Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 調查在新冠肺炎之下，年齡與性別對社群商務意圖影響因素在社群網站的干擾作用
Investigating the Moderating Effects of Age and Gender on the Factors Influencing Social Commerce Intention on Social Network Sites under COVID-19 Pandemic作者 盧怡安
Lu, I-An貢獻者 洪叔民
Horng, Shwu-Min
盧怡安
Lu, I-An關鍵詞 社群商務
Facebook
Social Commerce
Facebook日期 2022 上傳時間 1-Jul-2022 16:35:40 (UTC+8) 摘要 隨著社群網站以及電子商務的迅速發展，社群商務的商業模式已逐步融入消費者的消費習慣之中。有別於電子商務專注於提供順暢的交易環境，社群商務則是強調以關係為中心的商業模式，結合社群媒體以及電子商務的優勢，將網路上的消費者緊密地聯繫在一起。由於消費者之間可以透過社群媒體即時交流訊息，賣家也可以與大量未曾見面的潛在消費者互動，在買賣雙方以及買家之間的互動之下，一個資訊透明化的時代正快速來臨。本研究以台灣使用率最高的社群平台Facebook為例，以量化的方式研究使用者的社群商務意圖，並細分為接收與給予行為。以此來探討在社群商務意圖的接收與給予行為上，何種因素分別對他們產生影響。影響的十九個因素包含名聲與獎勵、互動性、互動的樂趣、知識分享的樂趣、利他行為、互惠性、自我效能、結合性社會資本、橋接型社會資本、資訊支持、情感支持、社會互動、對社群商務平台的信任、對社群商務平台商家的信任、對社群商務平台成員的信任、服務內容品質、服務傳遞品質、有效性以及易使用性。此外，本研究將年齡與性別作為干擾變數，發現社群商務意圖的接收行為中，年齡較輕的族群較在意「平台的信任」以及「商家的信任」，而年齡較長的族群則較在意「知識分享的樂趣」；在社群商務意圖之給予行為上，年齡較輕的族群對「情感支持」、「服務內容品質」以及「對商家的信任」較為關注，而年齡較長得更在乎「利他行為」以及「社會互動」。而在性別上皆是以女性較為顯著。
With the rapid development of social networking sites and e-commerce, the business model of social commerce has been gradually integrated into consumers` consumption habits. Unlike e-commerce, which focuses on providing a smooth transaction environment, social commerce emphasizes a relationship-centered business model that combines the advantages of social media and e-commerce to bring consumers together on the Internet. As consumers can exchange information with each other in real time through social media, sellers can also interact with a large number of potential consumers they have never met before, and the interaction between buyers and sellers and buyers is rapidly approaching an era of information transparency.This study uses Facebook, the most used social networking platform in Taiwan, as an example, to quantitatively study users` social business intentions and to subdivide them into receiving and giving behaviors. In this study, we investigated what factors influenced the receiving and giving behaviors of social commerce intention. The nineteen factors that influenced social commerce intention include reputation and rewards, interactivity, fun of interaction, fun of knowledge sharing, altruism, reciprocity, self-efficacy, bonding social capital, bridging social capital, information support, emotional support, social interaction, trust in social commerce platform, trust in social commerce platform merchants, trust in social commerce platform members, service content quality, service delivery quality, effectiveness, and ease of use.In addition, using age and gender as intervening variables, we found that younger age groups were more concerned with "trust in the platform" and "trust in the merchant", while older age groups were more concerned with "enjoyment of knowledge sharing" in the receiving behavior of social commerce intention. The younger age group is more concerned about "emotional support," "quality of service content," and "trust in the merchant," while the older age group is more concerned about "altruistic behavior" and "social interaction. In terms of gender, women are more prominent.參考文獻 Abed, S. (2018). An empirical examination of Instagram as an s-commerce channel. Journal of Advances in Management Research.Accenture (2022). 2021 Social Media Marketing Industry Report. Retrieved fromhttps://newsroom.accenture.com/industries/consumer-goods--services/shopping-on-social-media-platforms-expected-to-reach-1-2-trillion-globally-by-2025-new-accenture-study-finds.htmBagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.Bazi, S., Haddad, H., Al-Amad, A., Rees, D., & Hajli, N. (2022). Investigating the Impact of Situational Influences and Social Support on Social Commerce during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 17(1), 104-121.Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information systems journal, 15(1), 5-25.Cenfetelli, R. T., Benbasat, I., & Al-Natour, S. (2008). Addressing the what and how of online services: Positioning supporting-services functionality and service quality for business-to-consumer success. Information systems research, 19(2), 161-181.Chen, J. and Shen, X.L. (2015), “Consumers’ decisions in social commerce context: an empirical investigation”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 79 No. 1, 55-64.Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.Cho, E., & Son, J. (2019). The effect of social connectedness on consumer adoption of social commerce in apparel shopping. Fashion and Textiles, 6(1), 1-17.Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology press.Croson, R. T. (2007). Theories of commitment, altruism and reciprocity: Evidence from linear public goods games. Economic Inquiry, 45(2), 199-216.Curty, R. G., & Zhang, P. (2011). Social commerce: Looking back and forward. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-10.Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 855-870Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS quarterly, 51-90.Gottlieb, B. H., & Bergen, A. E. (2010). Social support concepts and measures. Journal of psychosomatic research, 69(5), 511-520.Grönroos, C., Heinonen, F., Isoniemi, K., & Lindholm, M. (2000). The NetOffer model: a case example from the virtual marketspace. Management decision, 38(4), 243-252.Hajli, N., & Sims, J. (2015). Social commerce: The transfer of power from sellers to buyers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 350-358.Hong, I. B., & Cha, H. S. (2013). The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 33(6), 927-939.Hopkins, R. A., & Powers, T. L. (2007). “Buy National” and Altruistic Market Segments. Journal of Global Marketing, 20(4), 73-87.Hu, X., Huang, Q., Zhong, X., Davison, R. M., & Zhao, D. (2016). The influence of peer characteristics and technical features of a social shopping website on a consumer’s purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 1218-1230.Kumi, R., & Sabherwal, R. (2018). Performance consequences of social capital in online communities: The roles of exchange and combination, and absorptive capacity. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 337-349.Leung, W. K., Shi, S., & Chow, W. S. (2019). Impacts of user interactions on trust development in C2C social commerce: The central role of reciprocity. Internet Research.Liang, T. P., & Turban, E. (2011). Introduction to the special issue social commerce: a research framework for social commerce. International Journal of electronic commerce, 16(2), 5-14.Lin, J., Li, L., Yan, Y., & Turel, O. (2018). Understanding Chinese consumer engagement in social commerce: The roles of social support and swift guanxi. Internet Research.Linda, S. L. A. I. (2010). Social commerce–e-commerce in social media context. World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology, 72, 39-44.Marsden, P. (2014), Social Commerce: Monetizing Social Media, Syzygy Deutschland GmbH, Hamburg.Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57.We are social & KEPIOS (2022). Digital Taiwan 2022. Retrieved fromhttps://www.slideshare.net/DataReportal/digital-2022-taiwan-february-2022-v01Ng, C. S. P. (2013). Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: A cross-regional study. Information & management, 50(8), 609-620.Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in human behavior, 72, 115-122.Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and schuster.Saprikis, V., & Avlogiaris, G. (2021). Modeling users’ acceptance of mobile social commerce: the case of ‘Instagram checkout’. Electronic Commerce Research, 1-30.Shen, X. L., Li, Y. J., Sun, Y., Chen, Z., & Wang, F. (2019). Understanding the role of technology attractiveness in promoting social commerce engagement: Moderating effect of personal interest. Information & Management, 56(2), 294-305.Shiau, W. L., & Chau, P. Y. (2015). Does altruism matter on online group buying? Perspectives from egotistic and altruistic motivation. Information Technology & People.Suh, J. and Harrison, S. (2006), “Pure altruism, consumer behavior and choice modeling”, Asian Economic Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, 173-190Tajvidi, M., Wang, Y., Hajli, N., & Love, P. E. (2021). Brand value Co-creation in social commerce: The role of interactivity, social support, and relationship quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 105238.Teo, T. S., Srivastava, S. C., & Jiang, L. I. (2008). Trust and electronic government success: An empirical study. Journal of management information systems, 25(3), 99-132.Tran, L. T. T. (2021). Managing the effectiveness of e-commerce platforms in a pandemic. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102287.Understanding online community participation: A technology acceptance perspective. Communication Research, 39(6), 781-801.Verma, S., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. Journal of Business Research, 118, 253-261.Wang, C., & Zhang, P. (2012). The evolution of social commerce: The people, management, technology, and information dimensions. Communications of the association for information systems, 31(1), 5.Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57.Williams, D. (2006). On and off the’Net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 11(2), 593-628.Yang, S., Wang, B., & Lu, Y. (2016). Exploring the dual outcomes of mobile social networking service enjoyment: The roles of social self-efficacy and habit. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 486-496.Yoon, H. S., & Occeña, L. G. (2015). Influencing factors of trust in consumer-to-consumer electronic commerce with gender and age. International journal of information management, 35(3), 352-363.Zhou, L., Zhang, P., & Zimmermann, H. D. (2013). Social commerce research: An integrated view. Electronic commerce research and applications, 12(2), 61-68. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程)
109363079資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109363079 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 洪叔民 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Horng, Shwu-Min en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 盧怡安 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lu, I-An en_US dc.creator (作者) 盧怡安 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lu, I-An en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2022 16:35:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jul-2022 16:35:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2022 16:35:40 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109363079 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/140732 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程) zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109363079 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著社群網站以及電子商務的迅速發展，社群商務的商業模式已逐步融入消費者的消費習慣之中。有別於電子商務專注於提供順暢的交易環境，社群商務則是強調以關係為中心的商業模式，結合社群媒體以及電子商務的優勢，將網路上的消費者緊密地聯繫在一起。由於消費者之間可以透過社群媒體即時交流訊息，賣家也可以與大量未曾見面的潛在消費者互動，在買賣雙方以及買家之間的互動之下，一個資訊透明化的時代正快速來臨。本研究以台灣使用率最高的社群平台Facebook為例，以量化的方式研究使用者的社群商務意圖，並細分為接收與給予行為。以此來探討在社群商務意圖的接收與給予行為上，何種因素分別對他們產生影響。影響的十九個因素包含名聲與獎勵、互動性、互動的樂趣、知識分享的樂趣、利他行為、互惠性、自我效能、結合性社會資本、橋接型社會資本、資訊支持、情感支持、社會互動、對社群商務平台的信任、對社群商務平台商家的信任、對社群商務平台成員的信任、服務內容品質、服務傳遞品質、有效性以及易使用性。此外，本研究將年齡與性別作為干擾變數，發現社群商務意圖的接收行為中，年齡較輕的族群較在意「平台的信任」以及「商家的信任」，而年齡較長的族群則較在意「知識分享的樂趣」；在社群商務意圖之給予行為上，年齡較輕的族群對「情感支持」、「服務內容品質」以及「對商家的信任」較為關注，而年齡較長得更在乎「利他行為」以及「社會互動」。而在性別上皆是以女性較為顯著。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) With the rapid development of social networking sites and e-commerce, the business model of social commerce has been gradually integrated into consumers` consumption habits. Unlike e-commerce, which focuses on providing a smooth transaction environment, social commerce emphasizes a relationship-centered business model that combines the advantages of social media and e-commerce to bring consumers together on the Internet. As consumers can exchange information with each other in real time through social media, sellers can also interact with a large number of potential consumers they have never met before, and the interaction between buyers and sellers and buyers is rapidly approaching an era of information transparency.This study uses Facebook, the most used social networking platform in Taiwan, as an example, to quantitatively study users` social business intentions and to subdivide them into receiving and giving behaviors. In this study, we investigated what factors influenced the receiving and giving behaviors of social commerce intention. The nineteen factors that influenced social commerce intention include reputation and rewards, interactivity, fun of interaction, fun of knowledge sharing, altruism, reciprocity, self-efficacy, bonding social capital, bridging social capital, information support, emotional support, social interaction, trust in social commerce platform, trust in social