SLSS Gamification as an E-Commerce Model in China

References

• Hu T, Dai H, Salam AF. Integrative qualities and dimensions of social commerce: toward a unified view. Inf Manag. 2019;56(2):249–70. doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goode S, Shailer G, Wilson M, Jankowski J. Gifting and status in virtual worlds. J Manag Inf Syst. 2014;31(2):171–210. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222310207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim HW, Kankanhalli A, Lee SH. Examining gifting through social network services: a social exchange theory perspective. Inf Syst Res. 2018;29(4):805–28. doi:10.1287/isre.2017.0737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh P, Ou J, Xu J Will you tip celebrated streamers? Sense of virtual community and the moderating role of subjective happiness. In: The 51st Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2018); Waikoloa Village, USA; 2018. p. 2110–19.
   Google Scholar
• Lu Z, Xia H, Heo S, Wigdor D You watch, you give, and you engage: a study of live streaming practices in China. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems; Montréal, Canada; 2018.p. 466–77.
   Google Scholar
• Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: envisioning future media environments; Tampere, Finland; 2011. p. 9–15.
   Google Scholar
• Werbach K, Hunter D. For the win: how game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia (PA): Wharton Digital Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Salen K, Zimmerman E. Rules of play. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Seaborn K, Fels D. Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2015;74:14–31. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treiblmaier H, Putz L, Lowry PB. Setting a definition, context, and research agenda for the gamification of non-gaming systems. Trans Comput-Hum Interact. 2018;10(3):129–63. doi:10.17705/1thci.00107.
   Google Scholar
• Zichermann G, Linder J. Game-based marketing: inspire customer loyalty through rewards, challenges, and contests. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blohm I, Leimeister JM. Gamification: design of IT-based enhancing services for motivational support and behavioral change. Bus Inf Syst Manag. 2013;5(4):275–78. doi:10.1007/s12599-013-0273-5.
   Google Scholar
• Liu D, Santhanam R, Webster J. Toward meaningful engagement: a framework for design and research of gamified information systems. MIS Quarterly. 2017;41(4):1011–34. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.4.01.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mekler ED, Brühlmann F, Tuch AN, Opwis K. Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Comput Human Behav. 2017;71:525–34. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakamoto M, Nakajima T, Alexandrova T Value-based design for gamifying daily activities. In: Entertainment computing – ICEC 2012, Lecture notes in computer science; Bremen, Germany; 2012;. p. 21–24.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Heijden H. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly. 2004;28(4):695–704. doi:10.2307/25148660.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu J, Lu X. Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators on using utilitarian, hedonic, and dual-purposed information systems: a meta-analysis. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2013;14(3):153–91. doi:10.17705/1jais.00325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci. 1989;35(8):982–1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLone WH, McLean RR. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res. 1992;3(1):60–95. doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLone WH, McLean RR, DeLone T. McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst. 2003;19:9–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morries MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425–78. doi:10.2307/30036540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conboy K, Fitzgerald G, Mathiassen L. Qualitative methods research in information systems: motivations, themes, and contributions. Eur J Inf Syst. 2012;21(2):113–18. doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarker S, Xiao X, Beaulieu T, Lee AS. Learning from first-generation qualitative approaches in the IS discipline: an evolutionary view and some implications for authors and evaluators (part 1/2). J Assoc Inf Syst. 2018;19(8):752–74. doi:10.17705/1jais.00508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu M, Zhang M, Wang Y. Why do audiences choose to keep watching on live video streaming platforms? An explanation of dual identification framework. Comput Human Behav. 2017;75:594–606. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM. Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur J Inf Syst. 2003;22:25–45.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Yadav M, Rahman Z. Measuring consumer perception of social media marketing activities in e-commerce industry: scale development & validation. Telemat Inform. 2017;34(7):1294–307. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombard M, Snyder‐Duch J, Bracken CC. Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res. 2002;28(4):587–604. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Churchill GA Jr. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res J MARKETING RES. 1979;16(1):64–73. doi:10.1177/002224377901600110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton WA, Garretson O, Kerne A Streaming on Twitch: fostering participatory communities of play within live mixed media. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems; Toronto, Canada; 2014.p. 1315–24.
   Google Scholar
• Aparicio M, Oliveira T, Bacao F, Painho M. Gamification: a key determinant of massive openline course (MOOC) success. Inf Manag. 2019;56:39–54. doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.06.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varki S, Colgate M. The role of price perceptions in an integrated model of behavioral intentions. J Serv Res. 2001;3(3):232–40. doi:10.1177/109467050133004.
   Google Scholar
• Kleijnen M, Ruyter K, Wetzels M. An assessment of value creation in mobile service to delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness. J Retail. 2007;83(1):33–46. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2006.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang SS, Van Der Lans R. Modeling gift choice: the effect of uncertainty on price sensitivity. J Mark Res J MARKETING RES. 2018;5(4):524–40. doi:10.1509/jmr.16.0453.
   Google Scholar
• Hu T, Kettinger W, Poston R. The effect of online social value on satisfaction and continued use of social media. Eur J Inf Syst. 2015;24(4):391–410. doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo Y, Barnes S. Why people buy virtual items in virtual worlds with real money. AGM SIGMIS Databse. 2007;38(4):69–76. doi:10.1145/1314234.1314247.
   Google Scholar
• Skageby J. Gift-giving as a conceptual framework: framing social behavior in online networks. J Inf Technol. 2010;25(2):170–77. doi:10.1057/jit.2010.5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedländer MB. Streamer motives and user-generated content on social live-streaming services. J Inf Syst Eng. 2017;5:65–84.
   Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Karahanna E. Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly. 2000;24(4):665–94. doi:10.2307/3250951.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chitturi R, Raghunathan R, Mahajan V. Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. J Mark. 2008;72(3):48–63. doi:10.1509/JMKG.72.3.048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathwick C, Rigdon E. Play, flow, and the online search experience. J Consum Res. 2004;31(2):324–32. doi:10.1086/422111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwivedi A, Johnson LW, McDonald RE. Celebrity endorsement, self-brand connection and consumer-based brand equity. J Prod Brand Manag. 2015;24(5):449–61. doi:10.1108/JPBM-10-2014-0722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ge J, Gretzel U. Emoji rhetoric: a social media influencer perspective. J Mark Manag. 2018;34(15–16):1272–95. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2018.1483960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCracken G. Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. J Consum Res. 1989;16(3):310–21. doi:10.1086/209217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suh A, Cheung CMK, Ahuja M, Wagner C. Gamification in the workplace: the central role of the aesthetic experience. J MIS. 2017;34:268–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen CC, Lin YC. What drives live-stream usage intention? The perspectives of flow, entertainment, social interaction, and endorsement. Telemat Inform. 2018;35(1):293–303. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilvert-Bruce Z, Neill JT, Sjöblom M, Hamari J. Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch. Comput Human Behav. 2018;84:58–67. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodhue DL, Thompson RL. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly. 1995;19(2):213–36. doi:10.2307/249689.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang Z, Chen L, Gillenson ML. Understanding brand fan page followers’ discontinuance motivations: a mixed-method study. Inf Manag. 2019;56(1):94–108. doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamantopoulos A, Siguaw JA. Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. Int J Manage. 2006;17(4):263–82. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis CB, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM. A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. J Consum Res. 2003;30(2):199–218. doi:10.1086/376806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petter S, Straub D, Rai A. Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly. 2007;31(4):623–56. doi:10.2307/25148814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekkers R, Wiepking P. A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2011;40(5):924–73. doi:10.1177/0899764010380927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sailer M, Hense JU, Mayr SK, Mandl H. How gamification motivates: an experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Comput Human Behav. 2017;69:371–80. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward MK, Broniarczyk SM. It’s not me, it’s you: how gift giving creates giver identity threat as a function of social closeness. J Consum Res. 2011;38(1):164–81. doi:10.1086/658166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Daugherty T, Biocca F. Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: the mediating role of presence. J Advert. 2002;31(3):43–57. doi:10.1080/00913367.2002.10673675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamari J, Koivisto J. Why do people use gamification services? Int J Inf Manage. 2015;35:419–31. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson E. Digital gifts: participation and gift exchange in Livejournal communities. First Monday. 2007;12:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Robson K, Plangger K, Kietzmann JH, McCarthy I, Pitt L. Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamification. Bus Horiz. 2015;58(4):411–20. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudreau M, Gefen D, Straub D. Validation in information systems research: a state-of-the-art assessment. MIS Quarterly. 2001;25(1):1–16. doi:10.2307/3250956.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straub D, Boudreau M, Gefen D. Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2004;13(1):380–427. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.01324.
   Google Scholar
• Rai A, Patnayakuni R, Seth N. Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly. 2006;30(2):225–46. doi:10.2307/25148729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöblom M, Törhönen M, Hamari J, Macey J. Content structure is king: an empirical study on gratifications, game genres and content type on Twitch. Comput Human Behav. 2017;73:161–71. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SH, Choi SJ, Kim HW. What makes people send gifts via social network services? A mixed methods approach. Internet Res. 2020;30(1):315–34. doi:10.1108/INTR-12-2018-0551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang TP, Huang CW, Yeh YH, Lin BS. Adoption of mobile technology in business: a fit-viability model. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2007;107(8):1154–69. doi:10.1108/02635570710822796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). The 44th China statistical report on Internet development. Beijing, China; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu Z, Yang Z, Dai Y Understanding the gift-sending interaction on live-streaming video websites. In: International conference on social computing and social media; Las Vegas, NV; 2017.p. 274–85.
   Google Scholar
• Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Modern Business Research Methods. Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Gefen D, Straub DW, Rigdon EE. An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Quarterly. 2011;35(2):iii–xiv. doi:10.2307/23044042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen K. Structural equations with latent variables. New York (NY): Wiley; 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Carmines EG, McIver PP. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RB, Dholakia UM. Intentional social action in virtual communities. J Interact Mark. 2002;16(2):2–21. doi:10.1002/dir.10006.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. New York (NY): McGraw Hill; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Fornell C, Larcker VF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res J MARKETING RES. 1981;18(1):39–50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamantopoulos A, Winklhofer HM. Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J Mark Res J MARKETING RES. 2001;38(2):269–77. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.269.18845.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cenfetelli RT, Bassellier G. Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems research. MIS Quarterly. 2009;33(4):689–707. doi:10.2307/20650323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang H, Nilesh S, Hu Q, Xue Y. Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly. 2007;31(1):59–87. doi:10.2307/25148781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanriverdi H. Information technology relatedness knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. MIS Quarterly. 2005;29(2):311–34. doi:10.2307/25148681.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colman T, Devinney TM, Midgley DF, Venaik S. Formative versus reflective measurement models: two applications of formative measurement. J Bus Res. 2008;61:1250–62. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar