Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Online purchase intention in Chinese social commerce platforms: Being

emotional or rational?
Umair Akram a, *, Muhammad Junaid b, c, d, Abaid Ullah Zafar e, Zhiwen Li a, **, Mingyue Fan a
a
School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China
b
COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus, Pakistan
c
COMEGI, Lusíada University, Portugal
d
College of Management, Shenzhen University, China
e
Shenzhen-Audencia Business School, Shenzhen University, Nanhai Avenue 518060, Shenzhen, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing on social learning theory, this study investigates the relationship between (hedonic & utilitarian mo­
Online purchase intention tivations) and online purchase intention (OPI) under Chinese social commerce environment. Additionally, two
Hedonic motivations moderators (eWOM & social values) and one mediator (customer engagement) were used in the relationship
Utilitarian motivations
between (hedonic & utilitarian motivations) and OPI. A conceptual model including ten hypotheses was
Social value
developed and tested based on 585 valid questionnaires. The result indicates that utilitarian and hedonic mo­
eWOM
Customer engagement tivations positively affects OPI. In addition, the eWOM and social value significantly and positively moderates
Social learning theory and China the relationship between (hedonic & utilitarian motivations) and OPI. Finally, two motivations (hedonic and
utilitarian) and OPI significantly mediated by customer engagement. Implications for managers are discussed in
the manuscript – how e-venders manage the online websites activates to improve the consumer purchase
intention.

1. Introduction social tools (e.g., Taobao and JD), and social networking sites, which
incorporate commercial features (Douban and Sina Weibo) (Zhang and
Social commerce has become a widely researched paradigm owing to Benyoucef, 2016).
the rapid growth of e-commerce. In June 2019, online shopping users in According to Emarketer (2019), an estimated 2.95 billion people
China totaled 639 million, accounting for 74.8% of the total number of (77% of global Internet users) use social networking sites at least once a
Internet users in the country, which increased by 28.71 million from the month. China ranks first in the world in terms of social networking,
end of 2018 “China internet network information center” (CNNIC, thereby making Asia Pacific the leading region in this activity, with
2019). E-commerce in China has huge research potential. As an more than 1.73 billion people using social networking sites and apps in
emerging e-commerce model, social commerce has considerable influ­ 2019. Companies are captivated by the ability of social media to
ence on consumer behaviors. Consumers can deepen their understand­ contribute to their business because they can track consumer’s digital
ing of online purchase intention (OPI) by taking advantage of social clues more accurately and gain further understanding into purchase
knowledge, information, and experience, thereby making smart and process by directing offline activities and online traffic into network
precise purchase decisions on social commerce platforms (Huang and environment (Wang and Lee, 2020). Many scholars examined the con­
Benyoucef, 2013). The use of social commerce still in its initial stage, sumer behavior studies under social commerce perspective. For
even though it becomes more and more popular, and only a small instance, Chen et al. (2017) argued that the role of social commerce
number of social commerce vendors have made great business out of it factors strongly influence consumer buying decision. Zhang and
(Yahia et al., 2018). Social commerce can be conducted through two Benyoucef (2016) developed a comprehensive framework to better un­
main channels, that is, traditional e-commerce websites, which have derstanding of the consumer behaviors in the context of social

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (U. Akram), [email protected] (M. Junaid), [email protected] (A.U. Zafar), [email protected]
(Z. Li), [email protected] (M. Fan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102669
Received 14 November 2020; Received in revised form 29 May 2021; Accepted 28 June 2021
Available online 19 July 2021
0969-6989/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

commerce by drawing on the stimulus–organism–response (S–O-R) future buying behaviors, as they are generally difficult to measure
model. Adjei et al. (2010) indicated that certain social networking sites (Zhang et al., 2014). There are many factors that influence online buying
can increase purchase intention successfully. Numerous studies attach intention. Different influencing factors affect online and offline purchase
importance to purchase intention in social commerce. For example, Lu intention in different ways and to different degrees. Typically, online
et al. (2016) examined the positive association between purchase consumers are powerful, demanding, and utilitarian, which are impor­
intention and social presence trust. Meanwhile, Ng (2013) explored the tant factors distinguishing online and offline consumption (Huang,
moderating effect of culture and the mediating effect of trust on the 2012). Moreover, consumers’ lack of leisure time and lifestyle can affect
relationship between social interactions and purchase intention. Pur­ their intention to buy online (Huang, 2012).
chase intention positively influenced by argument quality, trust and Many variables related to OPI in social commerce were investigated
social presence under social commerce environment (Liu et al., 2019). in numerous studies, such as website quality, trust, perceived usefulness,
Gan and Wang (2017) developed a model with perceived benefits social support, playfulness, and perceived value (Han and Windsor,
(utilitarian value, hedonic value, and social value), perceived risks, and 2011; Liang et al., 2011; Hajli, 2012). Most utilitarian factors, such as
satisfaction to explore purchase intention relationships in social com­ convenience, information, customization, interaction, and time effi­
merce. Despite these aforementioned studies, important research gaps ciency, serve as major motivational factors for online shopping (Ghosh,
remain. Few studies investigate relationships from the social learning 1998; Morganosky and Cude, 2000). OPI can be affected by goal- and
theory perspective, which can benefit research models when examining exploration-oriented searching behaviors (Moe, 2003). Searching be­
OPI and social commerce. Behaviors can be learned from the environ­ haviors, which are similar to window shopping, not only transfer
ment through the observation of the learning process, and social com­ product information to consumers (Pavlou and Fygenson, 2006), but
merce is an effective consumption learning platform. However, limited also can provide entertainment and fun. Goal-oriented consumers will
research exists on the Chinese market, which has a diverse culture and demonstrate purchase intention when they find what they want.
huge business value potential in social commerce. Meanwhile, consumers influenced by emotional factors resulting from
A positive link exists between purchase intention and actual pur­ hedonic motivations will shop impulsively (Yu and Bastin, 2010). Con­
chasing behavior (Shaouf et al., 2016). Utilitarian & hedonic motiva­ sumers’ buying intention is driven by different motivations. However, a
tions are the two main drivers of online shopping (Martinez-Lopez et al., scarce researches investigated on the association between utilitarian and
2006). Bradley and LaFleur (2016) indicates that utilitarian and hedonic hedonic motivations and OPI to engage in social commerce under the
value both can achieve in the same purchasing process and are not moderating and mediating effects on this relationship in the milieu of
mutually exclusive. The basic role of utilitarian and hedonic values is to China.
predict consumers’ OPI (Wang et al., 2007). Utilitarian motivations start
with a mission or task and refer to rational, functional, economic, and 2.2. Utilitarian and hedonic motivations
practical aspects. Consumers’ efficient accomplishment of the con­
sumption process will determine their perceived value (Wang et al., In the early stage, some studies attempted to explore shopping mo­
2007). Hedonic motivations are related to fantasy, multisensory, tivations by classifying shoppers (Stone, 1954). Tauber (1972), as the
emotional worth, and potential entertainment (Babin et al., 1994). first scholar to conduct research on consumption motivations, found
Internet-based shopping differs from shopping in physical markets in the that people make purchases to obtain utilitarian value and satisfaction
context of the two types of motivations, as the former involves during the shopping process. A study conducted by Babin et al. (1994)
high-quality service, highly trained staff, and better environments conclude that hedonic and utilitarian values both strongly influence
(Burke, 1997). Moreover, e-commerce has certain advantages, such as consumer behaviors. In addition, Tauber (1972) developed and classi­
convenience, is costly. Online consumption in social commerce can be fied shopping motivations behind consumption behaviors. Consumption
analyzed using utilitarian and hedonic motivations (Liu et al., 2020; motivation classification can be analyzed in terms of dichotomies, such
Shang et al., 2020). as intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations, functional versus nonfunctional
This study considers the motivational antecedents of OPI and the motivations, and economic versus recreational motivations (Malone and
moderating and mediating effects of eWOM and social value in the Lepper, 1987). In online shopping, extrinsic, functional, and economic
relationship between the antecedents and OPI in the context of social needs can be considered as utilitarian, and the other side of the di­
commerce in China. Motivation is one of the most important compo­ chotomy may be seen as hedonic motivations (Martinez-Lope et al.,
nents of behaviors. Within this context, examining the relationship be­ 2006). Thus, online consumers may have two reasons for shopping on­
tween utilitarian and hedonic motivations and OPI to engage in social line, namely, hedonic and utilitarian motivations, similar to shopping in
commerce under the moderating and mediating effects on this rela­ physical stores. Scarpi (2012) summarized 39 empirical studies on on­
tionship has significant referential value for Chinese marketers to win line and offline hedonism and utilitarianism, 10 of which depicted the
the fierce business war. relationship between the antecedents of hedonism/utilitarianism and
Based on the above mentioned studies, the objectives of this research OPI.
are as follows: Utilitarian motivations are related to rational, critical, decision-
effective, and goal-oriented tasks (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). Conse­
(1) To investigate the effects of motivations (utilitarian & hedonic) quently, utilitarian motivations start with a task or goal, in which
on OPI in social commerce perceived benefits depend on whether the task or goal is completed
(2) To investigates the interaction effect of eWOM and social value effectively during the process (To et al., 2007). From utilitarian view,
on the association between two types of motivations and OPI. utilitarian consumers with an incentive to use brand-specific social
(3) To investigates the mediating effect of customer engagement on media sites are concerned with finding content that is useful and
the relationship between the two types of motivations and OPI appropriate for their purposes (Dabbous and Barakat, 2020). Prior
studies examined utilitarian aspects, whereas others focused on hedonic
2. Literature review aspects for various reasons. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) shifted the
shopping motivation perspective from being utilitarian oriented to being
2.1. OPI hedonic oriented. Utilitarian motivations are concerned with the
fulfillment of consumption needs. Utilitarian benefits include ease of use
OPI describes consumers’ willingness to buy products and/or ser­ and satisfying results; however, hedonic benefits can be enjoyment of
vices in online environments. Intention is considered as a valid predictor the shopping experience (Bridges and Florsheim, 2008).
of behavioral outcomes (Venkatesh and Davis, 2002) and a proxy for Hedonic consumption comprises the other side of consumer

