See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316621067

Value co-creation and purchase intention in

social commerce: The enabling role of word-of-
mouth and trust

Conference Paper · August 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 670

3 authors:

Patrick Mikalef Ilias Pappas

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norwegian University of Science and Technology
53 PUBLICATIONS 219 CITATIONS 54 PUBLICATIONS 270 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Michail Giannakos
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
172 PUBLICATIONS 1,077 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Competitive Advantage for the Data-Driven Enterprise (CADENT) View project

ARK4: a digital heritage library, exploring games as an educational activity. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrick Mikalef on 02 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

Value co-creation and purchase intention in

social commerce: The enabling role of word-
of-mouth and trust
Full Paper
Patrick Mikalef Ilias O. Pappas
Norwegian University of Science and Norwegian University of Science and
Technology Technology
patrick.mikalef@ntnu.no ilpappas@ntnu.no
Michail N. Giannakos
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
michailg@ntnu.no
Abstract
Social commerce combines commercial and social activities, and has managed in a very short period of
time to attract the interest of researchers and practitioners. In this study we use theories of trust and
value co-creation to understand how word-of-mouth (WOM) affects purchase intentions in social
commerce settings. Drawing on a sample of 385 survey-based responses from users of social commerce
platforms, we empirically examine a set of hypotheses by means of partial least squares analysis. The
outcomes of the analysis demonstrate that WOM has a direct effect on purchase intentions, as well as an
indirect one by developing a sense of trust to consumers. WOM and its impact on trust also has a positive
effect on a consumers’ propensity to engage in value co-creation, which ultimately contributes to
increased levels of purchase intentions. In closing, theoretical and practical implications are discussed,
and limitations of the study are highlighted.

Keywords

Social Commerce, Value Co-Creation, Word-of-Mouth, Social Media, Trust.

Introduction
The growing popularity of social media as an effective means of socializing and sharing information has
given rise to a new form of e-commerce, social commerce (Stephen & Toubia, 2010). Social media have
been defined as a group of internet-based application that build on the ideological and technological
foundations of Web 2.0 (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Such environments allow the creation of user-
generated content, facilitate social networking, and enable the circulation of information within online
groups of peers (Tang et al., 2012). Not surprisingly, social media have attracted the interest of business
executives and marketers with regard to their potential in gaining a competitive edge (Zhou et al., 2013).
The richness of media supported by social media, in combination with the vast user base, enables them to
be used as a unique tool for attracting new customers and gaining direct customer feedback (Mikalef et
al., 2013). The commercial impact of social commerce is now vividly obvious in multiple ways.
Commercial features are increasingly apparent in social media platforms, as are social affordances in
traditional e-commerce websites (Liang et al., 2011). In addition, firms are massively engaging in
customer relationship management, brand communication, product promotion and co-development
(Coulter et al., 2013; Goh et al., 2013).
The exchange of any positive or negative statements made by potential, actual, or formers customers
about a product or company which is made available to a multitude to people and institutions over the
internet, commonly referred to as electronic Word of Mouth (WOM) (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010), has
been a popular topic in IS and marketing research (Zheng et al., 2013; King et al., 2014). In the context of

