=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2327/HUMANIZE3
|storemode=property
|title=Personalizing User Interactions in a Social Shopping Context and Open Challenges
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2327/IUI19WS-HUMANIZE-4.pdf
|volume=Vol-2327
|authors=Yu Xu,Michael Lee
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/iui/XuL19
}}
==Personalizing User Interactions in a Social Shopping Context and Open Challenges==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2327/IUI19WS-HUMANIZE-4.pdf
Personalizing User Interactions in a Social Shopping Context
and Open Challenges
Yu Xu and Michael J. Lee
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Newark, New Jersey, USA
{yx296,mjlee}@njit.edu
ABSTRACT write reviews and comments, rate products, and share their experi-
Social shopping enables people to share and discuss about shopping ence while shopping on the Internet [10, 16]. The social attributes
in collaborative shopping environments. While much work has of products and shopping experiences are major factors and con-
focused on using social data to promote shopping, fewer works have tributors in online shopping activities [12, 33]. Therefore, peoples’
examined the wayd people socialize in the context of shopping as shopping experiences in the context of social shopping involve
a personalized collaborative activity. In this paper, we propose to more social and collaborative interactions between user groups,
use qualitative methods to gain insight into people’s perceptions, and lead to further possibilities for exploration of how users’ social
concerns, and challenges in social shopping-related activities. Based shopping experience can be accommodated and enriched through
on the findings, our work may contribute to the design of future personalized design of social shopping interfaces.
online shopping sites and social media platforms that improve user However, in the field of "social shopping," popular media chan-
engagement and participation in social shopping interactions, as nels and academic research mainly focus on the "shopping" as-
well as facilitating personalized shopping and social experiences in pect and largely overlook the "social" characteristics [9]. While
online communities. most current research has studied how social interactions between
users may contribute to a boost in the sales of products and ser-
CCS CONCEPTS vices [14, 15, 22], very few have examined how personalized inter-
face design can promote user experience and shape shopping as a
• Human-Centered Computing → User Models; Interactive Sys-
collaborative social activity on social media and online communi-
tems and Tools.
ties. Recent developments in e-commerce and social media have
attracted more individuals to interact with other users on online
KEYWORDS
marketplaces and shopping forums, as well as their family and
Personalization; Interface Design; Social Context; Social Shopping; friends on social networking sites. With the increasing user par-
Social Network ticipation in sharing, discussion, and referrals on social media and
ACM Reference Format: retailers’ sites such as Amazon.com, Best Buy, eBay, and Etsy.com,
Yu Xu and Michael J. Lee. 2019. Personalizing User Interactions in a Social researchers may extend the existing knowledge to the personal-
Shopping Context and Open Challenges. In Joint Proceedings of the ACM ization of user experience in a social shopping context, and how
IUI 2019 Workshops, Los Angeles, USA, March 20, 2019 , 4 pages. such shopping interactions may lead to impact on users’ social rela-
tionships. For example, traditional social matching systems support
1 INTRODUCTION matching based on romantic intimacy—mainly online dating (e.g.,
Social shopping has emerged as a new form of e-commerce which Tinder, Match.com, OKCupid)—and a wide range of other social
incorporates social media features into traditional e-commerce needs, including professional networking (e.g. LinkedIn), group
platforms [7]. Social shopping facilitates user interactions for the event planning (e.g. Doodle, Meetup), and information-sharing
purpose of sharing, discussing, and exchanging information about (e.g., Yelp, TripAdvisor, Pinterest) [29]. The characteristics of social
products and services they intend to purchase [31]. Shopping in a shopping—where users shop for products and interact by reviewing,
social interactive environment enabled by social media sites and ap- commenting, discussing, and recommending products on multiple
plications brings the possibility of unique and personalized user ex- online platforms—create enormous potential for forming new social
periences to consumers [24]. Social shopping is regarded as having connections and maintaining current social relationships.
the potential to revolutionize online shopping activities, and recent In this paper, we present a research proposal aimed at under-
years have witnessed its power to transform a product-centered standing the challenges that users face in current social shopping
commercial environment to a user-centered online community [19]. platforms, and how a more personalized design of social shopping
Compared with traditional one-way interactions on e-commerce interfaces may help promote user participation, facilitate social
platforms—where users search for and purchase products provided relationships, and improve existing friendships on social media and
by businesses [32]—social shopping allows users to communicate, online communities. The following section will outline related work
in social shopping, as well as the research proposal and potential
design implications.
