Hussain. 2017. The impact of social network marketing on
consumer purchase intention in Pakistan: Consumer engagement as a mediator. Asian
Journal of Business and Accounting 10 (1):167–199.
Truong, Y., and R. McColl. 2011. Intrinsic motivations, self-esteem, and luxury goods con-
sumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (6):555–561. doi: 10.1016/j.jret-
conser.2011.08.004.
Wixom, B., and H. Watson. 2001. An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data
warehousing success. Mis Quarterly 25 (1):17–41. doi: 10.2307/3250957.
Yadav, M. S., K. de Valck, T. Hennig-Thurau, D. L. Hoffman, and M. Spann. 2013. Social
commerce: A contingency framework for assessing marketing potential. Journal of
Interactive Marketing 27 (4):311–323. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.001.
Yahia, I. B., N. Al-Neama, and L. Kerbache. 2018. Investigating the drivers for social com-
merce in social media platforms: Importance of trust, social support and the platform
perceived usage. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41:11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jret-
conser.2017.10.021.
Zhang, H., Y. Lu, S. Gupta, and L. Zhao. 2014. What motivates customers to participate in
social commerce? The impact of technological environments and virtual customer expe-
riences. Information & Management 51 (8):1017–1030. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.07.005.
Zhang, K. Z., and M. Benyoucef. 2016. Consumer behavior in social commerce: A literature
review. Decision Support Systems 86:95–108. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2016.04.001.
Zhou, L., P. Zhang, and H. D. Zimmermann. 2013. Social commerce research: An inte-
grated view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 12 (2):61–68. doi: 10.1016/j.
elerap.2013.02.003.
Appendix A
Measurement Scales Used
Construct Items Source

Consumer Engagement CE1: I visit pages of brands on Gummerus et al. (2012)
Facebook/Instagram
CE2: I read posts of brands on Gummerus et al. (2012)
Facebook/Instagram
CE3: I use the “Like” option on posts Gummerus et al. (2012)
of brands on Facebook/Instagram
Perceived Economic Benefit PEB1: Buying products through Adapted from Overby and
Facebook/Instagram can help me Lee (2006)
to save money
PEB2: Buying products through Adapted from Overby and
Facebook/Instagram can improve Lee (2006)
my economic situation
PEB3: Buying products through Adapted from Overby and
Facebook/Instagram is cheaper Lee (2006)
than other options available on
the market
Brand Awareness BA1: I can quickly recognize brands I Tong and Hawley (2009)
have seen on Facebook / Instagram
among other competing brands
BA2: Characteristics of brands I have Tong and Hawley (2009)
seen on Facebook/Instagram come
to my mind quickly
BA3: It is easy to remember the logo Adapted for the purpose of
of brands I have seen on the research
Facebook/ Instagram
Social Interaction SI1: Facebook/Instagram allows me to Kim and Ko (2012)
interact easily with companies Ahmed and Zahid (2014)
regarding brand-related issues
SI2: Facebook/Instagram allows me to Kim and Ko (2012)
access product reviews and Ahmed and Zahid (2014)
recommendations
SI3: Facebook/Instagram allows me to Carlson et al. (2018)
interact easily with other
consumers regarding brand-
related issues
Trust TR1: I trust brands I see on Yahia, Al-Neama, and
Facebook/Instagram Kerbache (2018)
TR2: I feel secure if I want to buy Yahia, Al-Neama, and
brands on Facebook/Instagram Kerbache (2018)
TR3: I trust brands on Facebook/ Yahia, Al-Neama, and
Instagram more than brands found Kerbache (2018)
on other channels
Purchase Intention PI1: I am willing to buy products sold Kim and Park (2013)
through Facebook/Instagram
PI2: I expect to buy products through Kim and Park (2013)
Facebook / Instagram
PI3: I will consider buying products Kim and Park (2013)
sold through Facebook/Instagram
as my first choice in the future
PI4: I intend to buy products through Kim and Park (2013)
Facebook/Instagram for my needs
Appendix B
Table B1. Multicollinearity test results.

Coefficients
Unstandardized coefficients Collinearity statistics
Standardized coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) .046 .213 .218 .828
SI .254 .061 .217 4.135 .000 .631 1.586
CE .091 .048 .087 1.903 .058 .838 1.193
BA .253 .078 .199 3.219 .002 .456 2.191
PEB .326 .049 .368 6.604 .000 .562 1.779
TR .626 .095 .473 6.608 .000 .340 2.941
Dependent Variable: PI
Table B2. Harman single factor test results.