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 1

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

social commerce, most studies have either focused on how WOM is generated by the sender (Mikalef et
al., 2013), or how it influences the receivers’ attitude and purchase intention (Erkan & Evans, 2016). Yet,
according to the statistics from Chan and Bgai (2011), at least one third of these publications are not
theoretically grounded, which calls for the development of more robust theories in this area (Cheung &
Thadani, 2010; See-To & Ho, 2014). Past research studies have shown that WOM has an impact on
purchase intention either directly (Jalilvand & Samiei, 2012), or by affecting a consumers trust (Chan &
Ngai, 2011), thereby indirectly influencing their tendency to purchase (McKnight et al., 2002). In addition
to these, it has been argued that WOM can positively impact purchase intention through value co-creation
(See-To & Ho, 2014). This is a relatively new research topic in IS (Gnyawali et al., 2010), service science,
and innovation management (Vargo et al., 2008) according to which the consumer and the firm are
involved jointly in creating value that is unique to the individual and sustainable to the firm (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2013). The main premise is that WOM may have a direct as well as an indirect impact
through consumers trust on value co-creation (See-To & Ho, 2014), which ultimately enhances consumers
purchase intentions (Luo et al., 2015).
To date, very few empirical studies have been conducted using social commerce platforms as the medium
of communicating WOM, despite the fact that an increasing number of firms are deploying strategies to
harness their potential (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to
empirically examine the mechanisms through which WOM influences value co-creation and ultimately
purchase intentions of consumers on social commerce platforms. We base our theoretical model on
theories in trust and value co-creation and on the work of See-To and Ho (2014). Specifically, we aim to
answer the following research questions:
How does WOM on social commerce platforms affect consumers trust and ultimately purchase
intentions? How does WOM and trust in social commerce platforms influence value co-creation? Does
value-co-creation affect purchase intention?
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section we present an overview of literature on
WOM, and determine its relationship with trust, value co-creation, and purchase intention. We then
proceed to develop a set of research hypotheses based on the associations of the constructs. In the
research and methodology section we describe the method followed to actualize the objective of the study,
while in the empirical results section we analyze the collected data. In closing, we discuss findings and
comment on their research and practical implications.

Literature Review
WOM, trust, and purchase intention
Past empirical studies have shown that WOM, trust, and purchase intentions are inextricably associated
(Awad & Ragowsky, 2008). Potential consumers utilize WOM in various forms, such as in blogs, forums,
product reviews, or product ratings which works as a mechanism of increasing their trust in a product and
the firm that produces them (Dellarocas, 2003). Based on extensive past empirical literature, it is
suggested that when a potential consumer senses that there is a sufficient quantity of positive WOM, this
will lead to higher expectations about the quality of the product and the service provided (Mikalef et al.,
2012). In turn, this positive expectation activates a sense of confidence in purchasing a product or service.
Hence, WOM can work indirectly on influencing a consumers purchase intention (Kim et al., 2011).
Conversely, if a potential consumer realizes that there is a large negative quantity of WOM, or an absence
of user-generated information for a specific product or firm, then trust is deterred which also reduces
purchase intentions (Awad & Ragowsky, 2008). The influence of WOM on purchase intentions has been
studied in several contexts, such as websites, blogs, virtual communities, and online forums (Chan & Ngai,
2011), however, the mediating effect of trust has been largely neglected, particularly in the context of
social commerce (See-To & Ho, 2014). Previous research on trust in the domain of e-commerce has shown
that it is a multi-dimensional concept with complex causal relationships characterizing the underlying
dimensions (McKnight et al., 2002). These can be divided into trusting attitudes (disposition to trust,
institutional-based trust, and trusting beliefs) and trust-induced behavior (trusting intention and trust-
related behavior) (McKnight et al., 2002). While the link of WOM, trust, and purchase intentions is
clearly documented in past research, it has gained very limited attention in the context of social commerce
and in relation to the multi-faceted nature of trust.

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 2

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

Value Co-creation
The notion of value co-creation suggests that the value of a product or a service is not developed by the
manufacturer or supplier, but that it is co-created with the consumer (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2013).
The idea of value co-creation has gained eminence in marketing studies, with a multitude of models
attempting to explain how value is co-developed between suppliers and consumers (Maglio & Spohrer,
2008). Value co-creation builds on the premise that consumers can apply their skills and knowledge in
providing ideas about products or services they would be interested in consuming (Vargo et al., 2008). In
that way, companies can gain a deeper understanding of their potential customer groups and deliver
personalized experiences through their products and services (Mikalef & Pateli, 2017). In a recent article
concerning the micro-foundations of value co-creation, it is noted that actor engagement is a critical
aspect of success (Storbacka et al., 2016). In order to engage consumers to participate in the co-creation
process, it is important to stimulate psychological states that motivate them to actively contribute (Brodie
et al., 2011). Social influence in the form of WOM and actor disposition and formation mechanisms
through trust building are regarded as influencers of a consumers’ propensity to co-create value
(Storbacka et al., 2016). Hence, the mechanism of driving value co-creation participation relies on
dispositions (internal) and connections (external) of actors and their interactions (Storbacka et al., 2016).
In the context of social commerce, it has been suggested that highly engaged consumers play an important
role in co-creating customer experience and value, and effectively contributing towards increased
purchase intentions (Hajli, 2014). While there is a growing body of literature on antecedents and
outcomes of value co-creation, in the context of social commerce in which conditions are ripe for
examining this phenomenon, there are still scare empirical studies (See-To & Ho, 2014).

Research Model
The proposed research model builds heavily on the notion of trust as a conditioning factor in explaining
consumer behavior in the context of social commerce. In accordance with past empirical literature, we
decompose the notion of trust and focus on the trusting attitudes of individual consumers. Disposition to
trust is the commencing point on which other attitudes and beliefs are constructed. In essence, it
represents the general propensity to trust others and the tendency to depend on others regarding a broad
spectrum of situations. An individual’s disposition to trust also influences an individual’s beliefs towards
online vendors and even specific commercial outlets (McKnight et al., 2002). Institution-based trust on
the other hand refers to the belief that structural conditions are present to enhance the likelihood of
successfully completing an endeavor such as purchasing online. Finally, trusting beliefs has to do with the
confidence of a consumer in the attributes of the truster; in this case that has to do with vendors on social
media. Disposition to trust has been found to influence institution-based trust and trusting beliefs, since it
tends to influence interpretations of the medium and the interpersonal relationships developed on them
(Gefen, 2000). In addition, institution-based trust is proposed to influence trusting beliefs. This can be
justified by the fact that when an environment such as the internet is perceived as safe, then it is likely to
build positive trusting beliefs on specific vendors, feeding contextual security (McKnight et al., 2002).
This leads us to the following hypotheses:
H1: A consumers’ disposition to trust will have a positive impact on institution-based trust
(Online shopping)
H2: A consumers’ disposition to trust will have a positive impact on trusting beliefs (Social
commerce vendors)
H3: A consumers’ institution-based trust (Online shopping) will have a positive impact on
trusting beliefs (Social commerce vendors)
Word of mouth has been shown in past literature to affect the trust of consumers in online settings
(Dellarocas, 2003). In the context of social commerce, WOM is produced by existing consumers of the
product and service, which have been found to significantly influence the attitudes of prospective
customers (Stephen & Toubia, 2010). WOM received by a potential consumer can have an impact on their
institution-based trust. Seeing positive feedback from a multitude of existing consumers can create an
impression that if other internet users perceive it as a safe to purchase online, then institution-based trust
is positively affected (See-To & Ho, 2014). In addition, WOM received for a specific vendor, either in the

