Content uploaded by Zeki Atıl Bulut
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zeki Atıl Bulut on Feb 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
2015 / 6(2)
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports
Consumers on Facebook
Sosyal etkinin Facebook’taki spor tüketicilerinin karar alma süreci üzerindeki
etkisi
Erkan AKAR 1, akar@aku.edu.tr
Hale Fulya YÜKSEL 2, halefulyayuksel@gmail.com
Zeki Atıl BULUT 3, atil.bulut@deu.edu.tr
Geliş Tarihi/Received: 29.09.2015; Kabul Tarihi/Accepted: 03.12.2015
doi: 10.5505/iuyd.2015.40412
The purposes of this study were to determine the phase of
decision-making process of sports consumers on Facebook
that social influence affects the most, and investigate the
most influential factor for social influence. An empirical
study conducted in Turkey included 392 participants who
followed their favorite football team on Facebook. The
results of the structural equation model showed that social
influence has the strongest effect on the evaluation of
alternatives phase. Social influence source and social
platform activities significantly affected social influence;
social platform activities had a stronger effect.
Additionally, the effect of social influence is differed for
some team supporter groups.
Bu çalışmanın amaçları sosyal etkinin Facebook’taki spor
tüketicilerinin karar alma sürecinin en çok hangi aşaması
üzerinde etkili olduğunu belirlemek ve sosyal etkiyi en çok
etkileyen faktörü araştırmaktır. Türkiye’de yürütülen bu
ampirik çalışmada, tuttukları takımın Facebook sayfasını
takip eden 392 katılımcı yer almıştır. Yapısal eşitlik
modelinin sonuçlarına göre sosyal etki en çok
alternatiflerin değerlendirilmesi aşaması üzerinde etki
göstermektedir. Sosyal etkinin, sosyal etki kaynaklarından
ve sosyal platform aktivitelerinden anlamlı şekilde
etkilendiği ve sosyal platform aktivitelerinin etkisinin daha
yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca sosyal etkinin farklı
takımların taraftarları arasında değişiklik gösterdiği
görülmüştür.
Keywords: Social Influence, Decision-Making Process,
Sports Consumer Behavior, Social Network Sites, Facebook
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sosyal Etki, Karar Alma Süreci, Spor
Tüketicisi Davranışı, Sosyal Ağ Siteleri, Facebook
Jel Codes: M31.
Jel Kodları: M31.
1
Doç. Dr., Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi (Yazışılan yazar)
2
Doktora Öğrencisi, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
3
Öğr. Gör. Dr., Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir Meslek Yüksekokulu
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
6
1. INTRODUCTION
Consumers can use online sources to obtain product information that are important for their
purchase decisions (Wang & Chang, 2013). Social networking sites are one of the online
sources and they are channels for social influence that affect purchase decision-making. In
these sites, social influence is created by user’s virtual social activities such as liking,
commenting, and sharing information, opinions, or experiences. As stated by Currás‐Pérez et
al. (2013), social networking sites allow users to access opinions of not only close friends,
family, and colleagues but also other people who have used a particular product or service.
Moreover, online social networks such as Facebook enable business organizations to create
product pages, and users who follow these product pages can receive or disseminate
product-related information (Coulter & Roggeveen, 2012). The access to product information
facilitates purchasing decisions (Wang et al., 2012).
Internet has become a primary source of information for sports consumers, who can obtain
sport-related information and enjoyment and purchase sports products from websites
related to sports (Hur et al., 2007). Individuals have been empowered by social media and
they have become actual participants in the sports communication process: They can create
content and comment on existing contents about sports at any time (Newman et al., 2013).
According to a research, 35.1% of all sport fans go online for sports-related reasons at least
once per day. Moreover, social media is frequently or very frequently used to comment on,
tweet/retweet, share or link to online sports content and video by 34.7% of 18-34 year-olds,
15.2% of 35-54 year-olds, and 2.5% of 55 year-olds and older (Burst Media, 2012).
In literature, there are several studies that focus on different aspects of sports consumption,
social influence and decision-making process. Seo and Green (2008) focused on developing a
valid scale to measure motivation for sports online consumption. Witkemper et al. (2012)
examined not only motivations but also constraints that influence sports Twitter
consumption. Wang (2013) investigated the motivations and factors that predict sports
spectators’ intentions towards social media use while viewing mediated sports. Stavros,
Meng, and Westberg (2013) provided deeper insight into fan motivation to interact on social
media about sports by revealing additional motives. Riegner (2007) investigated the
consumer adoption of Web 2.0 and its impact on purchasing decisions; concluding user
generated content has an influence over some product categories and user segments. Kim
and Srivastava (2007) focused on capturing social influence data from e-commerce platforms
and how this influence can be used by e-commerce sites to affect consumer decision-making.
Some studies support the effect of informative social influence on decision-making related to
product evaluations (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975; Cohen & Golden, 1971). Lee et al. (2011)
empirically proved informative social influence has a positive effect on online purchasing
decisions.
There are not any studies about social networking sites, especially on Facebook, which focus
on the impact of social influence on the decision-making process. The present study has tried
to fill this gap in literature. From sports consumers’ perspective, our study contributes to the
literature by determining the phase of decision-making process which social influence affects
most for online social network sites. Another contribution is that we identified “social
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
7
influence source” and “social platform activities” as two factors and developed a research
model investigating the effect of these two factors to social influence.
The purposes of this study are as follows: (a) to determine the phase of the decision-making
process of sports consumers on Facebook which social influence affects most, (b) to
investigate whether the social influence source or social platform activities affect social
influence, (c) to determine the factor that most affects social influence, and (d) to investigate
if the effects of social influence on decision-making process phases differ between gender
and among different team supporters.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Sports Consumers
Sports consumers are different from ordinary consumers (Bühler & Nufer, 2006; Crow et al.,
2012). The differences become obvious especially in the case of football supporters, and can
be explained as the following (Bühler & Nufer, 2006): 1) They are more passionate about the
football team they support, 2) They are highly loyal to their team, 3) Passion and loyalty lead
them to be irrational in their consumer behavior and purchase decision-making is rarely
based on commercial grounds. According to Smith (2008), a sports consumer is a person or a
group who directly (buying a ticket for a game) or indirectly (buying a TV package that
includes sports) purchases sports-related goods or services.
