Exploring the Moderating Effect of Demographics on Social Interaction and Purchase Intention in Social Commerce Platforms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69968/ijisem.2026v5i2544-555Keywords:
Social commerce, Social interaction, Buying intention, Demographic moderation, Consumer behavior, PLS-SEM.Abstract
The rapid expansion of social commerce platforms has significantly transformed consumer purchasing behavior, largely driven by dynamic social interactions such as peer ratings, community engagement, and social sharing. Although prior studies suggest that social involvement enhances consumers’ purchase intentions, the moderating role of demographic characteristics in this relationship remains insufficiently explored. Addressing this gap, the present study investigates how demographic variables—specifically age, gender, education level, and income influence the relationship between social interaction and purchase intention in the context of social commerce. A quantitative research design was employed, surveying 500 active users of social commerce platforms, including Instagram Shopping and Facebook Marketplace. Grounded in the Stimulus Organism Response (S-O-R) framework, the study conceptualizes social interaction as a stimulus influencing consumers’ internal evaluations and behavioral responses. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was utilized to test the proposed model and examine the moderating effects of demographic variables. The findings reveal that social interaction exerts a significant positive effect on purchase intention; however, this relationship is notably moderated by age and gender. Specifically, younger users particularly female consumers demonstrate greater responsiveness to social cues such as peer recommendations and community feedback. In contrast, income and education level do not exhibit a significant moderating effect on the relationship between social interaction and purchase intention. These results underscore the importance of demographically tailored marketing strategies in social commerce environments. From a theoretical perspective, the study enhances understanding of consumer behavior by integrating demographic moderators into the S-O-R framework. Practically, the findings offer valuable insights for marketers seeking to improve conversion rates through targeted demographic segmentation and socially driven engagement strategies.
References
[1]. Kim, D. Under what conditions will social commerce business models survive? Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2013, 1212, 69–77. [CrossRef]
[2]. Zhou, L.; Zhang, P.; Zimmermann, H.D. Social commerce research: An integrated view. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2013, 1212, 61–68. [CrossRef]
[3]. Kassim, E.S.; Othman, A.K.; Zamzuri, N.H. Strategies for Sustainable Social Commerce: The Roles of Customer Focus, Innovative Business Model, Legality and Trust. Inf. J. 2016, 19, 2907–2912.
[4]. Marriott, H.R.; Williams, M.D. Exploring consumers perceived risk and trust for mobile shopping:
[5]. Atheoretical framework and empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 42, 133–146. [CrossRef]
[6]. Lee, S.J.; Ahn, C.; Song, K.; Ahn, H. Trust and distrust in e-commerce. Sustainability 2018, 1010, 1015. [CrossRef]
[7]. Liang, T.P.; Turban, E. Introduction to the special issue social commerce: A research framework for social commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2011, 1616, 5–14. [CrossRef]
[8]. Hajli, N.; Sims, J. Social commerce: The transfer of power from sellers to buyers. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 94, 350–358. [CrossRef]
[9]. Tsai, W.H.S.; Men, L.R. Consumer engagement with brands on social network sites: A cross-cultural comparison of China and the USA. J. Mark. Commun. 2017, 2323, 2–21. [CrossRef]
[10]. Choi, J.; Geistfeld, L.V. A cross-cultural investigation of consumer e-shopping adoption. J. Econ. Psychol. 2004, 2525, 821–838. [CrossRef]
[11]. Doney, P.M.; Cannon, J.P.; Mullen, M.R. Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 2323, 601–620. [CrossRef]
[12]. Hofstede, G. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Adm. Sci. Q. 1998, 2323, 113–119.
[13]. Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Tractinsky, N.; Vitale, M. Consumer trust in an Internet store. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2000, 1, 45–71. [CrossRef]
[14]. Liang, T.P.; Ho, Y.T.; Li, Y.W.; Turban, E. What drives social commerce: The role of social support and relationship quality. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2011, 1616, 69–90. [CrossRef]
[15]. Curty, R.G.; Zhang, P. Website features that gave rise to social commerce: A historical analysis. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2013, 12, 260–279. [CrossRef]
[16]. Zhang, K.Z.; Benyoucef, M. Consumer behavior in social commerce: A literature review. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 86, 95–108. [CrossRef]
[17]. Busalim, A.H. Understanding social commerce: A systematic literature review and directions for further research. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 1075–1088. [CrossRef]
[18]. Shanmugam, M.; Sun, S.; Amidi, A.; Khani, F.; Khani, F. The applications of social commerce constructs. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 425–432. [CrossRef]
[19]. Bapna, R.; Umyarov, A. Do your online friends make you pay? A randomized field experiment on peer influence in online social networks. Manag. Sci. 2015, 61, 1902–1920. [CrossRef]
