1 Introduction
Social commerce paradigm is considered as a part of electronic commerce (e-commerce) (Stephen and Toubia
2010) and has emerged as an extensive growth of social networking sites (SNSs). Therefore, social commerce is considered as a main tool for electronic shoppers (e-shoppers) to share their experience via peer interactions (Liang and Turban
2011). Social commerce facilitates customers’ information sharing, extending their recommendations (Chen and Shen
2015; Liang and Turban
2011; Mirkovski et al.
2019; Wang and Zhang
2012; Zheng et al.
2017) and getting the best prices. Thus, social commerce is a combination of e-commerce and SNSs that intends to enhance shoppers’ experience online (Marsden
2010). Lal (
2017) asserts that social commerce is the newest form to combine communication technology and information. Thus, social commerce creates a competitive advantage for companies that employ SNSs for conducting business online. The advancement in technology within social media encouraged customers to interact with their peers (Liang and Turban
2011) and hence invites them to be an essential part of the social community.
Although the research on social commerce constructs has drawn the attention of research scholars, the extant literature on social commerce constructs investigated the impact of social commerce constructs (directly and/or indirectly) on social support, flow, social presence, social trust, and customer engagement (Li
2017; Triantafillidou and Siomkos
2018; Zhang et al.
2017). For example, Zhang et al. (
2017) investigated the impact of social commerce dimensions on customer engagement. Similarly, Li (
2017) reported the positive relationship between social commerce dimensions and social support. In a similar vein, Li (
2017) asserts the significant correlation between social commerce constructs and social presence. Likewise, Triantafillidou and Siomkos (
2018) revealed the positive influence of flow on behavioural engagement. Moreover, within the e-commerce context, trust is considered to be a vital issue that prevents customers from buying online. Lack of trust facilitates customers’ hesitation to conduct the online purchases or even to avoid them altogether (Asim et al.
2019; Gefen
2000; Jones and Leonard
2008). Accordingly, extant literature on social commerce posits the importance of community members’ trust in different SNSs as a tool to enhance their online purchase, to create and share their stories on SNSs. Therefore, customers have many reasons for distrusting firms using social commerce on SNSs. For example, users’ concerns regarding the quality of information that social commerce firms provide for them over SNSs make them trust other consumers more than they trust the firm itself (Mutz
2005). Therefore, social commerce firms can benefit from building and enhancing social trust among users (Jarvenpaa et al.
2000). Thus, community members’ trust within social commerce becomes a significant area (Kim
2011). Previous research (e.g. Alalwan et al.
2019; Kim and Park
2013) assert the positive relationship between social commerce constructs and social trust. For instance, Vohra and Bhardwaj (
2019) find a positive relationship between community trust and engagement. Similarly, Zhou (
2017) posits the significant relationship between social support dimensions (informational support and emotional support) and trust. Furthermore, the author posits the significant association between trust and flow.
However, we noticed that none of the existing research within the context of social media commerce has investigated the interrelationships between social commerce constructs, social support, flow, social presence, social trust and community engagement within a single model. We believe that combining the constructs from the existing research in one single model will enhance researchers’ understanding of the nature of the relationships among them. Thus, we intend to examine how the dimensions of social commerce constructs (ratings and reviews, recommendations and referrals, and forums and communities) influence social support dimensions (information support and emotional support) and social presence. Furthermore, the current study examines the impact of social commerce constructs’ dimensions, social support dimensions and social presence on community members’ trust, which in turn impacts flow and online community engagement dimensions (cognitive, affective and behavioural). Furthermore, we investigate the impact of flow on online community engagement dimensions. The current study, to the best of our knowledge, establishes the first attempt to validate the causal relationships between the various constructs from the proposed research model.
Recently, social commerce witnessed tremendous growth across the world as well as in the Middle East countries, which encouraged many local firms to join SNSs (Alalwan et al.
2017a,
2019; Algharabat et al.
2020; Kapoor et al.
2018). Smatinsights (
2020) report shows that by the end of 2019, number of social media users reached 3.5 billion worldwide. Furthermore, according to the report, (i) almost 55% of online shoppers conducted their shopping via one of three main social commerce platforms i.e. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. (ii) 87% of social commerce shoppers rely on social media to aid their shopping decisions, (iii) 30% of consumers would make their purchase decisions directly via social commerce platforms. Thus, we decided to conduct this study in emerging markets such as Middle East – particularly in the context of Jordan. According to Entrepreneur (
2020), e-commerce in MENA region is expected to reach US$ 69 billion by the end of 2020, and hence to be the second biggest market in e-commerce. Furthermore, Napoleoncat (
2020) posits that number of Facebook users in Jordan reached more than 5.8 million with 42.1% women and 57.9% men. These number of Facebook users represent 55.8% of the entire Jordanian population. Moreover, the Jordanian authority announced that more than 243 million dollars were spent by Jordanian customers on e-commerce via websites and social media platforms (Alrai Newspaper
2019). This makes the current study of significant importance to examine social commerce within emerging market such as Jordan in which social commerce considered as a promising emerging market. Therefore, the current study aims to respond to the following research questions:
1.
How does the notion of a social commerce construct influence social support, social presence and community members’ trust?
2.
How does social support and social presence influence community members’ trust?
3.
How does community members’ trust influence flow (i.e., consumer feelings which produced as a sense of immersion due to their interaction with SNSs platforms)?
4.
How does community members’ trust and flow influence community engagement?
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section
2 reviews the existing literature around theoretical background of this research. Section
3 present the underpinning theories and proposes a research model based on them. Further, Section
4 discusses the methodology of this research followed by results in Section
5. Section
6 presents discussion in the backdrop of existing literature. Finally, the paper is concluded in Section
7.
4 Methodology
To test the proposed hypotheses for this research, we collected the data from an official brand page on Facebook using a web-based survey, for active members in a Facebook online community during January 2019. We decided to conduct the current study using Facebook pages for the following reasons. Facebook is considered as the biggest social networking site in the world with more than 2.41 billion users and with a cumulative number of 2.7 billion users per month accessing the company’s main products such as Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram (Statista
2019). Additionally, Facebook pages are considered to be rich sources of information and they provide members with significant social benefits (De Vries et al.
2012). Previous research (Dessart
2017; Solem and Pedersen
2016) employed Facebook to measure the notions of consumer engagement and social media engagement. Solem and Pedersen (
2016) considered Facebook as an active medium that enhances engagement.
Furthermore, Facebook helps a variety of brands to develop and to be easily shared among users via word-of-mouth. We decided to select an online community within Facebook which is centred on hybrid cars. This online community is located in Jordan, Middle East, and has almost 75 K members. The chosen page allows members to comment, to share their experiences, and it updates all the information frequently. Therefore, the chosen page aims to (i) facilitate exchanging experiences among the owners of the hybrid cars in terms of maintenance. (ii) Recommending the most trusted shops, which the owners can buy their spare parts from. (iii) Spreading word-of-mouth about engineers who are professional in dealing with hybrid cars. (iv) Advising the members of the best prices and quality of hybrid cars accessories, offers, and any other related aspects which might face the owners of such modern cars. Accordingly, two types of members join, follow and like this online community; individual users and firms. Online community members of this Facebook page follow the page’s posts and other members’ comments, views, and recommendations (Dessart
2017; Sharma et al.
2016; Zhang et al.
2011). They can participate in the online community’s social activities, share their opinions and feelings and they exchange information with others. Furthermore, community members often interact with each other by replying and giving suggestions, which can help other members. On the other hand, firms also sponsor the community to share deals and offers to promote their brands (Chow and Shi
2015). For the purpose of our research, we focused on individual users and not firms.
We decided to conduct the current research on this particular online community due to the following reasons: (i) The chosen community members are increasingly dramatically due to new idea of the hybrid cars in the Middle East area and in particular in Jordan, (ii) The majority of hybrid cars owners are not familiar with many parts of such a new car in Jordan, hence hybrid car owners are indeed need all the help from consumers like them, (iii) Hybrid cars need more technology to track the origin of the car, particularly if it is used one. Therefore, the more educated members will help other members immediately once they are facing a problem and they seek aid.
4.1 Data Collection and Sample
We designed a questionnaire to measure the constructs of the current study (Weerakkody et al.
