Top

Service Business

Published in:

09-07-2021 | Empirical article

What triggers usage of gift-giving apps? A comparison between users and non-users

Authors: Wee-Kheng Tan, Ping-Hsin Liao

Published in: Service Business | Issue 3/2021

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Service sector companies, like cafes and convenience stores, have introduced applications (apps) that permit customers (givers) to gift beverages to their acquaintances (receivers), who redeem the gift at a convenient outlet. Using social capital theory, affective forecasting theory, and hedonic-utilitarian duality, this study investigates adoption and (continual) use of gift-giving apps. The partial least squares analysis on 223 giver-users and 335 giver-non-users showed that bonding and bridging social capital encourage giver-non-users to use the apps. Bonding social capital encourages giver-users to continue using the apps. Additionally, giver-non-users and giver-users view the apps as hedonic and utilitarian, respectively.

previous article Transforming customer brand engagement to co-creation value through participation energy and effort

next article On the data-driven generation of new service idea: integrated approach of morphological analysis and text mining

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Antheunis ML, Schouten AP, Krahmer E (2016) The role of social networking sites in early adolescents’ social lives. J Early Adolesc 36(3):348–371CrossRef

Baskin E, Wakslak CJ, Trope Y, Novemsky N (2014) Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers that to givers: a construal-level approach to gift giving. J Consum Res 41(1):169–185CrossRef

Batra R, Ahtola OT (1991) Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Mark Lett 2(2):159–170CrossRef

Belk RW (1996) The meaning of gifts and greetings. In: Corfman KP, Lynch J (eds) Advances in consumer research, vol 23. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, p 13

Berry LL, Seiders K, Grewal D (2002) Understanding service convenience. J Mark 66(3):1–17CrossRef

Botti S, McGill AL (2011) The locus of choice: personal causality and satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian decisions. J Consum Res 37(6):1065–1078CrossRef

Brown G, Michinov N (2019) Measuring latent ties on Facebook: a novel approach to studying their prevalence and relationship with bridging social capital. Technol Soc 59:101176CrossRef

Bulley A, Schacter DL (2020) Deliberating trade-offs with the future. Nat Hum Behav 4(3):238–247CrossRef

Burt RS (1997) The contingent value of social capital. Adm Sci Q 42(2):339–365CrossRef

Chae SW, Kang YJ (2016) The effect of mobile network social gamers’ altruism on continuous usage intention: The mediating effect of social relational capital. Inf Syst Res 25(1):201–223

Chen HT, Lin YT (2018) A study of the relationships among sensory experience, emotion, and buying behavior in coffeehouse chains. Serv Bus 12:551–573CrossRef

Cheng A, Meloy MG, Polman E (2020) Picking gifts for picky people. J Retail 97:191–206CrossRef

Childers TL, Carr C, Peck J, Carson S (2001) Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. J Retail 77(4):511–535CrossRef

Chin W (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides G (ed) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 295–358

Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:S95–S120CrossRef

D’Argembeau A, Renaud O, Van der Linden M (2011) Frequency, characteristics and functions of future-oriented thoughts in daily life. Appl Cogn Psychol 25(1):96–103CrossRef

Deng L, Turner DE, Gehling R, Prince B (2010) User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT. Eur J Inf Syst 19(1):60–75CrossRef

Diener E, Lucas RE, Napa Scollon C (2006) Beyond the hedonic treadmill: revising the adaptation theory of well-being. Am Psychol 61(4):305–314CrossRef

Ellison N, Steinfield C, Lampe C (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends.” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput-Mediat Commun 12(4):1143–1168CrossRef

Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Boston

Fornell C, Larcker D (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50CrossRef

Fu S, Yan Q, Feng GC (2018) Who will attract you? Similarity effect among users on online purchase intention of movie tickets in the social shopping context. Int J Inf Manag 40:88–102CrossRef

Galak J, Redden JP (2018) The properties and antecedents of hedonic decline. Annu Rev Psychol 69:1–25CrossRef

Gan C, Li H (2018) Understanding the effects of gratifications on the continuance intention to use WeChat in China: a perspective on uses and gratifications. Comput Hum Behav 78:306–315CrossRef

Geisser S (1975) The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J Am Stat Assoc 70(350):320–328CrossRef

