This study investigates how technology acceptance model (TAM) factors and social factors determine customer purchase intention. Although previous studies on mobile apps have investigated TAM, critical social factors have been neglected, thus, reinforcing the need to study the latter’s contribution to consumer purchase intention. Accordingly, this study examines social influence and peer influence in the TAM and collects 777 questionnaires from Digikala app users. Data were then analysed using structural equation modelling by AMOS. The findings indicate that perceived usefulness does not have a significant effect on attitude towards mobile app use. However, perceived ease of use, social and peer influence, and intention to purchase were shown to exhibit positive effects on attitude in this regard. The results also demonstrate that attitude towards mobile app use is a full mediator on three paths of the model. Finally, moderation analysis showed that only age has a mediating effect on the path from perceived usefulness to attitude towards mobile app use.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211.
2.
AlnawasI.AburubF. (2016). The effect of benefits generated from interacting with branded mobile apps on consumer satisfaction and purchase intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 31, 313–322.
3.
AmorosoD.AckaradejruangsriP. (2017). How consumer attitudes improve repurchase intention. Int. J. E-Serv. Mobile Appl. (IJESMA) 9 (3), 38–61.
4.
AulakhP.S.GencturkE.F. (2000). International principal-agent relationships: control, governance and performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 29 (6), 521–538. doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00126-7.
5.
BaekY. (2013). Analysis of user’s attitude toward apps, intention to use and continual consuming intention-Focused on mobile commerce. Int. J. Contents9 (4), 35–44.
6.
BapnaR.UmyarovA. (2015). Do your online friends make you pay? A randomized field experiment on peer influence in online social networks. Manag. Sci. 61 (8), 1902–1920.
7.
BarnesJ.G.CumbyJ.A. (2002). Establishing customer relationships on the internet requires more than technology. Austral. Mark. J. (AMJ) 10 (1), 36–46.
8.
BellmanS.PotterR.F.Treleaven-HassardS.RobinsonJ.A.VaranD.2011. The effectiveness of branded mobile phone apps. J. Interact. Mark. 25 (4), 191–200.
9.
BilgihanA.BujisicM. (2015). The effect of website features in online relationship marketing: a case of online hotel booking. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 14 (4), 222–232.
10.
BookL.A.TanfordS.MontgomeryR.LoveC. (2018). Online traveler reviews as social influence: price is no longer king. J. Hosp. Tourism Res. 42 (3), 445–475.
11.
CarterS.YeoA.C.-M. (2016). Mobile apps usage by Malaysian business undergraduates and postgraduates: implications for consumer behaviour theory and marketing practice. Internet Res. 26 (3), 733–757.
12.
ChangC.-C.2015. Exploring mobile application customer loyalty: the moderating effect of use contexts. Telecomm Policy39 (8), 678–690.
13.
DasguptaS.PaulR.FuloriaS. (2011). Factors affecting behavioral intentions towards mobile banking usage: empirical evidence from India. Romanian J. Mark. 6 (1).
14.
DavisF.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 319–340.
15.
DoubA.E.LevinA.HeathC.E.LeVangieK. (2015). Mobile app-etite: consumer attitudes towards and use of mobile technology in the context of eating behaviour. J. Direct Data Dig. Mark. Pract. 17 (2), 114–129.
16.
EichhornB.R. (2014). Common Method Variance techniques. Cleveland State University, Department of Operations & Supply Chain Management. SAS Institute Inc, Cleveland, OH.
17.
ElekE.Miller-DayM.HechtM.L. (2006). Influences of personal, injunctive, and descriptive norms on early adolescent substance use. J. Drug Issues.
18.
ErkanI.EvansC. (2016). The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: an extended approach to information adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 47–55.
19.
FaqihK.M.JaradatM.-I.R.M. (2015). Assessing the moderating effect of gender differences and individualism-collectivism at individual-level on the adoption of mobile commerce technology: TAM3 perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 22, 37–52.
20.
FishbeinM. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications.
21.