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 3

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

form of a recommendation or as online reviews, has the ability to generate trusting beliefs in the specific
vendor (See-To & Ho, 2014). Such positive WOM activates a sense that the vendor cares and is interested
about the well-being of customers (Kim & Park, 2013). Kuan and Bock (2007) found that WOM referrals
in social media settings are more likely to inculcate consumers trust in online environments compared to
offline environments. Therefore, we can hypothesize that:
H4: Word of Mouth received will have a positive impact on institution-based trust of social
commerce consumers (Online shopping)
H5: Word of Mouth received will have a positive impact on trusting beliefs of social commerce
consumers (Social commerce vendors)
Prior studies suggest that WOM has an influence on purchase intentions, since consumers heavily rely on
comments and other user-generated content when making their buying decisions (Park & Kim, 2008).
The information provided through WOM messages which not only concerns aspects about the product or
service, but also about user experiences, can enable consumers to make more informed and precise
decisions about the suitability of their potential purchase. This ultimately promotes purchase intentions,
and is a particularly prevalent phenomenon in social commerce settings (Mikalef et al., 2013). In addition
to contributing to purchasing intentions, WOM has been argued as being an enabler of value co-creation
through its impact on consumers trust (See-To & Ho, 2014). Abela and Murphy (2008) argue that a
consumer must have a sufficient level of trust before agreeing on co-creating value of the product with a
firm. As WOM is a factor affecting a consumers trusting beliefs, we expect that it has an effect a
consumer’s tendency to co-create value. In the context of social commerce, firms create platforms that
allow consumers to contribute their insight and feedback (Singaraju et al., 2016). From the side of the
firm, this enables an interaction with consumers which contributes to a better understanding from both
participating parties. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H6: Word of Mouth received will have a positive impact on purchase intention
H7: Word of Mouth received will have a positive impact on value co-creation
H8: A consumers’ trusting beliefs (Social commerce vendors) will have a positive impact on
value co-creation
The trusting beliefs developed from the previously mentioned sequence of events, is also argued to
influence consumers purchase intentions. Previous research in online environments has empirically
demonstrated that trusting beliefs have an impact on purchase intentions (McKnight & Choudhury,
2006). Trusting beliefs are accompanied with familiarity and a perceived absence of threat, and
consequently reduce consumer inhibitions when making a purchase decision (Lu et al., 2010). A similar
phenomenon is noted when consumers engage in the value co-creation process. Their interactions with
the firm help build a sense of ownership of the end product and promote feelings of loyalty towards a
specific brand, which in turn can lead to higher levels of purchase intention (Luo et al., 2015). That leads
us to hypothesize the following:
H9: A consumers’ trusting beliefs (Social commerce vendors) will have a positive impact on
purchase intentions
H10: Value co-creation will have a positive impact on purchase intention

Research Methodology
Data Collection
In order to test the research hypotheses of this study, an online questionnaire was developed and
administered to participants between October and December 2016. Two main sources were utilized in
order to recruit participants to complete the survey. The first was Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk),
which allows for a significantly socioeconomically and ethnically diverse population of customers that use
social commerce sites to be contacted (Casler et al., 2013). MTurk is an online platform on which people
can be contracted to perform tasks. Primarily completing survey that are related to their backgrounds, in

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 4

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

exchange for financial reward. Within the academic community MTurk has received increased attention
as a valid means of collecting data from a diverse population (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016). Studies have
examined the effectiveness and validity of using MTurk and found that if concrete instructions are given
to the sample, MTurk participants demonstrate higher attentiveness compared to other sample groups
(e.g., students) (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016). As an auxiliary means of contacting respondents, a snowball
sampling methodology was used since it allowed a more representative sample. People with previous
experience in social commerce were contacted through social media, such as social network sites, blogs,
forums etc. (Constantinides et al., 2008). Participants were asked to forward the survey to their personal
or business contacts that had experience in using social commerce platforms. To engage participants to
complete the survey, a raffle was created with gift cards. The snowball effect in the selected sample was
facilitated by providing participants with additional entries in the raffle if they invited friends and peers.
Respondents with no previous experience in social commerce were disqualified from the study based on a
pre-question which also gave an example of what a social commerce platform is. The final sample
consisted of 452 responses, of which, 385 were complete and suitable for further analysis.

Sample Demographics
The final sample consists of an almost equal distribution of men (55.1%) than women (44.9%). With
regard to 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. The
respondents were asked 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%).

Measures
The questionnaire used in this study comprised of two main parts. In the first part, respondents were
asked to provide information about their demographics and spending patterns online, while in the second
part, they were presented with statements and questions concerning their perceptions and beliefs about
social commerce. Specifically, for the purpose of this study the following measures were utilized. The full
list of questions used to operationalize these constructs can be found in the link of Appendix A.
Construct Definition References
Word of Word of Mouth is defined as the degree to which users of Hennig-Thurau et al.,
Mouth social media tend to search for information and advice from 2010; Chu & Kim, 2011;
others when considering a new product. Mikalef et al., 2016
Disposition Disposition to trust is the extent to which a person displays a McKnight et al., 2002;
to Trust tendency to be willing to depend on others across a broad Kim & Park, 2013
spectrum of situations and persons
Institution- Institution-based trust is the belief that needed structural McKnight et al., 2002;
Based conditions are present to enhance the probability of achieving Kim & Park, 2013
Trust a successful outcome in an endeavor like social commerce.
Trusting Trusting beliefs means the confident consumers perception McKnight et al., 2002;
Beliefs that the trustee—in this context, a social commerce vendor— Kim & Park, 2013
has attributes that are beneficial to the consumer
Value Co- Value co-creation is the belief of the consumer that he is Ng et al., 2010;
Creation intimately involved in jointly creating value that is unique to Prahalad &
the individual consumer and sustainable to the firm. Ramaswamy, 2013