Some researchers classify sports consumers in two categories as participants and spectators
(Pitts & Stotlar, 2002; Schwarz & Hunter, 2008) or participants and fans (Mullin et al., 2000);
whereas others classify consumers into three categories as spectators, participants, and
sponsors (Shank, 2009) or four categories as sporting goods consumers; sports services
consumers; sports participants and volunteers; and sports supporters, spectators, and fans
(Smith, 2008). In this study, spectators, who can be defined as individuals who watch a
performance at a sporting event (Schwarz & Hunter, 2008) by either attending the event or
experiencing it through TV channels (Shank, 2009), are considered. The reason for us to focus
on spectators is because Branscombe and Wann (1992; cited in Wakefield, 1995) state that
spectators’ identification with the team refers to the extent to which spectators involve with
the team as fans, concern about the team’s performance, and perceive the team as a
representation of themselves. Smith (2008) considers spectators with supporters and fans and
states that these consumers are interested in the performance of sports but not at a
professional level.
2.2. Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
The decision-making process gives meaning to the cognitions occurring inside the mind of a
sports consumer, which includes thoughts, process of information, and judgment of choices
(Blakey, 2011). A sports consumer’s decision-making process has been examined by various
researchers (Mullin et al., 2000; Schwarz et al., 2013; Shank, 2009), and in this study, a five-
phase approach was used, which is explained in Table 1.
The information generated as a result of user interactions on social networking sites
influences the decision-making process of consumers (Wang & Chang, 2013). According to Li
(2011), users’ behaviors are affected not only by their own motivations but also by other
users of the consumers’ online network. As stated by Wang and Lin (2011), people tend to
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
8
follow others’ choices instead of making their own decisions to reduce the cognitive effort
when faced with too much online information. In addition, consumers search for product
and company information on social media sites because they find these sources more reliable
than information provided by marketers (Sinclaire & Vogus, 2011). The role of Facebook in
each phase of the decision-making process is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers and the Role of Facebook
Decision-making process of sports consumers
Role of Facebook(*)
Problem/Need Recognition
-Starts with recognizing the need for sports consumption (Blakey, 2011).
-Need is activated with internal or external stimulants (Roberts & Lilien,
1993).
-The magnitude and importance of the problem or need are determined
(Schwarz et al., 2013; Shank, 2009).
-Facebook acts as an inspiration
source for consumers’ pending
purchases.
-Decide with or conform to
reference groups
Information Search
- Information is either actively searched or passively gathered with high
awareness (Roberts & Lilien, 1993).
-Can be in two forms (Bettman et al., 1991): from consumer’s existing
memory (which is usually used in routine decisions (Shilbury et al., 2009))
or from external environment (which is used because of consumers’
realization of the risk of purchase (Shilbury et al., 2009)).
-External sources have four types: personal sources (friends, peers,
followers from social networks, etc.) (Schwarz et al., 2013; Shank, 2009),
non-personal sources (articles in newspapers, consumer reports, efficient
bloggers, etc.) (Schwarz et al., 2013; Shank, 2009), experiential sources
(watching the games in different sports leagues and deciding) (Shank,
2009), social conformity (deciding based on others’ purchases and peer /
reference group pressure) (Schwarz et al., 2013).
-Facebook acts as a source of
information or confirmation for
planned purchase.
-Reducing risk
Evaluation of Alternatives
- Consists of two components (Roberts & Lilien, 1993): perception formation
(based on the beliefs about products’ features) and preference formation
(based on the perceptions).
- The alternatives in the evoked set are evaluated according to the
evaluation criteria.
-Facebook acts as a source for
evaluating the alternatives.
-Finding the right alternative
Actual Purchase
-Three purchase types in sports are (Schwarz et al., 2013): trial purchase (a
sample purchase before re-purchase), repeated purchase (satisfied
consumers will re-purchase), long-term commitment purchase (consumers
are emotionally or cognitively committed to the sports product).
-The brand, place and quality of the purchase are determined (Roberts &
Lilien, 1993).
-Facebook acts as an information
source for the place and time of
purchase.
-Coordinating the purchase
Post-purchase Evaluation
-After purchase, sports consumer can be (Mullin et. al., 2000): satisfied, not
satisfied, marginally satisfied or unsatisfied.
-Satisfaction level will affect the future participation and the positive word-
of-mouth about the sports product/event (Shank, 2009).
- Continuous purchase is ensured if cognitive unconformity is eliminated
(Schwarz et al., 2013).
-Facebook acts as a platform for
spreading opinions and
experiences.
-Generating and sharing
experiences, helping others
(*) Adapted from Yadav, De Valck, Hennig-Thurau, Hoffman, & Spann (2013).
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
9
2.3. Social Influence
Social influence is an important subject in experimental social psychology (Kelman, 1961).
Turner (1991, p.1) defined social influence as “the processes whereby people directly or
indirectly influence the thoughts, feelings and actions of others”. Social influence is related to
the information about other people, and it may not necessarily happen via face-to-face
interactions (Robins et al., 2001; Trusov et al., 2010). In contrast with the past (when people’s
influence was limited to their narrow social circle), social influence has broadened due to use
of the Internet and social media (Kwahk & Ge, 2012). According to McKenna and Bargh
(2000), from the social psychology perspective, social interaction on the Internet has four
differences from real life: (a) Users can interact with others anonymously, (b) Physical
distance is not important, (c) Physical appearance is not important, (d) Interaction does not
need to be simultaneous.
Social influence can be classified as informative and normative (Bearden et al., 1986;
Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975; Chung et al., 2013; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Lee et al., 2006).
Informative social influence occurs when consumers accept the information obtained from
others as evidence of reality (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975; Chung et al., 2013). In contrast,
normative social influence occurs when consumers conform to the expectations of other
people or groups (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975). Normative social influence is usually
referred as subjective norms (Lee et al., 2006) and perceived social pressure for performing or
not performing a behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Normative influence on behavior is caused by
either explanatory norms (what is typical or normal) or preventive norms (what most of the
others approve or not) (Cialdini et al., 1990). According to Henningsen and Henningsen
(2003), if normative influence is effective, individuals change position due to the mostly
preferred choice to conform to the group; however, if informative influence is effective,
individuals reevaluate their position due to the discussion of the group members about
reality, evidence, and other forms of information.
