See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331906651

The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut

Perspective

Chapter · April 2019

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-8015-7.ch013

CITATIONS READS
7 1,184

4 authors:

Yakup Akgül Burcu Yaman Selçi

Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University Pamukkale University
62 PUBLICATIONS   421 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gizem Geçgil Gizem Yavuz

Beykent Üniversitesi 5 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   
4 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Book Project View project

Book Projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yakup Akgül on 24 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

254

Chapter 13
The Influencing Factors for
Purchasing Intentions in Social
Media by Utaut Perspective
Yakup Akgül
Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Turkey

Burcu Yaman
Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Turkey

Gizem Geçgil
Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Turkey

Gizem Yavuz
Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Turkey

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this chapter is to predict the factors influencing consumer intention towards the adoption
of social commerce. This study uses a survey approach with reference to important behavioural factors
such as performance expectation, social influence, price value, habits, and perceived usefulness. The
results of the study revealed that habits and social influence has an important role of individuals’ be-
havioral intention to use social commerce. A survey was administered and a sample of 250 individuals
were analyzed using SmartPLS version 3.2.7.

INTRODUCTION

Social media has become embedded in human life due to the advancement of technological develop-
ments. Social media that is online and interactive removes the boundaries of the time and place. Con-
sumers are able to follow the product and the processes about purchasing and affect the other possible
consumers by using the social media actively. Suppliers on the other hand; can run their business such
as sales, marketing and feedback related to the presentation of products and services through social
media quickly and effectively.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-8015-7.ch013

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

In the UTAUT framework, there are decisive factors directly affecting intention or use. These arbi-
ter factors are named as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating
conditions. These factors serve a function as direct determinants of user acceptance and use behaviour
(Venkatesh et al., 2003: 447)
Structural equation models; is a statistical technique used to test models in which causal relationships
and correlations between observed variables and implicit variables that coexist, wherein it’s a highly
variable method to predict dependant connections which consisted of analysis of variance & covariance,
factor analysis and multiple regression and thereof.
The aim of this study is to examine the manners of the variables on online shopping and the effects on
the behavioural intendment; wherein the variables are such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
social influence, facilitating conditions, price, habits, perceived benefit from online shopping systems
and perceived ease of use of online shopping. The study was conducted to 250 people in Alanya Alaad-
din Keykubat University, and the questionnaire consisting of 38 questions was carried out by means of
sampling method. Study is based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, wherein
the questionnaire data were tested with the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method.

BACKGROUND

Venkatesh et al., (2003) aims to measure the adaptation of the individuals within a system or technology
from the perspective of UTAUT in their studies. The study has concluded the fact that UTAUT explains
the coverage of 70% of the behavioural intent.
Pappas et al., (2011) studies that effort expectancy, performance expectancy, trust and self-efficacy in
consumer purchasing intentions; and concluded that high levels of these factors significantly influence
the customer’s purchasing intentions.
Dharmawirya and Smith (2012) stated in their empirical work to investigate the key factors that
make customers more willing to buy again through online shopping; that performance expectancy and
facilitating conditions are the most important factors that will affect customer’s reclamation intention.
In their work to determine behavioural intent in using the UTAUT 2 model, Kıt et al., (2014) con-
cluded that while performance expectancy, effort expectancy and habits influence behavioural intent to
adopt mobile applications; price doesn’t affect mobile behaviour and behavioural intentions.
Persson and Berndtsson (2015), made research for the key factors for the adoption of online shopping
for products through Swedish smart phones and found that social influence and consumer’s position have
positive effects on behavioural intentions for shopping of the consumption goods.
Juaneda-Ayensa et al., (2016) aimed to identify the factors that affect the behaviour of multi-channel
consumers with the intention to accept and use the new technologies in the shopping process by using
the UTAUT 2 model in their studies. The study has been concluded that the main determinants of pur-
chasing intention were personal innovation, effort expectancy and performance expectancy accordingly.
Miladiovic (2016), used the UTAUT 2 model for acceptance of fashion-based shopping practices
and concluded that performance expectancy, habits, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation affect
the behavioural intentions of mobile shopping fashion applications of users. It has been found that ef-
fort expectancy, social influence, price and trust do not significantly affect the behavioural intention of
using unusual fashion practices.

