# Determining Consumer Engagement in Word-of-Mouth: Trust and Network Ties in a Social Commerce Setting

Patrick Mikalef, Ilias O. Pappas, Michail N. Giannakos, Kshitij Sharma

► To cite this version:

Patrick Mikalef, Ilias O. Pappas, Michail N. Giannakos, Kshitij Sharma. Determining Consumer En-gagement in Word-of-Mouth: Trust and Network Ties in a Social Commerce Setting. 16th Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (I3E), Nov 2017, Delhi, India. pp.351-362, 10.1007/978-3-319-68557-1_31. hal-01768516

HAL Id: hal-01768516

https://inria.hal.science/hal-01768516

Submitted on 17 Apr 2018

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Determining consumer engagement in Word-of-Mouth: Trust and network ties in a social commerce setting

Patrick Mikalef<fnref n="1" />, Ilias O. Pappas<fnref n="1" />, Michail Giannakos<fnref n="1" /> and Kshitij Sharma<fnref n="2" />

**Abstract.** Prompted by the popularity of social commerce in the past few years, this study seeks to examine how online reviews influence consumer's tendency to engage in word-of-mouth (WOM). We investigate how different aspects pertinent to online reviews affect consumers trust, and how that in turn induces WOM passing and WOM giving. The moderating influence of network ties is studied in the trust to WOM relationship. Building on survey-based study design with a sample of 385 social commerce consumers, we that specific aspects induce a sense of trust towards vendors. In turn, our study demonstrates that trust positively influences WOM passing and WOM giving and this relationship is amplified in conditions of strong network ties. We conclude the paper summarizing the findings and drawing theoretical and practical implications that arise.

**Keywords:** Social Commerce, Survey Study, Online Reviews, Trust, Word-of-Mouth, Network Ties

## 1 Introduction

Building on the popularity of social media and social networks, social commerce has managed to gain attention as a subset of e-commerce in the past few years. Social commerce sites presents certain some critical differences from conventional e-commerce stores, particularly by enabling social interactions and the creation and circulation of user generated content[1]. Inevitably, social commerce initiatives have sparked the interest of business executives and marketers due to the large user base and the interactions that develop [2]. As such, a growing number of marketers are now engaging in social commerce prompted by the promising early outcomes [3](Stephen & Toubia, 2010). Nevertheless, while conventionally marketers were in control of the information they provided to consumers, in social commerce settings part of this power has been transferred to the consumer [2].

The influence of online reviews is becoming ever more important in the decision making process of individuals and has been a topic of increased relevance over the past few years [4]. Yet, there is limited knowledge on how the reviews on social commerce

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Sem Saelandsvei 9, 7491, Trondheim, Norway</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² CHILI Lab, EPFL, RLC D1 740, Station 20, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland {patrick.mikalef, ilpappas, michailg}@ntnu.no, kshitij.sharma@epfl.ch</footnote>
websites influence consumers to engage in word-of-mouth (WOM) and pass on, or con-
vince their fellow peers, on the importance of products found on social commerce sites.
To date, the mechanisms through which online reviews affect consumer attitudes and
behavior have not been explored sufficiently, particularly in relation to the trust-build-
ing mechanism they induce. In addition, the influence of network ties is largely disre-
garded in terms of the reach and valence that WOM communication has. As such, we
build on these gaps and develop the following research question which guides our
study: *How do online reviews influence social commerce users' trust, and what is the
impact on WOM? What are the effects of network ties in this relationship?* To delve
into this topic we build on a survey-based empirical study.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In section 2 we overview the back-
ground which this study builds upon. In section 3, we develop the research hypotheses,
while in section 4 the study design is described. In section 5 the analysis is presented
along with results from the quantitative analysis. Finally, section 6 discusses the theo-
retical and practical implications that arise from the results.

## 2 Background

Past research has shown that online reviews, trust, and WOM are inextricably associ-
ated [5]. Users of social commerce websites consume the information they find online
concerning a product or service they are interested in, with online reviews being an
increasingly important source [6]. While literature often equated online reviews with
WOM the two notions are inherently distinct. Online reviews consist of comments and
ratings made by consumers towards a specific product or service which are accessible
to everyone. On the other hand, WOM refers to the passing of information from one
peer to another, or the process of persuasion towards a specific individual [5]. Potential
consumers utilize online reviews in various forms and from a diverse background of
people, which works as a mechanism of increasing their trust in the product itself or the
vendor that is selling it [7]. Past research suggests that when a potential consumer
senses that conditions are appropriate based on his or her understanding of information
provided by online reviews that will lead to a formation of trust [8]. In turn, this positive
expectation activates a sense of confidence in the potential consumer which facilitates
the engagement of WOM towards others peers [9].