IUI Workshops’19, March 20, 2019, Los Angeles, USA
Copyright © 2019 for the individual papers by the papers’ authors. Copying permitted
for private and academic purposes. This volume is published and copyrighted by its
editors.
IUI Workshops’19, March 20, 2019, Los Angeles, USA Y. Xu & M.J. Lee
2 RELATED WORK with their expressed opinions. The other relevant risk related to the
Below we review a summary of prior social shopping research that social community is perceived social risk, which reflects potential
explores people’s shopping activities in social media environments. loss of social status in the social networks or online communities.
We then examine the perceived risks associated with people’s social The combination of these two risks form an overall "participation
shopping usage, to explain why users may refrain from participat- risk" for individuals [7]. To design personalized social shopping user
ing and/or interacting in a social shopping context. Finally, we interfaces, a comprehensive understand of these risks are essential,
present on impression management literature to examine an issue as these concerns may deter users from engaging and participating
frequently highlighted in existing research of social media and so- in social shopping discussions and interactions.
cial matching systems, and discuss the challenges related to that
perspective on user participation in social shopping. 2.3 Impression Management in Social
Shopping
2.1 Social Shopping Impression management is based on the concept of "virtually ev-
Currently, the literature does not have a consistently accepted defi- eryone is attentive to, if not explicitly concerned about how he
nition of either "social shopping" or "social commerce" [2]. Some use or she is perceived and evaluated by other people" [18]. Though
the term social shopping interchangeably with social commerce [31], traditional impression management is based on face-to-face inter-
or consider social shopping as a subset of social commerce [5], actions, it has been studied in users’ online participations as well.
while others argue that the two terms refer to distinctive user be- For example, researchers have used qualitative methods to inves-
haviors and platforms [28]. For example, Stephen & Toubia [28] tigate impression management and self-presentation strategies in
regard social shopping as a type of online shopping activity that online dating sites, suggesting that online daters intensively in-
connects customers who generate content (e.g., by sharing items on volve themselves in both creating and evaluating impressions being
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram; or writing product reviews on given [6]. Kramer & Winter [17] studied impression management
websites such as Amazon.com and eBay.com), and social commerce behaviors in online social media systems, and posited that self-
as the industry that includes (typically online) businesses utilizing reported efficacy with impression management predicted a user’s
the interaction data from their buyers and sellers to drive more number of online connections and level of participation. For online
informed and targeted sales [1]. communities, extant works regarded impression management as an
In our work, we define social shopping as an approach to online important factor in explaining online community participation [3],
shopping based on interpersonal interactions between users on and a significant predictor of knowledge contribution in several on-
social networks (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) and online line settings [27]. Goffman [8] theorized impression management
third-party platforms (e.g. forums, blogs, and review sites), where as a way people intentionally shape how others perceive them
the consumers’ perceptions, attitudes, and shopping intentions are through actions and performances in day-to-day social interactions.
influenced by their friends and other users through posts, sharing, This is also important and prevalent in one’s online identity, and is
comments, and recommendations. In the context of social shopping, modulated in part by their interactions (and history of interactions)
people are doing more beyond online shopping on their own [11]. with others, including actions such as sharing and receiving infor-
Instead, it is an online community for people to make collabora- mation, leaving comments, liking other people’s posts, and making
tive efforts to explore stores, share information, discover products, recommendations [25].
and discuss about the shopping experience [23]. Compared with However, though impression management features are a relevant
traditional online shopping activities, social shopping makes it eas- topic in the context of social matching and online communities [25],
ier and more convenient for users to explore interesting products, there are no existing works that have examined user participation
obtain shopping advice, and discover bargains, thereby improving and interactions in social shopping from the perspective of im-
and personalizing their overall shopping experience [14, 20]. In pression management. Therefore, this paper proposes to address
addition, social shopping is more than just buying products, it is the challenges in the personalization of user experience in sharing
also about creating an online community, where people can gain shopping information on their social network (enhancing existing
increased social presence [34] and receive social support [21, 26]. social relationships in social shopping), as well as forming new