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 5

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

Purchase Purchase intention reflects the customers desire to purchase a Mikalef et al., 2013; Ng,
Intention product located on social commerce environments 2013

Table 1 Construct definitions and supporting references

Empirical Results
Measurement Model
All variables used in this study are reflective latent variables, and are therefore subjected to reliability,
convergent validity, and discriminant validity tests. Reliability was assessed at the construct and item
level. At the construct level, Cronbach Alpha (CA) were examined to confirm that they were above the
threshold of 0.70, while at the item level construct-to-item loadings were examined to verify that all
values were above the threshold of 0.70. All CA values were above 0.82, while for construct-to-item
loadings the minimum value was 0.73, therefore confirming reliability at both construct and item level
(Hair et al., 2016). To check that convergent validity is established we examined if Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) values were above the lower limit of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The lowest observed
value was 0.65 which exceeds the previously mentioned threshold. Discriminant validity, was tested
through two ways. The first was by examining if each constructs AVE square root was greater than its
highest correlation with any other construct (Fornell-Larcker criterion). The second way was by checking
that each indicators outer loadings on its assigned construct was greater than any other cross-loading with
other constructs (Farrell, 2010). The outcomes of the measurement model tests indicate that first-order
reflective measures are valid and that items are good indicators of their respective constructs as depicted
in Table 2.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Word of Mouth (WOM) 0.96
2. Disposition to Trust (DTT) 0.22 0.90
3. Institutional Based Trust (IBT) 0.07 0.40 0.80
4. Trusting Beliefs (TB) 0.36 0.41 0.53 0.89
5. Behavioral Alignment (BA) 0.52 0.15 0.20 0.46 0.92
6. Empowerment & Control (EC) 0.49 0.18 0.18 0.47 0.85 0.92
7. Purchase Intentions (PI) 0.71 0.24 0.12 0.51 0.56 0.56 0.90

Mean 3.56 4.58 5.65 4.52 4.37 3.91 3.36

Standard Deviation 1.84 1.55 1.13 1.35 1.65 1.71 1.80
Cronbach Alpha (CA) 0.97 0.95 0.82 0.95 0.91 0.94 0.95
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 0.94 0.81 0.65 0.81 0.85 0.86 0.81
Table 2 Assessment of reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of reflective
constructs
Value co-creation is developed as a type II (Reflective first-order, Formative second-order) second order
latent construct (Jarvis et al., 2003) following the suggestions of Ringle et al (2012). As such, a mixture of
the repeated indicator approach and the use of latent variable scores in a two-stage approach is employed.
At a first step, the repeated indicator approach was used to obtain latent variable scores of the first-order
constructs, which in the second stage served as manifest variables in the measurement model of the
higher-order constructs.

Structural Model
To examine the set of proposed hypotheses, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
is applied on the collected sample. The significance of estimates (t-statistics) are obtained by performing
the bootstrap procedure with 5000 resamples, while path weights are extracted using the PLS algorithm
of SmartPLS. The structural model from the PLS analysis is summarized in Figure 1, where the explained
variance of endogenous variables (R2) and the standardized path coefficients (β) are presented. As
illustrated in Figure 1, nine out of ten hypotheses are supported. Specifically, we find that word of mouth

