Impact of Community-Based Governance Mechanisms on Transaction Intention on a Second-Hand Trading Platform
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Online Community
2.2. Governance Mechanism
3.4. Dispute Resolution Mechanism
3.5. Trust and Transaction Intention
3.6. The Moderating Effect of User Roles
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Method and Data Collection
4.2. Measurement
5. Data Analysis
5.1. Measurement Model Evaluation
5.2. Coefficient Significance Test
5.3. Multiple Group Analysis
6. Discussion and Conclusions
6.1. Discussion
6.2. Practical Implications
6.3. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Questionnaire of Transaction Intention of Buyers on Second-Hand Trading Platform
- On the **anyu platform, I usually [Single choice]
- ○
- Buying second-hand goods
- ○
- Selling second-hand goods
- ○
- Both, with similar frequencies
- How often do I use the **anyu platform? [Single choice]
- ○
- Not Often
- ○
- Several times a month
- ○
- Several times a week
- ○
- Several times a day
- The items I usually trade on the **anyu platform are [Single choice]
- ○
- Clothes, shoes and hats
- ○
- Electronics
- ○
- Books
- ○
- Electronic material
- ○
- Cosmetics
- ○
- Peripheral product
- ○
- Other ____
- Your Gender [Single choice]
- ○
- Male
- ○
- Female
- Your Age [Single choice]
- ○
- Age 18 and younger
- ○
- Age 19–25
- ○
- Age 26–35
- ○
- Age 36–45
- ○
- Age 46 and older
- Your Education Level [Single choice]
- ○
- High school degree or less
- ○
- Undergraduate degree
- ○
- Master degreee
- ○
- Doctor degree
- On the **anyu platform, I think [Single choice]
- ○
- Choosing second-handgoods for economic reasons
- ○
- Exchanging goods with new friends who share common interests
- ○
- Both
- Regarding the interest group on **anyu, I think [Scale question]
- Users in interest group have similar interests to me.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- Users in interest group share similar values to me.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- Users in interest group are very close to me.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- Online dispute resolution is a mechanism for **anyu to deal with user disputes and complaints. In my opinion, [Scale question]
- The mechanism can protect my if the sellers try to cheat me.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- The mechanism can guarantee my interest if the seller tries to provide a low quality product/service.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- This is a test question. Please choose number two.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- The mechanism has been effective in protecting my interests.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- The mechanism can guarantee me a refund.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- The feedback mechanism on **anyu means that buyers and sellers can give evaluations to each other after the transaction is completed. I think [Scale question]
- The mechanism provides accurate information about a sellers’ reputation.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- The mechanism has access to a wealth of useful information about the sellers’ transaction history.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- The mechanism would help me evaluate the sellers.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- Regarding the **anyu platform, I think [Scale question]
- It is reliable.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- It will keep its promises.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- It is a trustworthy channel for me to transact.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- The service offered by **anyu meets my expectation.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- As for the sellers on **anyu, I think [Scale question]
- They are in general trustworthy.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- They are in general reliable.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- They are in general honest.
