Consumers’ Behavioural Intentions to Reuse Recommender Systems: Assessing the Effects of Trust Propensity, Trusting Beliefs and Perceived Usefulness
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Recommender Systems
2.2. Trust
2.2.1. Trusting Beliefs
- Benevolence is defined as “the belief that a trustee cares about a trustor and is motivated to act in the trustor’s interest” [62].
- Integrity is defined as “the belief that a trustee makes good faith agreements, tells the truth, and fulfils promises” [62].
- Competence is defined as “the belief that a trustee has the ability or power to do for a trustor what the trustor needs to be done” [62].
2.2.2. Trust Propensity
2.3. Perceived Usefulness
2.4. Behavioural Intention
2.5. Product Type as a Moderator
3. Research Model and Hypotheses
4. Methodology
4.1. Survey Instruments and Measurements
4.2. Data Collection and Descriptive Statistics
5. Results
5.1. Analysis of Measurement Model
5.2. Analysis of Structural Model
5.3. Mediation Analysis
5.4. Multi-Group Analysis
6. Post Hoc Analyses
7. Contributions
7.1. Theoretical Contributions
7.2. Practical Contributions
8. Limitations and Future Research
9. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. The Measures
Perceived Usefulness (PU) (Wang & Benbasat, 2005) | |
PU1 | Using RS enabled me to find suitable <product> more quickly. |
PU2 | Using RS improved the quality of analysis and searching I performed to find suitable <product>. |
PU3 | Using RS made the search task for <product> easier to complete. |
PU4 | Using RS enhanced my effectiveness in finding suitable <product>. |
PU5 | Using RS gave me more control over the <product> search task. |
PU6 | Using RS allowed me to accomplish more analysis than would otherwise have been possible. |
PU7 | Using RS greatly enhanced the quality of my judgments. |
PU8 | Using RS conveniently supported all the various types of analysis needed to find suitable <product>. |
PU9 | Overall, I found RS useful in finding suitable <product>. |
Trust Propensity (TP) (Wang & Benbasat, 2007) | |
TP1 | It is easy for me to trust a person/thing. |
TP2 | My tendency to trust a person/thing is high. |
TP3 | I tend to trust a person/thing, even though I have little knowledge of it. |
TP4 | Trusting someone or something is not difficult. |
Trusting Beliefs (TB) (Ashraf et.al., 2019) | |
BT1 | The RS was competent in recommending the required product. |
BT2 | The RS was an expert to recommend the product according to my preference. |
BT3 | The RS was effective in recommending the required product. |
CT1 | I believe that the RS dealing with me was in my best interest. |
CT2 | I believe that the RS dealings with me felt like it would do its best to help me. |
CT3 | I believe that the RS dealings with me to find the best product. |
IT1 | I believe the RS was truthful. |
IT2 | I believe the RS was unbiased. |
IT3 | I believe the RS was honest. |
IT4 | I believe the RS was sincere and genuine. |
ET1 | While relying on the RS for my buying decision, I felt assured. |
ET2 | While relying on the RS for my buying decision, I felt comfortable. |
ET3 | While relying on the RS for my buying decision, I felt contend. |
Behavioural Intention (BI) (Benlian et. al., 2012) | |
If you needed to purchase a similar product in the future, how likely is it that … | |
BI1 | … you would intend to continue using RS in the future? |
BI2 | … you would predict your use of this RS to continue in the future? |
BI3 | … you plan to continue using this RS in the future? |
Appendix B. Instructions Provided to Participants
References
- Roetzel, P.G. Information overload in the information age: A review of the literature from business administration, business psychology, and related disciplines with a bibliometric approach and framework development. Bus. Res. 2019, 12, 479–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shambour, Q. A deep learning based algorithm for multicriteria recommender systems. Knowl. Based Syst. 2021, 211, 106545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijaya, I.W.R. Development of conceptual model to increase customer interest using recommendation system in e-commerce. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 197, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.S.; Karahanna, E. Online recommendation systems in a B2C E-commerce context: A review and future directions. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2015, 16, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, B.; Benbasat, I. E-commerce product recommendation agents: Use, characteristics, and impact. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 137–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yoon, V.Y.; Hostler, R.E.; Guo, Z.; Guimaraes, T. Assessing the moderating effect of consumer product knowledge and online shopping experience on using recommendation agents for customer loyalty. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 55, 883–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shani, G.; Gunawardana, A. Evaluating Recommendation Systems. In Recommender Systems Handbook; Ricci, F., Rokach, L., Shapira, B., Kantor, P.B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 257–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, C.; Leng, M.; Liu, Z.; Cui, X.; Yu, J. The impact of recommender systems and pricing strategies on brand competition and consumer search. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2022, 53, 101144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jannach, D.; Jugovac, M. Measuring the Business Value of Recommender Systems. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2019, 10, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gomez-Uribe, C.A.; Hunt, N. The Netflix Recommender System: Algorithms, Business Value, and Innovation. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2016, 6, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.Y.; Luse, A.; Townsend, A.M.; Mennecke, B.E. Understanding the moderating roles of types of recommender systems and products on customer behavioral intention to use recommender systems. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. 2015, 13, 769–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasemaghaei, M. The impact of in-depth online recommendation agents on consumer disorientation and cognitive absorption perceptions. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2020, 39, 414–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acharya, N.; Sassenberg, A.-M.; Soar, J. Effects of cognitive absorption on continuous use intention of AI-driven recommender systems in e-commerce. Foresight, 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benlian, A.; Titah, R.; Hess, T. Differential Effects of Provider Recommendations and Consumer Reviews in E-Commerce Transactions: An Experimental Study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2012, 29, 237–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Benbasat, I. Trust in and Adoption of Online Recommendation Agents. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 6, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komiak, S.X.; Benbasat, I. Understanding customer trust in agent-mediated electronic commerce, web-mediated electronic commerce, and traditional commerce. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2004, 5, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 334–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, W.; Benbasat, I. Empirical assessment of alternative designs for enhancing different types of trusting beliefs in online recommendation agents. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2016, 33, 744–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glikson, E.; Woolley, A.W. Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2020, 14, 627–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komiak, S.Y.X.; Benbasat, I. The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashraf, M.; Ismawati Jaafar, N.; Sulaiman, A. System- vs. consumer-generated recommendations: Affective and social-psychological effects on purchase intention. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2019, 38, 1259–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, G.B. Propensity to trust, purchase experience, and trusting beliefs of unfamiliar e-commerce ventures. N. Engl. J. Entrep. 2003, 6, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, W.; Benbasat, I. Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: Effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 23, 217–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarcon, G.M.; Lyons, J.B.; Christensen, J.C.; Bowers, M.A.; Klosterman, S.L.; Capiola, A. The role of propensity to trust and the five factor model across the trust process. J. Res. Personal. 2018, 75, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amin, M.; Rezaei, S.; Tavana, F.S. Gender differences and consumer’s repurchase intention: The impact of trust propensity, usefulness and ease of use for implication of innovative online retail. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2015, 17, 217–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.-S.; Fang, S.-R. Antecedents and distinctions between online trust and distrust: Predicting high-and low-risk internet behaviors. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2013, 14, 149. [Google Scholar]
- Colquitt, J.A.; Scott, B.A.; LePine, J.A. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senecal, S.; Nantel, J. The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’ online choices. J. Retail. 2004, 80, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Curley, S.P. Exploring Explanation Effects on Consumers’ Trust in Online Recommender Agents. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2018, 34, 421–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pu, P.; Chen, L.; Hu, R. A user-centric evaluation framework for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Chicago, IL, USA, 23–27 October 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ricci, F.; Rokach, L.; Shapira, B. Recommender Systems Handbook, 2nd ed.; Springer Publishing Company: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Esswein, M.; Mayer, J.H.; Sedneva, D.; Pagels, D.; Albers, J.-P. Improving Invoice Allocation in Accounting—An Account Recommender Case Study Applying Machine Learning. In Digital Business Transformation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 137–153. [Google Scholar]
- Kanaujia, P.K.M.; Behera, N.; Pandey, M.; Rautaray, S.S. Recommendation system for financial analytics. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on ICT in Business Industry & Government (ICTBIG), Indore, India, 18–19 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gretzel, U.; Fesenmaier, D.R. Persuasion in Recommender Systems. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2006, 11, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Q.; Myaeng, S.H.; Kim, B.M. A probabilistic music recommender considering user opinions and audio features. Inf. Process. Manag. 2007, 43, 473–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swaminathan, V. The Impact of Recommendation Agents on Consumer Evaluation and Choice: The Moderating Role of Category Risk, Product Complexity, and Consumer Knowledge. J. Consum. Psychol. 2003, 13, 93–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.-S.; Hsu, F.-H.; Chen, M.-C.; Hsu, Y.-C. Developing recommender systems with the consideration of product profitability for sellers. Inf. Sci. 2008, 178, 1032–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Logesh, R.; Subramaniyaswamy, V.; Malathi, D.; Sivaramakrishnan, N.; Vijayakumar, V. Enhancing recommendation stability of collaborative filtering recommender system through bio-inspired clustering ensemble method. Neural Comput. Appl. 2020, 32, 2141–2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilashi, M.; Ibrahim, O.; Bagherifard, K. A recommender system based on collaborative filtering using ontology and dimensionality reduction techniques. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 92, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panniello, U.; Gorgoglione, M.; Tuzhilin, A. Research note—In CARSs we trust: How context-aware recommendations affect customers’ trust and other business performance measures of recommender systems. Inf. Syst. Res. 2016, 27, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorgoglione, M.; Panniello, U.; Tuzhilin, A. The effect of context-aware recommendations on customer purchasing behavior and trust. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Chicago, IL, USA, 23–27 October 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ariely, D.; Lynch Jr, J.G.; Aparicio IV, M. Learning by collaborative and individual-based recommendation agents. J. Consum. Psychol. 2004, 14, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Montaner, M.; López, B.; de La Rosa, J.L. A taxonomy of recommender agents on the internet. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2003, 19, 285–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilashi, M. An overview of data mining techniques in recommender systems. J. Soft Comput. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 3, 16–44. [Google Scholar]
- Herlocker, J.L.; Konstan, J.A.; Riedl, J. Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2–6 December 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Sheng, X.; Li, J.; Zolfagharian, M.A. Consumer initial acceptance and continued use of recommendation agents: Literature review and proposed conceptual framework. Int. J. Electron. Mark. Retail. 2014, 6, 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, M.; Filieri, R.; Gorton, M. Continuance intention of online technologies: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 102315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorman, C.; Deshpandé, R.; Zaltman, G. Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, D.J.; Ferrin, D.L.; Rao, H.R. A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decis. Support Syst. 2008, 44, 544–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abumalloh, R.A.; Ibrahim, O.; Nilashi, M. Loyalty of young female Arabic customers towards recommendation agents: A new model for B2C E-commerce. Technol. Soc. 2020, 61, 101253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knijnenburg, B.P.; Willemsen, M.C.; Gantner, Z.; Soncu, H.; Newell, C. Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 2012, 22, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nilashi, M.; Jannach, D.; Ibrahim, O.B.; Esfahani, M.D.; Ahmadi, H. Recommendation quality, transparency, and website quality for trust-building in recommendation agents. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2016, 19, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leong, L.-Y.; Hew, T.-S.; Ooi, K.-B.; Chong, A.Y.L.; Lee, V.-H. Understanding trust in ms-commerce: The roles of reported experience, linguistic style, profile photo, emotional, and cognitive trust. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Penn State University Press: University Park, PA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, D.J.; Ferrin, D.L.; Rao, H.R. Trust and Satisfaction, Two Stepping Stones for Successful E-Commerce Relationships: A Longitudinal Exploration. Inf. Syst. Res. 2009, 20, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 297–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKnight, D.H.; Cummings, L.L.; Chervany, N.L. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 473–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lankton, N.; McKnight, D.H.; Thatcher, J.B. Incorporating trust-in-technology into Expectation Disconfirmation Theory. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2014, 23, 128–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlosser, A.E.; White, T.B.; Lloyd, S.M. Converting Web Site Visitors into Buyers: How Web Site Investment Increases Consumer Trusting Beliefs and Online Purchase Intentions. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKnight, D.H.; Chervany, N.L. Conceptualizing trust: A typology and e-commerce customer relationships model. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, 3–6 January 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.D.; Cenfetelli, R.T.; Aquino, K. Do different kinds of trust matter? An examination of the three trusting beliefs on satisfaction and purchase behavior in the buyer–seller context. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2016, 25, 15–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoff, K.A.; Bashir, M. Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum. Factors 2015, 57, 407–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, W.; Xu, J.; Wang, M. Effects of Recommendation Neutrality and Sponsorship Disclosure on Trust vs. Distrust in Online Recommendation Agents: Moderating Role of Explanations for Organic Recommendations. Manag. Sci. 2018, 64, 5198–5219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, S.-W.; Hsu, C.-S. Understanding online repurchase intention: Social exchange theory and shopping habit. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. 2016, 14, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKnight, D.H.; Chervany, N.L. What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 6, 35–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, M.K.; Turban, E. A trust model for consumer internet shopping. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 6, 75–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarcon, G.M.; Lyons, J.B.; Christensen, J.C. The effect of propensity to trust and familiarity on perceptions of trustworthiness over time. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 94, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, S.L.; Shah, P.P. Diagnosing the locus of trust: A temporal perspective for trustor, trustee, and dyadic influences on perceived trustworthiness. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 101, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vidotto, G.; Massidda, D.; Noventa, S.; Vicentini, M. Trusting Beliefs: A Functional Measurement Study. Psicol. Int. J. Methodol. Exp. Psychol. 2012, 33, 575–576. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ayanso, A.; Herath, T.C.; O’Brien, N. Understanding continuance intentions of physicians with electronic medical records (EMR): An expectancy-confirmation perspective. Decis. Support Syst. 2015, 77, 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.-C. Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Recker, J. Continued use of process modeling grammars: The impact of individual difference factors. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2010, 19, 76–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, Y.; Liu, L.; Peng, X.; Dong, Y.; Barnes, S.J. Understanding Chinese users’ continuance intention toward online social networks: An integrative theoretical model. Electron. Mark. 2014, 24, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brömmelstroet, M.T. PSS are more user-friendly, but are they also increasingly useful? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 104, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, S.-I.; Chen, S.-C.; Yen, D.C. Continuance intention of E-portfolio system: A confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis of technology acceptance model. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2015, 42, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowatsch, T.; Maass, W. In-store consumer behavior: How mobile recommendation agents influence usage intentions, product purchases, and store preferences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 697–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chinchanachokchai, S.; Thontirawong, P.; Chinchanachokchai, P. A tale of two recommender systems: The moderating role of consumer expertise on artificial intelligence based product recommendations. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L.; Tan, C.-H.; Ke, W.; Wei, K.-K. Comprehension and assessment of product reviews: A review-product congruity proposition. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2013, 30, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mudambi, S.M.; Schuff, D. Research note: What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon. com. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nelson, P. Information and consumer behavior. J. Polit. Econ. 1970, 78, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aggarwal, P.; Vaidyanathan, R. Perceived effectiveness of recommendation agent routines: Search vs. experience goods. Int. J. Internet Mark. Advert. 2005, 2, 38–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochi, P.; Rao, S.; Takayama, L.; Nass, C. Predictors of user perceptions of web recommender systems: How the basis for generating experience and search product recommendations affects user responses. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2010, 68, 472–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willemsen, L.M.; Neijens, P.C.; Bronner, F.; De Ridder, J.A. “Highly recommended!” The content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2011, 17, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harrigan, M.; Feddema, K.; Wang, S.; Harrigan, P.; Diot, E. How trust leads to online purchase intention founded in perceived usefulness and peer communication. J. Consum. Behav. 2021, 20, 1297–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooke, A.D.; Sujan, H.; Sujan, M.; Weitz, B.A. Marketing the unfamiliar: The role of context and item-specific information in electronic agent recommendations. J. Mark. Res. 2002, 39, 488–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 1, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, J.; Zhou, L. The dual roles of web personalization on consumer decision quality in online shopping: The perspective of information load. Internet Res. 2019, 29, 1280–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-López Francisco, J. Psychological factors explaining consumer adoption of an e-vendor’s recommender. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2015, 115, 284–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seale, C. Using data archives for secondary analysis. Res. Soc. Cult. 2004, 356–365. [Google Scholar]
- Kamis, A.; Koufaris, M.; Stern, T. Using an Attribute-Based Decision Support System for User-Customized Products Online: An Experimental Investigation. MIS Q. 2008, 32, 159–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loehlin, J.C.; Beaujean, A.A. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis; Taylor & Francis: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, J.-S.; Al-Aali, A.; Heinrichs, J.H. Impact of satisfaction with e-retailers’ touch points on purchase behavior: The moderating effect of search and experience product type. Mark. Lett. 2015, 26, 225–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.; Han, M.; Feng, J. Helpfulness of online reviews: Examining review informativeness and classification thresholds by search products and experience products. Decis. Support Syst. 2019, 124, 113099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, R. Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis with IBM SPSS; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. SmartPLS 3.0 (Version 3.3.3). Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. 2015. Available online: https://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 23 April 2021).
- Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Hair, J.F. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Market Research; Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Vomberg, A.E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W.; Henseler, J.; Wang, H. Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hair, J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kock, N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hair, J.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 442–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. Int. Mark. Rev. 2016, 33, 405–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shmueli, G.; Ray, S.; Velasquez Estrada, J.M.; Chatla, S.B. The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 4552–4556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shmueli, G.; Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Cheah, J.-H.; Ting, H.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur. J. Mark. 2019, 53, 2322–2326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, Y.C. The influence of social presence on customer intention to reuse online recommender systems: The roles of personalization and product type. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2011, 16, 129–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirschman, E.C.; Holbrook, M.B. Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. J. Mark. 1982, 46, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Z.; Lei, S.-H.; Guo, Y.-L.; Zhou, Z.-A. The interaction effect of online review language style and product type on consumers’ purchase intentions. Palgrave Commun. 2020, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van der Heijden, H. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 695–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D. Cognition-Based Versus Affect-Based Trust Determinants in E-Commerce: Cross-Cultural Comparison Study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2005, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 11–14 December 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Punyatoya, P. Effects of cognitive and affective trust on online customer behavior. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2019, 37, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felfernig, A.; Gula, B. An Empirical Study on Consumer Behavior in the Interaction with Knowledge-based Recommender Applications. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology and The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Enterprise Computing, E-Commerce, and E-Services (CEC/EEE’06), San Francisco, CA, USA, 26–29 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Pu, P.; Chen, L. Trust-inspiring explanation interfaces for recommender systems. Knowl. Based Syst. 2007, 20, 542–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallié, E.-P.; Guichard, R. Do collaboratories mean the end of face-to-face interactions? An evidence from the ISEE project. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2005, 14, 517–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocco, E.; Finholt, T.A.; Hofer, E.C.; Herbsleb, J. Out of Sight, Short of Trust. In Proceedings of the Founding Conference of the European Academy of Management, Barcelona, Spain, 19–21 April 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Berkovsky, S.; Taib, R.; Conway, D. How to Recommend? User Trust Factors in Movie Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Limassol, Cyprus, 13–16 March 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunkel, J.; Donkers, T.; Michael, L.; Barbu, C.-M.; Ziegler, J. Let me explain: Impact of personal and impersonal explanations on trust in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, Scotland, 4–9 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, C.-C.; Fang, S.-C.; Huang, S.-M.; Chang, S.-C.; Fang, S.