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 6

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

received, positively affects trusting beliefs (β=0.291, t=6.177, p < 0.001), value co-creation (β=0.411,
t=8.265, p < 0.001), as well as purchase intentions (β=0.525, t=10.389, p < 0.001). Contrarily, no
significant effect is observed between word of mouth received and institution based trust (β=-0.023,
t=6.177, p > 0.05). In coherence with past literature, disposition to trust is found to exert a positive effect
on both institution-based trust (β=0.291, t=9.181, p < 0.001) and trusting beliefs (β=0.173, t=3.091, p <
0.01). In turn, institution-based trust has a positive and significant effect on the trusting beliefs of the
individual (β=0.440, t=9.761, p < 0.001). Trusting beliefs are found to have a positive and significant
effect on both the value co-creation process (β=0.343, t=5.824, p < 0.001), as well as on purchase
intentions (β=0.226, t=4.913, p < 0.001). Finally, engaging in value co-creation is showed to have a
positive effect on purchase intentions (β=0.199, t=4.065, p < 0.001).

Figure 1 Estimated causal relationships of structural model

The structural model explains 16.7% of variance for institution-based trust (R2 = 0.167), 41.1% for trusting
beliefs (R2 = 0.411), 38.8% for value co-creation (R2 = 0.388), and 60.8% for purchase intention (R2 =
0.608). These coefficients of determination represent moderate to substantial predictive power (Hair et
al., 2016). In addition to examining the R2, the model is evaluated by looking at the Q2 (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 (Chin, 1998). Q2 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 (Hair et
al., 2016). Results of the blindfolding procedure show that institution-based trust (Q2 = 0.094), trusting
beliefs (Q2 = 0.309), value co-creation (Q2 = 0.284) and purchase intentions (Q2 = 0.457) have
satisfactory predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2016).

Discussion and Conclusion

Based on prior literature we propose a theoretical model and put forth 10 research hypotheses concerning
the role of WOM in affecting purchase intention and value co-creation through the lens of trust. We base
our examination in the context of social commerce primarily due to the growing interest expressed by
consumers and marketers, as well as for the affordances enabled on these platforms that allow for
interactions between consumers and firms. As such the proposed model and the empirical results
contribute theoretically in three main ways.
First, this study adds to the understanding of the role of trust in mediating the effect of WOM on purchase
intention. The proposed association of WOM and purchase intention is found to be partially mediated by

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 7

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

trust, while also maintaining a strong positive association. This demonstrates that trust acts as
conditioning mechanism in influencing consumer behavior. Second, we show that WOM has an influence
on value co-creation, which although has been suggested theoretically in several articles, has not to the
best of our knowledge, been tested empirically in social commerce platforms. There is a lack of
understanding on the factors that engage consumers to participate in the value co-creation process from
the perspective of the actual consumers themselves. Third, we have shown that consumers that actively
participate in value co-creation are more inclined to purchase, thus, empirically demonstrating prior
theoretical suggestions. While there has been extensive research on the potential of social commerce
platforms, there is still very scarce work on the antecedents and consequences of value co-creation from
the users’ point of view. The present study is a first step in this direction.
In addition to the theoretical value of this study, several practical implications can be drawn from the
empirical results. Marketers have already understood the value of social commerce platforms for
advertising and promoting their new products and services. Yet, there is still limited attention on
campaigns that can engage consumers in the value co-creation process. Based on the outcomes of our
analysis doing so would be beneficial seeing that consumers that perceive that they are contributing
towards the development of a new product or service will be more likely to purchase. In addition to this,
our findings demonstrate that it is important for marketers to cultivate a sense of trust and understanding
towards their consumers (Pappas et al., 2016). This can be done by interacting promptly and precisely to
feedback received from existing consumers in the form of WOM, since neglecting to do so may result in
negative perceptions and therefore a lack of trust.
As with any research, our study also has some limitations that could be addressed in future ventures.
While the notion of trust is found to be critical in explaining the effect that WOM has on both value co-
creation and purchase intention, it is highly likely that additional factors, such as those in the UTAUT
model, may have interactions with existing constructs of the model. Furthermore, we have not included
aspects of the message conveyed in WOM such as valence and validity of the reviewer. It is highly likely
that not all consumer generated messages have equal weight on influencing consumers’ attitudes and
conduct in social commerce settings. We anticipate that future research can shed some light on the
aforementioned limitation of the current study.