social connections through reviews and discussions on e-commerce
2.2 Privacy and Social Risk in Social Shopping websites (initiating new relationships in social shopping).
According to Decision Field theory, risk drives deliberation, which
may deter further approach-oriented behaviors [4]. Among many 3 RESEARCH PROPOSAL
perceived risks, privacy risk and social risk are the two relevant In the field of social shopping, most works primarily focus on
and important deterrents of social interactions in online communi- the "shopping" aspect and largely overlook the "social" character-
ties [30]. In social shopping, privacy risk reflects users’ potential istics [9]. On the one hand, much work has studied how social
loss of control over their information. In social shopping interac- interactions can be integrated and translated into purchases. So-
tions, a loss of privacy may occur when users engage in posting and cial media websites, like Facebook and Instagram, are no longer
discussion of shopping interests and experience. For instance, when only places for people to chat and share, but, more importantly,
sharing experiences and writing comments on a shopping site, a also serve as platforms that facilitate interpersonal interactions and
user’s personal information may be discoverable through their user communications between brands and people, to increase the level
name and/or profile page, and their real identity can be connected of trust and intention to buy products and services [10].
Personalizing User Interactions in Social Shopping IUI Workshops’19, March 20, 2019, Los Angeles, USA
Social Shopping Application Social Shopping Application
Good Morning, Your Friend Nick Liked Your Wife Emma Suggested Good Morning, Your Friend Chris Bought Your Wife Emma Shared
Gidget Gidget
Your Frequent Destinations Your Friends
Emma - Online
Woody - Online
Jack - Online
Your Orders
Tools & Home Peter - Online
Improvement
Frank - Busy
Esther - Busy
James - Busy
Thinner, lighter, waterproof, and now with Always know who’s knocking. Sherry - Offline An intimate, powerful, and inspiring memoir Connect with your loved ones over video.
Baby Diapering
Home & Kitchen
Products
Audible. Linda – Offline by the former First Lady of the United States.
Learn more Learn more More … Learn more Learn more
Figure 1: A user’s personalized social shopping homepage, Figure 2: A user’s personalized social shopping homepage,
showing recommendations from a their own shopping his- showing their contact/chat list with online status (left), and
tory (left), a friend’s "like" (middle), and a friend’s product recommendations from a friend’s shopping behavior (mid-
suggestion (right). dle), and a friend’s product sharing (right).
4 IMPLICATIONS
However, the social potential of online shopping as an activity User engagement and participation in social shopping activities
has been understudied. For example, Kaptein and colleagues [13] may have important implications for personalized online shopping
introduced various types of similarities to be discovered and ex- experiences and the establishment of social shopping communities,
plored in the social media era, including "who-similarity" (people), as designing for personalized social shopping interfaces requires a
"what-similarity" (interests, activities, views), "where similarity" comprehensive understanding of people’s behaviors and concerns
(place), and "when-similarity" (timing). In the context of social shop- in their use of existing social systems. A combination of users’
ping, we interpret "what-similarity" to be people who are interested shopping preferences and interaction with others may provide new
in similar types of products, "where-similarity" to be people who perspectives in personalizing people’s online shopping experience.
mostly shop or review on similar platforms, and "when-similarity" For example, Figure 1 shows a personalized homepage that includes
to be people who participate in shopping activities or experience at suggested products not only based on a user’s individual behav-
similar days during the week or time during the day. All of these sim- ior and history, but also his/her connections’ activities (e.g. share,
ilarities contribute to shared attributes among people, and therefore like, purchase, and recommend). Figure 2 shows another possibility,
lead to potential opportunities of forming new social connections where users can contact their connections while using their favorite
or improving existing social relationships through social shopping. shopping website or application, as well as receiving recommenda-
In this paper, we propose a research project which aims to gain tions from their connections’ shopping activities.
a deeper understanding of why current social shopping systems From our findings, we aim to identify the major factors that
struggle to facilitate the initiation of new social connections and negatively affect user participation in social shopping activities
enhancing existing relationships for their users, and what factors and decrease possibilities of subsequent interactions between users
need to be taken into account when designing personalized, social- on shopping forums and between family and friends on social me-
oriented, and engaging social shopping interfaces. We present three dia. Interventions stemming from our findings may benefit users
research questions (RQs) that we believe are important avenues who seek more personalized online shopping experiences includ-
to study in learning more about designing for personalized social ing actively engaging in social shopping interactions with others.