Chen et al. (2011) asserted that the influence of online word-of-mouth on purchase behavior
is significant. Jalilvanda et al. (2011) pointed out that online consumer reviews play two roles
in social influence: informative (providing additional user-focused information) and
suggestive (giving positive or negative signals of product popularity). O’Brien (2011) stated
that users who feel tied to a social network consume social media by searching for others’
activities, and this creates a virtual type of peer pressure. Consumers’ tendency to
communicate with peers about consumption highly influences their attitude toward
products and services, which results in either buying the same brand or avoiding other
brands in order to be like peers (Wang et al., 2012). According to Power and Philips-Wren
(2011), peer pressure on social media is quicker and more comprehensive than face-to-face
experience.
Yadav et al. (2013) pointed out that the social environment is often an important factor in
influencing and determining perceived needs and observing others may encourage people to
adopt the same products and services. Others’ product evaluations are used as information
sources for products, and people tend to perceive a product more favorably when they
observe that others evaluate the product favorably; thus, based on these evaluations, people
infer that the product is a better product (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975). According to
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
10
Richins (1983), customers repurchase products they are satisfied with and they may
influence other people’s perceptions of the brand by talking about particularly satisfying
products.
Based on this literature, we hypothesize the following:
H1: Social influence positively affects the need recognition phase of the decision-making
process of sports consumers on Facebook.
H2: Social influence positively affects the information search phase of the decision-making
process of sports consumers on Facebook.
H3: Social influence positively affects the evaluation of alternatives phase of the decision-
making process of sports consumers on Facebook.
H4: Social influence positively affects the actual purchase phase of the decision-making
process of sports consumers on Facebook.
H5: Social influence positively affects the post-purchase evaluation phase of the decision-
making process of sports consumers on Facebook.
Park et al. (2007) stated that online consumer reviews are important in purchase decision-
making because this kind of consumer-created information provides indirect experiences of
products. According to Ling and Yazdanifard (2014) consumer reviews are evaluating
options which influence consumer buying decision, and they state that this influence has
been proven to be more for females than males. A study conducted by Bea and Lee (2011)
revealed significant gender differences about consumers’ perception of online consumer
reviews and concluded that females are more influenced by the recommendations of others
than males on purchase intention. Garbarino and Strahilevitz (2004) found that friend
recommendations about a site reduce the perceived risk and increase the willingness to buy
online more for females than males. According to Wakefield (1995), fan identification and
loyalty increases with positive social influence from peers. On the other hand, he also states
that if team ownership or players involve in actions that reduce the social approval of
community or reference groups this directly affects the fan identification with the team and
future patronage. Based on this literature, we suppose that gender and team membership
may have a moderating effect on the impact of social influence on the decision-making
process.
According to Kwahk and Ge (2012), social media interaction ties and social media
commitment affect social influence on e-commerce. In the current study, we described social
influence source and social platform activities as the factors that affect social influence on
online social network sites.
2.3.1. Social Influence Source
Social influence sources can be dealt with two dimensions: social ties, which can be classified
as strong or weak, and media (i.e., media pages on Facebook).
Social influence between the members of a group can trigger individuals to revise their
estimations and affect the wisdom of the crowd (Lorenz et al., 2011). People adapt to social
influence that comes from several sources including peers they do not recognize or even
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
11
intangible reference groups (Sridhar & Srinivasan, 2012). According to Song and Kim (2006),
social influence from internal referents is related to family, friends, and colleagues. Song and
Kim (2006) also emphasized external referents and observed that under certain conditions
using external referents to explain individual behaviors is more powerful. Postmes et al.
(1998) argued that in computer-mediated communications, when a common social identity is
shared by the communicators, they become more susceptible to group influence.
Users on Facebook can establish different types of relationships by classifying “friends”
regarding their closeness level ranging from “close friends” to “friends of others” (Sosik &
Bazarova, 2014). These friendships on Facebook typically contain clear social ties (Sun et al.,
2011). Different types of social ties have different effects on purchasing decisions. For
instance, messages from strong ties (e.g., close friends) have more effect on the decision-
maker than messages from weak ties (e.g., acquaintances) (Brown & Reingen, 1987; Wang &
Chang, 2013; Yang, 2012). As stated by Yadav et al. (2013), “social influence increases with tie
strength,” and tie strength between communicators is an important factor for creating
awareness in online social networks.
Facebook was designed for individuals at the beginning, but later firms and brands were
enabled to create Facebook pages. According to Haigh et al. (2013) Facebook pages enable
companies to share their news and company information. These pages can also be used to
inform consumers or fans about events and special promotions (Miller, 2014). Corporate
Facebook page followers may either passively observe discussions or actively express their
opinions (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014). Sports teams can use Facebook as a
communication way to connect with their fans, promote their events and sell licensed
products (Argan et al., 2013).
New media, which provides several options for gathering information, has dramatically
changed the way that consumers collect and exchange information about products and how
they provide and consume products (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Mangold and Faulds
(2009) stated that consumers look to social media sites more often to search for information
and make purchasing decisions; the large amount of information communicated by
customers about products via social media platforms influences other customers at every
stage of consumer behavior.
Social media acts as a rich information source and influences consumer decision-making
through the information and opinions obtained from the connections (Power & Philips-
Wren, 2011). Kwahk and Ge (2012) indicated that social media interaction ties are channels
for transferring normative social influence to group members and getting more knowledge,
which provides informational social influence in social network groups. Kwahk and Ge also
found that social media interaction ties positively affect informational and normative social
influence.
Based on this literature, we hypothesize that:
H6: The social influence source positively affects social influence.
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
12
2.3.2. Social Platform Activities
Social influence is created by different activities on social media platforms. For example,
social networking sites are one of the main platforms for users of the Internet to interact. In
addition to creating profiles, users on social networking sites can share information, like
posts, make comments, and send private messages.
Influence in online social networks can occur either in the form of a direct invitation from
another node (e.g., a friend) or only indirect observation of the activities of another node
related to the group (e.g., a picture post of a friend to a social group) (Hui & Buchegger,
2009). According to Yadav et al. (2013), consumers are informed about product “likes” and
purchases made by their friends in their online social network. Chu and Kim (2011) pointed
out that users of social networking sites help their social connections’ purchasing decisions
by sharing valuable product information and experience. McKinsey & Company (2012)
stated in a report about the social economy that social technology has made a strong
connection with main sociological patterns and behaviors by sharing information with
members of the network, comparing experiences and social status with others, etc.
According to Hunt et al. (2012), Facebook puts users into online interaction by allowing them
to use tools designed for interpersonal communication. In this study, for Facebook, like,
comment and share activities are examined for social influence platform activities; private
messaging activity is excluded. We suggest that these platform activities affect social
influence; thus, we hypothesize that:
H7: Social platform activities positively affect social influence.
