| Literature DB >> 30190693 |
Yongchang Wei1, Can Wang1, Song Zhu2, Hailong Xue1, Fangyu Chen1.
Abstract
Over recent years, online purchase platforms of fruits are increasingly emerged to advance the e-commerce development and improve quality of human life. Unfortunately, we empirically observed that a lot of enterprises selling fruits online have suffered from bankruptcy due to a lot of complicated factors, such as inefficient logistics, low acceptance of online platforms, and financial risks. One of the root causes responsible for such an unanticipated phenomenon is related to the purchase intention, which motivates us to investigate what are the dominant factors affecting the online purchase intention of fruits. The results can be of great significance to the development of fruit e-commerce enterprises in online marketing. Based on the technology acceptance model (TAM) and perceived risk theory (PRT), this research developed an integrated theoretical model to explore the influential factors underlying consumers' intention to purchase fruits online. A web-based survey of 344 consumers with ages below 30 was used to test the hypotheses in our theoretical model. Through sample collection with questionnaires, a structural equation model is developed to compute the coupling relationship between influential factors and purchase intention. The results reveal that fruit quality and price are dominantly affecting the willingness of consumers to purchase fruit. Surprisingly, we found that e-commerce platforms, information quality, and perceived risk are less significant. Finally, some specific suggestions are recommended for fruit e-commerce enterprises in devising effective marketing strategies.Entities:
Keywords: fruit e-commerce; online purchase intention; perceived risk theory; structural equation model; technology acceptance model
Year: 2018 PMID: 30190693 PMCID: PMC6116833 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01521
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1A conceptual framework for online purchase intention.
Basic information of the respondents.
| Gender | Male | 125 | 36.3 |
| Female | 219 | 63.7 | |
| Age | 16–20 | 47 | 13.7 |
| 21–25 | 224 | 65.1 | |
| 26–30 | 43 | 12.5 | |
| 30–35 | 18 | 5.2 | |
| Over 35 | 12 | 3.5 | |
| Education | Junior college | 21 | 6.1 |
| College | 37 | 10.8 | |
| Undergraduate | 183 | 53.2 | |
| Master | 97 | 28.2 | |
| Ph.D | 6 | 1.7 | |
| Carrer | Student | 209 | 60.8 |
| Enterprise employee | 70 | 20.3 | |
| Government staff | 11 | 3.2 | |
| Staff in medical or educational institutions | 14 | 4.1 | |
| Other occupations | 40 | 11.6 | |
| Purchase experience | Yes | 155 | 45.1 |
| No | 189 | 54.9 |
Measurement items and reliability results.
| Purchase intention | Preference in contrast to offline platforms (Q9) | 4.45 | 1.763 | 0.851 | 0.855 |
| Intention strength (Q10) | 3.88 | 1.598 | |||
| Purchase frequency (Q11) | 4.13 | 1.643 | |||
| Fruit quality | Overall quality (Q12) | 3.89 | 1.666 | 0.870 | 0.874 |
| Freshness of fruits (Q13) | 3.99 | 1.514 | |||
| Fruit source can be inquired (Q14) | 3.87 | 1.564 | |||
| Fruit price concessions | Price comparison between online and offline (Q15) | 4.19 | 1.917 | 0.803 | 0.803 |
| Price promotions (Q16) | 4.63 | 1.826 | |||
| Price/Performance ratio (Q17) | 4.13 | 1.669 | |||
| Website information quality | Information accuracy (Q18) | 4.40 | 1.493 | 0.855 | 0.859 |
| Information incompleteness (Q19) | 4.28 | 1.461 | |||
| Information significance (Q20) | 4.44 | 1.468 | |||
| Perceived risk | Worry about the freshness (Q21) | 5.18 | 1.504 | 0.686 | 0.712 |
| Worry about the residuals of hazard materials (Q22) | 4.92 | 1.559 | |||
| Worry about the risk of information privacy (Q23) | 4.75 | 1.908 |
Principal component analysis with varimax rotations.
| Q9 | 0.821 | – | – | – | – |
| Q10 | 0.82 | – | – | – | – |
| Q11 | 0.787 | – | – | – | – |
| Q12 | – | – | – | – | 0.416 |
| Q13 | – | – | – | – | 0.425 |
| Q14 | 0.528 | – | – | – | 0.58 |
| Q15 | – | – | 0.864 | – | – |
| Q16 | 0.325 | – | 0.71 | – | – |
| Q17 | 0.311 | – | 0.759 | – | – |
| Q18 | – | 0.805 | – | – | – |
| Q19 | – | 0.855 | – | – | – |
| Q20 | – | 0.793 | – | – | – |
| Q21 | – | – | – | 0.883 | – |
| Q22 | – | – | – | 0.855 | – |
| Q23 | – | – | – | 0.922 | – |
Coefficients less than 0.3 are marked with “−.”