FornellC.LarckerD.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-able variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
22.
Taylor D.G.LevinM. (2014). Predicting mobile app usage for purchasing and information-sharing. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 42 (8), 759–774.
23.
GillM.SridharS.GrewalR. (2017). Return on engagement initiatives: a study of a business-to-business mobile app. J. Mark. 81 (4), 45–66.
24.
GillaniF. (2012). Impact of peer pressure and store atmosphere on purchase intention: an empirical study on the youngsters in Pakistan. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2 (7), 323.
25.
Graf-VlachyL.BuhtzK.KonigA. (2018). Social influence in technology adoption: taking stock and moving forward. Manag. Rev. Q. 68 (1), 37–76.
26.
GuptaA.AroraN. (2017). Understanding determinants and barriers of mobile shopping adoption using behavioral reasoning theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 36, 1–7.
27.
HaI.YoonY.ChoiM. (2007). Determinants of adoption of mobile games under mobile broadband wireless access environment. Inf. Manag44 (3), 276–286.
28.
HairJ.F.SarstedtM.RingleC.M.MenaJ.A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40 (3), 414–433.
29.
HernandezB.JimenezJ.MartinM.J. (2010). Customer behavior in electronic commerce: the moderating effect of e-purchasing experience. J. Bus. Res. 63 (9-10), 964–971.
30.
HewJ.-J.LeeV.-H.OoiK.-B.WeiJ. (2015). What catalyses mobile apps usage intention: an empirical analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115 (7), 1269–1291.
31.
HsuC.-L.LinJ.C.-C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Inf. Manag. 45 (1), 65–74.
32.
HsuC.-L.LinJ.C.-C. (2015). What drives purchase intention for paid mobile apps? -An expectation confirmation model with perceived value. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 14 (1), 46–57.
33.
HsuC.-L.LinJ.C.-C.. (2016). Effect of perceived value and social influences on mobile app stickiness and in-app purchase intention. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change108, 42–53.
34.
HsuC.-L.LuH.-P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Inf. Manag. 41 (7), 853–868.
35.
HuiP.BucheggerS. (2009). Groupthink and peer pressure: social influence in online social network groups. In: Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference on Advances in Social Network Analysis and Mining.
36.
JensenJ.M.WagnerC. (2018). A cross-national comparison of millennial consumers’ initial trust towards an e-travel website. Mark. Intell. Plann. 36 (3), 318–333.
37.
JoshuaA.J.KoshyM.P. (2011). Usage patterns of electronic banking services by urban educated customers: glimpses from India. J. Internet Bank. Commer.
38.
Juaneda-AyensaE.MosqueraA.Sierra MurilloY. (2016). Omnichannel customer behavior: key drivers of technology acceptance and use and their effects on purchase intention. Front. Psychol. 7, 1117.
39.
KangS. (2014). Factors influencing intention of mobile application use. Int. J. Mobile Commun. 12 (4), 360-379.
40.
KarjaluotoH.RiquelmeH.E.RiosR.E. (2010). The moderating effect of gender in the adoption of mobile banking. Int. J. Bank Mark.
41.
KhareA.PandeyS. (2017). Role of green self-identity and peer influence in fostering trust towards organic food retailers. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 45 (9), 969–990.
42.
KimD.-H.HaS.-H.ParkK. (2015). Antecedent factors influencing the continued use of smart banking by different mobile platforms: android OS vs. iOS. J. Inf. Syst. 24 (2), 209–240.
43.
KimS.C.YoonD.HanE.K. (2016). Antecedents of mobile app usage among smart-phone users. J. Mark. Commun. 22 (6), 653–670.
44.
KimS.J.WangR.J.-H.MalthouseE.C. (2015). The effects of adopting and using a brand’s mobile application on customers’ subsequent purchase behavior. J. Interact. Mark. 31, 28–41.
45.
KimS.BaekT.H.KimY.-K.YooK. (2016). Factors affecting stickiness and word of mouth in mobile applications. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 10 (3), 177–192.
46.