shopping interactions and interfaces. Increased personalized information feeds based on one’s social net-
• RQ1: How do people use 1) social networking sites (e.g. Face- work and shopping activities may contribute to the formation of
book, Instagram) and 2) online reviews/forum (e.g. Amazon, new social connections through sharing, recommending, and dis-
eBay, Quora, Reddit) to participate in social shopping? cussing shopping with other online shoppers. These personalized
• RQ2: What are the social goals and challenges in personalized social shopping experiences may also help to reinforce existing
collaborative social shopping activities? connections on social media platform by creating additional op-
• RQ3: How do privacy and social risks affect user participation portunities for family and friends to see and interact with one’s
in social shopping? shopping activities, sharing, and suggestions.
Our findings may also be relevant to social media marketing.
We will use a qualitative approach to examine these research By having identified personalized social shopping communities,
questions. More specifically, we plan to conduct semi-structured advertisers could place personalized advertisements not only on
interviews with people who are active in both online shopping individual’s social media interfaces, but also among groups of peo-
and social media usage. We will pre-screen the participants and ple with similar shopping interests. With more micro-targeting
chose to only interview the participant who reported to "have at strategies available to influence social shopping communities (e.g.,
least one purchase in the past three months" (i.e. active in online consumers discovering new and relevant products related to their
shopping) and "have used any social media in the past month" (i.e. interests and their networks’ interests), advertisers may experience
active social media user). We then will use an open coding scheme more efficient and effective marketing investments.
to derive themes and theoretical constructs.
IUI Workshops’19, March 20, 2019, Los Angeles, USA Y. Xu & M.J. Lee
REFERENCES [19] Jungwoo Lee, Myung Suk Cha, and Cheulhyun Cho. 2012. Online service quality
[1] Amir Afrasiabi Rad and Morad Benyoucef. 2011. A model for understanding in social commerce websites. In Contemporary research on E-business technology
social commerce. Journal of Information Systems Applied Research 4, 2 (2011), 63. and strategy. Springer, 335–351.
[2] Catherine Baethge, Julia Klier, and Mathias Klier. 2016. Social commerceâĂŤstate- [20] Ting-Peng Liang, Yi-Ting Ho, Yu-Wen Li, and Efraim Turban. 2011. What drives
of-the-art and future research directions. Electronic Markets 26, 3 (2016), 269–290. social commerce: The role of social support and relationship quality. International
[3] Anita L. Blanchard and M.Lynne Markus. 2004. The experienced sense of a virtual Journal of Electronic Commerce 16, 2 (2011), 69–90.
community: Characteristics and processes. ACM SIGMIS Database 35, 1 (2004), [21] Ting-Peng Liang and Efraim Turban. 2011. Introduction to the special issue social
64–79. commerce: a research framework for social commerce. International Journal of
[4] Jerome R Busemeyer and James T Townsend. 1993. Decision field theory: a electronic commerce 16, 2 (2011), 5–14.
dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. [22] Yaobin Lu, Ling Zhao, and Bin Wang. 2010. From virtual community members to
Psychological review 100, 3 (1993), 432. C2C e-commerce buyers: Trust in virtual communities and its effect on consumers’
[5] Renata Gonccalves Curty and Ping Zhang. 2013. Website features that gave purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9, 4 (2010),
rise to social commerce: a historical analysis. Electronic Commerce Research and 346–360.
Applications 12, 4 (jul 2013), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.04.001 [23] Rainer Olbrich and Christian Holsing. 2011. Modeling consumer purchasing
[6] Nicole Ellison, Rebecca Heino, and Jennifer Gibbs. 2006. Managing impressions behavior in social shopping communities with clickstream data. International
online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Journal of Electronic Commerce 16, 2 (2011), 15–40.