2
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

behaviors and is related to fantasy, the senses, and the experiential interactions. Consequently, consumers will become clearly aware of
interaction of various interest controls, such as helping to use goods what they want after reading other consumers’ reviews, comments, and
(Musnaini et al., 2017). In this era of the information society, hedonic recommendations.
motivations are defined as “fun or pleasure derived from using tech­
nology” and related to the search for happiness, enjoyment, fantasy, 3. Hypothesis development
awakening, and sensuality (Venkatesh et al., 2012), which can bring
experimental and emotional benefits to consumers. Richard and Habibi This research aims to explore the relationship between utilitarian
(2016) examined hedonism and observed that most websites have and hedonic motivations and OPI, the mediating effect of customer
varying levels of hedonism but similar levels of utilitarianism. Scarpi engagement, and the moderating effects of eWOM and social value, on
(2006) suggested that hedonistic consumers tend to shop more the relationship between the two types of motivations and OPI (Fig. 1).
frequently than utilitarian consumers. Utilitarian motivations are Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001) classified utilitarian motivations into
extended by hedonic motivations (Parsons, 2002). However, Bridges four types such as (convenience, selection, information availability, and
and Florsheim (2008) investigated that in e-commerce environment – lack of sociality) which are explicitly associated with utilitarian con­
utilitarian motivation value is more important than hedonic value. Cai sumers in the online context. In the viewpoint of hedonic value – four
et al. (2018) demonstrated that hedonic motivations are positively types of hedonic motivations such as idea, adventure, social and grati­
related to celebrity-based intention, whereas utilitarian motivations are fication shopping influence online shopping except “role shopping” and
positively related to product-based intention in live stream shopping (a “value shopping” (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). The value of role
type of online shopping that integrates real-time social interactions). In shopping is covered by the convenience value of online shopping (To
summary, online shopping motivations were examined through two et al., 2007). Thus, Parsons (2002) argued that the convenience features
main aspects. The first aspect focuses on the relationship between mo­ of online shopping allow consumers to play their expected role without
tivations and the particular attributes of online shops, and the second time and space restrictions. Meanwhile, value shopping refers to the
aspect focuses on different types of consumption based on consumer search for discounts and bargains, which is covered by the cost-saving
motivations. Hence, in this study, we determined not only the associa­ value. Furthermore, we examine the impact of the moderators and
tion between utilitarian and hedonic motivations and OPI but also the mediators on the emergence of OPI.
antecedents of hedonic and utilitarian motivations.
3.1. Utilitarian and hedonic with OPI
2.3. Social learning theory
Online sellers can maintain high satisfaction levels and sales volume
The process through which online shoppers gain social knowledge as the utilitarian value of their website increases (Bridges and Florsheim,
about demands by browsing content generated by users in the context of 2008). Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001) posited that website commerce is
social commerce is called the social learning process (Chen et al., 2017). more likely to be utilitarian motivated than experiential. The influence
The social learning process consists of observational learning, in which a of hedonic motivations on online consumption is debatable. Hedonic
learner avoids unnecessary and costly mistakes by observing others’ motivations connected to a sense of guilt encourage people to enjoy
behaviors and learning how the behaviors are processed before engaging experiences inherently (Okada, 2005). Consumers’ search for experi­
in the particular behaviors, and reinforcement learning, which empha­ ence, such as entertainment, excitement, arousal, and escapism, is more
sizes a learner’s frequency of changing actions influencing results by meaningful than merely obtaining products or accomplishing tasks
learning from the consequences of his/her own actions (Bandura and (Babin et al., 1994). Shopping can sometimes distract consumers from
McClelland, 1977). Social learning theory illustrates human behaviors in their problems and generate feelings of enjoyment and happiness
terms of continuing mutual interactions between cognitive, behavioral, (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). For people with no particular purpose or
and environmental determinants. Social learning stems from psychology task to accomplish, “trolling” on commercial websites may stimulate
and is well documented in various fields (Chen et al., 2017). their purchase intention, such as impulse buying, as a result of hedonic
The learning process involves the integration of external interactions motivations.
and internal psychological processes. The external interaction process According to the Babin and Attaway (2000) utilitarian and hedonic
includes the social dimension, which involves personal integration into shopping values have positive effects on commercial websites by
organizations and society and strengthens learners’ sociality (Illeris, impacting selling volume. The results of the qualitative analysis of
2003). The internal psychological process has two dimensions, that is, Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001) and those of the quantitative analysis of
cognitive dimension and emotional dimension. The cognitive dimension Goldsmith (2002) indicated that hedonism and utilitarianism exist in
describes knowledge or skills comprising a learner’s understanding and online shopping and positively affect OPI. As a new approach integrated
ability. In this dimension, a learner develops overall personal func­ with social characteristics and technology, utilitarian and hedonic mo­
tionality to meet challenges. The emotional dimension refers to mental tivations for online shopping in social commerce may reinforce the
energy, feelings, and motivations, and a learner develops personal sen­ relationship between the two types of motivations and OPI.
sibility to ensure mental balance (Illeris, 2003). Previous studies
H1. Utilitarian motivations are positively related to OPI.
expressed that cognitive and affective appraisals can be used to illustrate
these two dimensions. Cognitive appraisals are related to utilitarian H2. Hedonic motivations are positively related to OPI.
aspects, whereas affective appraisals refer to feelings, emotions, and gut
reactions (Lee and Jeong, 2012). Based on social learning theory, he­ 3.2. Antecedents of utilitarian motivations
donic or utilitarian consumers can benefit from online shopping in social
commerce. For instance, utilitarian consumers obtain social knowledge 3.2.1. Convenience
to make purchases, whereas hedonic consumers obtain support from Convenience can be defined in terms of time and energy efficiency in
others and exchange information to fulfill social demands and emotional physical and mental effort and store accessibility (Corby, 1994). Online
attachments. Hedonic value can be realized through emotions generated shopping has considerable advantages, especially in terms of time and
in the social experience of shopping (Hausman, 2000). Approximately energy efficiency and accessibility. However, Wolfinbarger and Gilly
three fifths of consumers seek help from eWOM before buying pro­ (2001) believed that web-based shopping also has inconvenient aspects,
ducts/services, and four fifths engage in online shopping only after such as delayed gratification, and consumers are unable to touch
reviewing online comments (Emarketer, 2008). Consumers in social products. Despite the controversial attributes of the convenience of
commerce platforms can benefit from information sharing and social online shopping, convenience remains a significant motivating factor

3
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

Fig. 1. Research model of online purchase intention and utilitarian and hedonic motivations.

driving online shopping. Online shopping can offer consumers H3c proposed.
comfortable and convenient environments. For example, consumers can
H3c. Information availability is positively related to utilitarian
shop naked, in their underwear, and at home (Wolfinbarger and Gilly,
motivations.
2001). In addition, consumers can engage in “one-stop” shopping to save
time and energy from visiting different places at one time (Yu et al.,
3.2.4. Lack of sociality
2018).
An interesting finding states that consumers enjoy the relative
H3a. Convenience is positively related to utilitarian motivations. absence of social interactions while shopping online. Lack of sociality as
a utilitarian motivation is analyzed in previous studies (To et al., 2007;
3.2.2. Selection Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001). Online consumers prefer not to be
A considerable selection of diverse products is available to con­ bothered by either other consumers or sellers while shopping (Martí­
sumers online compared with brick-and-mortar stores, as online vendors nez-López et al., 2014). Consumers shopping online need not worry
are free from inventory pressure (Alba et al., 1997). Availability of a about negotiating with sellers, interacting with boring fellow customers,
wide selection of products without risk of becoming lost can increase or concerning themselves with the presence of other people. These ad­
consumers’ satisfaction (Endo et al., 2012). In addition, abundant vantages of lack of sociality can be viewed as utilitarian motivations for
product information is an essential advantage in online shopping, as it online shopping. Social commerce helps consumers make wise purchase
can contribute to decision making (To et al., 2007). According to decisions by empowering their information sharing (Wang et al., 2016).
Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001), online shopping can offer less popular From this perspective, information sharing in the “virtual world” as an
products for special demands that cannot be stocked by physical markets advantage of social commerce can supplement lack of sociality. In the
and meet the demand of “niche” markets. These selection benefits refer light of above mentioned studies the H3d is proposed as follows:
to utilitarian motivations for OPI. Furthermore, social commerce prod­
H3d. Lack of sociality is positively related to utilitarian motivations.
ucts are classified by attribute, and certain products are arranged
trendily on websites or applications (Chung et al., 2017). According to
3.3. Antecedents of hedonic motivations
aforementioned lirature the below hypothesis is presented.
H3b. Selection is positively related to utilitarian motivations. 3.3.1. Adventure shopping
According to Arnold and Reynold (2003), adventure shopping refers
3.2.3. Information availability to consumers’ new and interesting experiences and enjoyment from
Information availability refers to the presence of product, store, and exploring and being in another world in the process of shopping.
promotion information, which is the most important information Numerous consumers claim that they shop online owing to the excite­
advantage (Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001). Online searching and shop­ ment and sense of adventure it provides (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).
ping can be seen as utilitarian activities by online shoppers owing to the Sherry (1990) pointed out that sensual excitement can fulfill demands
extensive availability of information. Motivations for collecting infor­ better than actual products while shopping. For instance, some
mation are considered in physical markets, which are more remarkable “browsers” enjoy exploring and window shopping on commercial web­
in online shopping (Korgaonkar and Wolin, 1999). The rich information sites (Jarboe and McDaniel, 1987), whereas others constantly seek
generated by online environments, as opposed to the limited informa­ sensory stimulation when shopping (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). In
tion generated by offline environments, is an important characteristic of online shopping, interacting with a computer can pique consumers’
information availability. Online consumers can benefit from informa­ curiosity (Webster et al., 1993). In short, seeking novelty, excitement,
tion from the interconnectivity of some websites (e.g., people can interesting things, and stimulation and curiosity during the shopping
examine products adequately) and owing to its ease of storage (e.g., process can be considered as adventure shopping motivations. The
information can be copied and saved easily for future comparisons) adventurous aspect of shopping may generate hedonic shopping values
(Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001). Moreover, obtaining substantial infor­ (Babin et al., 1994). Hence, aforementioned studies conclude the
mation from websites is convenient and economical for consumers (e.g., following hypothesis.
only a few clicks on an electronic device). In the light of above literature

4
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

H4a. Adventure shopping is positively related to hedonic motivations. can provide a powerful condition triggering shopping intention. When
potential consumers notice a product’s extensive positive eWOM, they
3.3.2. Idea shopping will develop positive expectations toward the product’s quality or ser­
Idea shopping refers to include consumers shopping to obtain the vice, which may increase their purchase intention (Gefen et al., 2003).
knowledge and information related to latest products, innovations and According to Awad and Ragowsky (2008), the quality of eWOM in an
new fashion and trends (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). Keeping abreast e-forum positively affects OPI. Consumers often rely on comments and
with new trends and fashion is one of the strongest motivations of online information online before making purchase decisions (Park and Kim,
buyers (Parsons, 2002). Some consumers treat searching as a leisurely 2008). Social networking websites are believed to be driven by
pursuit and an end target, because they prefer to gather information by user-generated information (Alhidari et al., 2015). In short, previous
browsing websites over making purchases (Punj and Staelin, 1983). research determines that eWOM directly affects OPI. Positive WOM can
Consumers will be exposed to fashionable and trendy information when increase purchase intention (Awad and Ragowsky, 2008), whereas
they search the shopping websites. Furthermore, online consumers have negative WOM can reduce purchase intention (Baker et al., 2016).
numerous opportunities to seek information to meet their needs (e.g., Interestingly, negative eWOM significantly affects consumers’ evalua­
online ads, product reviews, price comparisons, and promotions), which tion of emotional trust and purchase intention more than positive eWOM
can directly stimulate impulse buying (Kim and Eastin, 2011). In addi­ (Cheung and Lee, 2008). Consumers seeking useful information online
tion, Koufaris (2002) argued that hyperlinks can easily and directly may be influenced by certain experts or celebrities (e.g., social media
guide consumers to online shops. Therefore, H4b propose in the light of influencers or key opinion leaders), who may consequently drive their
above literature. goal- or emotion-oriented purchase intention.
Some studies relate eWOM with hedonic and utilitarian products.
H4b. Idea shopping are positively related to hedonic motivations.
Furthermore, visual eWOM information (e.g., pictures, photos, videos,
and so on) exerts considerable impact on utilitarian and hedonic product
3.3.3. Social shopping
searches and has a greater effect on hedonic-experience products than
Arnold and Reynolds (2003) expressed that social shopping refers to
on utilitarian-experience products (Lin et al., 2012). eWOM primary
the enjoyment of shopping – connecting with other consumers during
derives from consumers’ desire for social interactions and economic
shopping such as friends and family, and socializing during the shopping
incentives, concern for others, and potential to strengthen their
process. In a study conducted by Arnold and Reynolds (2003), some
self-worth (Park and Kim, 2008). Consequently, eWOM has an effect on
consumers reported that socializing with others is one of their main
the antecedents of utilitarian and hedonic motivations. Specifically,
reasons for shopping and that they obtain benefits from socializing
eWOM can help consumers save time and money by providing quality
during the shopping process. A study conducted by Rohm and Swami­
and abundant information and socialize and cultivate relationships
nathan (2004) argued that consumers are motivated by socialization
during the information-sharing process. Hence, this study presents the
activities may prefer offline shopping over online shopping, social
following hypotheses.
benefits have been transferred from friends and relatives to friends made
on the Internet owing to the popularity of online communities (Wolf­ H5. The relationship between utilitarian motivations and OPI moder­
inbarger and Gilly, 2001). Consumers can share information and expe­ ated by eWOM.
riences online with others with similar interests, which can also bring
H6. The relationship between hedonic motivations and OPI moderated
them enjoyment. Hence, above studies proposed social shopping posi­
by eWOM.
tively related to hedonic motivations.
H4c. Social shopping are positively related to hedonic motivations. 3.5. Social value

3.3.4. Gratification/relaxation shopping Social value refers to degree of the value of consumers creating,
Gratification shopping, or relaxation shopping in some studies, refers broadening, and sustaining their relationships as well as interacting and
to shopping to relieve stress, ease negative mood, or to treat oneself. communicating with other peoples (To et al., 2007). According to
Consumer spend time on shopping to diminish the escape and stress Sweeney and Soutar (2001), social value, as a perceived value of pur­
from their problems, they want to feel relax, wind down and change chasing, refers to the utility of a social self-concept generated by a
their mood. It is conclude that shopping behavior change the consumers product, which suggests that consumers will evaluate a product by its
mood from stress to relax mode (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). social value from purchasing. People are generally forced to establish
Babin et al. (1994) identified shopping values as self-satisfaction, and maintain social relationships (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004) with
escapism, and treatment activities, which can have “pick-me-up” and family, friends, and members of society, such as celebrities, influencers,
“lifting” effects on depressed consumers. This state corresponds with the and strangers. Bailey (2007) indicated that people can adopt the
finding of Tauber (1972) that self-gratification from the shopping pro­ behavior of group members as a cue for their purchase decisions to align
cess can improve consumers’ feelings. Shopping is considered as an themselves with the group’s values. Friendship, social support, and in­
emotion-centered coping mechanism (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). In timacy can reflect social value derived from self-involvement and in­
addition, according to Ozen and Engizek (2014), shopping is positively teractions with others (Vock et al., 2013). Regard for online
correlated with impulse buying tendencies. The related hypotheses are environments and online interactions also generates social support,
as follows: which is nearly similar to offline relationships (Mathwick et al., 2008).
The exploration of social value and purchase intention has become
H4d. Relaxation is positively related to hedonic motivations.
popular among researchers (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Ozen and
Engizek, 2014). Prior literature reveals that social value is an important
3.4. Moderating effects of eWOM and social value predictor of purchase intention, and consumers’ high social value can
strengthen their purchase intention (Gan and Wang, 2017).
eWOM is defined as “any positive or negative statement made by Social value originated as a hedonic shopping motivation in offline
potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company environments, which was extended to online shopping. Social value
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). EWOM widely exists in commerce web­ shoppers rely on celebrities and influencers with symbolic meanings,
sites, social networking sites, online forums, online rating websites, which are key motivations for shopping (Hoonsopon and Puriwat,
social media sites, and online recommendation agents. EWOM is free 2016). This concept is similar to eWOM, which also drives purchase
from time, geographic, and space limitations (Cheung et al., 2009) and intention. Social value is related to group referents, whereas utilitarian