Gilbert DT, Wilson TD (2007) Prospection: experiencing the future. Science 317(5843):1351–1354CrossRef

Goffman E (1971) Relations in public: microstudies of the public order. Allen Lane, London

Granovetter M (1983) The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol Theory 1:201–233CrossRef

Grottke M, Hacker J, Durst C (2018) Which factors determine our online social capital? an analysis based on structural equation modelling. Australas J Inf Syst 22:1–36

Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory and Pract 19(2):139–151CrossRef

Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2017) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Hair JF, Page M, Brunsveld N (2020) Essentials of business research methods, 4th edn. Routledge, New York

Harvey J, Smith A, Golightly D (2017) Giving and sharing in the computer-mediated economy. J Consum Behav 16(4):363–371CrossRef

Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics R (2009) The use of partial least squares path modelling in international marketing. New Chall Int Mark: Adv Int Mark 20:277–320

Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43(1):115–135CrossRef

Hepola J, Leppaniemi M, Karjaluoto H (2020) Is it all about consumer engagement? Explaining continuance intention for utilitarian and hedonic service consumption. J Retail Consum Serv 57:102232CrossRef

Heyman J, Ariely D (2004) Effort for payment: a tale of two markets. Psychol Sci 15(11):787–793CrossRef

Hirschman EC, Holbrook MB (1982) Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. J Mark 46(3):92–101CrossRef

Hlee S, Lee J, Yang SB, Koo C (2019) The moderating effect of restaurant type on hedonic versus utilitarian review evaluations. Int J Hosp Manag 77:195–206CrossRef

Ho JC, Wu CG, Lee CS, Pham TTT (2020) Factors affecting the behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking: an international comparison. Technol Soc 63:101360CrossRef

Horng SM, Wu CL (2020) How behaviors on social network sites and online social capital influence social commerce intentions. Inf Manag 57(2):103176CrossRef

Jeong SC, Kim SH, Park JY, Choi B (2017) Domain-specific innovativeness and new product adoption: a case of wearable devices. Telemat Inform 34(5):399–412CrossRef

Jiang L, Yang Z, Jun M (2012) Measuring consumer perceptions of online shopping convenience. J Serv Manag 24(2):191–214CrossRef

Jumaan IA, Hashim NH, Al-Ghazali BM (2020) The role of cognitive absorption in predicting mobile internet users’ continuance intention: an extension of the expectation-confirmation model. Technol Soc 63:101355CrossRef

Jun J, Kim J, Tang L (2017) Does social capital matter on social media? An examination into negative e-WOM toward competing brands. J Hosp Mark Manag 26(4):378–394

Jung MH, Nelson LD, Gneezy A, Gneezy U (2014) Paying more when paying for others. J Personal Soc Psychol 107(3):414–431CrossRef

Karl M, Kock F, Ritchie BW, Gauss J (2021) Affective forecasting and travel decision-making: an investigation in times of a pandemic. Ann Tour Res 87:103139CrossRef

Kasilingam DL (2020) Understanding the attitude and intention to use smartphone chatbots for shopping. Technol Soc 62:101280CrossRef

Kim J, Natter M, Spann M (2009) Pay-what-you-want: a new participative pricing mechanism. J Mark 73(1):44–58CrossRef

Kim E, Libaque-Saenz CF, Park MC (2019a) Understanding shopping routes of offline purchasers: selection of search-channels (online vs. offline) and search-platforms (mobile vs. PC) based on product types. Serv Bus 13:305–338CrossRef

Kim MK, Kim HY, Kang YA (2019b) Influence of gift-giving in social network games on social capital: Relationship types, gift-giving types, and the big five factors of personality. Int J Hum Comput Interact 35(1):38–52CrossRef

Kizilcec RF, Bakshy E, Eckles D, Burke M (2018) Social influence and reciprocity in online gift giving. CHI 2018, April 21–26, 2018, Montréal, QC, Canada

Ku ECS, Chen CD (2020) Flying on the clouds: how mobile applications enhance impulsive buying of low cost carriers. Serv Bus 14:23–45CrossRef

Kurtz JL (2018) Affective forecasting. In: Diener E, Oishi S, Tay L (eds) Handbook of wellbeing. DEF Publishers, Salt Lake City UT