Figure 1 introduces the conceptual framework of this study. The effects of social influence on
need recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, actual purchase, and post-
purchase evaluation are shown as hypotheses from H1 to H5; the effects of social influence
source and social platform activities on social influence are shown as H6 and H7.
Figure 1. Proposed conceptual framework and summary of research hypotheses
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
13
3. METHOD
3.1. Research Setting and Sample
This study was conducted in Turkey, and the target population of the study included people
who have an account on Facebook and who followed their sports team’s official Facebook
page. In Turkey, football is the most popular sport, and most football spectators are fans of
three leading football teams, Fenerbahçe, Beşiktaş, and Galatasaray. Therefore, only
supporters of these teams were considered in the study. An online questionnaire was
prepared, and data were collected from March to June 2014. The number of people who
follow Fenerbahçe, Beşiktaş and Galatasaray’s official Facebook pages was 24.145.438 as of
April 28, 2014.
According to Malhotra (2007), convenience sampling can be used in exploratory research for
generating ideas and insights. The sample size was calculated with the sampling formula,
and an adequate sample size was found to be at least 384 (5% tolerance with a 95%
possibility, for = 0.50, D = 0.05) (Malhotra, 2007). Thus, in this study, data were collected
using the convenience sampling method because it is the least expensive, the least time-
consuming, and easy to measure.
A total of 521 respondents answered the questionnaire. Of these respondents, 113 who did
not have an account on Facebook or who did not follow their football team’s official
Facebook page were eliminated from the data. The study focused on the fans of the three
leading football teams (Fenerbahçe, Beşiktaş and Galatasaray), and respondents who were
fans of other teams were also eliminated from the data. A final total of 392 questionnaires
were included in the analyses. Of the 392 participants, 27% were female, and 73% were male;
36% were fans of Fenerbahçe, 46% of Galatasaray, and 18% of Beşiktaş. Age groups were
represented as follows: 14% for ages 20 and under, 68% for ages 21-30, 14% for ages 31-40,
and 4% for ages 41 and over.
3.2. Questionnaire Design
The first set of items on the questionnaire were related to social influence, social influence
source, and social platform activities, which were adapted from studies by Chung et al.
(2013), Mäntymäki and Riemer (2014), Park and Lessig (1977), Venkatesh and Brown (2001),
Venkatesh and Davis (2000), and Yang (2011). The second set of items were related to the
decision-making process of sports consumers on Facebook and were prepared based on the
literature mentioned in Table 1. The items are included in the Appendix and they were
scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
4. ANALYSES AND RESULTS
For the statistical analysis, SPSS 20 and AMOS 21.0 were used. Thirty observed and eight
latent variables that formed the measurement model were included in confirmatory factor
analysis.
4.1. Reliability and Validity
The reliability of the research variables was measured with Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient
and composite reliability (CR) values. For all variables, all values ranged from 0,739 to 0,909,
exceeding the 0,70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). In confirmatory factor
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
14
analysis, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), all factor loadings were found to be
significant and higher than 0,50; the average variance extracted (AVE) values were calculated
and all AVE values were higher than 0,50. These results are shown in Table 2.
To control the convergent and discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE values must
be higher than the correlation between the constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). For each
construct, the squares of the correlation between latent variables (common variance) were
smaller than the AVE values. These results with the factor correlation matrix are shown in
Table 3. As is seen from the factor correlation matrix, the highest correlation value among
social influence and the phases of the decision-making process is 0,690 (between social
influence and need recognition). According to these values, reliability and convergent and
discriminant validity are assured.
Table 2. Model statistics and factor loadings of the items
AVE
CR
α
Item
Factor loading
Social influence
0,593
0,743
0,847
SI1
0,71
SI2
0,82
Social influence
source
0,509
0,801
0,739
SIS1
0,81
SIS2
0,76
SIS3
0,50
SIS4
0,73
Social
platform activities
0,650
0,848
0,797
SPA1
0,78
SPA2
0,80
SPA3
0,82
Need recognition
0,718
0,910
0,909
NR1
0,86
NR2
0,88
NR3
0,87
NR4
0,77
Information search
0,623
0,868
0,825
IS1
0,86
IS2
0,85
IS3
0,78
IS4
0,69
Evaluation
of alternatives
0,692
0,899
0,887
EA1
0,80
EA2
0,89
EA3
0,88
EA4
0,75
Actual purchase
0,672
0,890
0,871
AP1
0,90
AP2
0,88
AP3
0,84
AP4
0,64
Post-purchase evaluation
0,672
0,911
0,909
PPE1
0,84
PPE2
0,81
PPE3
0,81
PPE4
0,87
PPE5
0,77
AVE: Average variance extracted; CR: Composite reliability; α: Cronbach’s alpha.
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
15
Table 3. Mean, standard deviation and factor correlation values of research variables
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Social influence (1)
2,85
1,09
0,770
Social influence source (2)
2,97
0,98
0,705
0,713
Social platform activities
(3)
3,04
1,08
0,705
0,759
0,806
Need recognition (4)
3,16
1,07
0,690
0,690
0,718
0,847
Information search (5)
3,12
0,98
0,617
0,616
0,767
0,700
0,771
Evaluation of
alternatives(6)
2,83
1,06
0,591
0,707
0,693
0,661
0,756
0,827
Actual purchase (7)
2,93
1,04
0,610
0,683
0,653
0,709
0,733
0,752
0,819
Post-purchase
evaluation(8)
2,88
1,07
0,576
0,628
0,619
0,667
0,679
0,801
0,686
0,819
Square root of AVE for each construct are shown on the main diagonal. SD: standard deviation;
M:Mean
4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
According to the existing thresholds (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Kline, 2005; Marsh et al., 1988),
the model exhibits adequate fit to the data as the results in Table 4 show. Every path in the
model was statistically significant (t > 1,96; p = 0,001).
Table 4. Measurement model goodness of fit values
p
2/df
RMSEA
SRMR
CFI
NFI
GFI
TLI
AGFI
Measurement model
0,001
2,019
0,051
0,038
0,96
0,92
0,89
0,95
0,86
4.3. Hypothesis Testing
The structural model, including the research hypotheses and paths, was examined using the
maximum likelihood estimation procedure. The structural model exhibits adequate fit to the
data as the results in Table 5 show. Figure 2 shows the path estimates of the research model,
and all structural path estimates are statistically significant (p < 0,01).