2007); social commerce constructs, social support, social presence, community member trust, flow and community engagement. Furthermore, we only included members who are active and have participated in the online community, at least over the last month of conducting the study. Therefore, we employed a non-probability (judgmental) sample form a particular online community to collect the data. Furthermore, we have employed a set of procedures to avoid sampling bias and to assure the current research validity and generalisability. For instance, (i) we collected our data from a large sample size (400 participants) to reflect generalisability of our results. Hence, our analysis is based on AMOS, and thus, we allowed 10–15 observations per indicator and not to exceed 500 as recommended by previous research (Al-Dmour et al.
2019; Hair et al.
2010), (ii) Our sample was distributed among our respondents’ characteristics in terms of gender, age, education level and time spent on the online community, (iii) We have conducted a nonresponse bias test (Armstrong and Overton
1977) for our current study and the results show no significant differences among participants (
p > 0.05) for the study constructs of social commerce constructs, social support, social presence, community member trust, flow and community engagement and their sub-constructs, (iv) We employed Harman’s single factor test to ensure that there was no common method bias as we utilised a questionnaire filled in by the participants.
To ensure consistency in the current study and since the current study is conducted in Arabic, we translated our questionnaire first from English into Arabic and then we conducted the translation back into English (Brislin
1986). Furthermore, in order to examine the reliability and validity of the constructs’ items, we conducted a pilot study, prior to data collection, involving 50 MBA students. We obtained a total of 600 completed questionnaires, for the final study, of which 400 were valid. The sample constituted of 75% male and 25% female. Most (92%) of our sample respondents were less than 40 years of age; 85% have an undergraduate degree and 75% of them spent 1–2 h per day on the online community.
4.2 Measurement of Constructs
To measure social commerce constructs (second-order), we adopted the scale of Pagani and Mirab (
2011, 2012) and Han and Windsor (
2011), which consists of three first-order dimensions: ratings and reviews (three items), recommendations and referrals (4 items), and forums and communities (four items). To measure social support (second-order), we adopted the scale of Liang et al. (
2011), which consists of two first-order dimensions: emotional support (four items) and informational support (three items). Social presence construct was measured by adopting the scale of previous research (Labrecque
2014; Gefen and Straub
2003; Rubin et al.
1985), which consists of four items. To measure community member trust, we relied on previous research (Cummings and Bromiley
1996; Luo
2005; Chen et al.
2009) consisting of three items. We relied on Zhang et al.’s (
2014) scale to measure flow experience which consists of four items. To measure community engagement, we adopted Dessart et al. (
2017) scale (second-order), which consists of three first-order dimensions i.e. affective engagement (six items), cognitive engagement (six items) and behavioural engagement (10 items) (see Table
2).
Table 2
Construct operationalisation: Measurement items and factor loading
Social commerce constructs Ratings and reviews (RR1-RR3) | RR1: Ratings and reviews of the SNS community members are interesting. | 0.881 | Pagani and Mirab ( 2011, 2012) |
RR2: Ratings and reviews of the SNS community members enhanced my knowledge. | 0.937 |
RR3: Ratings and reviews of the SNS community members are helpful. | 0.834 |
Social commerce constructs Recommendations and referrals (RERE1-RERE4) | RERE1: Reading community members’ recommendations and referrals in this SNS community is interesting. | 0.903 | Pagani and Mirab ( 2011, 2012) |
RERE2: Community members’ recommendations and referrals in this SNS are fairly knowledgeable. | 0.896 |
RERE3: I like community members in this SNS because of their recommendations and referrals. | 0.874 |
RERE4: This community encourages its members to make recommendations. | 0.799 |
Social commerce constructs Forums and communities (FC1-FC4) | FC1: Members of forums and communities are frank. | 0.894 | |
FC2: Members of forums and communities are reliable. | 0.901 |
FC3: Members of forums and communities are trustworthy. | 0.871 |
FC4: I trust my community members on forums and communities. | 0.834 |
Social support Informational support (IS1-IS3) | IS1: Community members in this SNS offer me suggestions when needed. | 0.904 | |
IS2: Community members in this SNS give me information to solve my problems. | 0.972 |