commerce platform merchants, trust in social commerce platform members, service content quality, service delivery quality, effectiveness, and ease of use.In addition, using age and gender as intervening variables, we found that younger age groups were more concerned with "trust in the platform" and "trust in the merchant", while older age groups were more concerned with "enjoyment of knowledge sharing" in the receiving behavior of social commerce intention. The younger age group is more concerned about "emotional support," "quality of service content," and "trust in the merchant," while the older age group is more concerned about "altruistic behavior" and "social interaction. In terms of gender, women are more prominent. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 致謝 i摘要 iiAbstract iii目次 v圖次 vi表次 vii第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景 1第二節 研究問題與目的 3第三節 研究流程 4第二章 文獻探討 6第一節 社群商務 6第二節 影響社群商務意圖的因素 8第三章 研究方法 13第一節 研究架構與假說 13第二節 研究對象與調查方法 24第三節 問卷設計 25第四章 分析結果 28第一節 敘述性統計分析 28第二節 信效度檢測 30第三節 假說檢驗 40第五章 結論與建議 53第一節 研究結論 53第二節 管理意涵 57第三節 研究限制 61第四節 未來研究建議 62參考文獻 63 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1854078 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109363079 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社群商務 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Facebook zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Social Commerce en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Facebook en_US dc.title (題名) 調查在新冠肺炎之下，年齡與性別對社群商務意圖影響因素在社群網站的干擾作用 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Investigating the Moderating Effects of Age and Gender on the Factors Influencing Social Commerce Intention on Social Network Sites under COVID-19 Pandemic en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Abed, S. (2018). An empirical examination of Instagram as an s-commerce channel. Journal of Advances in Management Research.Accenture (2022). 2021 Social Media Marketing Industry Report. Retrieved fromhttps://newsroom.accenture.com/industries/consumer-goods--services/shopping-on-social-media-platforms-expected-to-reach-1-2-trillion-globally-by-2025-new-accenture-study-finds.htmBagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.Bazi, S., Haddad, H., Al-Amad, A., Rees, D., & Hajli, N. (2022). Investigating the Impact of Situational Influences and Social Support on Social Commerce during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 17(1), 104-121.Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information systems journal, 15(1), 5-25.Cenfetelli, R. T., Benbasat, I., & Al-Natour, S. (2008). Addressing the what and how of online services: Positioning supporting-services functionality and service quality for business-to-consumer success. Information systems research, 19(2), 161-181.Chen, J. and Shen, X.L. (2015), “Consumers’ decisions in social commerce context: an empirical investigation”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 79 No. 1, 55-64.Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.Cho, E., & Son, J. (2019). The effect of social connectedness on consumer adoption of social commerce in apparel shopping. Fashion and Textiles, 6(1), 1-17.Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology press.Croson, R. T. (2007). Theories of commitment, altruism and reciprocity: Evidence from linear public goods games. Economic Inquiry, 45(2), 199-216.Curty, R. G., & Zhang, P. (2011). Social commerce: Looking back and forward. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-10.Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 855-870Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS quarterly, 51-90.Gottlieb, B. H., & Bergen, A. E. (2010). Social support concepts and measures. Journal of psychosomatic research, 69(5), 511-520.Grönroos, C., Heinonen, F., Isoniemi, K., & Lindholm, M. (2000). The NetOffer model: a case example from the virtual marketspace. Management decision, 38(4), 243-252.Hajli, N., & Sims, J. (2015). Social commerce: The transfer of power from sellers to buyers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 350-358.Hong, I. B., & Cha, H. S. (2013). The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 33(6), 927-939.Hopkins, R. A., & Powers, T. L. (2007). “Buy National” and Altruistic Market Segments. Journal of Global Marketing, 20(4), 73-87.Hu, X., Huang, Q., Zhong, X., Davison, R. M., & Zhao, D. (2016). The influence of peer characteristics and technical features of a social shopping website on a consumer’s purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 1218-1230.Kumi, R., & Sabherwal, R. (2018). Performance consequences of social capital in online communities: The roles of exchange and combination, and absorptive capacity. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 337-349.Leung, W. K., Shi, S., & Chow, W. S. (2019). Impacts of user interactions on trust development in C2C social commerce: The central role of reciprocity. Internet Research.Liang, T. P., & Turban, E. (2011). Introduction to the special issue social commerce: a research framework for social commerce. International Journal of electronic commerce, 16(2), 5-14.Lin, J., Li, L., Yan, Y., & Turel, O. (2018). Understanding Chinese consumer engagement in social commerce: The roles of social support and swift guanxi. Internet Research.Linda, S. L. A. I. (2010). Social commerce–e-commerce in social media context. World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology, 72, 39-44.Marsden, P. (2014), Social Commerce: Monetizing Social Media, Syzygy Deutschland GmbH, Hamburg.Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57.We are social & KEPIOS (2022). Digital Taiwan 2022. Retrieved fromhttps://www.slideshare.net/DataReportal/digital-2022-taiwan-february-2022-v01Ng, C. S. P. (2013). Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: A cross-regional study. Information & management, 50(8), 609-620.Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in human behavior, 72, 115-122.Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and schuster.Saprikis, V., & Avlogiaris, G. (2021). Modeling users’ acceptance of mobile social commerce: the case of ‘Instagram checkout’. Electronic Commerce Research, 1-30.Shen, X. L., Li, Y. J., Sun, Y., Chen, Z., & Wang, F. (2019). Understanding the role of technology attractiveness in promoting social commerce engagement: Moderating effect of personal interest. Information & Management, 56(2), 294-305.Shiau, W. L., & Chau, P. Y. (2015). Does altruism matter on online group buying? Perspectives from egotistic and altruistic motivation. Information Technology & People.Suh, J. and Harrison, S. (2006), “Pure altruism, consumer behavior and choice modeling”, Asian Economic Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, 173-190Tajvidi, M., Wang, Y., Hajli, N., & Love, P. E. (2021). Brand value Co-creation in social commerce: The role of interactivity, social support, and relationship quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 105238.Teo, T. S., Srivastava, S. C., & Jiang, L. I. (2008). Trust and electronic government success: An empirical study. Journal of management information systems, 25(3), 99-132.Tran, L. T. T. (2021). Managing the effectiveness of e-commerce platforms in a pandemic. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102287.Understanding online community participation: A technology acceptance perspective. Communication Research, 39(6), 781-801.Verma, S., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. Journal of Business Research, 118, 253-261.Wang, C., & Zhang, P. (2012). The evolution of social commerce: The people, management, technology, and information dimensions. Communications of the association for information systems, 31(1), 5.Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57.Williams, D. (2006). On and off the’Net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 11(2), 593-628.Yang, S., Wang, B., & Lu, Y. (2016). Exploring the dual outcomes of mobile social networking service enjoyment: The roles of social self-efficacy and habit. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 486-496.Yoon, H. S., & Occeña, L. G. (2015). Influencing factors of trust in consumer-to-consumer electronic commerce with gender and age. International journal of information management, 35(3), 352-363.Zhou, L., Zhang, P., & Zimmermann, H. D. (2013). Social commerce research: An integrated view. Electronic commerce research and applications, 12(2), 61-68. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202200625 en_US