Table 5. Goodness of fit statistics for the research model
2
2/df
RMSEA
SRMR
CFI
NFI
GFI
TLI
AGFI
Structural model
846,50
2,176
0,055
0,047
0,95
0,90
0,87
0,94
0,85
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
16
Figure 2. Structural model of the research
According to the results, social influence positively and significantly affected every phase of
the decision-making process and had the strongest effect on the evaluation of alternatives (β3
= 0,87, t = 10,52). Thus, H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 are supported. The effects of the social
influence source and social platform activities on social influence were significantly positive
(β6 = 0,41, t = 5,38); (β7 = 0,51, t = 6,39); thus, H6 and H7 are supported. Social platform activities
have more effect on social influence as the results show.
The explained variance of the need recognition, information search, evaluation of
alternatives, actual purchase, and post-purchase evaluation phases is 63%, 74%, 78%, 68%,
and 70%, respectively. These results show that social influence has an important effect on the
decision-making process of sports consumers on Facebook.
The moderation effects of gender and team membership were analyzed with multiple group
analysis, which compares the paths belonging to each subgroup. No significant difference
was found between men and women for any structural path. Multiple group analysis for
team membership revealed that the effect of social influence on need recognition was
stronger for supporters of Galatasaray than Fenerbahçe (estimateGalatasaray=1,285;
estimateFenerbahçe = 1,237; z = –4,114). Similarly, the effect of social influence on information
search (estimateGalatasaray = 1,340; estimateFenerbahçe= 1,264; z = –4,795) and post-purchase
evaluation (estimateGalatasaray = 1,394; estimateFenerbahçe = 1,096; z = 4,383) was stronger for
supporters of Galatasaray than Fenerbahçe. The effect of the social influence source on social
0,87 (10,52)
0,83 (10,62)
0,41 (5,38)
0,51 (6,39)
0,85 (10,72)
0,84 (9,27)
0,82(10,54)
Social Influence
Source
Social Influence
Social Platform
Activities
Need
Recognition
Information
Search
Evaluation of
Alternatives
Actual
Purchase
Post-Purchase
Evaluation
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
17
influence was stronger for the supporters of Galatasaray than Fenerbahçe (estimateGalatasaray =
0,267; estimateFenerbahçe = 0,249; z = 4,78). However, the effect of social platform activities on
social influence was stronger for supporters of Fenerbahçe than Galatasaray (estimateFenerbahçe
= 0,344; estimateGalatasaray= 0,293; z = –4,759). No significant difference was found between
Galatasaray and Beşiktaş supporters, and Fenerbahçe and Beşiktaş supporters for any
structural path.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study examined the effects of the social influence source and social platform activities
on social influence and the impact of social influence on the decision-making process of
sports consumers on Facebook. The findings provide valuable insights for academic
researchers and practitioners.
The study reveals that the social influence source and social platform activities positively
affect social influence. The finding about social influence source is in line with Kwahk and
Ge’s (2012) study. Since social platform activities are more effective on social influence than
social influence sources, marketers should emphasize on marketing efforts related to
platform activities such as trying to increase the amount of social interactivity on online
social network sites and encouraging consumers to use platform activities to spread product
opinions and experiences.
Our study provides material for sports marketers (sports teams in particular). When they
create marketing strategies for sports products, services, and events; marketers should also
consider the influence of social networking sites such as Facebook. Sports marketers should
plan for not only some aspects but also the entire decision-making process. According to our
results, evaluation of alternatives phase is the most affected phase of the decision-making
process by social influence on Facebook. Therefore, marketers should especially focus on this
phase. For example, sports marketers or teams can promote social influence about products
that they want to put forward among all the alternatives because of marketing related issues
such as reducing stocks or increasing sales of a specific product.
For the need recognition phase, as Kim and Srivastava (2007) pointed out, it is important for
companies to predict consumers’ latent purchase needs based on social groups to which
consumers belong and the relationships among group members. Thus, needs can be defined
correctly, and consumers can be activated to make a sports-related purchase. Consumers
should be encouraged to exchange information and experiences about sports-related
products, events, and services on Facebook because this may stimulate other consumers to
make a new purchase. In addition, marketers can use “Facebook Advertisement Targeting
Function” to share posts about sports products which can be viewed in newsfeed of the
targeted sports consumers. These types of posts have a higher chance of reaching the right
consumers and arouse need about the products. Sports consumers are usually loyal to the
team and these posts may not disturb them, nevertheless marketers should be careful about
the content and frequency.
The risks that Yadav et al. (2013) mentioned (functional, social, and financial) are one of the
main issues that consumers try to reduce in the information search phase of the decision-
making process. Sports marketers should spread valuable information for consumers on as
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
18
many channels as possible on Facebook. Consumers should be turned into active users who
use platform activities such as like, comment or share; rather than just being passive
observers. Marketers can organize Facebook campaigns to increase the amount of
information sharing (i.e., a present for every tenth like or comment on the sports product).
As Kim and Srivastava (2007) indicated, consumers need more help in the information
search and evaluation of alternatives phases than in other phases of the decision-making
process. Consumers would like to reduce the list of products in the evoked set. Sports
marketers should ensure that their products or events are in the reduced list. Companies or
team pages on Facebook should provide valuable and accurate product information and try
to encourage consumers, who made a purchase and are satisfied, to share information about
their knowledge and experience about sports products or events.
A Nielsen report stated that friends and peers are more trustworthy than anyone else for
consumers when they make purchasing decisions (Gibs & Bruich, 2010). A study revealed
that the percentage of social media users surveyed who were at least somewhat likely to
make a purchase after seeing a friend’s post was 68% for 18- to 34-year-olds, 53% for 35- to
44-year-olds, 40% for 450 to 54-year-olds, and 32% for 55- to 64-year-olds (eMarketer, 2014).
Therefore, in the actual purchase phase, companies should pay more attention to encourage
consumers’ likes, shares, and comments on Facebook rather than their own advertisements.
Information provided by Facebook activities helps consumers coordinate the purchase
process (choosing the product and brand, the time and place of the purchase).
During the post-purchase evaluation phase, consumers endeavor to confirm that their
purchasing decisions are correct, and they tend to compare post-purchase experiences with
others on Facebook. A Carat and Microsoft research (2010) stated, these post-purchase
experiences can create word-of-mouth and influence future and succeeding purchases.