255
 
The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

By using the UTAUT 2 model, An et al., (2016) analysed the factors affecting online shopping in-
tention for fresh agricultural products, and observed that performance expectancy, hedonic motivation
and facilitating conditions has positive effects on the for shopping online for fresh agricultural products.
Singh et al., (2017) examined the intention of purchasing online products in their study by using the
UTAUT 2 model. They’ve concluded that the variables used in this model have positive effects on the
purchasing intention of consumers.
Mariani and Lamarauna (2017), aimed to determine the factors the affect the purchasing intention
by using the UTAUT model; concluded that social influence and trust are the main determinants of the
purchasing intention in e-commerce.
Sanchez Torres et al., (2017), examined the differences between buyers and non-buyers’ acceptance
of electronic purchasing intention in Columbia and their study showed that performance expectancy and
social influence are determinants of electronic purchasing by the study based on the UTAUT model.

RESEARCH METHOD

SmartPLS 3.2.7 software was used to assess the relationship among the research constructs by perform-
ing partial least square (PLS) analysis (Hair et al. 2016) which is a structural equation modeling(SEM)
technique that permits concurrent analysis within latent constructs and between measurementitems. PLS-
SEM was believed to be an appropriate data analysis technique as (i) this study intendsto investigate the
predictive association between independent and dependent variables, and (ii) newmeasures and structural
paths were added into the conceptual model based on previous literature. The constructs were measured
using a 5-point Likert scale of 1—strongly disagree and 5—stronglyagree. All instruments were adopted
from previous studies and modified to meet the objective andresearch setting. The questionnaire consists
of multiple item measurement scales adapted fromprevious literature. This research is a cross-sectional
quantitative study, with hypotheses testing, and the types ofinvestigation is a causal relationship, using
questionnaires requesting individuals to provide their insighton the behavioral intention to use social
commerce. In total, 250 respondents successfully completed the questionnaire, which can be considered
an adequate sample for a research of this kind (Akgül, 2018a; Akgül, 2018b; Akgül and Tunca, 2018a;
Akgül and Tunca, 2018b).Furthermore, this study is explanatory in nature; therefore, PLS-SEM is a best
fit for this study (Akgül, 2018b; Akgül and Tunca, 2018b).

Data Analysis

The structural equation modelling technique was a second generation multi-variate dataanalysis method
selected to test the research model, and partial least square (PLS) using SmartPLS(Ringle et al. 2015)
was employed as the statistical tool to examine the measurement and structuralmodel as it can accom-
modate no assumptions on data distribution and survey research is notnormally distributed (Chin et
al. 2003). The assessment on the research model was firstly testedon the measurement model (validity
and reliability of the measures) and secondly, the evaluationswere done on the structural model (testing
the hypothesized relationships) (Hair et al. 2016). Furthermore, the relationship between variables was
analysed using SmartPLS 3.2.7. software bootstrapping analysis (resampling = 5000) in order to test
the level of significance, t-valuesfor all paths. Bootstrapping analysis is used to evaluate the quality of
the measurement modelsand the structural model results in PLS-SEM based on a set of non-parametric

256

The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

evaluation criteria(Hair et al. 2016). Hair et al. (2014) explained that “in bootstrapping, subsamples are
randomly drawn(with replacement) from the original set of data. Each subsample is then used to esti-
mate the model. This process is repeated until a large number of random subsamples have been created,
typically more5000. The parameter estimates (in this case, the indicator weights) estimated from the
subsamples areused to derive standard errors for the estimates”.