[20]. Stephen, A.T.; Toubia, O. Deriving value from social commerce networks. J. Mark. Res. 2010, 47, 215–228. [CrossRef]
[21]. Goldfarb, A.; McDevitt, R.C.; Samila, S.; Silverman, B.S. The e ect of social interaction on economic transactions: Evidence from changes in two retail formats. Manag. Sci. 2015, 61, 2963–2981. [CrossRef]
[22]. Lee, Y.; Kwon, O. Intimacy, familiarity and continuance intention: An extended expectation–confirmation model in web-based services. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2011, 10, 342–357. [CrossRef]
[23]. Mitchell, V.W. Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. Eur. J. Mark. 1999, 33, 163–195. [CrossRef]
[24]. Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 20–38. [CrossRef]
[25]. Nilsson, M.; Mattes, J. The spatiality of trust: Factors influencing the creation of trust and the role of face-to-face contacts. Eur. Manag. J. 2015, 33, 230–244. [CrossRef]
[26]. Schnackenberg, A.K.; Tomlinson, E.C. Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 1784–1810. [CrossRef]
[27]. Chatzipanagiotou, K.; Christodoulides, G.; Veloutsou, C. Managing the consumer-based brand equity process: A cross-cultural perspective. Int. Bus. Rev. 2019, 28, 328–343. [CrossRef]
[28]. Radford, M.H.; Mann, L.; Ohta, Y.; Nakane, Y. Di erences between Australian and Japanese students in reported use of decision processes. Int. J. Psychol. 1991, 26, 35–52. [CrossRef]
[29]. Caudill, E.M.; Murphy, P.E. Consumer online privacy: Legal and ethical issues. J. Public Policy Mark. 2000, 19, 7–19. [CrossRef]
[30]. Oghazi, P.; Karlsson, S.; Hellström, D.; Hjort, K. Online purchase return policy leniency and purchase decision: Mediating role of consumer trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 190–200. [CrossRef]
[31]. DeKerviler, G.; Demoulin, N.T.; Zidda, P. Adoption of in-store mobile payment: Are perceived risk and convenience the only drivers? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 31, 334–344. [CrossRef]
[32]. Pappas, N. Marketing strategies, perceived risks, and consumer trust in online buying behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 92–103. [CrossRef]
[33]. Sullivan, Y.W.; Kim, D.J. Assessing the e ects of consumers’ product evaluations and trust on repurchase intention in e-commerce environments. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 39, 199–219. [CrossRef]
[34]. Park, M.S.; Shin, J.K.; Ju, Y. The e ect of online social network characteristics on consumer purchasing intention of social deals. Glob. Econ. Rev. 2014, 43, 25–41. [CrossRef]
[35]. Hajli, N.; Sims, J.; Zadeh, A.H.; Richard, M.O. A social commerce investigation of the role of trust in a social networking site on purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 71, 133–141. [CrossRef]
[36]. Ng, C.S.P. Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: A cross-regional study. Inf. Manag. 2013, 50, 609–620. [CrossRef]
[37]. Kim,J.M.; Jun, M.; Kim, C.K. The E ects of Culture on Consumers’ Consumption and Generation of Online Reviews. J. Int. Mark. 2018, 43, 134–150. [CrossRef]
[38]. Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Tractinsky, N.; Saarinen, L. Consumer trust in an Internet store: A cross-cultural validation. J. Comput.-Med. Commun. 1999, 5, JCMC526. [CrossRef]
[39]. Chakraborty, G.; Lala, V.; Warren, D. What do customers consider important in B2B websites? J. Adv. Res. 2003, 43, 50–61. [CrossRef]
[40]. Dawar, N.; Parker, P.M.; Price, L.J. A cross-cultural study of interpersonal information exchange. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1996, 27, 497–516. [CrossRef]
[41]. Roberts, L.R.; Jadalla, A.; Jones-Oyefeso, V.; Winslow, B.; Taylor, E.J. Researching in collectivist cultures: Reflections and recommendations. J. Trans. Nurs. 2017, 28, 137–143. [CrossRef]
[42]. Arpaci,I.; Balo˘ glu, M.; Kesici, ¸ S. The relationship among individual di erences in individualism-collectivism, extraversion, and self-presentation. Personal. Individ. Di er. 2018, 121, 89–92. [CrossRef]
[43]. Hwang, Y.; Lee, K.C. Investigating the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance cultural values on multidimensional online trust. Inf. Manag. 2012, 49, 171–176. [CrossRef]
[44]. Muk,A.; Chung, C.; Kim, J. A cross-national study of the influence of individualism and collectivism on liking brand pages. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2014, 26, 122–137. [CrossRef]
[45]. Faqih, K.M.; Jaradat, M.I.R.M. Assessing the moderating e ect of gender di erences and individualism-collectivism at individual-level on the adoption of mobile commerce technology: TAM3 perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 22, 37–52. [CrossRef]
[46]. Clemes,M.D.; Gan,C.; Zhang,J .Anempiricalanalysis of online shopping adoption in Beijing, China. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2014, 21, 364–375. [CrossRef]
[47]. Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.C.; Gefen, D. Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2004, 13, 24. [CrossRef]
[48]. Gefen, D.; Rigdon, E.E.; Straub, D. Editor’s comments: An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Q. 2011, 35, iii–xiv. [CrossRef]
[49]. Forsythe, S.M.; Shi, B. Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 867–875. [CrossRef]
[50]. Maciejewski, G. E-consumers against the Risk of a Failed Purchase. Stud. Ekon. 2013, 151, 119–131.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Richa Sharma, Rajesh Gupta, Veer P. Gangwar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Re-users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as the original work is properly credited.
How to Cite
7