-R. The impact of relational bonds on brand loyalty: The mediating effect of brand relationship quality. Manag. Serv. Qual. 2014, 24, 184–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahi, G.K.; Sekhon, H.S.; Quareshi, T.K. Role of trusting beliefs in predicting purchase intentions. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2016, 44, 860–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Maruping, L.M.; Brown, S.A. Role of time in self-prediction of behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2006, 100, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spector, P.E. Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban Legend? Organ. Res. Methods 2006, 9, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ickin, S.; Wac, K.; Fiedler, M.; Janowski, L.; Hong, J.-H.; Dey, A.K. Factors influencing quality of experience of commonly used mobile applications. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2012, 50, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Study | Independent Variables | Dependent Variables | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trusting Beliefs | Trust Propensity | Buying Behaviour | Intention | |||||
Cognitive Trust | ET | Buy | Use/Reuse | |||||
CT | BT | IT | ||||||
[15] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
[17] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
[22] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
[23] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
[31] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
[63] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
This Study | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Product Type | Examples |
---|---|
Search Goods [23,81,86] | Eyeglass, Cell phone, Laptop, Home Electronics, Digital Camera, Kitchen Utensils, Motorcycle Parts, Photographic Equipment, Printer, DVD Player, Network Equipment, and Electronic Accessories |
Experience Goods [23,81,86] | Movies/Music CDs, Books/Magazine, Cleaning Products, Clothing, Leather Purse, Shoes, Perfume, Cosmetics, Software, Watch, Pet Supplies and recreational services. |
Variable | Frequency | % | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | ||||
Male | 182 | 49.7 | ||
Female | 184 | 50.3 | ||
Age Group | ||||
Less than 20 years | 16 | 4.4 | ||
20–25 years | 102 | 27.9 | ||
26–35 years | 104 | 28.4 | ||
36–45 years | 99 | 27 | ||
Over 45 years | 45 | 12.3 | ||
Marital Status | ||||
Single | 156 | 42.6 | ||
Married | 191 | 52.2 | ||
Widowed | 1 | 0.3 | ||
Divorced | 10 | 2.7 | ||
Other | 8 | 2.2 | ||
Education | ||||
Certificate | 86 | 23.5 | ||
Diploma | 39 | 10.7 | ||
Bachelor Degree | 123 | 33.6 | ||
Master Degree | 92 | 25.1 | ||
Doctorate/PhD | 24 | 6.6 | ||
Other | 2 | 0.5 | ||
Geographic Location | ||||
VIC | 114 | 31.1 | ||
NSW | 122 | 33.3 | ||
QLD | 65 | 17.8 | ||
WA | 32 | 8.7 | ||
SA | 15 | 4.1 | ||
TAS | 7 | 1.9 | ||
ACT | 10 | 2.7 | ||
NT | 1 | 0.3 | ||
Internet usage, online purchasing experience and RSs usage experience | ||||
Internet usage experience * | 7.42 | 1.406 | ||
Online purchasing experience ** | 4.85 | 1.477 | ||
RSs usage experience *** | 3.23 | 1.748 |
Item Loadings | α | ρA | CR | AVE | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trust Propensity | 0.877 | 0.881 | 0.915 | 0.730 | |
TP1 | 0.880 | ||||
TP2 | 0.857 | ||||
TP3 | 0.865 | ||||
TP4 | 0.815 | ||||
Trusting Beliefs | 0.952 | 0.953 | 0.958 | 0.637 | |
BT1 | 0.756 | ||||
BT2 | 0.785 | ||||
BT3 | 0.720 | ||||
CT1 | 0.785 | ||||
CT2 | 0.820 | ||||
CT3 | 0.801 | ||||
ET1 | 0.833 | ||||
ET2 | 0.822 | ||||
ET3 | 0.828 | ||||
IT1 | 0.814 | ||||
IT2 | 0.772 | ||||
IT3 | 0.811 | ||||
IT4 | 0.820 | ||||
Perceived Usefulness | 0.923 | 0.923 | 0.936 | 0.618 | |
PU1 | 0.764 | ||||
PU2 | 0.782 | ||||
PU3 | 0.782 | ||||
PU4 | 0.801 | ||||
PU5 | 0.787 | ||||
PU6 | 0.745 | ||||
PU7 | 0.804 | ||||
PU8 | 0.815 | ||||
PU9 | 0.792 | ||||