Assessment of Measurement Model

Two types of assessments were performed in assessing the measurement model which includeconstruct
validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. As recommended by Hair et al. (2016) the as-
sessment was done by examining loadings, average extracted (AVE) and composite reliability(Yeap et
al. 2016).
Construct validity signifies how well the results obtained from the use of measure fit the theoriesa-
round which the test is designed (Sekaran and Bougie 2010). A satisfactory measurement modeltends
to have internal consistency reliability above the threshold value of 0.708 (Hair et al. 2014).However,
Hair et al. (2016) contended that with any outer loading values between 0.4 and 0.7 althoughconsidered
weak, the researchers should carefully examine the effects of item removal on the compositereliability
(CR) as well as content validity of the constructs and should only consider for removal fromthe scale
those that when deleting the indicator lead to an increase in CR. Most of the loading of itemswere more
than 0.70 (significant at p < 0.01) and met the fit criteria.
Furthermore, the AVE value of 0.5 or higher indicates the construct achieve adequate convergent-
validity (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Fornell and Larcker 1981) and the construct is able to explain morethan
half of the variance of its indicators. The loadings for all the items were more than 0.5 and thecomposite
reliabilities were all greater than 0.7 (Hair et al. 2010). The AVE measures the variancecaptured by
the indicators relative to measurement error and the AVE for this study was in the rangefrom 0.654 to
0.813. Table 1 summarizes the results and shows that all the six constructs are validmeasures for the
respective constructs.

Table 1. Reliability, validityand correlation amonglatent constructs

Average
Loading Cronbach’s Composite
Constructs Variance BI H PE PU PV SI
Range Alpha Reliability
Extracted
0,817-
BI 0,847 0,908 0,768 1
0,924
0,764-
H 0,832 0,887 0,662 0,654 1
0,846
0,737-
PE 0,893 0,919 0,654 0,482 0,594 1
0,869
0,739-
PU 0,763 0,862 0,677 0,451 0,595 0,559 1
0,866
0,848-
PV 0,763 0,890 0,802 0,314 0,382 0,401 0,630 1
0,941
0,896-
SI 0,769 0,897 0,813 0,339 0,330 0,296 0,222 0,211 1
0,907

257
 
The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

Discriminant validity of the constructs of this study was assessed using Fornell and Larcker’stechnique
and the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) technique. Measurement model has discriminantvalidity if the square
root of AVE of each construct exceeded the correlation between the items and allother items (Fornell
and Larcker 1981). The results of Fornell and Larcker’s technique indicates thatthe square roots of the
AVE of the construct (represented diagonally and in bold) are higher than thecorrelation (represented
off-diagonally) for all reflective constructs.Further assessment using HTMT techniques as suggested
by Henseler et al. (2015) wasconducted as per Table 4 which specifies that all the values were less than
the HTMT.85 value of 0.85(Kline 2011) or HTMT.90 value of 0.90 (Gold et al. 2001), thus specifies
that discriminant validity hasbeen met. In summary, the measurement model demonstrated adequate
convergent validity anddiscriminant validity.
Further cross loading values were also assessed, and as per the findings all cross loadingvalues are
higher than 0.707; moreover, these findings show that each item has higherloading with its own underly-
ing construct. A complete list of cross loading values ispresented in Table 4.
In summary, all the measures satisfy the discriminant validity of the constructs. The assessment of the
construct reliability, convergent validity and indicator reliability, produce satisfactory results, indicating
that the constructs can be used to test the conceptual model.

1. Assessment of Structural Model

Table 2. AVE and correlations

BI H PE PU PV SI
BI 0,876
H 0,654 0,814
PE 0,482 0,594 0,809
PU 0,451 0,595 0,559 0,823
PV 0,314 0,382 0,401 0,630 0,895
SI 0,339 0,330 0,296 0,222 0,211 0,901
∗Values in the bold are Square root of AVE.

Table 3. Discriminant validity using heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) criterion (Henseler et al. 2015)

Constructs BI H PE PU PV SI
BI
H 0,760
PE 0,550 0,693
PU 0,548 0,752 0,673
PV 0,376 0,479 0,487 0,830
SI 0,422 0,392 0,355 0,281 0,268
Note: Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) discriminate at (HTMT <0.9/ HTMT <0.85)

258

The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

Table 4.Cross-loadings amongmeasurement scaleitems

BI H PE PU PV SI
BI2 0,884 0,566 0,424 0,366 0,245 0,303
BI3 0,924 0,632 0,452 0,442 0,291 0,284
BI4 0,817 0,516 0,387 0,375 0,291 0,307
H1 0,573 0,806 0,463 0,437 0,386 0,274
H2 0,615 0,846 0,484 0,431 0,262 0,357
H3 0,397 0,764 0,491 0,519 0,282 0,122
H4 0,499 0,836 0,507 0,584 0,312 0,274
PE1 0,386 0,481 0,760 0,345 0,256 0,261
PE2 0,377 0,487 0,838 0,392 0,278 0,286
PE3 0,452 0,509 0,869 0,512 0,392 0,260
PE4 0,389 0,470 0,835 0,494 0,317 0,260
PE5 0,330 0,436 0,737 0,499 0,331 0,203
PE6 0,388 0,495 0,805 0,472 0,365 0,160
PU1 0,425 0,529 0,483 0,866 0,433 0,201
PU2 0,390 0,504 0,492 0,856 0,663 0,202
PU3 0,277 0,427 0,396 0,739 0,466 0,132
PV1 0,211 0,333 0,359 0,559 0,848 0,159
PV2 0,331 0,353 0,365 0,577 0,941 0,211
SI3 0,297 0,260 0,249 0,160 0,181 0,896
SI4 0,314 0,332 0,283 0,238 0,199 0,907
Note: Italic values are loadings for items, which are above the threshold value of 0.5

The assessment of the structural model of this study was analysed using five-step proceduresproposed
by Hair et al. (2014) which includes assessment of collinearity issues; path co-efficient; coefficient of
determination (R2); effect size f 2; and predictive relevance (Q2).
Even if the discriminant validity requirements are met, issues on lateral collinearity may mislead
the results due to the strong causal effect (Kock and Lynn 2012). The variance inflation factor (VIF)
measures the collinearity among the indicators. The result on the VIF values of each construct indicates
that the score of VIF is below the recommended threshold value of 5 (Hair et al. 2014) and there were
no issues of collinearity issues in the structural model.
The relationship between variables was investigated by running the SmartPLS 3 Software algorithm
and was further analyses using SmartPLS 3.2.7. Software bootstrapping of 5000 was applied inorder
to test the level of significance and t-statistics for all path. Table 5 summarizes the results on R2,f2, Q2
and the respective t-values and the results of the path analysis as shown in Figure 1.
The results indicate that the habits (β = 0.516, p < 0.00) and social influence (β = 0.123, p < 0.032)
were positively related to behavioral intention and explained 46% of the variance in behavioral intention.
However, performance expectation, perceived usefulness and price value do not influence thebehavioral
intention.Thus, the H1and H5 were supported. The R2 value was above the 0.35 value as recommended
byCohen (1988) indicating this is a substantial model.

259
 
The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

Figure 1. Research model of the study

Table 5. Hypothesis Testing

Q2 (=1-
Stand. Effect Size Std Effect Size SSE/
Hypothesis Relationship t-Value a
P-Value R2
Decision
β-Value f
1 2
Error q
2 2
SSO)
(OD=8)

H1 H -> BI 0,516 0,257827 0,066 0,154762 7,770*** 0,000 0,457 0,328 Supported

Not
H2 PE -> BI 0,105 -0,83057 0,078 0,004464 1,342 0,180
Supported

Not
H3 PU -> BI 0,045 -0,83978 0,082 -0,00149 0,553 0,580
Supported

Not
H4 PV -> BI 0,021 -0,84162 0,063 -0,00149 0,328 0,743
Supported

H5 SI -> BI 0,123 -0,81768 0,057 0,011905 2,153** 0,032 Supported

a
t-values for two-tailed test:
* 1.65 (sig. level 10%).
** 1.96 (sig. level=5%).
*** t-value 2.57 (sig. level = 1%) (Hair et al., 2017).
Notes:***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1
effective size: 0 – none, 0.02 – small, 0.15 - medium, 0.35 – large (Cohen, 1988).
Effect sizes calculated using the following formulas
f = R2included - R2excluded / 1- R2included (1)
1 2

q = Q2included - Q2excluded / 1- Q2included (2)