5
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

and hedonic motivations refer to personal responses for their own pur­ H9. The relationship between between utilitarian motivations and OPI
pose. Thus, social value can be regarded as a meaningful and indepen­ mediated by customer engagement.
dent variable for replenishing utilitarian and hedonic value perspectives
H10. The relationship between hedonic motivations and OPI mediated
(Rintamäki et al., 2006). By fulfilling consumers’ social motivations,
by customer engagement.
such as interacting with others with similar interests, social value can
stimulate purchase intention (Chiu et al., 2014).
4. Methodology
Ozen and Engizek (2014) argued that consumers motivated by social
interactions prefer shopping in traditional stores over online shops.
4.1. Questionnaire design
Consumers who socialize with others can also obtain information and
recommendations from them. Thus, consumers motivated by social
The questionnaire survey was conducted online and offline in China,
value will have reduced risks when making purchase decisions based on
and the respondents were randomly selected. Orginal questionnaire was
useful information and suggestions (Cole, 2007), which can generate
written in English, but given that target respondents were Chinese. With
utilitarian benefits, such as savings and convenience. Consumption is a
the help of four Ph.D. students from the Department of Management
process in which consumers cooperate with one another to support the
Sciences who were proficient in both languages questionnaire was
welfare of community members, and in the process of socialization,
translated to Chinese then back translated to English. Next, three mar­
collective cognitive resources can be created and maintained (Sun et al.,
keting professors were recruited to discuss the questionnaire with the
2016). Consumers shop for social acceptance and to create a positive
research team and to compare the translated version with the original
impression on others (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). When consumers’
version after the recommendations and suggestions were applied. In
related needs are fulfilled efficiently by social shopping websites, they
order to evaluate the questionnaire’s proficiency – a pilot survery was
will demonstrate purchase intention (Kim and Han, 2011). The social
conducted with 60 students from three public sector universities. A total
value generated by the enjoyment of using social shopping websites that
of 25 respondents were selected through WeChat for the pilot survey,
may encourage consumers to spend more time on and develop an af­
and the questionnaire was refined based on the participants’ feedback/
finity with the websites, which can enhance the purchase intention.
suggestions.
Social value also strongly influence to consumer utilitarian and hedonic
motivations and can be play a significant moderator between both
motivations utilitarian, hedonic and OPI. According to the aforemen­ 4.2. Sampling and data collection procedure
tioned studies, the following hypotheses are presented.
One of the authors distributed the questionnaires manually in
H7. Social value moderates the relationship between utilitarian mo­ shopping malls, universities, and other places where shoppers gathered.
tivations and OPI. Such that the relationship is stronger (weaker) when For the online distribution, the questionnaire was posted on the popular
the degree of social value is higher (lower). professional platform “Wenjuanxing,” and the link was shared in social
H8. Social value moderates the relationship between hedonic moti­ media platforms (e.g., WeChat, Weibo, and Douban). The survey was
vations and OPI. Such that the relationship is stronger (weaker) when conducted from December 2019 to February 2020. The data were
the degree of social value is higher (lower). collected through Purposive sampling method. The questionnaire
comprised of two sections (a) respondents’ personal characteristics, such
as age, gender, education & platform (b) the second section examined
3.6. Mediating effect of consumer engagement
the structural relationships between study variables. The respondents
were instructed to answer the survey only if they had online consump­
Consumer engagement is defined from different perspectives. This
tion experiences in the past three months. A total of four cities (Beijing,
study adopts the concept proposed by Brodie et al. 2011, p.260. stating
Shangai, Guangzhou and Nanjing) were targeted for data collection. To
that consumer engagement is a “psychological state that occurs by virtue
increase the response rate and attract respondents, small gifts costing
of interactive, co-creative experiences with a focal agent/object (i.e. a
RMB 15 were provided. In final survey, a total of 739 questionnaires
brand) in a focal service relationship”. This study employs this defini­
were collected; however, 154 contained ineffective or missing data.
tion, because interactive and co-creative experiences are closely related
Therefore, 585 useful questionnaires were utilized for data analysis.
to social commerce. In this study, consumer engagement is an interac­
tive, experiential process on account of engagement with certain targets
(i.e., social commerce websites) and/or community members, which 4.3. Measures
differs from involvement and participation. Wang and Lee (2020) in­
dicates that consumers are not only plays user of products, but also the Items were derived from previous studies and refined based on the
value co-creators of enterprises. In the marketing & information systems
literature, engagement exerts a positive effect on purchase intention and Table 1
separately influences OPI (Ashraf et al., 2016). For instance, Islam et al. Instrument.
(2017) highlighted the positive relationship between consumer Scale Source
engagement and OPI. Similarly, Jain and Yadav (2018) noted that Online Purchase Hajli (2015); Sensuse et al., (2017)
website users’ engagement influences consumers’ purchase intention. Intention
Others’ opinions (e.g., communication and social interactions) also have Social Value Sweeney and Soutar (2001)
an effect on purchase intention (Wang et al., 2012). Hedonic gratifica­ EWOM weeney and Soutar (2001)
Consumer Engagement Toor et al. (2017)
tion & social gratification can stimulate consumer engagement to drive Utilitarian Motivations Voss et al. (2003)
purchase intention. Moreover, utilitarian gratification (flexibility) can Convenience Eastlick and Feinberg (1999)
promote consumers’ purchase intention via consumer engagement Selection Eastlick and Feinberg (1999)
(Huang et al., 2017). Consumer engagement is also seen as a measure for Information Availability Korgaonkar and Wolin (1999); Rohm and Swaminathan
(2004)
evaluating consumers’ degree of information sharing in decision-making
Lack of Sociality To et al. (2007)
process during value co-creation (Heinonen, 2011). The consumer Hedonic Motivation Voss et al. (2003)
engagement process includes “learning,” “sharing,” “advocating,” “so­ Adventure Shopping Arnold and Reynolds (2003)
cializing,” and “codeveloping,” which are mainly driven by consumers’ Idea Shopping Arnold and Reynolds (2003)
need for information (Brodie et al., 2013). Correspondingly, this study Social Shopping Arnold and Reynolds (2003)
Gratification Shopping Arnold and Reynolds (2003)
proposes the following hypotheses.

6
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

special conditions of online social commerce in Table 1. The adopted validity tests. All values were below 0.85 and acceptable for discrimi­
measurements matched the research structure well. All questionnaire nant validity.
items measures by seven point liker-scale (1 = strongly disagree & 5
indicating strongly agree). The questionnaire items are mentioned in the 5.1. Common method bia test
Appendix. Moreover, to improve the response rate and reduce the
prejudice effect of the respondents’ social expectations when answering To determine if there existed a common method bias in the solution,
the questions based on their ethical judgment, anonymity and aggre­ Harman’s posthoc one-factor analysis was undertaken. From the
gation analysis were underlined in the introduction of the questionnaire exploratory factor analysis, it is noted that the single highest variance
(Coyle et al., 2009). explained was 12.68 per cent. Being less than fifty per cent, the absence
of common method bias is confirmed.
5. Analysis strategy
6. Hypotheses results
Two data analysis software were used (1) SPSS 22.0 was used for
data entry, and (2) AMOS version 22.0 was used for data analysis. A total We employed AMOS 22.0 for the model testing, and the degree of fit
of 14 variables were examined. Specifically, utilitarian motivations (i.e., between the data and the model was reflected in the nine model fit
selection, convenience, information availability & lack of sociality) and indices, such as χ2/df, GFI, RMSEA, RMR, CFI, NFI, AGFI, PGFI, and
hedonic motivations (i.e., adventure shopping, idea shopping, social PNFI. To analyze the measurement model and test the proposed hy­
shopping, & gratification shopping) as the exogenous variables, two potheses, a SEM technique was used. All the SEM analysis values indi­
moderators (i.e., social value and eWOM), one mediator variable (i.e., cated ‘a good fit between the data and the model’ (χ2/df = 1.703, GFI =
customer engagement), and an endogenous variable (i.e., OPI) were 0.898, RMSEA = 0.041, RMR = 0.060, CFI = 0.915, NFI = 0.966, AGFI
used in this model. = 0.907, PGFI = 0.694, and PNFI = 0.782).
To validates the linkages between scale items and their respective Thus, all the hypotheses were substantiated. As reported in Table 4,
constructs confirmatory factor analysis was carried out. To improve the utilitarian motivations (β = 0.309, p < 0.005) and hedonic motivations
model fit, one item each under utilitarian and hedonic shopping value (β = 0.211, p < 0.000) significantly influenced OPI in China. Hence, H1
was removed from further investigation, as these items has a factor and H2 were supported, specifically, utilitarian and hedonic motivations
loading of less than 0.50. In order to examine the study hypotheses, increased consumer OPI. As expected, all four utilitarian motivation
validity, reliability & structure model – confirmatory factor analysis was dimensions were positively and significantly related to utilitarian mo­
employed generated by AMOS 22. Version. As shown in Table 2, all the tivations, namely, convenience (β = 0.342, p < 0.005), selection (β =
values were acceptable and meet the threshold value, as follows: χ2/df 0.121, p < 0.005), information availability (β = 0.321, p < 0.003), and
= 2.039, GFI = 0.903, RMSEA = 0.052, RMR = 0.080, CFI = 0.911, NFI lack of sociality (β = 0.512, p < 0.000). Therefore, H3a, H3b, H3c, and
= 0.898, AGFI = 0.925, PGFI = 0.711, and PNFI = 0.692. These values H3d were supported. The four dimensions of utilitarian motivations (i.
are within the specified limits and demonstrated the satisfactory fit of e., convenience, selection, information availability, and lack of sociality)
the hypothesized model with the data. strongly influenced consumer OPI and were important antecedents of
We further examined the validity of the measurement scales by utilitarian motivations. The results also exhibited the positive influence
testing convergent and discriminant validity. Three criteria was used to of adventure shopping (β = 0.619, p < 0.000), idea shopping (β = 0.241,
assessed the convergent validity (a) average variance extracted (AVE) p < 0.000), social shopping (β = 0.325, p < 0.005), and relaxation
(b) factor loading and (c) composite reliability (Hair et al., 2010). shopping (β = 0.324, p < 0.000) on hedonic motivations. These results
Table 2 shows that minimum and maximum value of item loading of provided support for H4a, H4b, H4c, and H4d.
each variable is meet the threshold value 0.7 and also all values of AVE is This study also proposed important moderating variables, namely,
higher than satisfactory value 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., eWOM (M1) and social value (M2), in the relationship between two
2010) and that each construct’s CR value was higher than the cut-off exogenous variables (i.e., utilitarian (X1) and hedonic motivations (X2))
value of 0.7 recommended by Hair et al. (2010). Hence, convergent and the endogenous variable of OPI (Y). The moderating effects were
validity was supported. identified using SEM. According to Table 4, eWOM (M1) significantly
Discriminant validity was confirmed by performing ‘hetero­ moderated the relationship between utilitarian motivations (X1), hedonic
trait–monotrait’ rations (HTMT) of correlations. According to Henseler motivations (X2), and OPI (Y), with a coefficient of (β = 0.512, p < 0.000)
et al. (2015), HTMT is used as an alternative for examining discriminant and (β = 0.619, p < 0.000). The results showed that eWOM strength­
validity and this method is more reliable than the Fornell–Larcker and ened the relationship between utilitarian motivations, hedonic motiva­
crossloading criteria. The acceptable value for HTMT rations is 0.85. tions, and OPI. Thus, H5 and H6 were supported. As expected, social
Table 3 shows that all the constructs were acceptable in the discriminant value (M2) significantly and positively moderated the relationship