Hence, WOM is a result of the trust-building mechanism which is developed by
consumers consuming online reviews [10]. Conversely, if a consumer is not satisfied
by the context relating to online reviews, trust will be deterred, leading to an absence
of outcomes that are beneficial towards marketers [11]. The effect of online reviews on
purchase-related behavior has been studied in several contexts on online commerce and
virtual communities [12]. Nevertheless, the indirect effect and the trust building mech-
anisms that online reviews facilitate have been largely under-explored, particularly in
the context of social commerce [13]. Previous research in the domain of online com-
merce has shown that trust mediates many buying-related behaviors and is a good pre-
dictor of actions taken by consumers [14]. While the importance of online reviews has
been clearly documented in several research papers in the context of social commerce,
very little attention has been placed on the trust building mechanisms it enables, and specifically towards engaging consumers to partake in WOM. In the following section, we focus on online review related factors that are posited to be important predictors of inducing trust of consumers. We then proceed to explain how trust ignites the process of WOM and how this is amplified in conditions of high network ties.

# 3 Research Hypotheses

While developing a sense of trust towards a product or firm is a process that unfolds over time, in the context of social commerce and online reviews some factors have been found to be important determinants. In the seminal paper of McKnight et al. [14], trust is decomposed into several dimensions, with trusting beliefs being one of the most important in determining pre-action behavior. Trusting beliefs have to do with the confidence of a consumer in the attributes of the truster; in this case with vendors on social commerce sites. Thus, in this study we examine the determinants that facilitate the formation of trusting beliefs in vendors of social commerce sites. Specifically, credibility of the source has been extensively documented over time as being an important facilitator of trust-building [15]. Credible reviewers are perceived as delivering more factual reviews that outline both positive and negative aspects of the product service without having any bias [16]. Despite not knowing much personal information about individual reviewers in the social commerce context due to its globalized reach, various mechanisms have been established in order to distinguish valid and factual reviews from those that contain little useful information [17]. Furthermore, personal attributes of the consumer such as his or her propensity to read online reviews, i.e. susceptibility to reviews, and inclination to utilize information found on these (persuasiveness) are noted as important contributors of developing trust [5]. Past research has found that users that tend to rely more on online reviews are more prone to purchase and engage in other purchase-related behavior (Bailey, 2005). Other studies find that while susceptibility may be important, what dictates the subsequent actions of consumers is his or her persuasiveness from the reviews [18, 19]. While susceptibility may be influenced by a multitude of factors, it is usually a personal attribute which is rooted in a consumer's predisposition to trust, a significant aspect in the formation of trusting beliefs towards a vendor or commerce outlet [14]. Nevertheless, the online context necessitates consumers to be vigilant and be in place to recognize the validity of information found and that it has not been tampered with by unauthorized sources. Hence, perceptions of security of the online domain are regarded as important enablers or inhibitors of the trust-building mechanism [20]. From the above we hypothesize the following

**H1:** *A consumers' perceptions of security will have a positive impact on trusting beliefs (Social commerce vendors)*

**H2:** *A consumers' perceptions of general credibility will have a positive impact on trusting beliefs (Social commerce vendors)*

**H3:** *A consumers' persuasiveness will have a positive impact on trusting beliefs (Social commerce vendors)*
**H4:** *A consumers' susceptibility to reviews will have a positive impact on trusting beliefs (Social commerce vendors)*

The trusting beliefs developed from the previously mentioned set of factors, is also argued to influence consumers purchase-related behavior [21]. The main premise developed in the work of McKnight et al. [14] is that trusting beliefs can explain trust-induced behavior. Past research in online environments has empirically shown that trusting beliefs have a direct effect on purchase intentions [22]. Trusting beliefs are accompanied with familiarity and a perceived absence of threat, which inevitably lead to lowering consumer inhibitions when making a purchase decision [23]. A similar phenomenon is noted when consumers tend to share product-related information from firms or vendors that they have formed a trusting relationship with [24-26]. Their trust bond builds a sense of ownership and promotes feelings of loyalty towards a specific brand or vendor, which in turn can lead to passing on information or influencing fellow peers [27]. From the above argumentation, we hypothesize that:

**H5:** *A consumers' trusting beliefs will have a positive impact on WOM passing*

**H6:** *A consumers' trusting beliefs will have a positive impact on WOM giving*

Network ties are a particularly important feature of online communities present on social media [28]. Close ties constitute a stronger relationship amongst a person's social network, while weak ties are weaker and less personal [29]. Within social commerce websites, consumer's behavior is argued to be influenced by both intimate and strong tie interactions and remotely connected weak ties [30]. Strong ties are argued to accelerate the dissemination of product-related information to peers in the network, while weak ties are posited to have a lesser impact [31]. The effect of network ties on resulting WOM behavior however is contingent upon the trust that has been developed with the respective vendor of the social commerce medium, therefore we hypothesize that:

**H7:** *Strong network ties positively moderate the relationship between a consumers' trusting beliefs and WOM passing*

**H8:** *Strong network ties positively moderate the relationship between a consumers' trusting beliefs and WOM giving*

# 4 Research Methodology

## 4.1 Data Collection

To examine the proposed research hypotheses of this study, a survey-based study was initiated using an online questionnaire which was then administered to participants between October and December 2016. To recruit participants to fill out the questionnaire, two main sources were utilized. The first was Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which allows for a significantly socio-economically and ethnically diverse population of customers that use social commerce sites to be contacted [32]. MTurk is a digital platform through which individuals can be contracted to perform specific tasks mostly related to completing surveys. These participants are recruited based on a number of criteria that are relevant to the study at hand and are provided a pre-defined financial reward for their time. In the academic community MTurk has received growing attention as a valid method of gathering data from a diverse population [33]. Several studies
have examined the effectiveness and validity of using MTurk and found that if well-defined instructions are given to the sample, MTurk participants demonstrate higher attentiveness compared to other sample groups (e.g., students) [33].

As an additional means of contacting respondents and increasing the validity of findings, we utilized a snowball sampling methodology which allowed a more representative sample. Individuals that had previous experience in social commerce were contacted through social media, such as social network sites, blogs, forums as well as peers for social circles etc. [34]. The instructions given asked participants to forward the survey to their personal or business contacts that had experience in using social commerce platforms. In order to increase participant's willingness to complete the survey, a raffle was created with gift cards. The snowball effect in the selected sample was induced by giving participants additional entries in the raffle if they invited friends and peers. Respondents that had no previous experience purchasing or even browsing on social commerce sites were disqualified from the study based on a pre-question. In addition, in both cases we provided an example of what a social commerce platform is, in order to omit respondents that were not knowledgeable or had not experience of using such a platform. The final sample consisted of 452 responses, 385 of which were complete and suitable for further analysis.

## 4.2 Sample Demographics

The final sample consisted of an almost equal distribution of men (55.1%) and women (44.9%). Concerning the age of respondents, the sample is relatively equally distributed with those between 35 to 45 years old accounting for 28.8% of the population, and those between 30 and 34 years old representing 27.2% of the total. Further, 21.9% belonged to the age group 25-29, 15.8% were older than 46 years old, and 6.3% were 18-24. The majority of respondents (53.8%) held a bachelor's degree, with the next biggest group being those that are high school graduates (37.2%). In addition, 9% of the respondents were post-graduates. Most respondents checked their social media accounts several times (63.6%) a day, 21.9% about once a day, and the remaining 14.5% checked their accounts a few times a week or less. Participants were also asked to estimate how much money they spend on average on online shopping in a period of month. The largest group of respondents spent between $25 and $50 (31.9%), followed by those who spent between $50 and $100 (26.9%). Finally, 17.7% spent less than $25 a month, with the remainder of the sample spending over $100 (23.5%).