Therefore, it will be useful for companies to enable post-purchase reviews on Facebook
pages to help potential consumers in their purchasing decisions. Sports consumers who have
made purchases before can be brought together in Facebook groups and encouraged to share
their experiences about the products or services.
In the current study, the effect of social influence on decision-making did not differ
according to gender. This finding is not in line with previous research (Bea & Lee, 2011;
Garbarino & Strahilevitz, 2004); however it supports the result of a previous study
conducted by Kwon, Stefanone, and Barnett (2014) that stated gender was not a moderator in
the relationship between social influence and online behavioral choice. Our results imply
that sports marketers can use similar marketing strategies for both genders.
According to our findings, marketers do not need to differentiate marketing strategies
between supporters of Galatasaray and Beşiktaş, and Fenerbahçe and Beşiktaş. However, for
supporters of Fenerbahçe and Galatasaray, it may be useful to alter strategies. Since social
influence is stronger for Galatasaray supporters than Fenerbahçe supporters for three phases
(need recognition, information search and post-purchase evaluation), marketers should focus
on creating social influence related to these phases for Galatasaray supporters. In addition,
social influence source is more important for Galatasaray supporters and social platform
activities are more important for Fenerbahçe supporters. According to a research conducted
by HTC (DigitalAge, 2014), which included analysis of social media posts about football
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
19
teams between January and November 2014, Galatasaray was the mostly mentioned team on
social media. Also, the number of followers of Galatasaray Facebook page was the highest
among three teams included in this study. More talk about a team will create more sources
for social influence. Therefore, it can be said that social influence source is stronger on
supporters of Galatasaray. For Galatasaray supporters, the focus should be strategies for
activating peer influence whereas for Fenerbahçe supporters, the focus should be strategies
for increasing the use of social platform activities. For Fenerbahçe supporters, marketers
should try to create efficient and quality content and share on a regular basis.
6. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
This study sheds some light on the area of social influence and its effect on the decision-
making process of sports consumers on Facebook and brings out interesting subjects for
further research. First, the study investigated social influence on Facebook. Future research
could focus on social influence on other social media sites. Second, this study examined
sports spectators who are fans of three leading football teams in Turkey. Future research
could deal with all football spectators and extend the study to other sports or countries.
Moreover, new studies are needed for sports participants. Finally, other factors could affect
social influence such as user characteristics or expertise, etc.; however, in this study, only the
social influence source and social platform activities were considered.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Process, 50(2), 179-211.
Argan, M., Argan, M.T., Köse, H. & Gökalp, B. (2013). Using Facebook As a Sport Marketing
Tool: A Content Analysis on Turkish Soccer Clubs. Journal of Internet Applications and
Management, 4(1), 25-36.
Bea, S. & Lee, T. (2011). Gender Differences in Consumers’ Perception of Online Consumer
Reviews. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 11(2), 201-214.
Bearden, W. O., Calcich, S. E., Netemeyer, R., & Tell, J. E. (1986). An Exploratory
Investigation of Consumer Innovativeness and Interpersonal Influences. Advances in
Consumer Research, 13(1), 77-82.
Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). Customer Decision Making. In T. S.
Robertson, & H. H. Kassarjin (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blakey, P. (2011). Sport Marketing. UK: Learning Matters Ltd.
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1992). Role of Identification with A Group, Arousal,
Categorization Process, and Self-Esteem in Sports Spectator Aggression. Human
Relations, 45, 1013-1033.
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350-362.
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
20
Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and Normative Social Influence in
Buyer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 206-215.
Burst Media. (2012). Online insights: Sports Fans and Digital Media. Retrieved July, 6, 2015
from http://www.burstmedia.com/pdf/burst_media_online_insights_2012_09.pdf.
Bühler, A. W., & Nufer, G. (2006). The Nature of Sports Marketing. Reutlingen Working
Papers on Marketing & Management, Retrieved July, 14, 2015 from http://www.esb-
business-school.de/fileadmin/_research/dokumente/Diskussionsbeitraege/WP_2006-
06_Sports_Marketing.pdf.
Carat & Microsoft (2010). The New Shopper: Today’s Purchase Path and the Media that Influences
It, Retrieved September, 3, 2014 from
http://advertising.microsoft.com/wwdocs/user/en-
us/researchlibrary/researchreport/US-Online-Consumer-Retail-Research-Carat-
Microsoft-Advertising.pdf.
Chen, Y., Fay, S., & Wang, Q. (2011). The Role of Marketing in Social Media: How Online
Consumer Reviews Evolve. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25, 85-94.
Chu, S., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Electronic Word-of-
Mouth (eWOM) in Social Networking Sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1),
47–75.
Chung, N., Han, H., & Koo, C. (2013). Tourists’ Attachment Processes and Behavioral
Changes in Social Media: Persuasion and Reference Group Influence Perspective.
PACIS 2013 Proceedings, Paper 79.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct:
Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Place. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
Cohen, J. B, & Golden, E. (1971). Informational Social Influence and Product Evaluation,
Retrieved April, 7, 2015 from
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/27649/informationalsoc04cohe.
pdf?sequence=1
Coulter, K. S., & Roggeveen, A. (2012). ‘Like it or not’: Consumer Responses to
Word‐of‐Mouth Communication in On‐Line Social Networks. Management Research
Review, 35(9), 878-899.
Crow, R. B., Byon, K. K., & Tsuji, Y. (2012). International Sport Marketing. In Ming L., E.
MacIntosh, & G. Bravo (Eds.), International Sport Management, USA: Human Kinetics,
395-408.
Currás‐Pérez, R., Ruiz‐Mafé, C., & Sanz‐Blas, S. (2013). Social Network Loyalty: Evaluating
the Role of Attitude, Perceived Risk and Satisfaction. Online Information Review, 37(1),
61 – 82.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A Study of Normative and Informational Social
Influences upon Individual Judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
51(3), 629-636.
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
21
DigitalAge. (2014). HTC, Türk Futbolseverlerin Sosyal Medyadaki Nabzını Tuttu. Retrieved
July, 15, 2015 from http://www.digitalage.com.tr/htc-turk-futbol-tutkunlarinin-sosyal-
medyadaki-nabzini-tuttu/.
eMarketer. (2014). Millennials' Social Media Posts Influence Peers to Buy New Products.