IS3: Community members in this SNS help me discover the cause and provide me with suggestions when needed. | 0.826 |
Social support Emotional support (ES1-ES4) | ES1: I feel that community members in this SNS are with me. | 0.852 | |
ES2: I feel that community members in this SNS comforted and encouraged me. | 0.900 |
ES3: I feel that community members in this SNS listened to me. | 0.931 |
ES4: I feel that community members in this SNS expressed interest and concern for my well-being. | 0.889 |
Social Presence (SP1-SP4) | SP1: Community members in this SNS make me feel comfortable. | 0.817 | Labrecque ( 2014), Gefen and Straub ( 2003), Rubin et al. ( 1985) |
SP2: In this community there is a sense of human contact. | 0.758 |
SP3: In this community there is a sense of sociability. | 0.744 |
SP4: In this community there is a sense of human warmth. | 0.857 |
Community member trust (CT1-CT3) | CT1: When I chat with my community members, I feel that they are straightforward. | 0.874 | Cummings and Bromiley ( 1996); Chen et al. ( 2009); Luo ( 2005) |
CT2: When I chat with my community members, they share their information openly. | 0.843 |
CT3: When I chat with my community members, I think they are telling the truth. | 0.799 |
Flow experience (FL1-FL4) | FL1: Interaction with community members in this SNS community is fun. | 0.903 | |
FL2: Interaction with community members in this SNS community is interesting. | 0.873 |
FL3: Interaction with community members in this SNS community makes me feel the excitement of exploring. | 0.946 |
FL4: Interaction with community members in this SNS community makes me feel absorbed. | 0.921 |
Community engagement Affective engagement (AEG1-AEG6) | AEG1: This community makes me feel enthusiastic. | 0.876 | |
AEG2: This community makes me feel interested about their topics. | 0.927 |
AEG3: I find this community interesting. | 0.879 |
AEG4: This community makes me feel happy when I interact with them. | 0.847 |
AEG5: This community makes me feel pleasure when I interact with them. | 0.731 |
AEG6: Interacting with this community gives me a treat. | 0.731 |
Community engagement Cognitive engagement (CEG1-CEG6) | CEG1: I devote a lot of time to thinking about this community. | 0.901 | |
CEG2: I spend time thinking about this community. | 0.909 |
CEG3: While interacting with my community members, I usually forget everything else around me. | 0.929 |
CEG4: Time flies when I am interacting with my community. | 0.956 |
CEG5: When I am interacting with this community, I get carried away. | 0.560 |
CEG6: When interacting with my community, it is difficult to separate myself. | 0.610 |
Community engagement Behavioural engagement (BEG1-BEG10) | BEG1: I share my thoughts with my community. | 0.817 | |
BEG2: I share exciting content with my community. | 0.708 |
BEG3: I help my community. | 0.760 |
BEG4: I ask my community questions. | 0.500 |
BEG5: I pursue ideas or information from my community. | 0.450 |
BEG6: I ask for help from my community. | 0.530 |
BEG7: I endorse my community. | 0.590 |
BEG8: I ask other people to get involved with my community. | 0.610 |
BEG9: I strongly protect my community from its rivals. | 0.590 |
BEG10: I say positive things about my community to others. | 0.540 |
6 Discussion
In support of the previous studies (e.g., Alalwan et al.
2019; Hajli
2015; Sheikh et al.
2019), our results confirmed the fact that the notion of social commerce constructs is a second-order one. Therefore, social commerce constructs should reflect ratings and reviews, recommendations and referrals, and forums and communities. Our results reveal that recommendations and referrals have the strongest influence on social commerce constructs. This result supports Sheikh et al.’s (
2019) findings. This depicted that our sample in SNSs believe that recommendations and referrals are significant elements to enhance social commerce. This result reflects consumers’ belief in other consumers’ recommendations in order to conduct social commerce over social media platforms. In line with extant research (e.g., Alalwan et al.
2019; Algharabat
2017; Hajli
2015; Sheikh et al.
2019), we find that ratings and reviews count for the second strongest dimension of social commerce constructs.
In other words, customers’ ability to rate and review different content over social media platforms often encourages other customers to conduct social commerce over different social media platforms. In line with Sheikh et al. (
2019) and Alalwan et al. (
2019), we find that forums and communities are the third strongest dimension of social commerce constructs. Further, we find that social support is a multidimensional construct that encompasses two main dimensions namely emotional support and informational support. This result is also supported by existing literature (Chen and Shen
2015; Liang et al.
2011; Lin et al.
2015; Sheikh et al.
2019). Therefore, consumers within SNSs are information seekers, they are considered as valid sources for providing information to other users, and they will support them emotionally. Our results confirm that community engagement is a second-order construct consisting of three dimensions i.e. affective, cognitive and behavioural. We find that behavioural engagement was the strongest dimension followed by the cognitive dimension and then the affective dimension. Hence, customers are interested more in the behavioural dimension because this dimension reflects their ability to help other members, to seek information, to have positive word-of-mouth about the community and to be involved with other community members. This result supports previous research in this context (Dessart
2017).
We find that social commerce constructs significantly impact social support, community members’ trust and social presence (H1
a, b, c). Accordingly, we find that the path coefficient value of the relationship between social commerce constructs and social presence (H1
a) is 0.75, indicating that customers who are using SNSs for social commerce are interested in getting more informational support and emotional support from other members in the same community. Therefore, a social commerce construct enhances community members’ perception of the significant role of social support dimensions in which users of a particular SNS seek the support of others in terms of either information or emotion. This result is in line with Li (
2017). The relationship between social commerce constructs and community members trust (H1
b) comes as we expected, with a coefficient value of 0.52 indicating the important role, which social commerce constructs play in enhancing community members’ trust. Our result reveals that consumers’ ratings and reviews, recommendations and referrals, and forums and communities over SNSs encourage other community members to trust the content created by other members. Thus, as different community members interact with each other over a particular SNS it will create a kind of trust and hence common feelings will be shared by different members. This result has been supported in the extant literature (Alalwan et al.
2019; Sharma et al.
2019; Sheikh et al.
2019). We find that the relationship between social commerce constructs and social presence (H1
c) is supported, with a coefficient value of 0.84, indicating that social commerce constructs help community members to have a feeling of social presence. In other words, while community members over SNSs are interacting with each other via ratings and reviews, recommendations and referrals, and forums and communities, this will help community members to establish a sense of humanity just as if they are interacting with members they know and trust.
The relationship between social support and community members’ trust (H2) is significantly positive with a coefficient value of 0.20, indicating that consumers’ knowledge and emotional support, which they receive from a particular SNS community, influences their trust in the community. This result reflects the importance of SNS community members providing customers with the essential information they need and the emotional support to facilitate their decision-making. This result supports previous findings (Liang et al.
2011; Xiao et al.
2019b). In support of previous research (Chen et al.
2011; Lu et al.
2016; Sharma et al.
2019), the relationship between social presence and community members’ trust (H3) was significantly positive with a coefficient value of 0.21, indicating that the sense of humanity during peer interaction in a particular SNS will increase a peer’s sense of trust with other community members. This result could be accredited to the fact that the people in the Middle East, as a collectivist culture, trust others as long as they provide them with the honest information and the required emotional support (Cialdini
2001).
The relationship between community members’ trust and flow (H4
a) was approved, with a coefficient value of 0.30, indicating that community members’ trust, which customers often gain while interacting with other customers in the same SNS community, leads to flow experience. This result supported previous literature (Gao and Bai
2014; Liu et al.
2016; Zhou
2017). We find that the relationship between community members’ trust and community engagement (H4
b) was supported with a coefficient value of 0.75, indicating that trust between different members in the same SNS community leads to more engagement with the community. Therefore, trust with other customers in the same SNS community will enhance users’ level of engagement regarding affective, cognitive and behavioural aspects. This finding is consistent with previous research (Chan et al.
2014; Liu et al.
2018). In other words, trust between community members will allow the members to emotionally engage with the community, to think positively about it and to act according to the community recommendations.
Hence, according to our results, when customers trust other customers within the same SNS community this will motivate them to have feelings of enjoyment, utilitarianism, to share their ideas with others, and to spread positive word of mouth. The relationship (H5) between flow and community engagement is as expected with a coefficient value of 0.19, indicating the positive relationship between flow and community engagement. The current result asserts that interacting with the online community will enhance flow experience in which community members will spend a lot of time following other community members’ reviews, feel fun, interested, excited, and absorbed. These types of feelings will motivate them to maximise their engagement with the community through having enjoyment value, utilitarian value, behavioural value to share their ideas with others, and to spread positive word of mouth. This result agrees with previous literature on the relationship between flow experience and community engagement (Hall-Phillips et al.