## 4.3 Measures

The questionnaire used in this study consisted of two main parts. In the first part, respondents were asked to provide information about their demographics and spending habits in social commerce environments. In the second part, respondents were presented with several statements and questions regarding their perceptions and beliefs about various aspects related to social commerce. Specifically, for the purpose of this study the following constructs were utilized as presented in Table 1. The full list of items used to operationalize these constructs can be found in Appendix A.
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Construct definitions and supporting references</caption><thead><tr><td>Construct</td><td>Definition</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Perceived Security</td><td>Perceived security is defined as the level of security that users feel while they are shopping on e-commerce sites.</td><td>[20]</td></tr><tr><td>General Credibility</td><td>General credibility is defined as the perceived degree of factuality of reviews of social commerce sites.</td><td>[5]</td></tr><tr><td>Persuasiveness</td><td>Persuasiveness is defined as the degree to which consumers are influenced by the content of review on social commerce sites.</td><td>[5]</td></tr><tr><td>Susceptibility to Reviews</td><td>Susceptibility to reviews is defined as the propensity of consumers to utilize product-related information in the form of reviews on social commerce sites.</td><td>[5]</td></tr><tr><td>Trusting Beliefs</td><td>Trusting beliefs refers to the confidence of consumers that the trustee—in this context, a social commerce vendor—has attributes that are beneficial to the consumer.</td><td>[14]</td></tr><tr><td>WOM Passing</td><td>WOM passing is defined as the propensity of individuals to forward/pass on product-related information they regard as interesting on social commerce sites.</td><td>[30]</td></tr><tr><td>WOM Giving</td><td>WOM giving is defined as the propensity of individuals to try to exert influence on others attitudes and behaviors relating to products on social commerce sites.</td><td>[30]</td></tr><tr><td>Tie Strength</td><td>Tie strength is defined as the potency of the bond between members of a social media network.</td><td>[30]</td></tr></tbody></table>

# 5 Empirical Results

## 5.1 Measurement Model

All the variables utilized in this study are developed as reflective latent construct, and are therefore subjected to reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity tests. We assessed reliability at both the construct and item level. At the construct level, Cronbach Alpha (CA) values were evaluated to confirm that they were above the threshold of 0.70. At the item level, construct-to-item loadings were examined to confirm that all scores were above the lower limit of 0.70. All CA values were above 0.83, while construct-to-item loadings exceed the minimum value and had scores above 0.73. Hence, reliability was established at both construct and item level [35]. To verify that convergent validity is established, we looked at if Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeded the lower limit of 0.50 [36]. The lowest detected value was 0.73 which greatly surpasses the above mentioned threshold. We tested for discriminant validity through two ways. First, we examined if each constructs AVE square root was greater than its highest correlation with any other construct (Fornell-Larcker criterion). Second, we checked that each indicators outer loadings on its corresponding construct was larger than any other cross-loading with other constructs [37]. After conducting all the previously mentioned measurement model tests, we can conclude that the first-order
variables are valid and reliable, and that the underlying items are good indicators of their respective constructs as depicted in Table 2.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Assessment of reliability, convergent and discriminant validity</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(1) Perceived Security</td><td><strong>0.859</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(2) General Credibility</td><td>0.266</td><td><strong>0.959</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(3) Persuasiveness</td><td>0.033</td><td>0.580</td><td><strong>0.946</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(4) Susceptibility to Reviews</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.518</td><td>0.836</td><td><strong>0.893</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(5) Trusting Beliefs</td><td>0.375</td><td>0.425</td><td>0.228</td><td>0.246</td><td><strong>0.896</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(6) WOM Passing</td><td>0.212</td><td>0.194</td><td>0.048</td><td>0.128</td><td>0.366</td><td><strong>0.958</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(7) WOM Giving</td><td>0.155</td><td>0.224</td><td>0.066</td><td>0.135</td><td>0.356</td><td>0.705</td><td><strong>0.950</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(8) Tie Strength</td><td>0.199</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.062</td><td>0.135</td><td>0.329</td><td>0.500</td><td>0.462</td><td><strong>0.908</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>3.89</td><td>4.83</td><td>5.70</td><td>5.53</td><td>4.51</td><td>3.66</td><td>2.97</td><td>4.66</td></tr><tr><td>Standard Deviation</td><td>1.27</td><td>1.45</td><td>1.39</td><td>1.71</td><td>1.84</td><td>1.45</td><td>1.52</td><td>1.60</td></tr><tr><td>Cronbach Alpha (CA)</td><td>0.834</td><td>0.912</td><td>0.886</td><td>0.914</td><td>0.951</td><td>0.955</td><td>0.945</td><td>0.894</td></tr><tr><td>Average Variance Extracted (AVE)</td><td>0.737</td><td>0.919</td><td>0.896</td><td>0.798</td><td>0.803</td><td>0.917</td><td>0.902</td><td>0.825</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5.2 Structural Model