Retrieved September, 2, 2014 from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Millennials-
Social-Media-Posts-Influence-Peers-Buy-New-Products/1010576.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Garbarino, E., & Strahilevitz, M. (2004). Gender Differences in the Perceived Risk of Buying
Online and the Effects of Receiving a Site Recommendation. Journal of Business
Research, 57, 768-775.
Gibs, J., & Bruich, S. (2010). Advertising Effectiveness: Understanding the Value of a Social
Media Impression. Retrieved September, 2, 2014 from
http://www.iab.net/media/file/NielsenFacebookValueofSocialMediaImpressions.pdf.
Haigh, M. M., Brubaker, P., & Whiteside, E. (2013). Facebook: Examining the Information
Presented and Its Impact on Stakeholders. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 18(1), 52-69.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A., &
Skiera, B. (2010). The Impact of New Media on Customer Relationships. Journal of
Service Research, 13(3), 311-330.
Henningsen, D. D., & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2003). Examining Social Influence in
Information-Sharing Contexts. Small Group Research, 34(4), 391-412.
Hui, P., & Buchegger, S. (2009). Groupthink and Peer Pressure: Social Influence in Online
Social Network Groups. Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Social
Networks Analysis and Mining, 53-59.
Hunt, D., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2012). The Influence of Computer-Mediated
Communication Apprehension on Motives for Facebook Use. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 56(2), 187-202.
Hur, Y., Ko, Y. J., & Valacich, J. (2007). Motivation and Concerns for Online Sport
Consumption. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 521-539.
Jalilvanda, M. R., Esfahani, S. S., & Samiei, N. (2011). Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Challenges
and Opportunities. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 42–46.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of Opinion Change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1), 57-78.
Kim, Y. A., & Srivastava, J. (2007). Impact of Social Influence in E-Commerce Decision
Making. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Electronic Commerce, 293-
302.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling. Second Edition, New
York: The Guilford Press.
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
22
Kwahk, K. Y., & Ge, X. (2012). The Effects of Social Media on E-commerce: A Perspective of
Social Impact Theory. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1814-
1823.
Kwon, K. H., Stefanone, M. A., & Barnett, G. A. (2014). Social Network Influence on Online
Behavioral Choices: Exploring Group Formation on Social Network Sites. American
Behavioral Scientist, 58(10), 1345-1360.
Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., Sia, C. L., & Lim, K. H. (2006). How Positive Informational
Social Influence Affects Consumers’ Decision of Internet Shopping?. Proceedings of the
39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 6.
Lee, M. K. O., Shi, N., Cheung, C. M. K., Lim, K. H., & Sia, C. L. (2011). Consumer’s Decision
to Shop Online: The Moderating Role of Positive Informational Social Influence.
Information & Management, 48, 185-191.
Li, D. C. (2011). Online Social Network Acceptance: A Social Perspective. Internet Research,
21(5), 562-580.
Lillqvist, E., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2014). Facing Facebook: Impression Management
Strategies in Company–Consumer Interactions. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 28(1), 3-30.
Ling, L. P., & Yazdanifard, R. (2014). Does Gender Play a Role in Online Consumer
Behavior? Global Journal of Management and Business Research: E Marketing, 14(7), V:1.0,
61-68.
Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011). How Social Influence Can
Undermine the Wisdom of Crowd Effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 108(22), 9020-9025.
Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. New Jersey:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social Media: The New Hybrid Element of the
Promotion Mix. Business Horizons, 52, 357-365.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-Fit Indexes in
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Effect of Sample Size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
391-410.
Mäntymäki, M., & Riemer, K. (2014). Digital Natives in Social Virtual Worlds: A Multi-
Method Study of Gratifications and Social Influences in Habbo Hotel. International
Journal of Information Management, 34, 210-220.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from Cyberspace: The Implications of the
Internet for Personality and Social Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 57-75.
McKinsey&Company (2012). The Social Economy: Unlocking Value and Productivity
through Social Technologies. Retrieved August, 8, 2014 from
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/high_tech_telecoms_internet/the_social_economy
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
23
Miller, M. (2014). My Facebook for Seniors. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. A. (2000). Sport Marketing. Second Edition, USA: Human
Kinetics.
Newman, T., Peck, J. F., Harris, C., & Wilhide, B. (2013). Introduction to Principles of Sport
Communication, Marketing, and Social Media. In P. Chelladural (Eds.), Social Media
in Sport Marketing. Arizona, USA: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. Third Edition, New York:
McGraw Hill.
O’Brien, C. (2011). The Emergence of the Social Media Empowered Consumer. Irish
Marketing Review, 21(1&2), 32-40.
Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to
Reference Group Influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(2), 102-110.
Park, D., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The Effect of On-Line Consumer Reviews on Consumer
Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125-148.
Pitts, B. G., & Stotlar, D. K. (2002). Fundamentals of Sport Marketing. Second Edition, USA:
Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? Side
Effects of Computer-mediated Communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689-
715.
Power, D. J., & Philips-Wren, G. (2011). Impact of Social Media and Web 2.0 on Decision-
Making. Journal of Decision Systems, 20(3), 249-261.
Richins, M. L. (1983) Negative Word-of Mouth by Dissatistfied Consumers: A Pilot Study.
American Marketing Association, 47(1), 68-78.
Riegner, C. (2007). Word of Mouth on the Web: The Impact of Web 2.0 on Consumer
Purchase Decisions. Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 436-447.
Roberts, J. H., & Lilien, G. L. (1993). Explanatory and Predictive Models of Consumer
Behavior. In Handbooks in OR&MS, Elsevier Science Publishers, 27-82.
Robins, G., Pattison, P., & Elliott, P. (2001). Network Models for Social Influence Processes.
Psychometrika, 66(2), 161-190.
Schwarz, E. C., & Hunter, J. D. (2008). Advanced Theory and Practice in Sport Marketing. First
Edition, UK: Elsevier Inc.
Schwarz, E. C., Hunter, J. D., & LaFleur, A. (2013). Advanced Theory and Practice in Sport
Marketing. Second Edition, USA: Routledge.
Seo, W. J., & Green, B. C. (2008). Development of the Motivation Scale for Sport Online
Consumption. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 82-109.
Shank, M. D. (2009). Sport Marketing: A Strategic Perspective. Fourth Edition, New Jersey:
Pearson Education Inc.
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
24
Shilbury, D., Westerbeek, H., Quick, S., & Funk, D. (2009). Strategic Sport Marketing. Third
Edition, Australia: Allen&Unwin.