Lai IKW, Wong JWC (2021) From exhibitor engagement readiness to perceived exhibition performance via relationship quality. J Hosp Tour Manag 46:144–152CrossRef

Larsen D, Watson JJ (2001) A guide map to the terrain of gift value. Psychol Mark 18(8):889–906CrossRef

Lee SM, Lee DH (2020a) “Untact”: a new customer service strategy in the digital age. Serv Bus 14:1–22CrossRef

Lee SM, Lee DH (2020b) Healthcare wearable devices: an analysis of key factors for continuous use intention. Serv Bus 14:503–531CrossRef

Lee J, Kim J, Choi J (2019) The adoption of virtual reality devices: the technology acceptance model integrating enjoyment, social interaction, and strength of the social ties. Telemat Inform 39:37–48CrossRef

Lee D, Ng PML, Bogomolova S (2020) The impact of university brand identification and eWOM behaviour on students’ psychological wellbeing: a multi-group analysis among active and passive social media users. J Mark Manag 36(3–4):384–403CrossRef

Li J, Abbasi A, Cheema A, Abraham LB (2020) Path to purpose? How online customer journeys differ for hedonic versus utilitarian purchases. J Mark 84(4):127–146CrossRef

Lin N (1999) Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22(1):28–51

Lin N (2001) Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Liu F, Ngai E, Ju X (2019) Understanding mobile health service use: an investigation of routine and emergency use intentions. Int J Inf Manag 45:107–117CrossRef

Liu F, Lim E, Li H, Tan CW, Cyr D (2020) Disentangling utilitarian and hedonic consumption behavior in online shopping: an expectation disconfirmation perspective. Inf Manag 57(3):103199CrossRef

Mamonov S, Benbunan-Fich R (2017) Exploring factors affecting social e-commerce service adoption: the case of Facebook Gifts. Int J Inf Manag 37(6):590–600CrossRef

Manago AM, Melton CJ (2020) Emerging adults’ views on masspersonal self-disclosure and their bridging social capital on Facebook. J Adolesc Res 35(1):111–146CrossRef

Meek S, Ogilvie M, Lambert C, Ryan MM (2019) Contextualising social capital in online brand communities. J Brand Manag 26:426–444CrossRef

Mellers BA, McGraw AP (2001) Anticipated emotions as guides to choice. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 10(6):210–214CrossRef

Mpinganjira M (2019) Willingness to reciprocate in virtual health communities: the role of social capital, gratitude and indebtedness. Serv Bus 13:269–287CrossRef

Nascimento B, Oliveira T, Tam C (2018) Wearable technology: what explains continuance intention in smartwatches? J Retail Consum Serv 43:157–169CrossRef

Ng P, Lee D, Wong P, Lam R (2020) Making a higher education institution choice: differences in the susceptibility to online information on students’ advice-seeking behavior. Online Inf Rev 44(4):847–861CrossRef

Pang H (2018) How does time spent on WeChat bolster subjective well-being through social integration and social capital? Telematics Inf 35(8):2147–2156CrossRef

Park C, Lee H, Jun J, Lee T (2018) Two-sided effects of customer participation: roles of relationships and social-interaction values in social services. Serv Bus 12:621–640CrossRef

Pereira HG, de Fatima SM, Rita P (2017) Online determinants of e-customer satisfaction: application to website purchases in tourism. Serv Bus 11:375–403CrossRef

Perry R, Drachen A, Kearney A, Kriglstein S, Nacke LE, Sifa R, Johnson D (2018) Online-only friends, real-life friends or strangers? Differential associations with passion and social capital in video game play. Comput Hum Behav 79:202–210CrossRef

Phua J, Jin SV, Kim J (2017) Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: a comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Comput Hum Behav 72:115–122CrossRef

Polman E, Maglio SJ (2017) Mere gifting: liking a gift more because it is shared. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 43(11):1582–1594CrossRef

Putnam R (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, New York

Putnam R (2001) Social capital: measurement and consequences. Can J Policy Res 2:41–51

Raza SA, Qazi W, Umer A (2017) Facebook is a source of social capital building among university students: evidence from a developing country. J Educ Comput Res 55(3):295–322CrossRef