To put the proposed set of hypotheses to test, a partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach is applied on the collected sample. The significance of estimates (t-statistics) are obtained by running the bootstrap algorithm using 5000 resamples. Path weights are calculated by applying the PLS algorithm of SmartPLS. The structural model derived from the PLS analysis is summarized in Figure 1, in which the explained variance of endogenous variables ($R^2$) and the standardized path coefficients ($\beta$) are depicted. As illustrated in Figure 1, seven out of the eight total hypotheses are empirically supported. More specifically, we find that perceived security ($\beta$ = 0.285, $t$ = 5.904, $p$ < 0.001), general credibility ($\beta$ = 0.328, $t$ = 4.829, $p$ < 0.001), and susceptibility to reviews ($\beta$ = 0.188, $t$ = 2.014, $p$ < 0.05) positively affect trusting beliefs. Contrarily, general persuasiveness is found to have negative but non-significant influence on the trusting beliefs of consumers of social commerce sites ($\beta$ = -0.089, $t$ = 0.993, $p$ > 0.05). In turn, the trusting beliefs formed by users have a positive and significant influence on both WOM passing ($\beta$ = 0.231, $t$ = 4.450, $p$ < 0.001), and WOM giving ($\beta$ = 0.234, $t$ = 5.048, $p$ < 0.001). This relationship if found to be strengthened by an increased tie strength, since the moderating effect for WOM passing ($\beta$ = 0.104, $t$ = 3.185, $p$ < 0.001), and WOM giving ($\beta$ = 0.127, $t$ = 4.243, $p$ < 0.001) is positive and highly significant.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Estimated causal relationships of structural model</figcaption></figure>

The structural model explains 26.0% of variance for trusting beliefs ($R^2$ = 0.260), 31.1% for WOM passing ($R^2$ = 0.311), and 28.4% for WOM giving ($R^2$ = 0.284). These coefficients of determination represent moderate to substantial predictive power of the structural model (Hair et al., 2016). In addition to examining the $R^2$, the model is evaluated by looking at the $Q^2$ (Stone-Geisser) predictive relevance of constructs. This test is a measure of how well observed values are reproduced by the model and its parameter estimates, assessing as such the model's predictive validity through sample re-use [38]. $Q^2$ values greater than 0 are an indication that the structural model has sufficient predictive relevance, whereas values below 0 are an indication of insufficient predictive relevance [35]. Results of the blindfolding procedure show that trusting beliefs ($Q^2$ = 0.193), WOM passing ($Q^2$ = 0.267), and WOM giving ($Q^2$ = 0.237) have satisfactory predictive relevance [35].

# 6 Discussion

Based on prior literature we put forth a research model consisting of eight hypotheses concerning the role of perceptions about online reviews and their effect on WOM. Specifically, we examine the trust-building mechanism that online reviews have, and how they indirectly facilitate WOM passing and WOM giving. The impact of trust on the two types of WOM is investigated under the moderating influence of network ties. As such, the proposed research model and the empirical results contribute theoretically in three ways.

First, while the influence of online reviews and their various attributes has been examined in a direct manner in relation to purchase-related behavior, limited focus has been placed on the aspect of trust as an enabling condition for trust-induced behavior. Second, while WOM is usually examined as an exchange of information between two peers, we differentiated the concept in WOM passing and giving. It is important to understand the effect that trusting beliefs have not only on the simple passing on of
product-related information, but also on the persuasion of other peers about the product at hand. Third, while the importance of network ties is widely acknowledged in the study of social networks and as an extension in social commerce, limited studies examine their effect on moderating WOM propensity. Our results reveal that strong network ties have positive returns or the degree to which consumers trusting beliefs influence WOM. Thus, while trusting beliefs may be important in conditioning WOM-induced behavior, this effect is amplified for individuals who are part of a large and well-connected social circle.