Table 2
Convergent validity and reliability.
Constructs Items Means SD Item Loading CR AVE Cronbach’s KMO

Online Purchase Intention 4 3.322 0.534 0.78–0.91 0.84 0.77 0.92 0.71
Social Value 4 4.321 0.324 0.88–0.95 0.91 0.68 0.87 0.64
EWOM 4 4.323 0.932 0.79–0.92 0.88 0.71 0.88 0.79
Consumer Engagement 5 4.619 1.411 0.78–0.88 0.79 0.75 0.86 0.83
Utilitarian Motivations 5 3.899 0.543 0.78–0.88 0.86 0.66 0.95 0.66
Convenience 4 3.011 1.543 0.81–0.89 0.91 0.78 0.79 0.76
Selection 3 4.122 1.598 0.79–0.94 0.79 0.69 0.87 0.74
Information Availability 4 3.641 0.542 0.88–0.93 0.87 0.75 0.89 0.81
Lack of Sociality 3 4.333 0.119 0.76–0.89 0.76 0.73 0.81 0.71
Hedonic Motivation 5 4.091 1.543 0.76–0.87 0.89 0.71 0.92 0.86
Adventure Shopping 3 3.599 0.543 0.87–0.91 0.91 0.72 0.78 0.78
Idea Shopping 4 3.981 0.432 0.76–0.87 0.83 0.65 0.89 0.77
Social Shopping 4 4.122 1.543 0.88–0.93 0.87 0.81 0.88 0.67
Gratification Shopping 3 3.641 1.598 0.76–0.89 0.76 0.87 0.87 0.81

7
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

Table 3
Discriminant Validity (heterotrait - monotrait method).
Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

(1) Online Purchase Intention –

(2) Social Value 0.322 –
(3) EWOM 0.102 0.122 –
(4) Consumer Engagement 0.432 0.157 0.342 –
(5) Utilitarian Motivations 0.543 0.598 0.119 0.412 –
(6) Convenience 0.123 0.462 0.542 0.389 0.176 –
(7) Selection 0.432 0.212 0.123 0.121 0.301 0.465 –
(8) Information Availability 0.634 0.102 0.433 0.476 0.239 0.543 0.131 –
(9) Lack of Sociality 0.234 0.431 0.111 0.611 0.523 0.136 0.322 0.117 –
(10) Hedonic Motivation 0.123 0.511 0.621 0.432 0.166 0.422 0.489 0.231 0.111 –
(11) Adventure Shopping 0.501 0.621 0.571 0.411 0.612 0.239 0.311 0.187 0.133 0.543 –
(12) Idea Shopping 0.654 0.219 0.732 0.101 0.532 0.242 0.432 0.419 0.412 0.233 0.659 –
(13) Social Shopping 0.131 0.121 0.115 0.412 0.298 0.121 0.439 0.314 0.191 0.119 0.432 0.541 –
(14) Gratification Shopping 0.123 0.432 0.312 0.111 0.511 0.339 0.412 0.129 0.132 0.578 0.342 0.231 0.412 –

Note: In order to ensure the discriminant validity, heterotrait-monotrait ratios were tested. HTMT method was more reliable and new than Fornell-Larcker criterion
and cross-loadings (Henseler et al., 2015). The threshold value for HTMT is less than 0.85 which means that discriminant validity is achieved between two reflective
constructs (Kline, 2015). Table 3 present the values of HTMT, all values are achieved the threshold value.

the confidence intervals did not carry a zero between them. Finally,
Table 4
according to the results, the indirect effect was ‘significantly’ different
Direct and In-direct effects.
from zero at p < 0.05, which indicated that customer engagement
No. Relationships Estimates SE CR mediated the relationship between utilitarian motivations, hedonic
1 Utilitarian motivation (X1) on OPI (Y) 0.309 0.123 3.44** motivations, and OPI (see Table 5).
2 Hedonic motivation (X2) on OPI (Y) 0.211 0.444 3.65*** As suggested by Hair et al. (2016), we also calculated the three
3 Convenience (X3) on Utilitarian 0.342 0.264 2.91**
important test namely: productive relevance (Q2), coefficient of deter­
Motivation (Y)
4 Selection (X4) on Utilitarian Motivation 0.121 0.123 2.31** mination (R2) and effect size (ƒ2). Theoretically, R2 states degree to
(Y) which an exogenous variable can clarify variance in the endogenous
5 Information Availability (X5) on 0.321 0.432 3.63** variable. The results showed 38.8% of the collective variance in utili­
Utilitarian Motivation (Y) tarian motivations, 14.4% of that in hedonic motivations, and 65% of
6 Lack of Sociality (X6) on Utilitarian 0.512 0.129 2.13***
that in OPI. According to Cohen (2013), effect size (ƒ2) can be defined in
Motivation (Y)
7 Adventure Shopping (X7) on Hedonic 0.619 0.165 1.99*** three levels: (a) ƒ2 = 0.02 shows a small effect size, (b) ƒ2 = 0.15 shows a
Motivation (Y) medium effect size, and (c) ƒ2 = 0.35 shows a large effect size. The re­
8 Idea Shopping (X8) on Hedonic 0.241 0.324 4.31*** sults showed that utilitarian motivations (ƒ2 = 0.18) had a medium ef­
Motivation (Y)
fect size, hedonic motivations (ƒ2 = 0.45) had a large effect size, and OPI
9 Social Shopping (X9) on Hedonic 0.325 0.211 3.26**
Motivation (Y)
had the largest effect size, with (ƒ2 = 0.51). Furthermore, Q2 states
10 Relaxation Shopping (X10) on Hedonic 0.324 0.157 2.81*** predictive power of a model for a specific construct (Hair et al., 2016).
Motivation (Y) As recommended by Hair et al. (2016), “Q2 values larger than zero for a
Moderation Analysis certain reflective endogenous latent variable indicate the path model’s
1 Utilitarian Motivation (X1) eWOM (M1) 0.512 0.129 2.13***
predictive relevance for the particular construct” (p.178). The results
on OPI (Y)
2 Hedonic Motivation (X2) eWOM (M1) on 0.619 0.165 1.99*** indicated an acceptable extent of predictability for utilitarian motiva­
OPI (Y) tions (Q2 = 0.212), hedonic motivations (Q2 = 0.121), and OPI (Q2 =
3 Utilitarian Motivation (X1) Social Value 0.218 0.227 3.84** 0.321).
(M2) on OPI (Y)
4 Hedonic Motivation (X2) Social Value 0.119 0.319 3.87**
(M2) on OPI (Y)
7. Discussion and conclusions

This research proposes an experimental study to investigate the

between utilitarian motivations (X1), hedonic motivations (X2), and OPI relationship between two types of motivations and OPI under social
(Y), with a coefficient of (β = 0.218, p < 0.005) and (β = 0.119, p < commerce setting, the moderating effects of eWOM and social value, and
0.005). The results confirmed that social value strengthened the rela­ the mediating effect of customer engagement in the relationship be­
tionship between utilitarian motivations, hedonic motivations, and OPI. tween the two types of motivations and OPI. Ten hypotheses on the
Hence, H7 and H8 were supported. direct effects, and six hypotheses on the indirect effects (moderating and
PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) was conduct for mediation analysis mediating effects) are tested using AMOS.
which was developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008). To examine the As expected, the results support all the hypotheses of this study. In
mediating effect of customer engagement, we used the ‘bootstrapping the constructs for the direct effects, utilitarian & hedonic motivations
method’ with ‘bias-corrected’ confidence estimates. Two confidence significantly affect OPI in social commerce in China. Hedonic motiva­
intervals, that is, upper and lower confidence intervals (LLCI-ULCI), tions affect OPI more than utilitarian motivations, which means that
were acquired to determine the indirect effects of utilitarian & hedonic online shopping in the social commerce setting is driven more by he­
motivations on the endogenous variable of OPI. This process completed donic motivations than by utilitarian motivations. This research reveals
5000 bootstrap resamples, and the CI of the indirect effect of utilitarian that all four antecendents of utilitarian motivations such as convenience,
motivations on OPI [LLCI 0.192 and ULCI 0.294] and that of the indirect selection, information availability, and lack of sociality exert a positive
effect of hedonic motivations on OPI [LLCI 0.186 and ULCI 0.263] did influence on utilitarian motivations in Chinese social commerce envi­
not include zero. In the PROCESS macro bootstrapping procedure, ronment. Lack of sociality affects utilitarian motivations more than the
mediation was determined by the exclusion of zero from the CI of the other three variables, which means that consumers wanting to shop
unstandardized indirect effects. Therefore, the upper and lower limits of alone without being bothered in the social commerce context will trigger

8
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

Table 5
Mediator analysis.
Dependent Variable Effect of IV on M Effect of M on DV Total effect of IV on DV Direct effect of IV on DV Bootstrap result for Indirect effect Decision
(a) (b) (c) (c’) (ab)