KingW.R.HeJ. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43 (6), 740–755.
47.
KnollL.J.Magis-WeinbergL.SpeekenbrinkM.BlakemoreS.-J. (2015). Social influence on risk perception during adolescence. Psychol. Sci. 26 (5), 583–592.
48.
KucukustaD.LawR.BesbesA.LegoherelP. (2015). Re-examining perceived usefulness and ease of use in online booking: the case of Hong Kong online users. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 27 (2), 185–198.
49.
KumarV.ReinartzW. (2018). Future of CRM. Customer Relationship Management. Springer, pp. 385–404.
50.
LaforetS.LiX. (2005). Consumers’ attitudes towards online and mobile banking in China. Int. J. Bank Mark. 23 (5), 362–380.
51.
LaukkanenT.SinkkonenS.KivijarviM.LaukkanenP. (2007). Innovation resistance among mature consumers. J. Consum. Mark. 24 (7), 419–427.
52.
LeeC.-Y.TsaoC.-H.ChangW.-C. (2015). The relationship between attitude toward using and customer satisfaction with mobile application services: an empirical study from the life insurance industry. J. Enterpr. Inf. Manag. 28 (5), 680–697.
53.
LeeM.-C. (2009). Understanding the behavioural intention to play online games: an extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Online Inf. Rev. 33 (5), 849–872.
54.
LeeS. (2018). Enhancing customers’ continued mobile app use in the service industry. J. Serv. Mark. 32 (6), 680–691.
55.
LuX. (2015). Evaluating E-relationship marketing features on hotel mobile apps.
56.
McFarlandD.J.HamiltonD. (2006). Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 22 (3), 427–447.
57.
MorosanC.DeFrancoA. (2016). Modeling guests’ intentions to use mobile apps in hotels: the roles of personalization, privacy, and involvement. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 28 (9), 1968–1991.
58.
MuralidharanS.MenL.R. (2015). How peer communication and engagement motivations influence social media shopping behavior: evidence from China and the United States. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 18 (10), 595–601.
59.
NambisanS.BaronR.A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments: implications for product support and customer relationship management. J. Interact. Mark. 21 (2), 42–62.
60.
NunnallyJ. (1978). C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2.
61.
OlaleyeS.A.SaloJ.SanusiI.T.OkunoyeA.O. (2018). Retailing mobile app usefulness: customer perception of performance, trust and tension free. Int. J. E-Serv. Mobile Appl. (IJESMA) 10 (4), 1–17.
62.
OpokuR. (2012). Young Saudi adults and peer group purchase influence: a preliminary investigation. Young Consum. 13 (2), 176–187.
63.
PayneA.FrowP. (2017). Relationship marketing: looking backwards towards the future. J. Serv. Mark. 31 (1), 11–15.
64.
PengS.YangA.CaoL.YuS.XieD. (2017). Social influence modeling using information theory in mobile social networks. Inf. Sci. 379, 146–159.
65.
PentinaI.PullinsE.B.WilkinsonJ.W. (2014). Comparing drivers of social media marketing adoption by salespeople in Australia and the USA: a pilot study. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Manag. 1 (1-2), 146–165.
66.
QinL.KimY.HsuJ.TanX. (2011). The effects of social influence on user acceptance of online social networks. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 27 (9), 885–899.
67.
RiveraM.GregoryA.CobosL. (2015). Mobile application for the timeshare industry: the influence of technology experience, usefulness, and attitude on behavioral intentions. J. Hosp. Tourism Technol. 6 (3), 242–257.
68.
San-MartinS.JimenezN.Lopez-CatalanB. (2016). The firms benefits of mobile CRM from the relationship marketing approach and the TOE model. Spanish J. Market.-ESIC20 (1), 18–29.
69.
SchepersJ.WetzelsM. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Inf. Manag. 44 (1), 90–103.
70.
ScullyK.MoitalM. (2016). Peer influence strategies in collectively consumed products (events and festivals): an exploratory study among university students. Young Consum. 17 (1), 46–63.