From a practical point of view our findings reveal that vendors should take into account aspects of security very seriously and establish ways in which content of reviews can be verified towards its authenticity. Some social commerce vendors already have implemented such tools such as Amazon who indicates if a review comes from a verified purchase or not. Furthermore, the importance of network ties in amplifying the effect of WOM passing and giving should prompt marketers in developing strategies to connect people and intensify their interactions. By doing so they can strengthen network ties and potentially contribute to the enhancement of product-related information flow between peers.

While this research presents some novel results it does come with certain limitations. Firstly, we center of consumer-specific factors in relation with online reviews in the formation of trusting beliefs. Equally as important are product-related information that are generated by marketers. Furthermore, we do not distinguish between the various formats in which this information is presented. It is frequent for social commerce vendors to have several ways to represent online reviews in raw format or in aggregated ways. Lastly, the results of the study are based on a survey study in which further details about the constructs and notions at hand cannot be captured. Future studies could follow a qualitative approach and interview consumers during the process of browsing products online on social commerce websites. This would enable a deeper understanding of the factors they find important when trying to establish a sense of trust, and how in turn this results in trust-induced behavior.

## References

1. Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M., Pateli, A.: Shopping and word-of-mouth intentions on social media. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research 8, 17-34 (2013)

2. Zhou, L., Zhang, P., Zimmermann, H.-D.: Social commerce research: An integrated view. Electronic commerce research and applications 12, 61-68 (2013)

3. Stephen, A.T., Toubia, O.: Deriving value from social commerce networks. Journal of marketing research 47, 215-228 (2010)

4. Ng, C.S.-P.: Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: A cross-regional study. Information & Management 50, 609-620 (2013)

5. Bambauer-Sachse, S., Mangold, S.: Brand equity dilution through negative online word-of-mouth communication. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18, 38-45 (2011)
6. Cheng, Y.-H., Ho, H.-Y.: Social influence's impact on reader perceptions of online reviews. Journal of Business Research 68, 883-887 (2015)

7. Dellarocas, C.: The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management science 49, 1407-1424 (2003)

8. Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., Giannakos, M.: Consumer Intentions on Social Media: A fsQCA Analysis of Motivations. In: Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society, pp. 371-386. Springer, (2012)

9. Ranaweera, C., Prabhu, J.: On the relative importance of customer satisfaction and trust as determinants of customer retention and positive word of mouth. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for marketing 12, 82-90 (2003)

10. Kim, S., Park, H.: Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on consumers' trust and trust performance. International Journal of Information Management 33, 318-332 (2013)

11. Awad, N.F., Ragowsky, A.: Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of mouth: An examination across genders. Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 101-121 (2008)

12. Chan, Y.Y., Ngai, E.W.: Conceptualising electronic word of mouth activity: An input-process-output perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 29, 488-516 (2011)

13. See-To, E.W., Ho, K.K.: Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: The role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust–A theoretical analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 31, 182-189 (2014)

14. McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C.: Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information systems research 13, 334-359 (2002)

15. Hajli, N.: Social commerce constructs and consumer's intention to buy. International Journal of Information Management 35, 183-191 (2015)

16. Zhu, F., Zhang, X.: Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating role of product and consumer characteristics. Journal of marketing 74, 133-148 (2010)

17. Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Medders, R.B.: Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of communication 60, 413-439 (2010)

18. Lu, B., Fan, W., Zhou, M.: Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical research. Computers in Human Behavior 56, 225-237 (2016)

19. Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., Giannakos, M.N.: Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce: The enabling role of word-of-mouth and trust. In: AMCIS. (2017)

20. Yenisey, M.M., Ozok, A.A., Salvendy, G.: Perceived security determinants in e-commerce among Turkish university students. Behaviour & Information Technology 24, 259-274 (2005)

21. Moody, G.D., Galletta, D.F., Lowry, P.B.: When trust and distrust collide online: The engenderment and role of consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 13, 266-282 (2014)

22. McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V.: Distrust and trust in B2C e-commerce: Do they differ? In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Electronic commerce: The new e-commerce: innovations for conquering current barriers, obstacles and
limitations to conducting successful business on the internet, pp. 482-491. ACM,
(2002)