Total variance explained
Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings
Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 6.124 32.231 32.231 5.433 28.593 28.593
2 2.029 10.677 42.907
3 1.732 9.114 52.022
4 1.525 8.024 60.046
5 1.231 6.480 66.526
6 1.000 5.264 71.790
7 .719 3.784 75.573
8 .661 3.478 79.052
9 .537 2.826 81.877
10 .496 2.613 84.490
11 .455 2.392 86.883
12 .443 2.330 89.212
13 .395 2.081 91.293
14 .355 1.867 93.161
15 .300 1.581 94.741
16 .288 1.518 96.259
17 .257 1.355 97.615
18 .244 1.284 98.898
19 .209 1.102 100.000
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.
Table B3. Exploratory factor analysis results.

Total variance explained
Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of

squared loadingsa
Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total
1 6.124 32.231 32.231 2.160 11.368 11.368 4.440
2 2.029 10.677 42.907 4.933 25.963 37.330 3.754
3 1.732 9.114 52.022 1.580 8.315 45.645 2.775
4 1.525 8.024 60.046 1.097 5.772 51.417 2.181
5 1.231 6.480 66.526 1.047 5.512 56.929 2.483
6 1.000 5.264 71.790 .593 3.119 60.048 4.007
7 .719 3.784 75.573
8 .661 3.478 79.052
9 .537 2.826 81.877
10 .496 2.613 84.490
11 .455 2.392 86.883
12 .443 2.330 89.212
13 .395 2.081 91.293
14 .355 1.867 93.161
15 .300 1.581 94.741
16 .288 1.518 96.259
17 .257 1.355 97.615
18 .244 1.284 98.898
19 .209 1.102 100.000
Table B4. Pattern matrix exploratory factor analysis.

Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6
CE1 .580
CE2 .984
CE3 .518
BI2 .704
BI3 .801
BI4 .624
BA1 .648
BA3 .552
BA4 .824
TR1 .622
TR2 .511
TR3 .875
PIS1 .828
PIS2 .842
PIS3 .868
PIS4 .431
PEB1 .906
PEB2 .636
PEB3 .852
Extraction method: maximum likelihood.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

Social Commerce Success: Antecedents of Purchase Intention and The Mediating Role of Trust

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Commerce Success: Antecedents of Purchase Intention and The Mediating Role of Trust

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Internet Commerce

ISSN: 1533-2861 (Print) 1533-287X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wico20

Social Commerce Success: Antecedents of

Amal Dabbous, Karine Aoun Barakat & May Merhej Sayegh

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2020.1756190

Published online: 02 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Social Commerce Success: Antecedents of Purchase

communicate with consumers as well as to increase their sales. Recently,

an online social network to be effective and successful, it has to encourage

enriches our understanding of the drivers of users’ intention to use social

The literature presents several definitions of social commerce that can be

informed and accurate purchase decisions (Dennison, Bourdage-Braun, and

Additionally, according to Park and Kang (2003) sharing experiences and

particular engagement objects” (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014).

Consumer engagement is also considered to affect trust, since engaged

Perceived economic benefit

commerce, economic benefit refers to benefits social commerce consumers

Furthermore, researchers argue that economic benefit can reinforce trust

Within the context of social commerce users rely on information from

Furthermore, according to Lowry et al. (2008), brand awareness is con-

online purchase (Pavlou and Fygenson 2006). Additionally, according to

Figure 1. Research model.

Finally, as discussed above, several factors could also influence consumers’

Methodological information and model building

relationships. Moreover, it enables the assessment of the relationships

Table 1. Sequential model comparison.

Table 2. Convergent validity and reliability of the constructs.

Additionally, model 2 explains 54.4% of the variance of purchase intentions

Data analysis and results

inflation factors (VIF) range from 1.19 to 2.94 as shown in Table B1 in

Exploratory factor analysis

Reliability and validity: measurement model

Table 3. Discriminant validity- inter-construct correlation matrix.

Table 4. Estimation results (SEM).

Figure 2. Structural model results.

influences trust positively (b ¼ .160, p < .05), hypothesis H2b is supported.

Table 5. Bootstrap results of the mediation analysis.

Mediation analysis results

purchase intention. Understanding drivers of consumers’ intention to pur-

results in the literature remain controversial. Some studies establish a direct

positive influence of brand awareness on both variables. For instance,

by trust. Thirdly, it confirms the importance of perceived economic benefit

Limitations and future research

Construct Items Source

Table B1. Multicollinearity test results.

Table B2. Harman single factor test results.

Table B3. Exploratory factor analysis results.

Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of

Table B4. Pattern matrix exploratory factor analysis.

You might also like