Total variances explained.
| 1 | 9.103 | 41.375 | 41.375 | 9.103 | 41.375 | 41.375 | 4.509 | 20.496 | 20.496 |
| 2 | 2.228 | 10.128 | 51.503 | 2.228 | 10.128 | 51.503 | 4.184 | 19.019 | 39.515 |
| 3 | 1.482 | 6.738 | 58.241 | 1.482 | 6.738 | 58.241 | 2.421 | 11.006 | 50.521 |
| 4 | 1.309 | 5.948 | 64.189 | 1.309 | 5.948 | 64.189 | 2.181 | 9.915 | 60.436 |
| 5 | 1.078 | 4.901 | 69.09 | 1.078 | 4.901 | 69.09 | 1.904 | 8.655 | 69.09 |
Correlation analysis.
| Purchase intention | 4.154 | 1.286 | 1 | ||||
| Fruit quality | 3.919 | 1.254 | 0.669 | 1 | |||
| Fruit price concessions | 4.316 | 1.293 | 0.530 | 0.496 | 1 | ||
| Website information quality | 4.374 | 1.143 | 0.468 | 0.600 | 0.474 | 1 | |
| Perceived risk | 4.949 | 1.008 | −0.055 | -0.107 | 0.1 | 0.045 | 1 |
The symbol
indicates that the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Figure 2The three candidate structural models for comparison.
The fitting results of the three models.
| Absolute fitting index | χ2 | 453.7 | 202.684 | 196.439 | – |
| 86 | 82 | 81 | – | ||
| χ2/ | 5.276 | 2.472 | 2.425 | < 3 | |
| RMSEA | 0.117 | 0.069 | 0.067 | < 0.08 | |
| GFI | 0.844 | 0.923 | 0.925 | >0.9 | |
| Relative fitting index | NFI | 0.82 | 0.92 | 0.922 | >0.9 |
| CFI | 0.848 | 0.95 | 0.952 | >0.9 | |
| IFI | 0.849 | 0.951 | 0.953 | >0.9 | |
| RFI | 0.78 | 0.897 | 0.9 | >0.9 | |
| Simple fitting index | PNFI | 0.672 | 0.718 | 0.711 | >0.5 |
| PGFI | 0.605 | 0.631 | 0.625 | >0.5 |
Figure 3Standardized parameter estimation results of Model 3 (***p < 0.001).
The estimation results between variables in Model 3.
| Fruit price concessions | Fruit quality | 0.632 | 0.076 | 8.268 | *** | 0.614 | 0.377 | 0.623 |
| Website information quality | Fruit quality | 0.524 | 0.081 | 6.453 | *** | 0.496 | 0.246 | 0.754 |
| Website information quality | Fruit price concessions | 0.276 | 0.077 | 3.585 | *** | 0.269 | 0.072 | 0.928 |
| Perceived risk | Fruit quality | −0.333 | 0.103 | −3.239 | 0.001 | −0.331 | 0.11 | 0.89 |
| Perceived risk | Website information quality | 0.256 | 0.096 | 2.663 | 0.008 | 0.27 | 0.073 | 0.927 |
| Purchase intention | Fruit price concessions | 0.309 | 0.075 | 4.089 | *** | 0.293 | 0.086 | 0.914 |
| Purchase intention | Perceived risk | −0.02 | 0.055 | −0.371 | 0.711 | −0.019 | 0 | 1 |
| Purchase intention | Fruit quality | 0.665 | 0.094 | 7.052 | *** | 0.612 | 0.375 | 0.625 |
| Purchase intention | Website information quality | −0.033 | 0.074 | −0.438 | 0.661 | −0.032 | 0.001 | 0.999 |
| Q9 | Purchase intention | 1 | 0.767 | 0.588 | 0.412 | |||
| Q10 | Purchase intention | 1.094 | 0.07 | 15.595 | *** | 0.881 | 0.776 | 0.224 |
| Q11 | Purchase intention | 0.996 | 0.07 | 14.162 | *** | 0.791 | 0.626 | 0.374 |
| Q15 | Fruit price concessions | 1 | 0.697 | 0.486 | 0.514 | |||
| Q16 | Fruit price concessions | 1.025 | 0.092 | 11.19 | *** | 0.732 | 0.536 | 0.464 |
| Q17 | Fruit price concessions | 1.127 | 0.093 | 12.086 | *** | 0.843 | 0.711 | 0.289 |
| Q21 | Perceived risk | 1 | 0.768 | 0.59 | 0.41 | |||
| Q22 | Perceived risk | 1.072 | 0.15 | 7.141 | *** | 0.809 | 0.654 | 0.346 |
| Q23 | Perceived risk | 0.594 | 0.098 | 6.044 | *** | 0.405 | 0.164 | 0.836 |
| Q14 | Fruit quality | 1 | 0.749 | 0.561 | 0.439 | |||
| Q13 | Fruit quality | 1.166 | 0.074 | 15.792 | *** | 0.888 | 0.789 | 0.211 |
| Q12 | Fruit quality | 1.19 | 0.077 | 15.426 | *** | 0.864 | 0.746 | 0.254 |
| Q18 | Website information quality | 1 | 0.81 | 0.656 | 0.344 | |||
| Q19 | Website information quality | 1.073 | 0.066 | 16.33 | *** | 0.879 | 0.773 | 0.227 |
| Q20 | Website information quality | 0.934 | 0.065 | 14.313 | *** | 0.764 | 0.584 | 0.416 |