β t β t β t β t LL 95% CI UL 95% CI

Online Purchase Intention 0.42 12.87 0.68 12.07 0.46 19.34 0.27 9.29 0.192 0.294 Supported
Online Purchase Intention 0.28 8.36 0.39 10.78 0.52 12.56 0.39 11.83 0.186 0.263 Supported

Note: Utilitarian Motivation, Hedonic Motivation, Mediator: Customer engagement.

utilitarian motivations more than shopping for convenience, shopping discussed in the future.
for selection, and shopping for information. All antecedents of hedonic Second, this research is conducted with a new theoretical framework
motivations such as social shopping, adventure shopping, idea shopping, incorporating moderators (eWOM and social value) and mediators
and relaxation shopping have positive and significant effects on hedonic (customer engagement) in the relationship between the two types of
motivations. However, hedonic motivations are less affected by social motivations and OPI in social commerce. Previous studies on OPI mo­
shopping than the other three variables in social commerce websites. tivations generally concentrate on e-commerce and seldom adopt eWOM
In the constructs for the indirect effects, eWOM and social value and social value as moderators and customer engagement as a mediator
positively and significantly moderate the relationship between the two in the relationship between motivations and OPI in the social commerce
types of motivations and OPI in social commerce. This finding means background. Only Ozyer et al. (2014) investigated the effectiveness of
that when consumers are influenced by eWOM and social value, their utilitarian and hedonic motivations on OPI along with the role of
intention to buy online is considerable. EWOM exerts a stronger perceived ease of use and perceived risks as moderators. The current
moderating influence on the relationship between utilitarian and he­ study contributes a deeper understanding of the relationship between
donic motivations and OPI than social value. This study also explores the utilitarian & hedonic motivations and OPI under the moderating effects
mediating effects of customer engagement, and the results demonstrate of eWOM and social value and the mediating effect of customer
that utilitarian and hedonic motivations have positive effects on engagement in the Chinese social commerce context. Overall, this
customer engagement and that customer engagement impacts OPI research enriches the existing literature on OPI in the Chinese social
positively. shopping context.
Moreover, the current study provides significant implications for
7.1. Theoretical and practical implications Chinese social commerce websites managers. The findings of this study
underpin the relevance of utilitarian and hedonic motivations and OPI
This study provides academic and practical implications. Based on its and the relationship between the two types of motivations and their
findings, the current research provides numerous theoretical contribu­ antecedents in social shopping, which points to utilitarian & hedonic
tions to the field of online marketing specifically social commerce. First, motivations as integral parts of the marketing strategy. Based on the
it provides scholarly contributions by offering new insights into the results of this research, we recommend online platforms and vendors to
theoretical relationship between the antecedents of utilitarian & he­ recognize the utilitarian and hedonic motivations of online shopping
donic motivations and OPI in the context of social commerce. and utilize the unique characteristics of social commerce platforms to
Most prior studies concentrate on one-sided utilitarian or hedonic increase their competitive advantage. Website platforms and vendors
motivations in e-commerce. The results of this study are consistent with could identity customers shopping to accomplish a task or those “surf­
the research of Chen et al. (2017), which determined that hedonic mo­ ing” for happiness, fantasy, and enjoyment. Advertisements on social
tivations play a imperative role than utilitarian motivations in influ­ commerce websites should be designed to attract buyers motivated by
encing OPI in the context of social commerce. utilitarian or hedonic motivations to strength their purchase intention.
Although To et al. (2007) examined online shopping motivations Based on our findings, social commerce websites and vendors with
from utilitarian & hedonic perspectives, their research applied several limited budgets should prioritize satisfying customers’ hedonic
different antecedents and was not conducted in the social commerce motivations.
context. Similarly, Zhang (2014) established a research model that Utilitarian customers may focus on saving time and effort by shop­
adopted different antecedents of motivations in the Chinese context. ping anywhere and anytime, which can increase convenience and
Regarding the relationship between antecedents and motivations, by comfort. Websites and vendors could design easy-to-use, structured, and
conducting research on Facebook users, Anderson et al. (2014) indicated lively webpages to motivate customer purchase intention. In addition,
that convenience and information are positively related to utilitarian websites and vendors should provide clear and comprehensive infor­
motivations and that sociability has no relationship with hedonic mo­ mation to facilitate selection. Moreover, they could feature products and
tivations. However, the three antecedents in our model have positive services on social commerce websites effectively to fulfill demands
significant relationships with utilitarian and hedonic motivations. directly and quickly. For utilitarian customers, information on social
The relationships between several antecedents and utilitarian and commerce platforms regarding product prices, specs, promotions (To
hedonic motivations differ in a study on electronic commerce. Lack of et al., 2007), and so on can help them make purchase decisions. Thus,
sociality impacts utilitarian motivations significantly and positively in social commerce platforms and vendors could offer accurate, complete,
social commerce in our research but has no relationship with utilitarian new, and helpful information to customers.
motivations in electronic commerce (To et al., 2007). From an academic perspective, customized products and services are
Social shopping and idea shopping as antecedents of hedonic moti­ seen as unique advantages in online shopping channels (To et al., 2007).
vations have a strong and positive influence on hedonic motivations in Product and service information offered in social commerce sites should
social commerce. However, these two variables have no relationship be customized to match consumers’ needs by taking advantage of “social
with hedonic motivations in the electronic commerce context (To et al., trajectories” on shopping websites.
2007). Moreover, websites and vendors could increase utilitarian cus­
In addition, this study discovers an interesting phenomenon, that is, tomers’ comfort by freeing them from having to socialize with sales­
among the four antecedents of utilitarian motivations, lack of sociality people, fellow customers, and strangers and decreasing interactions in
exerts the most influence, and among the four antecedents of hedonic online customer service, which is the most effective variable impacting
motivations, social shopping has the least effect, which deserves to be utilitarian motivations. Meanwhile, for hedonic consumers, social