- Strongly disagree ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7 Strongly agree
- Please make a judgment based on your willingness to trade in ** Affects Knowledge Sharing among Complementors. Strateg. Manag. J. 2020, 43, 599–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; ** Intention: The Roles of Four Types of Trust and Their Antecedents. Internet Res. 2014, 24, 332–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-H.; Barnes, S. Initial Trust and Online Buyer Behavior. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2007, 107, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, H.S.; Occeña, L.G. Influencing Factors of Trust in Consumer-to-Consumer Electronic Commerce with Gender and Age. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 352–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.; Ferrin, D.; Rao, 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, 544–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavlou, P.; Gefen, D. Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust. Inf. Syst. Res. 2004, 15, 37–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bente, G.; Dratsch, T.; Kaspar, K.; Hässler, T.; Bungard, O.; Al-Issa, A. Cultures of Trust: Effects of Avatar Faces and Reputation Scores on German and Arab Players in an Online Trust-Game. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e98297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Guo, X.; Wang, C.; Zhang, S. Do Buyers Express Their True Assessment? Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Praise Feedback Behaviour on Taobao. Internet Res. 2016, 26, 1112–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.-B.; Lee, K.; Lee, H.; Koo, C. In Airbnb We Trust: Understanding Consumers’ Trust-Attachment Building Mechanisms in the Sharing Economy. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 83, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Zhang, C.; Xu, Y. The Role of Mutual Trust in Building Members’ Loyalty to a C2C Platform Provider. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2009, 14, 147–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groenroos, C.; Voima, P. Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-Creation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2013, 41, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, A.F.; Storbacka, K.; Frow, P. Managing the Co-Creation of Value. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2008, 36, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dellaert, B.G.C. The Consumer Production Journey: Marketing to Consumers as Co-Producers in the Sharing Economy. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2019, 47, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ** and Validating Trust Measures for E-Commerce: An Integrative Typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 334–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, W.-T.; Wang, Y.-S.; Liu, E.-R. The Stickiness Intention of Group-Buying Websites: The Integration of the Commitment-Trust Theory and e-Commerce Success Model. Inf. Manag. 2016, 53, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turel, O.; Yuan, Y.; Connelly, C.E. In Justice We Trust: Predicting User Acceptance of E-Customer Services. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2008, 24, 123–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D. Trust and TAM in Online Shop**: An Integrated Model. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 51–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padmavathy, C.; Swapana, M.; Paul, J. Online Second-Hand Shop** Motivation—Conceptualization, Scale Development, and Validation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, H.; Liao, S.; Is, H. Exploring Consumer Resale Behavior in C2C Online Auctions: Taxonomy and Influences on Consumer Decisions. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 2007, 11, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, S.; Li, L. Expanding the Scope of Prosumption: A Framework for Analysing Potential Contributions from Advances in Materials Technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2012, 79, 721–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmerman, M.A. Empowerment Theory. In Handbook of Community Psychology; Rappaport, J., Seidman, E., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 43–64. ISBN 978-1-4615-4193-6. [Google Scholar]
- Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D. Inexperience and Experience with Online Stores: The Importance of TAM and Trust. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2003, 50, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martínez-López, F.J.; Esteban-Millat, I.; Cabal, C.C.; Gengler, C. Psychological Factors Explaining Consumer Adoption of an E-Vendor’s Recommender. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2015, 115, 284–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The Support of Autonomy and the Control of Behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53, 1024–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-07-047849-7. [Google Scholar]