2 2

260

The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

Although the p-value is being used to measure the statistical significance of each relationshipbetween
exogenous constructs and endogenous constructs, it is unable to reveal the size of the effectwhich alsorefers
as substantive significance (Sullivan and Feinn 2012). To measure the magnitudeof the effect size, this
study employed Cohen (1988) rule of thumb which is 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35,representing small, medium
and large effect. Based on the results of f 2and q2effect sizes in Table 4, it showedthat only habits has
medium effect sizesUse (f2 = 0,258).In terms of the prediction relevance of the individual exogenous
variables, the q2-value of 0,155 for the variable habits determines a medium effect on the predictive
relevance for behavioral intention to use. Hair et al. (2010) have highlighted that the effectsize is prob-
lematic to establish based on the rule of thumb because the effect size depends on themodel complexity
and research context as well as the research field (Sullivan and Feinn 2012).
Furthermore, this study tested the predictive relevance (Q2) of the model. The predictive Q2 testis a
measure to investigate the predictive power of exogenous constructs over endogenous constructsusing
the blindfolding technique (Geisser 1974; Stone 1974). A value of Q2 bigger than zero for aspecific
reflective endogenous construct shows the path model’s predictive relevance for a particulardependent
construct (Hair et al. 2016). By applying the blindfolding procedure as suggested byHair et al. (2014),
the result shows that the research model has medium predictive relevance(Q2 = 32.8%). This study
picked an omission distance (OD=8).

Importance Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA)

As an extension of the results of this study, a post-hoc importance-performance matrix analysis(IPMA)

was performed using BI as the target construct or outcome variable.The IPMA goal is to identify pre-
decessors that have a relatively high importance for the target construct(i.e., those that have a strong
total effect) but also a relatively low performance (i.e., low average latentvariable scores). The aspects
underlying these constructs represent potential areas of improvement that may receive high attention.
IPMA contrasts structural model total effects on a specific target construct with the average latent
variable scores of this construct’s predecessors. The total effects represent the predecessor constructs’
importance in shaping the target construct while their average latent variable scores represent their
performance (Hair et al. 2016).
In our case, bahvioral intention is a target construct, which is predicted by five predecessors (i.e.
habits, performance expectation, price value, perceived usefulness and social impact); refer to Fig. 1.
We have performed IPMA for this study and result is presented in Fig.2.
Based on Figure 2, it can be observed habits are very important. The other four constructs, perfor-
mance expectation, price value, perceived usefulness and social impact have relatively little relevance.
For the ease of readers, a complete list of importance-performance values is provided in Table 6.

Goodness of fit (GoF) Index

Although, PLS-SEM do not generate overall GoF indices and R2 value is considered as the primary way
to evaluate the explanatory power of the proposed model (Henseler et al., 2016). However, a diagnostic
tool presented by Tenenhaus et al. (2005) as the GoF index for PLS-SEM was used to assess the model
fit. This GoF is measured by using the geometric mean of the average communality score (AVE value)

261
 
The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

Figure 2. Importance-performance matrix analysis (IPMA) for behavioral intention

Table 6. Importance-performance map analysis for actual system usage

Total Effect of the Latent Variable Index Values

Latent Variables
Behavioral Intention to Use Social Commerce (Performance)
H 0,517 59,049
PE 0,120 66,045
PU 0,054 73,119
PV 0,023 74,014
SI 0,107 38,449
Note: All total effects (importance) larger than 0.10 are significant at the α≤0.10 level. The bold values indicate the highest importance
(total effect) and highest performance value.

and the average R2 values (for endogenous constructs) and is calculated using following equation, (GoF
¼√(AVE × R2)). Although Tenenhaus et al. (2005) did not report any cut off values for this aforemen-
tioned GoF index, but Wetzels et al. (2009) reported following cut off values for assessing the results of
the GoF analysis: GoFsmall ¼0.1, GoFmedium ¼0.25, and GoFlarge ¼0.36. According to Henseler et al.
(2016), a good model fit indicates that a model is parsimonious and plausible. Considering the guidelines
of Tenenhaus et al. (2005) and Henseler et al. (2016), we have calculated the GoF index for the model
involved in this study, which is presented in Table VI. As depicted in the said table, conceptual model
used in this study yielded a GoF index value of 0.5774, which indicates a very good (GoFlarge) model fit.

262

The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

Table 7. Calculation of Goodness of Fit (GoF) index

Constructs (AVE) R2
BI 0,768 0,457
H 0,662
PE 0,654
PU 0,677
PV 0,802
SI 0,813
Average Scores 0,729 0,457
AVE * R 2
0,333305
GoF = √(AVE × R )2
0,577326

CONCLUSION

A survey was conducted in Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University with 250 people by the perspective
of UTAUT to determine the factors affecting the purchasing intentions through social media. As a con-
clusion of the study, it has been found that price, habits and perceived ease of use in online shopping
systems have a positive and significant effect on the manner according to general literature. It has been
found that social influence, habits and manner have a positive and significant effect on behavioural in-
tention. Miladiovic (2016) has observed that social influence and effort expectancy don’t have a positive
and significant influence on behavioural intentions. In this study, it has been observed that the effort
expectancy doesn’t have a positive and significant effect on behavioural intention.
On the contrary to the general literature, our study did not show that perceived benefit in online
shopping, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence have positive and significant ef-
fect on the manner. There was no positive and significant effect of perceived benefit in online shopping,
perceived ease of use in online shopping systems, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social
influence, price and facilitating conditions on the purchasing intention. While it has been found that the
most important variable that affects purchasing behaviour in social media was habits, it was also found
that habits were the most important variable that affects attitudes. Thus, six of the seventeen hypotheses
founded in the study were confirmed. There are some limitations in the context of research design in
our study. First one is that size of the sample size is limited to 250 people. Another limitation is that
the questionnaire is conducted to persons at associate, bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral level in Alanya
Alaaddin Keykubat University. Moreover, as the questionnaire is not a web-based questionnaire survey,
a wider audience has not been reached. Conducting the study over a wider sample may provide more
generalized results. A larger example will provide a more holistic survey to determine the factors that
affects the purchasing intention through social media. The way that a portion of the outcomes acquired
without working are not the same as numerous examinations in the writing gives another commitment
to the writing and it is a guide for new investigations to be made keeping in mind the end goal to decide
the variables influencing the purchasing intention. In summary, the elimination of deficiencies in the
literature over time will be useful both theoretically and practically

263
 
The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

REFERENCES

Açıkgöz, A. (2015). Bilişim endüstrisinde adaptasyon ve ürün başarısı: Çok katmanlı bir çalışma. İstanbul
Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(2), 39-55.
Akgül, Y. (2018a). An analysis of customers’ acceptance of internet banking: An integration of e-trust
and service quality to the TAM–the case of Turkey. In E-Manufacturing and E-Service Strategies in
Contemporary Organizations (pp. 154–198). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3628-4.ch007
Akgül, Y. (2018b). A SEM-neural network approach for predicting antecedents of factors influencing
consumers’ intent to install mobile applications. In Mobile Technologies and Socio-Economic Develop-
ment in Emerging Nations (pp. 262–308). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4029-8.ch012
Akgül, Y., & Tunca, M. Z. (2018a). The influence of knowledge management process supported with
organizational strategies on organizational performance via organizational innovation and technology:
The case of Istanbul stock market. In Handbook of Research on Strategic Innovation Management for
Improved Competitive Advantage (pp. 711–751). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3012-1.ch037
Akgül, Y., & Tunca, M. Z. (2018b). Proliferating view of knowledge management and balanced score-
card outcome linkage. In Global Practices in Knowledge Management for Societal and Organizational
Development (pp. 168–193). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3009-1.ch008
Akour, H. (2010). Determinants of mobile learning acceptance (Unpublished Master’s dissertation).
Oklahoma State University.
An, L., Han, Y., & Tong, L. (2016, May). Study on the Factors of Online Shopping Intention for Fresh
Agricultural Products Based on UTAUT2. Paper presented at the meeting of the 2nd Information Tech-
nology and Mechatronics Engineering Conference, Chongqing, China. 10.2991/itoec-16.2016.57
Bagozzi, R. P., & Youjae, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variablemodel-
ing approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and
anelectronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217. doi:10.1287/
isre.14.2.189.16018
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. America. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Dharmawirya, M., & Smith, B. A. (2012). Analysis of consumer repurchase intention towards online
shopping in Indonesia’s online retail business market. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business,
e- Management Learning, 2(3), 202–205.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: Algebra and statistics. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
doi:10.1177/002224378101800313