Sinclaire, J. K., & Vogus, C. E. (2011). Adoption of Social Networking Sites: An Exploratory
Adaptive Structuration Perspective for Global Organizations. Journal of Information
Technology and Management, 12(4), 293–314.
Smith, A. C. T. (2008). Introduction to Sport Marketing. UK: Elsevier Ltd.
Song, J., & Kim, Y. J. (2006). Social Influence Process in the Acceptance of a Virtual
Community Service. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(3), 241–252.
Sosik, V. S., & Bazarova, N. N. (2014). Relational Maintenance on Social Network Sites: How
Facebook Communication Predicts Relational Escalation. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 124-131.
Sridhar, S., & Srinivasan, R. (2012). Social Influence Effects in Online Product Ratings. Journal
of Marketing, 76(5), 70-88.
Stavros, C., Meng, M. D., & Westberg, K. (2013). Understanding Fan Motivation for
Interacting on Social Media. Sport Management Review, DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2013.11.004.
Sun, T., Chen, W., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Zhang, M., & Lin, C. Y. (2011). Participation
Maximization Based on Social Influence in Online Discussion Forums. Proceedings of
the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 361-368.
Trusov, M., Bodapati, A. V., & Bucklin, R. E. (2010). Determining Influential Users in Internet
Social Networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 643-658.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social Influence. In Brooks/Cole Mapping Social Psychology Series.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2001). A Longitudinal Investigation of Personal Computers in
Homes: Adoption Determinants and Emerging Challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 71-
102.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extention of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
Wakefield, K. L. (1995). The Pervasive Effects of Social Influence on Sporting Event
Attendance. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19(4), 335-351.
Wang, J. C., & Chang, C. H. (2013). How Online Social Ties and Product-Related Risks
Influence Purchase Intentions: A Facebook Experiment. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 12(5), 337-346.
Wang, S.M., & Lin, J. C. (2011). The Effect of Social Influence on Bloggers’ Usage Intention.
Online Information Review, 35(1), 50-65.
Wang, X., Yu, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Social Media Peer Communication and Impacts on
Purchase Intentions: A Consumer Socialization Framework. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26, 198-208.
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
25
Wang, X. (2013). Applying the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction and Attitude
Functions in the Context of Social Media Use while Viewing Mediated Sports.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1538-1545.
Witkemper, C., Lim, C. H., & Waldburger, A. (2012). Social Media and Sports Marketing:
Examining the Motivations and Constraints of Twitter Users. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 21, 170-183.
Yadav, M. S., De Valck, K., Hennig-Thurau, T., Hoffman, D. L., & Spann, M. (2013). Social
Commerce: A Contingency Framework for Assessing Marketing Potential. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 311-323.
Yang, K. C. C. (2011). The Effects of Social Influence on Blog Advertising Use. Intercultural
Communication Studies, 20(2), 131-147.
Yang, T. (2012). The Decision Behavior of Facebook Users. Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 52(3), 50-59.
APPENDIX. Questionnaire Items
Social Influence
SI1. If most my Facebook friends’ likes/comments/shares about a sports product/event are in
the same direction, my decisions are influenced to conform to the majority.
SI2. My decision-making process is influenced by likes/comments/shares on Facebook
because I think I will get true information from them about a sports product/event.
Social Influence Source
SIS1. Likes/comments/shares of my family/close friends/colleagues on Facebook are effective
on my decision-making process of a sports purchase.
SIS2. Likes/comments/shares of not very close friends on Facebook are effective on my
decision-making process of a sports purchase.
SIS3. Likes/comments/shares on my favorite team’s Facebook page are effective on my
decision-making process of a sports purchase.
SIS4. Likes / comments / shares on Facebook pages of media that I follow are effective on my
decision-making process of a sports purchase.
Social Platform Activities
SPA1. In my decision-making process of a sports purchase, I am mostly influenced by the
“likes” on Facebook.
SPA2. In my decision-making process of a sports purchase, I am mostly influenced by the
“comments” on Facebook.
SPA3. In my decision-making process of a sports purchase, I am mostly influenced by the
“shares” on Facebook.
Akar, E., Yüksel, H. F. & Bulut, Z. A.
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
26
Need Recognition
NR1. Likes/comments/shares on Facebook about sports producs/events let me realize my
needs about those products/events.
NR2. Likes/comments/shares on Facebook about sports producs/events prompt me about
purchasing those products/events.
NR3. Likes/comments/shares on Facebook about sports producs/events enable me to re-
evaluate my needs.
NR4. Likes/comments/shares on Facebook about sports producs/events evoke the idea that I
might need those products/events.
Information Search
IS1. When I make a research about sports products/events, I examine the related
likes/comments/shares on Facebook
IS2. When I make a research about sports products/events, likes/comments/shares on
Facebook are important sources of information.
IS3. When I make a research about sports products/events, I think that
likes/comments/shares on Facebook are reliable.
IS4. I don’t make a purchase decision without examining the related likes/comments/shares
on Facebook.
Evaluation of Alternatives
EA1. Before the purchase decision of a sports product I definitely check the related
likes/comments/shares on Facebook.
EA2. When evaluating the alternatives for sports products/events, I take into consideration
the related likes/comments/shares on Facebook.
EA3. Likes/comments/shares on Facebook about sports products/events enable me to
evaluate the alternatives in my mind.
EA4. I don’t finish evaluating the alternatives without checking the likes/comments/shares
on Facebook about those sports products/events.
Actual Purchase
AP1. Likes/comments/shares on Facebook about sports products/events influence the
product/event I choose.
AP2. Likes/comments/shares on Facebook about sports products/events influence my brand
choice.
AP3. Likes/comments/shares on Facebook about sports products/events influence the place
of my purchase.
AP4. Likes/comments/shares on Facebook about sports products/events influence the time of
my purchase.
The Impact of Social Influence on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Consumers on Facebook
IUYD’2015 / 6(2)
27
Post-Purchase Evaluation
PPE1.When I search for solutions to my problems on my sports experience, I check the
likes/comments/shares on Facebook related to that sports product/event.
PPE2. I share my satisfaction or dissatisfaction about my sports experience on Facebook.
PPE3. If I am satisfied with my sports experience, I share my next purchase decision on
Facebook.
PPE4. If I am not satisfied with my sports experience, I share my decision of not purchasing
the same product/event again on Facebook.
PPE5. After purchasing a sports product/event, I check reviews on Facebook to evaluate my
decision.