REFERENCES
Abela, A.V. and Murphy, P.E., 2008. “Marketing with integrity: ethics and the service-dominant logic for
marketing”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (36:1), pp.39-53.
Awad, N.F. and Ragowsky, A., 2008. “Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of
mouth: An examination across genders”. Journal of Management Information Systems, (24:4),
pp.101-121.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Jurić, B. and Ilić, A., 2011. “Customer engagement: conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research”. Journal of Service Research, (14:3),
pp.252-271.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V. and Schäfer, D.B., 2012. “Are social media replacing traditional media in
terms of brand equity creation?”. Management Research Review, (35:9), pp.770-790.
Casler, K., Bickel, L. and Hackett, E., 2013. “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, (29:6), pp.2156-2160.
Chan, Y.Y. and Ngai, E.W., 2011. “Conceptualising electronic word of mouth activity: An input-process-
output perspective”. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, (29:5), pp.488-516.
Cheung, C.M. and Thadani, D.R., 2010, July. “The State of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth Research: A
Literature Analysis”. In Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems PACIS (p.
151).
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods
for Business Research, (295:2), pp.295-336.
Chu, S.C. and Kim, Y., 2011. “Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth
(eWOM) in social networking sites”. International Journal of Advertising, (30:1), pp.47-75.
Constantinides, E. and Fountain, S.J., 2008. “Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing issues.
Journal of direct, data and digital marketing practice”, (9:3), pp.231-244.

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 8

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

Dellarocas, C., 2003. “The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback
mechanisms”. Management Science, (49:10), pp.1407-1424.
Erkan, I. and Evans, C., 2016. “Social media or shopping websites? The influence of eWOM on consumers’
online purchase intentions”. Journal of Marketing Communications, pp.1-17.
Farrell, A.M. 2010. “Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu
(2009)”. Journal of Business Research (63:3), pp. 324-327.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. 1981. “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”. Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 39-50.
Gefen, D., 2000. “E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust”. Omega, (28:6), pp.725-737.
Gnyawali, D.R., Fan, W. and Penner, J., 2010. “Competitive actions and dynamics in the digital age: an
empirical investigation of social networking firms”. Information Systems Research, (21:3), pp.594-
613.
Goh, K.Y., Heng, C.S. and Lin, Z., 2013. “Social media brand community and consumer behavior:
Quantifying the relative impact of user-and marketer-generated content”. Information Systems
Research, (24:1), pp.88-107.
Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M., 2016. A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Hajli, M.N., 2014. “The role of social support on relationship quality and social commerce”. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, (87), pp.17-27.
Hauser, D.J. and Schwarz, N., 2016. “Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online
attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior research methods”, (48:1), pp.400-407.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E.C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A. and Skiera, B.,
2010. The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of service research, 13(3), pp.311-
330.
Jalilvand, R. M. and Samiei, N., 2012. “The effect of electronic word of mouth on brand image and
purchase intention: An empirical study in the automobile industry in Iran”. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, (30:4), pp.460-476.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M., 2003. “A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”. Journal of Consumer
Research, (30:2), pp.199-218.
Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M., 2010. “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
Social Media”. Business Horizons, (53:1), pp.59-68.
Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L. and Rao, H.R., 2009. “Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-
commerce relationships: A longitudinal exploration”. Information Systems Research, (20:2), pp.237-
257.
Kim, S. and Park, H., 2013. “Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on
consumers’ trust and trust performance”. International Journal of Information Management, (33:2),
pp.318-332.
King, R.A., Racherla, P. and Bush, V.D., 2014. “What we know and don't know about online word-of-
mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature”. Journal of Interactive Marketing, (28:3), pp.167-183.
Kuan, H.H. and Bock, G.W., 2007. “Trust transference in brick and click retailers: An investigation of the
before-online-visit phase”. Information & Management, (44:2), pp.175-187.
Liang, T.P., Ho, Y.T., Li, Y.W. and Turban, E., 2011. “What drives social commerce: The role of social
support and relationship quality”. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, (16:2), pp.69-90.
Lu, Y., Zhao, L. and Wang, B., 2010. “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, (9:4), pp.346-360.
Luo, N., Zhang, M. and Liu, W., 2015. “The effects of value co-creation practices on building harmonious
brand community and achieving brand loyalty on social media in China”. Computers in Human
Behavior, 48, pp.492-499.
Maglio, P.P. and Spohrer, J., 2008. “Fundamentals of service science”. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, (36:1), pp.18-20.
Mangold, W.G. and Faulds, D.J., 2009. “Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix”.
Business Horizons, (52:4), pp.357-365.
McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C., 2002. “Developing and validating trust measures for e-
commerce: An integrative typology”. Information Systems Research, (13:3), pp.334-359.

