| Literature DB >> 35242088 |
Huang Xiang1, Ka Yin Chau2, Wasim Iqbal3, Muhammad Irfan4,5,6, Vishal Dagar7.
Abstract
Since their introduction in the early 2000s, the use of social networking websites has exploded. Many businesses are seeing increased revenue due to their social commerce strategy. Despite the popularity of social commerce websites, some consumers are still hesitate to use them. This study aims to evaluate the factors that influence the adoption of social commerce. A sample of 721 Chinese We Chat users took part in the research. The findings reveal that social capital mediates the positive effect of social commerce adoption and perceived ease of use (PERU) on techno-stress and online impulse purchasing. Likewise, information overloading mediates the positive effect of social commerce adoption and PERU on techno-stress and online impulse purchasing. The findings have implications for both practice and research in understanding social commerce adoption in emerging economies.Entities:
Keywords: SmartPLS; social capital; social commerce usage; sustainable development; techno-stress
Year: 2022 PMID: 35242088 PMCID: PMC8886314 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.837042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
The sources of measures.
| Research constructs | Reference/s |
| Social commerce adoption | |
| Online impulse purchasing | |
| Social capital | |
| Techno-stress | |
| Information overloading |
Descriptive statistics.
| Variables | Items | Observations | Coefficient of variation (CV) | Mean | Std. Dev |
| TECS | 4 | 721 | 0.173 | 3.419 | 0.593 |
| ONIP | 4 | 721 | 0.561 | 2.69 | 1.509 |
| INFO | 4 | 721 | 0.114 | 3.102 | 0.353 |
| SCAP | 5 | 721 | 0.152 | 3.797 | 0.576 |
| SOCA | 7 | 721 | 0.266 | 2.481 | 0.661 |
| PERU | 6 | 721 | 0.633 | 2.784 | 1.763 |
TECS, techno-stress; ONIP, online impulse purchase; INFO, information overloading; SCAP, social capital; SUSE, social commerce adoption; PERU, perceived ease of use.
The demographic information of the sample.
| Sample information | Options | No. of respondents | % |
| Gender | Female | 405 | 56 |
| Male | 316 | 44 | |
| Age | 18–24 | 278 | 38 |
| 25–34 | 194 | 27 | |
| 35–44 | 155 | 22 | |
| 45 + | 94 | 13 | |
| Education | High school or below | 98 | 14 |
| Diploma | 206 | 29 | |
| Bachelor | 298 | 41 | |
| Postgraduate | 119 | 16 | |
| Marital status | Single | 441 | 61 |
| Unmarried | 280 | 39 |
Results of reliability and validity estimates.
| Variables | Items | Standard loadings | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
| Techno-stress | 0.825 | 0.893 | 0.678 | ||
| TECS 1 | 0.898 | ||||
| TECS 2 | 0.919 | ||||
| TECS 3 | 0.717 | ||||
| TECS 4 | 0.740 | ||||
| Online impulse purchasing | 0.928 | 0.807 | 0.512 | ||
| ONIP 1 | 0.716 | ||||
| ONIP 2 | 0.738 | ||||
| ONIP 3 | 0.706 | ||||
| ONIP 4 | 0.701 | ||||
| Information overloading | 0.922 | 0.832 | 0.554 | ||
| INFO 1 | 0.747 | ||||
| INFO 2 | 0.711 | ||||
| INFO 3 | 0.781 | ||||
| INFO 4 | 0.736 | ||||
| Social capital | 0.915 | 0.925 | 0.712 | ||
| SCAP 1 | 0.786 | ||||
| SCAP 2 | 0.811 | ||||
| SCAP 3 | 0.898 | ||||
| SCAP 4 | 0.860 | ||||
| SCAP 5 | 0.860 | ||||
| Social commerce adoption | 0.844 | 0.935 | 0.674 | ||
| SOCA 1 | 0.723 | ||||
| SOCA 2 | 0.865 | ||||
| SOCA 3 | 0.823 | ||||
| SOCA 4 | 0.882 | ||||
| SOCA 5 | 0.801 | ||||
| SOCA 6 | 0.824 | ||||
| SOCA 7 | 0.819 | ||||
| Perceived ease of use | 0.811 | 0.915 | 0.643 | ||
| PERU 1 | 0.816 | ||||
| PERU 2 | 0.740 | ||||
| PERU 3 | 0.746 | ||||
| PERU 4 | 0.885 | ||||
| PERU 5 | 0.904 | ||||
| PERU 6 | 0.699 | ||||
Bold values are the square root of AVEs.
The discriminant validity of the Fornell and Larcker.
| Variable | ONIP | SOCA | PERU | SCAP | TECS | INFO |
| ONIP |
| |||||
| SOCA | 0.267 |
| ||||
| PERU | 0.349 | 0.540 |
| |||
| SCAP | 0.304 | 0.160 | 0.352 |
| ||
| TECS | 0.155 | 0.354 | 0.259 | 0.227 |
| |
| INFO | 0.284 | 0.493 | 0.429 | 0.216 | 0.667 |
|
FIGURE 1Schematic representation of SEM.
Hypotheses testing results of the constructs.
| Hypothesis | Structural paths | β-coefficient | Sig. | Decision | |
| H1 | SOCA → SCAP | 0.248 | 2.239 | ** | Supported |
| H2 | SOCA → INFO | 0.239 | 2.207 | ** | Supported |
| H3 | PERU → SCAP | 0.514 | 4.817 | ** | Supported |
| H4 | PERU → INFO | 0.345 | 3.585 | ** | Supported |
| H5 | SCAP → ONIP | 0.762 | 6.410 | *** | Supported |
| H6 | SCAP → TECS | 0.543 | 5.428 | ** | Supported |
| H7 | INFO → ONIP | 0.369 | 3.393 | * | Supported |
| H8 | INFO → TECS | 0.458 | 4.459 | * | Supported |
| H9 | TECS → ONIP | 0.713 | 5.792 | *** | Supported |
| H10 | SOCA x PERU → SCAP → TECS | 0.477 | 4.993 | ** | Supported |
| H11 | SOCA x PERU → SCAP → ONIP | 0.587 | 5.496 | *** | Supported |
| H12 | SOCA x PERU → INFO → TECS | 0.768 | 7.095 | ** | Supported |
| H13 | SOCA x PERU → INFO → ONIP | 0.345 | 3.321 | * | Supported |
Each path’s standardized coefficient, p-value, and t-value are shown in