Computer-Mediated Communication 11, 2 (2006), 415–441. [24] Do-Hyung Park, Jumin Lee, and Ingoo Han. 2007. The Effect of On-Line Con-
[7] Samira Farivar, Ofir Turel, and Yufei Yuan. 2017. A trust-risk perspective on social sumer Reviews on Consumer Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of
commerce use: an examination of the biasing role of habit. Internet Research 27, Involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 11, 4 (jul 2007), 125–
3 (2017), 586–607. 148. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415110405
[8] Erving Goffman. 2002. The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden [25] Jeffrey G Proudfoot, David Wilson, Joseph S Valacich, and Michael D Byrd.
City, NY (2002). 2018. Saving face on Facebook: privacy concerns, social benefits, and impression
[9] Camille Grange and Izak Benbasat. 2013. The value of social shopping networks management. Behaviour & Information Technology 37, 1 (2018), 16–37.
for product search and the moderating role of network scope. (2013). [26] Dong-Hee Shin. 2013. User experience in social commerce: in friends we trust.
[10] Nick Hajli. 2015. Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy. Behaviour & information technology 32, 1 (2013), 52–67.
International Journal of Information Management 35, 2 (2015), 183–191. [27] Ho Kyoung Shin and Kyung Kyu Kim. 2010. Examining identity and organiza-
[11] Xi Hu, Xia Wu, Pengzhen Yin, and Xiabing Zheng. 2017. An Investigation into tional citizenship behaviour in computer-mediated communication. Journal of
Consumers’ Continued Social Shopping Intentions. Proc. Pacific-Asia Conf. on Information Science 36, 1 (2010), 114–126.
[28] Andrew T Stephen and Olivier Toubia. 2010. Deriving value from social commerce
Information Systems, Kedah, Malaysia (2017), 63. networks. Journal of marketing research 47, 2 (2010), 215–228.
[12] Zhao Huang and Morad Benyoucef. 2015. User preferences of social features [29] Loren Terveen and David W McDonald. 2005. Social matching: A framework
on social commerce websites: An empirical study. Technological Forecasting and and research agenda. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)
Social Change 95 (2015), 57–72. 12, 3 (2005), 401–434.
[13] Maurits Kaptein, Deonne Castaneda, Nicole Fernandez, and Clifford Nass. 2014. [30] Ruud Van De Bovenkamp, Siqi Shen, Alexandru Iosup, and Fernando Kuipers.
Extending the similarity-attraction effect: The effects of when-similarity in 2013. Understanding and recommending play relationships in online social
computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu- gaming. 2013 Fifth International Conference on Communication Systems and
nication 19, 3 (2014), 342–357. Networks (COMSNETS), 1–10.
[14] Dohoon Kim. 2013. Under what conditions will social commerce business models [31] Chingning Wang and Ping Zhang. 2012. The evolution of social commerce: The
survive? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 12, 2 (2013), 69–77. people, management, technology, and information dimensions. CAIS 31, 5 (2012).
[15] Jin Baek Kim. 2012. An empirical study on consumer first purchase intention in [32] Rolf T Wigand, Robert I Benjamin, and Johanna LH Birkland. 2008. Web 2.0
online shopping: integrating initial trust and TAM. Electronic Commerce Research and beyond: implications for electronic commerce. In Proceedings of the 10th
12, 2 (2012), 125–150. international conference on Electronic commerce. ACM, 7.
[16] Young Kim and Jaideep Srivastava. 2007. Impact of social influence in e-commerce [33] Yu Xu and Michael J Lee. 2018. Shopping as a Social Activity: Understanding
decision making. Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Electronic People’s Categorical Item Sharing Preferences on Social Networks. In Companion
commerce, 293–302. Proceedings of the 23rd International on Intelligent User Interfaces: 2nd Workshop
[17] Nicole C Krämer and Stephan Winter. 2008. Impression management 2.0: The re- on Theory-Informed User Modeling for Tailoring and Personalizing Interfaces (HU-
lationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within MANIZE).
social networking sites. Journal of media psychology 20, 3 (2008), 106–116. [34] Hong Zhang, Yaobin Lu, Sumeet Gupta, and Ling Zhao. 2014. What motivates
[18] Mark R Leary and Robin M Kowalski. 1990. Impression management: A literature customers to participate in social commerce? The impact of technological envi-
review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin 107, 1 (1990), 34–47. ronments and virtual customer experiences. Information & Management 51, 8
(2014), 1017–1030.