9
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

shopping for social interactions with other customers with the same Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., Wood, S., 1997.
Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacture incentives to
demands or tastes could influence their purchase intention. For instance,
participate in electronic marketplaces. J. Market. 61 (30), 38–53.
some brands or vendors could invite customers to join a fan group in Alhidari, A., Iyer, P., Paswan, A., 2015. Personal level antecedents of eWOM and
their website based on their search or shopping history. Vendors and purchase intention, on social networking sites. J. Cust. Behav. 14 (2), 107–125.
buyers could share rich information and comments about products in the Anderson, K.C., Knight, K., Pookulangara, S., Josiam, B., 2014. Influence of hedonic and
utilitarian motivations on retailer loyalty and purchase intention: a facebook
group, which may arouse consumers’ OPI. perspective. Journal of retailing and consumer service 21, 773–779.
Regarding idea shopping, websites and vendors could keep abreast Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2003. Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retailing 79 (1),
with the latest cutting-edge fashion trends to attract hedonic customers. 77–95.
Ashraf, A.R., Thongpapanl, N., Spyropoulou, S., 2016. The connection and disconnection
Vendors could design different “shopping journeys” for customers who between e-commerce businesses and their customers: exploring the role of
shop for the sheer excitement and adventure of the experience. For engagement, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease-of-use. Electron. Commer.
example, websites and vendors could emphasize customer experiences Res. Appl. 20, 69–86.
Awad, N.F., Ragowsky, A., 2008. Establishing trust in electronic commerce through
via audio and visual presentations. Short games on social commerce online word of mouth: an examination across genders. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24 (4),
platforms may relax or influence consumers’ sense of adventure while 101–121.
searching, thereby increasing their purchase intention. Babin, B.J., Attaway, J.S., 2000. Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and
gaining share of customer. J. Bus. Res. 49 (2), 91–99.
The interaction role of eWOM and social value in the association Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffifin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
between utilitarian and hedonic motivations and OPI suggests that so­ utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656.
cial commerce websites and vendors can increase sales by employing a Bailey, A.A., 2007. Public information and consumer skepticism effects on celebrity
endorsements: studies among young consumers. J. Market. Commun. 13 (2),
marketing strategy. Social commerce websites enable consumers to
85–107.
communicate with people they know or with strangers to exchange and Baker, A.M., Donthu, N., Kumar, V., 2016. Investigating how word-of-mouth
share ideas about products. Thus, websites and vendors could encourage conversations about brands influence purchase and retransmission intentions.
customers who have bought specific products to recommend them to J. Market. Res. 53 (2), 225–239.
Bandura, A., McClelland, D.C., 1977. Social learning theory. Retrieved from http://sjsu.
others. The creation of fan groups based on consumers’ characteristics edu/counselored/docs/EdCo.248.Social_Learning_Theory.pdf. .
can add social value and an entertainment factor to influence customer Bradley, G.T., LaFleur, E.K., 2016. Toward the development of hedonic-utilitarian
involvement, thereby contributing to their purchase intention. measures of retail service. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 32, 60–66.
Bridges, E., Florsheim, R., 2008. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping goals: the online
This study demonstrates that customer engagement mediates the experience. J. Bus. Res. 61 (4), 309–314.
relationship between utilitarian & hedonic motivations and OPI. Brodie, J.R., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B., Ilic, A., 2011. Consumer engagement: conceptual
Żyminkowska (2018) revealed the important effect of hedonic & utili­ domain, fundamental propositions and implications for research. J. Serv. Res. 14 (3),
252–271.
tarian values on customer engagement manifested in three forms, that is, Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual
customer communication, customer complaints, and customer collabo­ brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 (1), 105–114.
ration. Websites and vendors could promote their products and services Burke, R.R., 1997. Do you see what i see? the future of virtual shopping. J. Acad. Market.
Sci. 25 (4), 352–360.
through these three aspects to strengthen customer engagement. Cus­ Cai, J., Wohn, D.Y., Mittal, A., Sureshbabu, D., 2018. Utilitarian and hedonic motivations
tomers participate in social commerce shopping, which by nature re­ for live streaming shopping. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International
flects demands for certain materials or buoyant moods (Ozen and Conference on Interactive, pp. 81–88.
Chen, A., Lu, Y., Wang, B., 2017. Customers’ purchase decision-making process in social
Engizek, 2014). To increase OPI, vendors could try to increase customer
commerce: a social learning perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37 (6), 627–638.
engagement by triggering their utilitarian and hedonic motivations. Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K., 2008. Online consumer reviews: does negative electronic word-
of-mouth hurt more?. In: Paper Presented at Proceedings of the 14th Americas
8. Limitations and future direction Conference on Information Systems, Toronto, Canada.
Cheung, M., Luo, C., Sia, C., Chen, H., 2009. Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth:
informational and normative determinants of online consumer recommendations.
Despite these contributions, the current study has important limita­ Int. J. Electron. Commer. 13 (4), 9–38.
tions that can be investigated in future studies. First, in terms of Chiu, C.M., Wang, E.T., Fang, Y.H., Huang, H.Y., 2014. “Understanding customers’
repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic
respondent sampling, this study selected only the main users (young value and perceived risk”. Inf. Syst. J. 24 (1), 85–114.
people) of social commerce websites, despite students not completely Chung, N., Song, H.G., Lee, H., 2017. “Consumers’ impulsive buying behavior of
representing the online shopping population. Numerous studies (Pavlou, restaurant products in social commerce”. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 29 (2),
709–731.
2003) indicate that college students are satisfactory substitutes for on­ Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., 2004. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu.
line consumers. With the increasing popularity of social commerce, Rev. Psychol. 55 (1), 591–621.
consumers from different age groups tend to use social commerce CNNIC, 2019. Retrieved March 18th, 2020 from. http://www.cnnic.net.cn/.
Cohen, J., 2013. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge
websites for shopping (Gan and Wang, 2017). Follow-up studies can Academic, New York, NY, USA.
extend this scope to other consumer groups (e.g., middle-aged and Cole, M., 2007. The networked consumer: a critical review and assessment. J. Cust.
elderly users) and compare the differences. Second, a cross-sectional Behav. 6 (1), 5–18.
Corby, C.V., 1994. Consumer technology and its effect on banking. Bank Market. 26 (3),
data collection method was adopted in this study to explore associa­
24–29.
tions owing to time limitations, which did not examine cause and effect Coyle, J.R., Gould, S.J., Gupta, P., Gupta, R., 2009. “To buy or to pirate: the matrix of
relationships. Thus, future studies can collect longitudinal data to verify music consumers’ acquisition-mode decision-making”. J. Bus. Res. 62 (10),
the proposed model or determine whether differences exist when it is 1031–1037.
Dabbous, A., Barakat, K.A., 2020. “Bridging the online offline gap: assessing the impact
used for other consumer groups. Additionally, though OPI was measured of brands’social network content quality on brand awareness and purchase
with motivations, this study did not measure OPI separately. To verify intention”. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 53, 101966.
the validity of the findings, future studies could target the OPI of con­ Eastlick, M.A., Feinberg, R.A., 1999. Shopping motives for mail catalog shopping. J. Bus.
Res. 45 (3), 281–290.
sumers who intend to shop at a social commerce website at a specific Emarketer, 2008. Online review sway shoppers. July, 15 2008. http://eMarketer.com.
time. The conclusions of this study should be interpreted cautiously Emarketer, 2019. Global social network users -more than 3 billion people worldwide will
when considering this limitation, especially when providing managerial use social networks in 2020. https://www.emarketer.com/content/global-social-n
etwork-users. (Accessed 6 July 2020).
implications, despite the preliminary conclusions being justified. Endo, S., Yang, J., Park, J., 2012. The investigation on dimensions of e-satisfaction for
online shoes retailing. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 19 (4), 398–405.
References Fornell, C., Larcker, V.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with observable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Gan, C., Wang, W., 2017. The influence of perceived value on purchase intention in
Adjei, M.T., Noble, S.M., Noble, C.H., 2010. The influence of c2c communications in
social commerce context. Internet Res. 27 (4), 772–785.
online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 38
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., 2003. Trust and TAM in online shopping: an
(5), 634–653.
integrated model. MIS Q. 27 (1), 51–90.