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 9

 Value co-creation and purchase intention in social commerce

McKnight, D.H. and Choudhury, V., 2006, August. “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.
Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. and Pateli, A., 2012. “Exploring the business potential of social media: An
utilitarian and hedonic motivation approach”. Proceedings of the 25th Bled eConference
eDependability: Reliable and Trustworthy eStructures, eProcesses, eOperations and eServices for the
Future Proceedings, Bled, Slovenia, pp.1-14.
Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. and Pateli, A., 2013. “Shopping and word-of-mouth intentions on social
media”. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, (8:1), pp.17-34.
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O. and Giannakos, M., 2016. “Consumer Intentions on Social Media: A fsQCA
Analysis of Motivations”. In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 371-386).
Springer International Publishing.
Mikalef, P. and Pateli, A., 2017. “Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect
effect on competitive performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA”. Journal of Business
Research, (70), pp.1-16.
Ng, C.S.P., 2013. “Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: A cross-regional
study”. Information & Management, (50:8), pp.609-620.
Ng, I.C., Nudurupati, S.S. and Tasker, P., 2010. Value co-creation in the delivery of outcome-based
contracts for business-to-business service, AIM Research Working Paper Series.
Pappas, I., Mikalef, P. and Giannakos, M., 2016. “User Experience in Personalized E-Commerce: A
Configurational Approach”. Proceedings of the 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems
(AMCIS).
Park, D.H. and Kim, S., 2009. “The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic
word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews”. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, (7:4),
pp.399-410.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V., 2013. The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with
customers. Harvard Business Press.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D., 2012. “A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly”.
MIS Quarterly, (36:1), pp. iii-xiv.
See-To, E.W. and Ho, K.K., 2014. “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, pp.182-189.
Singaraju, S.P., Nguyen, Q.A., Niininen, O. and Sullivan-Mort, G., 2016. “Social media and value co-
creation in multi-stakeholder systems: A resource integration approach”. Industrial Marketing
Management, (54), pp.44-55.
Stephen, A.T. and Toubia, O., 2010. “Deriving value from social commerce networks”. Journal of
Marketing Research, (47:2), pp.215-228.
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R.J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P.P. and Nenonen, S., 2016. “Actor engagement as a
microfoundation for value co-creation”. Journal of Business Research, (69:8), pp.3008-3017.
Tang, Q., Gu, B. and Whinston, A.B., 2012. “Content contribution for revenue sharing and reputation in
social media: A dynamic structural model”. Journal of Management Information Systems, (29:2),
pp.41-76.
Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A., 2008. “On value and value co-creation: A service systems and
service logic perspective”. European Management Journal, (26:3), pp.145-152.
Zheng, X., Zhu, S. and Lin, Z., 2013. “Capturing the essence of word-of-mouth for social commerce:
Assessing the quality of online e-commerce reviews by a semi-supervised approach”. Decision
Support Systems, (56), pp.211-222.
Zhou, L., Zhang, P. and Zimmermann, H.D., 2013. “Social commerce research: An integrated view”.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, (12:2), pp.61-68.

Appendix A. Questionnaire Items

The questionnaire items can be found in the following link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-u-
CwCeqR-FS2xQY0U4VjB6cDQ

Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017 10

View publication stats