Robben HSJ, Verhallen TMM (1994) Behavioral costs as determinants of cost perception and preference formation for gifts to receive and gifts to give. J Econ Psychol 15(2):333–350CrossRef

Roy R, Ng S (2012) Regulatory focus and preference reversal between hedonic and utilitarian consumption. J Consum Behav 11(1):81–88CrossRef

Roy SK, Shekhar V, Lassar WM, Chen T (2018) Customer engagement behaviors: the role of service convenience, fairness and quality. J Retail Consum Serv 44:293–304CrossRef

Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):54–67CrossRef

Sarstedt M, Cheah JH (2019) Partial least squares structural equation modeling using SmartPLS: a software review. J Mark Anal 7:196–202CrossRef

Sarstedt M, Henseler J, Ringle CM (2011) Multi-group analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: alternative methods and empirical results. Adv Int Mark 22:195–218CrossRef

Sherry JF Jr, McGrath MA, Levy SJ (1993) The dark side of the gift. J Bus Res 28(3):225–244CrossRef

Sinha SK, Verma P (2020) Impact of sales promotion’s benefits on perceived value: does product category moderate the results? J Retail and Consume Serv 52:101887CrossRef

Sjastad H, Baumeister RF, Ent M (2020) Greener grass or sour grapes? How people value future goals after initial failure. J Exp Soc Psychol 88:103965CrossRef

Skageby J (2010) Gift-giving as a conceptual framework: framing social behavior in online networks. J Inf Technol 25(2):170–177CrossRef

Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J Roy Stat Soc 36(2):111–133

Sweeney JC, Soutar GN (2001) Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. J Retail 77(2):203–220CrossRef

Teng CI (2018) Look to the future: enhancing online gamer loyalty from the perspective of the theory of consumption values. Decis Support Syst 114:49–60CrossRef

Tiwari S, Lane M, Alam K (2019) Do social networking sites build and maintain social capital online in rural communities? J Rural Stud 66:1–10CrossRef

To PL, Liao C, Lin TH (2007) Shopping motivations on Internet: a study based on utilitarian and hedonic value. Technovation 27(12):774–787CrossRef

Van der Heijden H (2004) User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q 28(4):695–704CrossRef

Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res 11(4):342–365CrossRef

Vieira V, Santini FO, Araujo CF (2016) A meta-analytic review of hedonic and utilitarian shopping values. J Consum Mark 35(4):426–437CrossRef

Vitak J, Ellison N, Steinfield C (2011) The ties that bond. Re-examining the relationship between Facebook use and bonding social capital. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10

Wang HY, Wang YS (2008) Gender differences in the perception and acceptance of online games. Br J Educ Technol 39(5):787–806

Williams D (2006) On and off the net: scales for social capital in an online era. Comput Med Commun 11(2):593–628CrossRef

Wilson TD, Gilbert DT (2003) Affective forecasting. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 35(35):345–411CrossRef

Yee N (2006) Motivations for play in online games. Cyber Psychol Behav 9(6):772–775CrossRef

Zhai Y (2019) The role of online social capital in the relationship between Internet use and self-worth. Curr Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0149-zCrossRef

Zhao L, Lu Y (2012) Enhancing perceived interactivity through network externalities: an empirical study on micro-blogging service satisfaction and continuance intention. Decis Support Syst 53(4):825–834CrossRef

Zheng X, Men J, Yang F, Gong X (2019) Understanding impulse buying in mobile commerce: an investigation into hedonic and utilitarian browsing. Int J Inf Manag 48:151–160CrossRef

Zollo L, Faldetta G, Pellegrini M, Ciappei C (2017) Reciprocity and gift-giving logic in NPOs. J Manag Psychol 32(7):513–526CrossRef

Title: What triggers usage of gift-giving apps? A comparison between users and non-users
Authors: Wee-Kheng Tan
Ping-Hsin Liao
Publication date: 09-07-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Service Business / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 1862-8516
Electronic ISSN: 1862-8508
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-021-00453-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

Customer-based brand equity and customer engagement in experiential services: insights from an emerging economy

The thirty-year evolution of customer-to-customer interaction research: a systematic literature review and research implications

On the data-driven generation of new service idea: integrated approach of morphological analysis and text mining

Transforming customer brand engagement to co-creation value through participation energy and effort

The size–growth relationship in the social services sector in Austria