23. Lu, Y., Zhao, L., Wang, B.: From virtual community members to C2C e-commerce buyers: Trust in virtual communities and its effect on consumers' purchase intention. *Electronic Commerce Research and Applications* 9, 346-360 (2010)

24. Dwyer, P.: Measuring the value of electronic word of mouth and its impact in consumer communities. *Journal of Interactive marketing* 21, 63-79 (2007)

25. Kourouthanassis, P.E., Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., Kostagiolas, P.: Explaining travellers online information satisfaction: A complexity theory approach on information needs, barriers, sources and personal characteristics. *Information & Management* (2017)

26. Pappas, I., Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M.: User Experience in Personalized E-Commerce: A Configurational Approach. (2016)

27. Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W.: The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. *European Journal of Marketing* 44, 838-859 (2010)

28. Gilbert, E., Karahalios, K.: Predicting tie strength with social media. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems*, pp. 211-220. ACM, (2009)

29. Pigg, K.E., Crank, L.D.: Building community social capital: The potential and promise of information and communications technologies. *The Journal of Community Informatics* 1, (2004)

30. Chu, S.-C., Kim, Y.: Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. *International journal of Advertising* 30, 47-75 (2011)

31. Brown, J.J., Reingen, P.H.: Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. *Journal of Consumer research* 14, 350-362 (1987)

32. Casler, K., Bickel, L., Hackett, E.: Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. *Computers in Human Behavior* 29, 2156-2160 (2013)

33. Hauser, D.J., Schwarz, N.: Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. *Behavior research methods* 48, 400-407 (2016)

34. Constantinides, E., Fountain, S.J.: Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing issues. *Journal of direct, data and digital marketing practice* 9, 231-244 (2008)

35. Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M.: A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). *Sage Publications* (2016)

36. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. *Journal of marketing research* 39-50 (1981)

37. Farrell, A.M.: Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). *Journal of Business Research* 63, 324-327 (2010)

38. Chin, W.W.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. *Modern methods for business research* 295, 295-336 (1998)
Appendix A. Questionnaire Items

<table><thead><tr><th>Measure</th><th>Items</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following sentences (1 – totally disagree, 7 – totally agree)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Perceived Security</strong></td><td>I believe the information I provide social commerce sites will be manipulated by inappropriate parties (R)<br>I am confident that the private information I provide social commerce sites will be secured<br>I believe inappropriate parties may deliberately view the information I provide social commerce sites</td></tr><tr><td><strong>General Credibility</strong></td><td>I think that online product reviews are credible<br>I trust product reviews provided by other consumers</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Persuasiveness</strong></td><td>Online product reviews have an impact on my purchase decisions<br>Before making important purchase decisions, I consult product reviews to learn about other consumers' opinions</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Susceptibility to Reviews</strong></td><td>I often read other consumers' online product reviews to know what products/brands make good impressions on others<br>To make sure I buy the right product/brand, I often read other consumers' online product reviews<br>I often consult other consumers' online product reviews to help choose the right product/brand<br>I frequently gather information from online consumer product reviews before I buy a certain product/brand</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Trusting Beliefs</strong></td><td>I believe that vendors on social media would act in my best interest<br>I expect that vendors on social media are well meaning<br>I would characterize vendors on social media as honest<br>Overall, social media platforms are effective in providing trustworthy vendors from which I can purchase<br>On social media I can find excellent vendors for purchasing products/services<br>Vendors on social media would keep their commitments</td></tr><tr><td><strong>WOM Passing</strong></td><td>When I receive product related information or opinion from a friend, I will pass it along to my other contacts over social media<br>On social media, I like to pass along interesting information about products from one group of my contacts on my 'friends' list to another<br>I tend to pass along my contacts' positive reviews of products to other contacts on social media</td></tr><tr><td><strong>WOM Giving</strong></td><td>I often persuade my contacts on social media to buy products that I like<br>My contacts on social media pick their products based on what I have told them<br>On social media, I often influence my contacts' opinions about product</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Tie Strength</strong></td><td>Approximately how frequently do you communicate with the contacts on your friends list on social media (1 – never, 7 – very frequently)<br>Overall, how important do you feel about the contacts on your 'friends' list on social media? (1 - Not at all important, 7 - very important)<br>Overall, how close do you feel to the contacts on your 'friends' list on social media? (1 - Not at all close, 7 - Very close)</td></tr></tbody></table>