10
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

Ghosh, S., 1998. Making business sense of the internet. Harv. Bus. Rev. 76 (2), 126. Musnaini, M., Astuti, S.W., Sukoco, B.M., Yacob, S., 2017. Effect of hedonic value and
Goldsmith, R.E., 2002. Explaining and predicting consumer intention to purchase over consumer knowledge on buying intention for luxury brand counterfeit products. Int.
the internet: an exploratory study. J. Market. Theor. Pract. 10 (2), 22–28. J. Bus. Glob. 19 (4), 497.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Ng, C.S.-P., 2013. Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: a
Perspective. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ. cross-regional study. Inf. Manag. 50 (8), 609–620.
Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2016. A primer on partial least Okada, E.M., 2005. Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2e). Sage publications, Thousand goods. J. Market. Res. 42, 43–53.
Oaks, CA, USA, pp. 20–26. Ozen, H., Engizek, N., 2014. Shopping online without thinking: being emotional or
Hajli, M., 2012. Social Commerce Adoption Model. UK Academy for Information Systems rational? Asia Pac. J. Market. Logist. 26 (1), 78–93.
Conference Proceedings 2012. Ozyer, Y., Kocoglu, I., Gozukara, E., 2014. The moderating effects of perceived use and
Hajli, N., 2015. “Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy”. Int. J. perceived risk in online shopping. Journal of Global Strategic Management 2 (8), 67,
Inf. Manag. 35 (2), 183–191. 67.
Han, B., Windsor, J., 2011. User’s willingness to pay on social network sites. J. Comput. Park, D.H., Kim, S., 2008. The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of
Inf. Syst. 51 (4), 31–40. electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electron. Commer. Res.
Hausman, A., 2000. A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse Appl. 7 (4), 399–410.
buying behavior. J. Consum. Market. 17 (5), 403–426. Parsons, A.G., 2002. Non-functional motives for online shoppers: why we click.
Hayes, A.F., 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process J. Consum. Market. 19 (5), 380–392.
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Press. Pavlou, P.A., 2003. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and
Heinonen, K., 2011. “Consumer activity in social media: managerial approaches to risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7 (3), 69–103.
consumers’ social media behavior”. J. Consum. Behav. 10 (6), 356–364. Pavlou, P.A., Fygenson, M., 2006. Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., Gremler, D.D., 2004. Electronic word-of- adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q. 30 (1), 115–143.
mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in
themselves on the Internet? J. Interact. Market. 18 (1), 38–52. communication research. In: Hayes, A.F., Slater, M.D., Snyder, L.B. (Eds.), The Sage
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant Sourcebook of Advanced Data Analysis Methods for Communication Research. Sage,
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 13–54.
115–135. Punj, G.N., Staelin, R., 1983. A model of consumer information search behavior for new
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. Experiential aspects of consumption: consumer automobiles. J. Consum. Res. 9, 366–380.
fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res. 9 (2), 132–140. Richard, M.-O., Habibi, M.R., 2016. Advanced modeling of online consumer behavior:
Hoonsopon, D., Puriwat, W., 2016. The effect of reference groups on purchase intention: the moderating roles of hedonism and culture. J. Bus. Res. 69 (3), 1103–1119.
evidence in distinct types of shoppers and product involvement. Australas. Market J. Rintamäki, T., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H., Spence, M.T., 2006. Decomposing the value of
24 (2), 157–164. department store shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions: evidence
Huang, E., 2012. Online experiences and virtual goods purchase intention. Internet Res. from Finland. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 34 (1), 6–24.
22 (3), 252–274. Rohm, A.J., Swaminathan, V., 2004. A typology of online shoppers based on shopping
Huang, Z., Benyoucef, M., 2013. From e-commerce to social commerce: a close look at motivations. J. Bus. Res. 57 (7), 748–757.
design features. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 12 (4), 246–259. Scarpi, D., 2006. Fashion stores between fun and usefulness. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 10
Huang, T., Bao, Z., Li, Y., 2017. Why do players purchase in mobile social network (1), 7–24.
games? An examination of customer engagement and of uses and gratifications Scarpi, D., 2012. Work and fun on the internet: the effects of utilitarianism and hedonism
theory. Program 51 (3), 259–277. online. J. Interact. Market. 26 (1), 53–67.
Illeris, K., 2003. Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. Int. J. Sensuse, D.I., Pratama, A.A., Satria, D., Noprisson, H., Ramadhan, A., 2017. Investigating
Lifelong Educ. 22 (4), 396–406. factors of purchase intention based on social commerce, trust and follower in social
Islam, J.U.I., Rahman, Z., Hollebeek, L.D., 2017. Personality factors as predictors of media. In: 2017 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and
online consumer engagement: an empirical investigation. Market. Intell. Plann. 35 Innovation (ICITSI).
(4), 510–528. Shang, Q., Jin, J., Qiu, J., 2020. Utilitarian or hedonic: event-related potential evidence
Jain, K., Yadav, D., 2018. The role of website personality and website user engagement of purchase intention bias during online shopping festivals. Neurosci. Lett. 715,
on individual’s purchase intention, pp. 347–360. Asset Analytics. 134665.
Jarboe, Glen R., McDaniel, Caral D., 1987. A profile of browsers in regional shopping Shaouf, A., Lü, K., Li, X., 2016. The effect of web advertising visual design on online
malls. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 15 (1), 46–53. purchase intention: an examination across gender. Comput. Hum. Behav. 60,
Kim, S., Eastin, M.S., 2011. Hedonic tendencies and the online consumer: an 622–634.
investigation of the online shopping process. J. Internet Commer. 10 (1), 68–90. Sherry, J.F., 1990. A sociocultural analysis of midwestern flea market. J. Consum. Res.
Kim, B., Han, I., 2011. The role of utilitarian and hedonic values and their antecedents in 17 (2), 13–30.
a mobile data service environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (3), 2311–2318. Stone, G.P., 1954. City shoppers and urban identification: observation on the social
Kline, R.B., 2015. In: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, fourth ed. psychology of city life. Am. J. Sociol. 60 (July), 36–45.
Guilford publications. Sun, Y., Wei, K.K., Fan, C., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., 2016. Does social climate matter? On
Korgaonkar, P.K., Wolin, L.D., 1999. A multivariate analysis of web usage. J. Advert. Res. friendship groups in social commerce”, Electronic Commerce Research and
39 (2), 53–68. Application 18 (8), 37–47.
Koufaris, M., 2002. Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: the development of a
consumer behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (2), 205–223. multiple item scale. J. Retailing 77 (2), 203–220.
Lee, S., Ally, Jeong, M., 2012. “Effects of e-servicescape on consumers’ flow Tauber, E.M., 1972. Marketing notes and communications. why do people shop?
experiences”. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 3 (1), 47–59. J. Market. 36 (4), 46–59.
Liang, T.P., Ho, Y.T., Li, Y.W., Turban, E., 2011. What drives social commerce: the role of To, P.-L., Liao, C., Lin, T.-H., 2007. Shopping motivations on Internet: a study based on
social support and relationship quality. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 16 (2), 69–90. utilitarian and hedonic value. Technovation 27 (12), 774–787.
Lin, T.M., Lu, K., Wu, J., 2012. The effects of visual information in eWOM Toor, A., Husnain, M., Hussain, T., 2017. The impact of social network marketing on
communication. J. Res. Indian Med. 6 (1), 7–26. consumer purchase intention in Pakistan: consumer engagement as a mediator.
Liu, C., Bao, Z., Zheng, C., 2019. “Exploring consumers’ purchase intention in social Asian J. Bus. Account. 10 (1), 167–199.
commerce”. Asia Pac. J. Market. Logist. 31 (2), 378–397. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
Liu, F., Lim, E.T., Li, H., Tan, C.W., Cyr, D., 2020. Disentangling utilitarian and hedonic model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204.
consumption behavior in online shopping: an expectation disconfirmation Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X., 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information
perspective. Inf. Manag. 57 (3), 103199. technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Lu, B., Fan, W., Zhou, M., 2016. Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase Q. 36 (1), 157–178.
intention: an empirical research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 56, 225–237. Vock, M., Dolen, W.V., Ruyter, K.D., 2013. Understanding willingness to pay for social
Malone, T.W., Lepper, M.R., 1987. Making Learning Fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic network sites. J. Serv. Res. 16 (3), 311–325.
Motivations for Learning. Aptitude, Learning and Instruction III: Cognitive and Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., 2003. Measuring the hedonic and
Affective Process Analysis, pp. 223–253. utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. J. Market. Res. 40 (3), 310–320.
Martinez-Lopez, F.J., Luna-Huertas, P., Martinez, F.J., 2006. Motivations for Wang, T., Lee, F.-Y., 2020. Examining customer engagement and brand intimacy in social
consumption behaviours on the web: a conceptual model based on a holistic media context. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 54.
approach. Int. J. Electron. Market. Retailing. 1 (1), 3–20. Wang, L.C., Baker, J., Wagner, J.A., Wakefifield, K., 2007. Can a retail web site be social?
Martínez-López, F.J., Pla-García, C., Gázquez-Abad, J.C., Rodríguez-Ardura, I., 2014. J. Market. 71 (3), 143–157.
Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: dimensional structure and scales. Wang, X., Yu, C., Wei, Y., 2012. Social media peer communication and impacts on
Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 13 (3), 188–204. purchase intentions: a consumer socialization framework. J. Interact. Market. 26 (4),
Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C., Ruyter, K.D., 2008. Social capital production in a virtual p3 198–208.
community. J. Consum. Res. 34 (6), 832–849. Wang, T., Yeh, R.K.-J., Chen, C., Tsydypov, Z., 2016. What drives electronic word-of-
Moe, W.W., 2003. Buying, searching, or browsing: differentiating between online mouth on social networking sites? Perspectives of social capital and self-
shoppers using in-store navigational clickstream. J. Consum. Psychol. 13 (1–2), determination. Telematics Inf. 33 (4), 1034–1047.
29–39. Webster, J., Trevino, L.K., Ryan, L., 1993. The dimensionality and correlates of flow in
Morganosky, M.A., Cude, B.J., 2000. Consumer response to online grocery shopping. Int. human-computer interactions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 9, 411–426.
J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 28 (1), 17–26.

11
U. Akram et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102669

Wolfinbarger, M., Gilly, M.C., 2001. Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun. Calif. Muhammad Junaid has a Master’s degree in business studies from the SZABIST Islam­
Manag. Rev. 43 (2), 34–55. abad (PAK) and a Ph.D. in management science and engineering from the Beijing Institute
Yahia, I.B., Al-Neama, N., Kerbache, L., 2018. Investigating the drivers for social of Technology China (AACSB, AMBA, EQUIS). He is a lecturer at COMSATS University
commerce in social media platforms: importance of trust, social support and the Islamabad (PAK). He is affiliated as a researcher with COMEGI, Lusíada University,
platform perceived usage. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 41, 11–19. Portugal. His expertise is in marketing, branding and market research. Specifically, he is an
Yu, C., Bastin, M., 2010. Hedonic shopping value and impulse buying behavior in expert on product-brand management, place branding, and consumer-brand relationships.
transitional economies: a symbiosis in the mainland China marketplace. J. Brand His articles have appeared in the Journal of Product and Brand Management, Journal of
Manag. 18 (2), 105–114. Brand Management, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Journal of Service Theory,
Yu, H., Zhang, R., Liu, B., 2018. “Analysis on consumers’ purchase and shopping well- Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing and Practice, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
being in online shopping carnivals with two motivational dimensions”. Management, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research and International Journal of Market
Sustainability 10 (12), 4603. Research.
Zhang, W., 2014. Motivations on online book-shopping of university students in China.
In: Project Submitted as Partial Requirement for the Conferral of Master of Science in
Abaid Ullah Zafar is a post-doctoral fellow at the Shenzhen-Audencia Business School,
Business Administration. ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon.
Shenzhen University. He has a Ph.D. in Enterprise Management from the School of Eco­
Zhang, K.Z.K., Benyoucef, M., 2016. Consumer behavior in social commerce: a literature
nomics and Management, Dalian University of Technology. His work has been published in
review. Decis. Support Syst. 86, 95–108.
Internet Research, Computers in Human Behavior, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Lo­
Zhang, H., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., Zhao, L., 2014. What motivates customers to participate in
gistics, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainable Pro­
social commerce? the impact of technological environments and virtual customer
duction and Consumption, and Telematics and Informatics, among others. His research
experiences. Inf. Manag. 51 (8), 1017–1030.
interests are social commerce, impulse buying, sustainable consumption, social media
Żyminkowska, K., 2018. Hedonic and utilitarian drivers of customer engagement. Cent.
marketing, and digital celebrities.
Eur. Bus. Rev. 7 (4), 15–33.

Zhiwen LI, working as an associate professor at school of management, Jiangsu Univer­

Umair Akram, working as an Associate Professor at school of management, Jiangsu
sity, China. He completed his PhD in applied economics from University of Rennes 1,
University, China. He has completed Post-Doctoral fellowship from Guanghua school of
France. His research field covers: Internet economics, online consumer behavior, infor­
Management, Peking University Beijing China. He has been completed PhD in Manage­
mation management etc. His research appears on journals such as The B E Journal of
ment science and engineering from school of economics and management, Beijing uni­
Theoretical Economics, Managerial and Decision Economics.
versity of posts and telecommunications, Beijing, China. He has been published more than
70 SSCI/SCI/EI impact factor, Scopus abstracted, and ABDC ranked journals that have
been published with Emerald, Springer, Elsevier etc. Akram is also working as a reviewer Mingyue Fan is PHD in Management Sciences; Master in Statistics. She is current Full-
of many top SSCI journals. He won best paper award in International conference on Time Associate Professor and researcher at the School of Management of Jiangsu Uni­
management science and engineering management in Japan 2018. Akram also won two versity in Zhenjiang China. She is professional in areas of Information Management. She
emerald literati award in 2018 and 2019. He is working as an Editorial Board Member for also has skills in e-commerce, and entrepreneurship. Her lines of research are: online-
the Management Decision (SSCI), European Journal of International Management (SSCI), and learning, social media, data quality, internet information quality, information credibility
Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations (ESCI/EI). He is working as an associate and cross-border e-commerce.
editor for Human Systems Management (ESCI/EI); Journal of Public Affairs (ESCI/SCOPUS),
and Editor (Marketing) for Cogent Business and Management Journal (ESCI/SCOPUS). His
research areas include; online marketing, information systems, online purchase intention,
social commerce and mobile commerce etc.

12