- Mamonov, S.; Koufaris, M.; Benbunan-Fich, R. The Role of the Sense of Community in the Sustainability of Social Network Sites. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2016, 20, 470–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W.; Boudreau, M. Structural Equation Modeling And Regression: Guidelines For Research Practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4, 1–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-315-75742-1. [Google Scholar]
- Alhashem, M.; Moraes, C.; Szmigin, I.T. Use and Social Value in Peer-to-Peer Prosumption Communities. Eur. J. Mark. 2020, 55, 193–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandler, J.; Chen, S. Prosumer Motivations in Service Experiences. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 2015, 25, 220–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Research model.Figure 2. Full Sample Analysis Results. Note: *** represents at 0.001 level (p < 0.001).Table 1. Demographics of survey respondents (N = 721).Demographic Profile Categories Full Sample Frequency Percent (%) Gender Male 314 43.6 Female 407 56.4 Age (in years) Below 18 30 4.2 19–25 517 71.7 26–35 132 18.3 36–45 16 2.2 Above 46 6 0.8 Education High school or below 206 28.6 College 468 64.9 Graduate or above 47 6.5 Frequency of platform Seldom 128 17.8 Once a month 238 33.0 Once a week 305 42.3 Once a day 50 6.9 Table 2. Constructs and associated items.Constructs Measurement Item Factor Loading α CR AVE Interest group [91] Users in interest group have similar interests to me. 0.940 0.934 0.959 0.885 Users in interest group share similar values to me. 0.938 Users in interest group are very close to me. 0.945 Dispute resolution mechanism [78] The mechanism can protect me if the sellers try to cheat me. 0.890 0.925 0.947 0.816 The mechanism can guarantee my interest if the seller tries to provide a low-quality product/service. 0.904 The mechanism has been effective in protecting my interests. 0.916 The mechanism can guarantee me a refund. 0.904 Feedback mechanism [48] The mechanism provides accurate information about a sellers’ reputation. 0.912 0.907 0.941 0.842 The mechanism has access to a wealth of useful information about the sellers’ transaction history. 0.920 The mechanism would help me evaluate the sellers. 0.922 Trust in Platform [7] I think that **anyu is reliable. 0.904 0.908 0.936 0.785 I think that **anyu will keep its promise. 0.922 **anyu is a trustworthy channel for me to transact. 0.893 The service offered by **anyu meets my expectation. 0.822 Trust in Sellers [48] Sellers in **anyu are in general trustworthy. 0.945 0.935 0.949 0.885 Sellers in **anyu are in general reliable. 0.940 Sellers in **anyu are in general honest. 0.938 Transaction Intention [48] I would consider transacting on **anyu. 0.928 0.912 0.947 0.850 It is likely that I will transact on **anyu in the near future. 0.923 Given the opportunity, I intend to transact on **anyu. 0.915 Note: α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.Table 3. Discriminant validity of constructs.Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 (1) Interest group 0.941 (2) Feedback mechanism 0.441 0.918 (3) Dispute resolution mechanism 0.438 0.640 0.904 (4) Trust in platform 0.426 0.543 0.589 0.886 (5) Trust in sellers 0.528 0.560 0.613 0.644 0.941 (6) Transaction intention 0.354 0.497 0.455 0.517 0.552 0.922 Notes: The figures under the diagonal are the correlations between the variables. Diagonal elements are square roots of average variance extracted.Table 4. Structural model results.Hypotheses Coefficient T-Statistics Result H1a: Interest group → Trust in sellers 0.298 8.450 Accepted H1b: Interest group → Trust in platforms 0.143 4.093 Accepted H2a: Feedback mechanism → Trust in sellers 0.240 4.642 Accepted H2b: Feedback mechanism → Trust in platforms 0.268 5.199 Accepted H3a: Dispute resolution mechanism → Trust in sellers 0.374 8.468 Accepted H3b: Dispute resolution mechanism → Trust in platforms 0.334 7.532 Accepted H4: Trust in sellers → Transaction intention 0.379 9.300 Accepted H5: Trust in platform → Transaction intention 0.273 6.109 Accepted Table 5. Path coefficient comparison between consumers and prosumers.Path Coefficient Difference T-Value Consumers Prosumers Dispute resolution mechanism → Trust in sellers 0.248 *** 0.456 *** −0.208 ** −2.305 Dispute resolution mechanism → Trust in platforms 0.274 *** 0.384 *** −0.110 * −1.672 Note: * represents at 0.05 level (p < 0.05); ** represents at 0.01 level (p < 0.01), *** represents at 0.001 level (p < 0.001).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.
© 2023 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
Liu, Y.; Wan, Y.; Kang, J. Impact of Community-Based Governance Mechanisms on Transaction Intention on a Second-Hand Trading Platform. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 18, 689-705. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010035
Liu Y, Wan Y, Kang J. Impact of Community-Based Governance Mechanisms on Transaction Intention on a Second-Hand Trading Platform. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2023; 18(1):689-705. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010035
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Yuru, Yan Wan, and Jun Kang. 2023. "Impact of Community-Based Governance Mechanisms on Transaction Intention on a Second-Hand Trading Platform" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 18, no. 1: 689-705. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010035