The Impact of E-Commerce on Purchase Intention with the Mediating Role of Social Applications among SnapFood Customers

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Master's student, Department of Business-Technology Management, Electronics Unit, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Management Department, Electronics Unit, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Purpose: In today’s digital economy, e-commerce has become a cornerstone of modern business, profoundly transforming organizational operations and consumer purchasing behavior. Online shopping platforms have been central to this shift across various industries. One particularly notable area of transformation is the online food delivery sector. Among the leading platforms in this space is SnapFood, which has streamlined the process of ordering meals through its digital interface. This study aims to examine the impact of e-commerce on purchase intention, with a specific focus on the mediating role of social applications among SnapFood users.
Method: This applied, descriptive-survey research targeted the population of SnapFood users in Tehran. A stratified sampling method was employed, and based on Morgan's table, a sample size
of 384 participants was determined. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire's validity was confirmed through construct validity, and its reliability was verified using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. A one-sample t-test was utilized to assess the status of the research indicators. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 22 and AMOS 26, employing statistical techniques including the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate model fit.
Findings: For the variables of social applications, e-commerce, and purchase intention, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test statistics were 0.25, 0.14, and 0.89, respectively—all below the critical threshold of 1.96—indicating that the data distribution for each variable met the assumption of normality. Results from the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated a satisfactory model fit across all constructs, confirming that the measurement indicators appropriately represented their corresponding latent variables. The path coefficient between e-commerce and social applications was 0.58, with a significance value of 7.48, indicating a statistically significant relationship. Similarly, social applications had a significant influence on purchase intention, with a coefficient of 0.42 and a
p-value of 0.004. The direct effect of e-commerce on purchase intention was also significant, with a coefficient of 0.32 and a significance value of 3.12. Respondents rated all research indicators above the average level.
Conclusion: The analysis confirms that e-commerce has a significant direct impact on purchase intention and also directly influences the use of social applications. Social applications, in turn, significantly affect purchase intention, serving as a mediating factor in the relationship between
e-commerce and purchase intention. Based on these findings, it is recommended that businesses develop marketing strategies driven by social media to promote their products and services. Key strategies may include targeted advertising, content marketing, promotional campaigns, discount offers, customer engagement initiatives, and interactive online events. Additionally, given the positive relationship between e-commerce and purchase intention, businesses should leverage digital marketing tools, enhance the online shopping experience, and implement loyalty programs to increase customer engagement and conversion rates.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a Driver of Preferential Attachment in the Evolution of Research Collaboration Networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 403–412. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.002
Amador, S.R., Pérez, M.D., Perez, M.J.L.H., Font P.J.R. (2018). Indicator system for managing science, technology and innovation in universities. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1575-1587.                
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2721-y.
Aoki, R. (2020). Science, Technology & Innovation and Future Design. In T. Saijo (eds.) Future Design: Incorporating Preferences of Future Generations for Sustainability (pp. 79–88). Springer Singapore.
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 how actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management annals, 3(1), 65-107.
Bauer, J., Lang, A., Schneider, V. (2012). Innovation policy and governance in hightech industries: The complexity of coordination. Springer Science & Business Media.
Bevir, M. (2008). Key concepts in governance. Sage.
Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D.A., Schnell, J., Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363–376.
Biglu, M.H. (2008). Editor Scientometric study of patent literature in medicine. Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting, Berlin.
Borrás, Susana. (2008). The widening and deepening of innovation policy: what conditions provide for effective governance?. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Borrás, Susana. (2007). The European Commission as network broker. European integration online papers 11, no. 1.
Burmaoglu S., Saritas, O. (2019). An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?. Scientometrics, 118(3), 823-847. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03014-1
Braun, D., Merrien. F. (1999). Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. https://iris.unil.ch/handle/iris/85885.
Calestous, J. (2003). Science and technology diplomacy: concepts and elements of a work programme. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. United Nations, New York and Geneva. Pdf Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/489139?ln=en (18 August 2023).
Callon, M., Courtial, J.P., Turner, W.A., Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Information (International Social Science Council), 22(2), 191-235. doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003
Callon, M., Courtial, J.P., Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network
of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155-205. doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
Data Governance Institute (2023). Data Governance: The Basic Information. Available at:         
https://datagovernance.com/the-data-governance-basics/ (18 August 2023).
Dobriansky. P. (2006). The Art of Science Diplomacy. US Department of State Magazine, 502: 18-23
Elder, J., Stefan K., Ruud S. (2003). New governance for innovation: The need for horizontal and systemic policy co-ordination. No. 2. Fraunhofer ISI discussion papers innovation systems and policy analysis.
