| Literature DB >> 31614749 |
Ming-Yan Wang1, Peng-Zhu Zhang2, Cheng-Yang Zhou3, Neng-Ye Lai4.
Abstract
With the aging of the population and the upgrading of the consumption structure of national health demand in China, it has become a new trend for the public to actively seek health products and services on social networks. Based on the theory of reasoned behavior and the theory of expectancy confirmation, this study aims to analyze the cognitive factors and their effects on WeChat users' purchase intention in the process of health product consumption. Considering that safety is a key feature of health products that distinguishes them from other consumer products, the "satisfaction" concept in the expectancy confirmation model is replaced by "trust" in this study. Two hundred and two (202) valid samples were collected by a questionnaire survey to analyze their intentions to buy health products on WeChat. Theoretical models and corresponding research hypotheses were verified by structural equation modeling. The research results show that emotional price and emotional experience are positively correlated with trust and purchase intention. There is an obvious negative correlation between privacy invasion and trust. Expectation confirmation is positively associated with trust. Moreover, the intermediary test shows that trust has completely mediated between emotional price and purchase intention, and trust also has a full intermediary effect on expectation confirmation and purchase intention.Entities:
Keywords: emotional support; expectation confirmation; healthy consumption; privacy concern; purchase intention; trust
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31614749 PMCID: PMC6843468 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16203861
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Theoretical model and hypotheses.
Summary of specific measurement questions of questionnaire variables.
| Variable/Abbreviation | Descriptive | Adapted From: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emotional Support | Emotion | Q1(EP1)- The product price is in line with my psychological price in online shopping. | Lee (2017) [ |
| Q2(EP1)- I will pay attention to promotions and discounts information in online shopping. | |||
| Q3(EP1)- l can discuss the product price with the seller in online shopping. | |||
| Emotion Product | Q1(EP2)- The packaging and design of online products have a strong sensory impact on customers. | Pentus (2014) [ | |
| Q2(EP2)- The packaging and design of online products deliver the value of the brand. | |||
| Q3(EP2)- Packaging and design of online products make me feel healthy. | |||
| Emotion Experience | Q1(EE)-The navigation of the application in the WeChat interface is clear and easy to understand. | Park (2012) [ | |
| Q2(EE)-The function of the WeChat enables me to accomplish a shopping task more quickly than other ways of shopping. | |||
| Q3(EE)- Customer services on WeChat are friendly and can solve my doubts. | |||
| Privacy Concern | Perceived Monitoring | Q1(PM)- This system could monitor my location through my purchasing behavior. | Dienlin (2015) [ |
| Q2(PM)- The system could collect too much personal information from transactions. | |||
| Q3(PM)- This system could monitor the usage of my mobile phone. through my purchasing behavior. | |||
| Perceived Intrusion | Q1(PI1)- I am afraid that others get more my privacy through this system than they are allowed. | James (2017) [ | |
| Q2(PI1)- I would be concerned that the information transmitted through online transactions could be intercepted by third parties. | |||
| Q3(PI1)- I would be worried about the security of the system by hackers login access to my personal data. | |||
| Information Disclosure | Q1(ID)- I could be concerned that the system may use private information for other purposes without authorization. | Kim (2008) [ | |
| Q2(ID)- I could be concerned about the system selling private information to others without permission. | |||
| Q3(ID)- I could be worried that the system will share my private information with others without my authorization. | |||
| Q1(EC)- My experience in using this system was better than what I had expected. | Bhattacherjee (2001) [ | ||
| Expectation | Q2(EC)- The product and service provided by this system were better than what I had expected. | ||
| Q3(EC)- Overall, most of my expectations from using this system were confirmed. | |||
| Q1(T)- The interface design of the system is clear, professional and distinct, which will give customers a real feeling. | |||
| Trust | Q2(T)- Sellers actively maintain communication with customers, which reflects the importance of customers. | Kim (2012) [ | |
| Q3(T)- WeChat system can share the information of buyers’ feedback on products, which makes me feel credible. | |||
| Purchase | Q1(PI)- I am likely to purchase the products on this business system. | Lankton (2014) [ | |
| Q2(PI)- I am likely to recommend this bustiness system to my friends. | |||
| Q3(PI)-I am likely to make repurchase from this system. | |||
Discriminant validity test.
| Item | EP1 | EP2 | EE | PM | PI1 | IL | EC | T | PI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP1 |
| ||||||||
| EP2 | 0.609 |
| |||||||
| EE | 0.647 | 0.732 |
| ||||||
| PM | 0.137 | 0.210 | 0.192 |
| |||||
| PI1 | 0.019 | 0.090 | 0.141 | 0.568 |
| ||||
| IL | 0.165 | 0.219 | 0.243 | 0.621 | 0.735 |
| |||
| EC | 0.616 | 0.632 | 0.584 | 0.024 | −0.580 | 0.019 |
| ||
| T | 0.705 | 0.626 | 0.584 | −0.019 | −0.019 | −0.110 | 0.717 |
| |
| PI | 0.674 | 0.579 | 0.579 | −0.027 | −0.151 | 0.008 | 0.670 | 0.709 |
|
Note: Off-diagonal: correlation estimated between the factors. Diagonal (bold): square root of AVE. The abbreviations for variables are defined in Table 1.