2016; Triantafillidou and Siomkos
2018; Zhang et al.
2017).
6.1 Contributions to Theory
We consider the following key points as our contributions to the current literature. First, to the best of our knowledge, none of the previous research has proposed the linkage between the proposed constructs, namely, social commerce constructs (second-order), social support (second-order), social presence, community member trust, flow experience and community engagement (second-order). Previous research has linked some of the above-mentioned constructs but not all of them. Therefore, we believe that we have contributed to the existing literature by developing a conceptual model, which has not been proposed before. Second, investigating a specific part of engagement is considered to be an addition to the literature.
For instance, previous research discussed customer brand engagement (Hollebeek et al.
2014), customer engagement (Vivek et al.
2012), and online community brand engagement (Wirtz et al.
2013). However, only the study by Dessart (
2017) investigated community engagement, as part of social media engagement. Thus, we have contributed additional knowledge on community engagement and other relevant constructs in the developing world in general and an emerging market such as Jordan in particular. Third, the way we tested the relationships between constructs, in particular, the second-order constructs, is considered to be another contributions to the existing research. For instance, previous research linked social commerce constructs (second-order) with social support (second-order). However, none of the existing studies linked the relationships, using second-order of the three constructs namely social commerce constructs, social support, and community engagement.
6.2 Implications for Practice
The significant role of social commerce constructs’ dimensions (ratings and reviews, recommendations and referrals, and forums and communities) within Facebook platform at emerging markets makes the association among social commerce constructs, social support dimensions (information and emotion), social presence, community member trust, flow and community engagement dimensions (cognitive, affective, and behaviour) beneficial for social media marketing strategists. The current research has the following implications for social media strategists in general and for Facebook strategists in particular. First, online community strategists should enhance community members’ participation to rate, review, and recommend other members. In other words, community members should feel that they have the power to write and recommend what they feel and think about a particular issue, which is of interest to the community without the interference of the community managers. Our results assert that user interaction with other users via social commerce constructs often generate suggestions for others. Therefore, social media strategists should pay more attention to users’ opinion and thus to act accordingly to enhance users’ experiences over SNS platforms.
Thus, we suggest social media strategists to develop online communities, which users can join later in SNS to get social support, enhance their social presence and establish community trust. Second, community mangers should motivate the members to support other members via informational and emotional support. This could be achieved via the active participation of the members. Therefore, we believe that community managers play a vital role in enhancing and motivating community members’ interaction to help other members via answering their queries and having a more human touch. Doing this will increase community members’ trust in an online community. Thus, we suggest social media strategists to invest more in social commerce constructs (ratings and reviews, recommendations and referrals, and forums and communities) due to their significant role in promoting companies products and in understanding consumer behaviour. More specifically, based on our results, it is highly expected that utilising social commerce constructs will help social media strategists to develop and introduce new brands by enhancing user interaction. Third, to boost online community engagement, we recommend that online community strategists motivate community members to be more active in their participation and advising other members to recommend their online community.
6.3 Limitations and Future Research
Like any other research, this study also has some limitations. First, we collected the data from an online community in Facebook. Therefore, generalisation of our results should be implemented cautiously to other online communities outside Facebook. Second, our sample was from a developing country. Hence, the caution needs to be taken while generalising the findings to the developed countries’ context (Dwivedi and Williams
2008; Dwivedi et al.
2007,
2017; Rana et al.
2016). We advise future researchers to test our conceptual model in developing countries using different social media platforms. Furthermore, we recommend future researchers to replace community engagement with social media engagement and to test our model. Third, we recommend the future researchers to test different types of trust. Moreover, we also recommend future researchers to investigate social commerce IT artefacts and how such tools might impact consumer behaviour within social media platforms. Fourth, this research performed empirical validation of proposed research model using the one time cross-sectional data collected from Jordan (Alalwan et al.
2015,
2016a,
b,
2017a,
b,
2018; Algharabat et al.
2017; Baabdullah et al.
2019; Rana et al.
2015). Hence, the future research could collect longitudinal data to understand Facebook users’ community member trust and community engagement. Finally, the variance explained by the validated research model in community engagement is only 47%. Hence, the future research can include some additional constructs (e.g. social media language preferences) to see if the variance of the model could be improved (Kizgin et al.
2018; Sinha et al.
2019).
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.