264

The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107.
doi:10.1093/biomet/61.1.101
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizationalcapabili-
ties perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214. doi:10.1080/0742122
2.2001.11045669
Hair, J. F. Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
London: Pearson.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares struc-
tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares struc-
tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Limited Inc.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS–SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2007). Manipulating perceived social presence through the web interface
and its impact on attitude towards online shopping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
65(8), 689–708. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.018
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. doi:10.1108/IMDS-09-
2015-0382
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validityin
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1),
115–135. doi:10.100711747-014-0403-8
Juaneda-Ayensa, E., Mosquera, A., & Murillo, Y. (2016). Omnichannel customer behaviour: Key drivers
of technology acceptance and use and their effects on purchase intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 7,
1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01117 PMID:27516749
Kıt, A., Nı, A., Badrı, E., & Yee, T. (2014). UTAUT2 Influencing the behaviouraliIntentıon to adopt
mobile applications (Unpublished Master’s dissertation). University of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia.
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford
Press.
Kock, N., & Gary, L. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An
illustrationand recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7), 546–580.
doi:10.17705/1jais.00302
Lee, M. (2009). Predicting and explaining the adoption of online trading: An empirical study in Taiwan.
Decision Support Systems, 47(2), 133–142. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.003

265
 
The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

Mariani, M., & Lamarauna, A. M. I. (2017). The impact of social influence and trust on customer-
to-customer online shopper’s purchase intention: An Empirical Study in Indonesia. GSTF Journal on
Computing, 5(3), 1–6.
Miladiovic, J., & Xiang, H. (2016). A study on factors affecting the behavioural intentıon to use mobile
shopping fashion apps in Sweden (Unpublished Master’s dissertation). University of Jönköping, Sweden.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, L. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopt-
ing an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. doi:10.1287/
isre.2.3.192
Pappas, I., Giannakos, M., Pateli, A., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2011, January). Online purchase intentıon:
Investigating the effect of the level of customer perceptions on adoption. Paper presented at the meeting
of International Conference E-Society, Avila, Spain.
Persson, J., & Berndtsson, J. (2015). Determinants of smartphone shopping adoption (Unpublished
Master’s dissertation). University of Lund, Sweden.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt, Germany. Retrieved
from http://www.smartpls.com
Sánchez-Torres, J. A., Arroyo-Canada, F., Varon-Sandobal, A., & Sanchez-Alzate, J. (2017). Differences
between e-commerce buyers and non-buyers in Colombia: The moderating effect of educational level
and socioeconomic status on electronic purchase intention. Revista DYNA, 84(202), 175–189.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research method for business (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Singh, A., Alryalat, M., Alzubi, J., & Sarma, H. (2017). Understanding Jordanian consumers’ online
purchase intentions: Integrating trust to the UTAUT2 framework. International Journal of Applied En-
gineering Research, 12(20), 10258–10268.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society. Series B. Methodological, 36(2), 111–147. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x
Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—Or why the P value is not enough. Journal of
Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1 PMID:23997866
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Compu-
tational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: To-
ward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. doi:10.2307/41410412

266
 
The Influencing Factors for Purchasing Intentions in Social Media by Utaut Perspective

Yang, K. (2010). Determinants of US consumer mobile shopping services adoption: Implica-

tions for designing mobile shopping services. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(3), 262–270.
doi:10.1108/07363761011038338
Yeap, J. A. L., Ramayah, T., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2016). Factors propelling the adoption ofm-learning
among students in higher education. Electronic Markets, 26(4), 323–338. doi:10.100712525-015-0214-x
Yılmaz, V. (2004). Lisrel ile yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Tüketici şikayetlerine uygulanması. Anadolu
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(1), 77–90.

267

View publication stats