71.
SeitzV.A.AldebasiN.M. (2016). The effectiveness of branded mobile apps on user’s brand attitudes and purchase intentions. Rev. Econ. Bus. Stud. 9 (1), 141–154.
72.
SharmaS.ConduitJ.HillS.R. (2014). Organisational capabilities for customer participation in health care service innovation. Austral. Mark. J. (AMJ)22 (3), 179–188.
73.
ShermanL.E.GreenfieldP.M.HernandezL.M.DaprettoM. (2018). Peer influence via instagram: effects on brain and behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Child Dev. 89 (1), 37–47.
74.
ShermanL.E.PaytonA.A.HernandezL.M.GreenfieldP.M.DaprettoM. (2016). The power of the like in adolescence: effects of peer influence on neural and behavioral responses to social media. Psychol. Sci. 27 (7), 1027–1035.
75.
ShinD.-H. (2015). Effect of the customer experience on satisfaction with smart-phones: assessing smart satisfaction index with partial least squares. Telecomm. Policy39 (8), 627–641.
76.
TalukderM.QuaziA. (2011). The impact of social influence on individuals’ adoption of innovation. J. Org. Comput. Electron. Commer. 21 (2), 111–135.
ThaichonP. (2017). Consumer socialization process: the role of age in children’s online shopping behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 34, 38–47.
79.
ThaichonP.QuachT.N. (2015). The relationship between service quality, satisfaction, trust, value, commitment and loyalty of internet service providers’ customers. J. Glob. Schol. Mark. Sci. 25 (4), 295–313.
80.
ThaichonP.LoboA.QuachT.N. (2016). The moderating role of age in customer loyalty formation process. Serv. Mark. Q. 37 (1), 52-70
81.
TsengL.-Y.LeeT.-S. (2013). Investigating the factors influence tweens’ purchase intention through peer conformity in Taiwan. Adv. Manag. Appl. Econ. 3 (3), 259.
82.
ValentineD.B.PowersT.L. (2013). Generation Y values and lifestyle segments. J. Consum. Mark.
83.
VenkateshV. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11 (4), 342-365.
84.
VenkateshV.BalaH. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39 (2), 273–315.
85.
VenkateshV.DavisF.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci46 (2), 186–204.
86.
VenkateshV.MorrisM.G.DavisG.B.DavisF.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 425–478.
87.
VerissimoJ.M.C. (2016). Enablers and restrictors of mobile banking app use: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). J. Bus. Res. 69 (11), 5456–5460.
88.
VermaV.SharmaD.ShethJ. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 44 (2), 206–217.
89.
ViswanathanV.HollebeekL.D.MalthouseE.C.MaslowskaE.Jung KimS.XieW., (2017). The dynamics of consumer engagement with mobile technologies. Serv. Sci. 9 (1), 36–49.
90.
WalkerR.H.FrancisH. (2003). Customer service and relationship management in the context of technology-enabled service delivery systems. Austral. Mark. J. (AMJ) 11 (2), 23–33.
91.
WalumbwaF.O.HartnellC.A.MisatiE. (2017). Does ethical leadership enhance group learning behavior? Examining the mediating influence of group ethical conduct, justice climate, and peer justice. J. Bus. Res. 72, 14–23.
92.
WangS.-m.Chuan-Chuan LinJ. (2011). The effect of social influence on bloggers’ usage intention. Online Inf. Rev. 35 (1), 50–65.
93.
WongC.H.TanG.W.H.LokeS.P.OoiK.B. (2014). Mobile TV: a new form of entertainment? Ind. Manag. Data Syst.
94.
YoganathanD.JebarajakirthyC.ThaichonP. (2015). The influence of relationship marketing orientation on brand equity in banks. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 26, 14–22.
95.
YuC.-S. (2012). Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: empirical evidence from the UTAUT model. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 13 (2), 104.
96.
YuanS.LiuY.YaoR.LiuJ. (2014). An investigation of users’ continuance intention towards mobile banking in China. Inf. Dev.