Reliability and validity test.
| Variable | Cronbach α | Factor Loading | C.R. | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP1 | 0.781 | 0.699 | 0.7853 | 0.5504 |
| 0.842 | ||||
| 0.719 | ||||
| EP2 | 0.835 | 0.880 | 0.8416 | 0.6423 |
| 0.666 | ||||
| 0.842 | ||||
| EE | 0.820 | 0.755 | 0.8208 | 0.6044 |
| 0.790 | ||||
| 0.787 | ||||
| PM | 0.804 | 0.672 | 0.8087 | 0.5876 |
| 0.865 | ||||
| 0.750 | ||||
| PI1 | 0.801 | 0.871 | 0.8451 | 0.6483 |
| 0.861 | ||||
| 0.667 | ||||
| ID | 0.899 | 0.954 | 0.9034 | 0.7581 |
| 0.797 | ||||
| 0.854 | ||||
| EC | 0.829 | 0.807 | 0.8304 | 0.7104 |
| 0.877 | ||||
| 0.825 | ||||
| T | 0.889 | 0.732 | 0.8363 | 0.6307 |
| 0.817 | ||||
| 0.830 | ||||
| PI | 0.861 | 0.820 | 0.8124 | 0.5914 |
| 0.761 | ||||
| 0.723 |
Note: AVE is the average variance extracted. C.R. is the composite reliability. The abbreviations for variables are defined in Table 1.
Model fitting parameters.
| Index | Model Value | Recommended Value | Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|
| X2/df | 3.548 | <3 good fit | reasonable |
| <5 reasonable fit | |||
| RSMEA | 0.091 | <0.05 good fit, | reasonable |
| <0.1 reasonable fit | |||
| SRMR | 0.086 | <0.05 good fit, | reasonable |
| <0.1 reasonable fit | |||
| NFI | 0.862 | Close to 1 | reasonable |
| CFI | 0.928 | Close to 1 | good |
| IFI | 0.831 | Close to 1 | reasonable |
| AIC | 702.000 | the smaller the better | reasonable |
| ECVI | 7.852 | the smaller the better | reasonable |
Note: RMSEA is the root mean square error of approximation. SRMR is the standardized root mean square residual. NFI is the normed fit index. CFI is the comparative fit index. IFI is the incremental fit index. AIC is the Akaike information criterion. ECVI is the expected cross-validation index.
Figure 2Emotion Support (ES).
Figure 3Privacy Concern (PC).
Structural model relationships obtained.
| Hypothesis | Estimate | C.R. | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1a:EP1 => PI | 0.211 | 2.288 | * | Supported |
| H1b:EP2 => PI | −0.153 | −2.545 | * | Not supported |
| H1c:EE => PI | 0.173 | 2.448 | * | Supported |
| H2a:EP1 => T | 0.366 | 5.305 | *** | Supported |
| H2b:EP2 => T | 0.083 | 1.619 | 0.106 | Not supported |
| H2c:EE => T | 0.142 | 2.407 | * | Supported |
| H3a:PM => T | −0.021 | −0.326 | 0.744 | Not supported |
| H3b:PI1 => T | −0.276 | −3.299 | *** | Supported |
| H3c:ID => T | −0.037 | −0.645 | 0.519 | Not supported |
| H4:EC => T | 0.472 | 6.183 | *** | Supported |
| H5:T => PI | 0.855 | 4.810 | *** | Supported |
| H7:EC => PI | 0.100 | 0.946 | 0.344 | Not supported |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. C.R. is the composite reliability.
Mediation test obtained.
| Hypothesis | Indirect | Direct | Total | Mediation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H6a:EP1=> T => | 0.313 ** | 0.211 (NS) | 0.525 *** | Supported (Fully mediation) |
| H6b:EP2=> T => | 0.071 (NS) | −0.153 (NS) | −0.082 (NS) | Not supported |
| H6c:EE=> T => | 0.122 (NS) | 0.173 (NS) | 0.195 (NS) | Not supported |
| H8:EC => T=> | 0.403 * | 0.100 (NS) | 0.504 ** | Supported (Fully mediation) |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4Model test diagram.