Behavioural Intentions | 0.878 | 0.878 | 0.925 | 0.804 | |
BI1 | 0.886 | ||||
BI2 | 0.897 | ||||
BI3 | 0.907 |
BI | PU | TB | TP | |
---|---|---|---|---|
BI | ||||
PU | 0.885 | |||
TB | 0.804 | 0.846 | ||
TP | 0.639 | 0.652 | 0.743 |
Original Sample (O) | Sample Mean (M) | 2.50% | 97.50% | |
---|---|---|---|---|
PU -> BI | 0.885 | 0.887 | 0.836 | 0.930 |
TB -> BI | 0.804 | 0.804 | 0.720 | 0.874 |
TB -> PU | 0.846 | 0.846 | 0.789 | 0.894 |
TP -> BI | 0.639 | 0.638 | 0.560 | 0.713 |
TP -> PU | 0.652 | 0.650 | 0.573 | 0.724 |
TP -> TB | 0.743 | 0.743 | 0.672 | 0.803 |
Path Coefficient | Standard Deviation | T Statistics | p Values | |
---|---|---|---|---|
TB -> BI | 0.282 | 0.081 | 3.483 | 0.000 |
PU -> BI | 0.573 | 0.075 | 7.644 | 0.000 |
PU -> TB | 0.603 | 0.037 | 16.196 | 0.000 |
TP -> TB | 0.325 | 0.040 | 8.035 | 0.000 |
Total Effects | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | t-Value | β | t-Value | β | t-Value | p-Value | ||
PU -> BI | 0.743 | 23.522 | 0.573 | 7.644 | PU -> TB -> BI | 0.170 | 3.329 | 0.001 |
Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3(a) | Step 3(b) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constructs | Configural Invariance | C = 1 | 5% Quantile of Cu | Compositional Invariance | Differences | Confidence Interval (CIs)—Mean Value | Equal Mean Value | Differences | Confidence Interval (CIs)—Variances Value | Equal Mean Value | Measurement Invariance |
BI | Yes | 1.000 | 1.000 | Yes | 0.228 | [−0.210; 0.204] | Yes | -0.113 | [−0.305; 0.308] | Yes | Full |
PU | Yes | 1.000 | 1.000 | Yes | 0.189 | [−0.209; 0.203] | Yes | 0.123 | [−0.321; 0.324] | Yes | Full |
TB | Yes | 1.000 | 1.000 | Yes | 0.253 | [−0.216; 0.204] | Yes | 0.107 | [−0.253; 0.252] | Yes | Full |
TP | Yes | 0.999 | 0.999 | Yes | 0.405 | [−0.213; 0.199] | Yes | 0.073 | [−0.245; 0.251] | Yes | Full |
Relationship | Search Product Path (N = 171) | Experience Product Path (N = 195) | Path Coefficients Difference | t-Value | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TB -> BI | 0.339 | 0.248 | 0.091 | 0.547 | 0.585 |
PU -> BI | 0.528 | 0.597 | −0.069 | 0.441 | 0.660 |
PU -> TB | 0.665 | 0.571 | 0.095 | 1.293 | 0.198 |
TP -> TB | 0.261 | 0.356 | −0.095 | 1.151 | 0.251 |
With Emotional Trust | Without Emotional Trust | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constructs | RMSE | MAE | Q2_predict | Constructs | RMSE | MAE | Q2_predict |
BI | 0.606 | 0.439 | 0.643 | BI | 0.604 | 0.438 | 0.640 |
TB | 0.558 | 0.389 | 0.694 | TB | 0.566 | 0.398 | 0.684 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Acharya, N.; Sassenberg, A.-M.; Soar, J. Consumers’ Behavioural Intentions to Reuse Recommender Systems: Assessing the Effects of Trust Propensity, Trusting Beliefs and Perceived Usefulness. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 18, 55-78. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010004
Acharya N, Sassenberg A-M, Soar J. Consumers’ Behavioural Intentions to Reuse Recommender Systems: Assessing the Effects of Trust Propensity, Trusting Beliefs and Perceived Usefulness. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2023; 18(1):55-78. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010004
Chicago/Turabian StyleAcharya, Nirmal, Anne-Marie Sassenberg, and Jeffrey Soar. 2023. "Consumers’ Behavioural Intentions to Reuse Recommender Systems: Assessing the Effects of Trust Propensity, Trusting Beliefs and Perceived Usefulness" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 18, no. 1: 55-78. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010004
APA StyleAcharya, N., Sassenberg, A. -M., & Soar, J. (2023). Consumers’ Behavioural Intentions to Reuse Recommender Systems: Assessing the Effects of Trust Propensity, Trusting Beliefs and Perceived Usefulness. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 18(1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010004