CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265Digital Marketing and Social MediaTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourConsumer Behavior and Marketing Influence

Shopping and word-of-mouth intentions on social media

Open access
Mikalef, Patrick, Giannakos, Michail, Pateli, Adamantia·2013·Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research
DOI 10.4067/s0718-18762013000100003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social Media has been gaining popularity worldwide over the last years at an increasingly growing rate. Motivated by this fact, firms are piloting different approaches of promoting their products and services to consumers in order to capitalize on the prominence of such websites. However, there is much debate in the academic and business community about the potential of social media as a platform for marketing and commerce, and the viable strategies that could constitute them as a possible solution for future ventures. Research to date has been growing, with only a limited number of studies exploring the business potential of social media. The aim of this research is to elucidate how specific aspects of social media websites foster user intention to browse products, and the effect that this has in shaping purchasing and information sharing intentions. Utilitarian and Hedonic motivation theory provides the theoretical background on which we segregate the factors that contribute to product browsing on social media websites. Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis is performed on data obtained from 165 social media users to test our research model. Outcomes indicate that specific aspects trigger Utilitarian (Convenience and Product Selection) and Hedonic (Idea and Adventure) motivations which in sequence impact user intention to browse products on such mediums. Finally, browsing intention is linked in a significantly positive manner with purchasing and word-of-mouth intention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4067/s0718-18762013000100003

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M., & Pateli, A.
Affiliations
  • Ionian University (GR)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2013
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
5-6
ISSN
0718-1876 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4067/s0718-18762013000100003
OpenAlex
W2042424695
Cited by
265
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
FWCI
29.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
Keywords
social media, word-of-mouth intention, purchase intention, utilitarian motivation, hedonic motivation, social media marketing, social commerce, convenience, product selection, adventure seeking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review