Fatollahzadeh, F., Hariri, N., Sajedinejad, A., Babalhavaeji, F., & Pournaghi, R. (2022). Identifying components of data governance in the organizational context: meta-synthesis of literature.. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, (In press).         
doi: 10.22091/stim.2022.7660.1705
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB journal, 22(2),
338-342.
Faradars (2023). Exploratory research and its methods - getting to know the basic concepts of the research method. Available at: https://b.fdrs.ir/37m (21 August 2023). [In Persian]
Fedoroff, N. V. (2009). Science diplomacy in the 21st century. Cell, 136(1), 9–11.     
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.12.030.
He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133-59.  
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/8267
Hagh Panahan, H.R., karami, H., Hemmaty, M. (2021). The relationship between good governance and protection of social capital as one of the components of soft power by looking at the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Soft power Studies, 11(1), 137-168.
Hicks, D. and Melkers, J. (2012). Bibliometrics as a Tool for Research Evaluation. In A. Link & N. Vornatas (eds.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, Edward Elgar, (Pp. 1-25).
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520: 429–431.
Hajihoseini, H., & Karimmian, Z. (2019). STI Policy Process and Its Governance. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 71-86.
Hu, C.P., Hu, J.M., Deng, S.L., Liu, Y. (2013). A co-word analysis of library and information
science in China. Scientometrics, 97(2), 369- 382. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1076-7
Huang, C., Su, J., Xie, X., Ye, X., Li, Z., Porter, A., & Li, J. (2015). A Bibliometric Study of China’s Science and Technology Policies: 1949–2010. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1521–1539.   
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1406-4.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford university press.
Jia, Y., Liu, C., Yin, C., & Zhu, Q. (2020). The Construction of Science and Technology Innovation Policy Design Framework—Take Shandong Province as an Example. Journal of Industry-University Collaboration, 2(1), 34–48. DOI: 10.1108/JIUC-08-2019-0015.
Iwami, S. (2017). Study on the destination of research via knowledge flows. Scientometrics, 112,
273-288. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2395-x
Ivancheva, L. (2008). Scientometrics Today: A Methodological Overview. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management (CJSIM), 2(2), 47-56.
Kumar, S., Jan, J.M. (2012). Discovering Knowledge Landscapes: An Epistemic Analysis of Business and Management Field in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 1027-1032. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.237
Kumar, S. (2015). Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management. 67(1), 55-73. doi: 10.1108/AJIM-09-2014-0116
Law, J., Bauin, S., Courtial, J., Whittaker, J. (1988). Policy and the mapping of scientific change: A co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics, 14(3-4), 251-64. doi: 10.1007/BF02020078
Laranja, M. (2012). Network governance of innovation policies: The Technological Plan in Portugal. Science and Public Policy, 39(5), 655-668.
Lord, K.M., Turekian, V.C. (2007). Science and society. Time for a new era of science diplomacy. Science, 315(5813): 769-70. doi: 10.1126/science.1139880. PMID: 17289962.
López-Rubio, P., Roig-Tierno, N., & Mas-Tur, A. (2022). Which Regions Produce The Most Innovation Policy Research?. Policy Studies, 43(5), 1112–1134.
DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2021.1937595.
Liu, F., Chen, Y. W., Yang, J. B., Xu, D. L., & Liu, W. (2019). Solving multiple-criteria R&D project selec-tion problems with a data-driven evidential reasoning rule. International Journal of Project Manage-ment, 37(1), 87–97.
Liu, W., Tang, L. & Hu, G. Funding information in Web of Science: an updated overview. Scientometrics 122, 1509–1524 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03362-3
Lynn Jr, L. E., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 233-262.
Melcer, E., Nguyen, T.H.D, Chen, Z., Canossa, A., El-Nasr, M.S., Isbister, K. (2015). Games research today: Analyzing the academic landscape, 2000-2014. The 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. Pacific Grove, USA, June 22-25.     
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278678569
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228.
Ryan, G.W., Bernard, H.R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes Kumar S & Jan. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109.
Santos, A. B. (2015). Open Innovation research: Trends and Influences – A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Innovation Management, 3(2), 131–165. DOI: 10.24840/2183-0606_003.002_0010.
Waltman, L., Noyons, E. (2018). Bibliometrics for Research Management and Research Evaluation. Meaningful metrics, Leiden University. 1-28.
Wang, X., Inaba, M. (2009). Analyzing structures and evolution of digital humanities based on correspondence analysis and co-word analysis. Art research, 9, 123-134.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053-1070.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Sciences and Techniques of Information Management
Volume 11, Issue 2
July 2025
Pages 7-32

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics