| Literature DB >> 32929294 |
Yuyang Zhao1, Fernando Bacao1.
Abstract
Food delivery apps (FDAs) as an emerging online-to-offline mobile technology, have been widely adopted by catering businesses and customers. Especially, as they have provided two-way beneficial catering delivery services in rescuing catering enterprises and satisfying customers' technological and mental exceptions under the COVID-19 global pandemic condition. This study proposes a comprehensive model integrating UTAUT, ECM and TTF with the trust factor and examines 532 valid FDA users' continuance intention of using FDAs during the COVID-19 pandemic period in China. The statistical results and discussions show that satisfaction is the most significant factor, and perceived task-technology fit, trust, performance expectancy, social influence and confirmation have direct or indirect positive impacts on users' continuance usage intention of FDAs during the COVID-19 pandemic period. In addition, relevant researches and stakeholders should consider the specific characteristic of technology being associated with users' technological and mental perceptions for better understanding and explaining users' continuance intention.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-2019; Continuance intention; ECM; Food delivery app; TTF; UTAUT
Year: 2020 PMID: 32929294 PMCID: PMC7480677 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102683
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Hosp Manag ISSN: 0278-4319
Summary of studies related to continuance intention of using information technology.
| Relevant studies | Theoretical frameworks | Variables |
|---|---|---|
| Hung et al., 2012 | Perceived usefulness Confirmation Satisfaction | |
Perceived technology-task fit Perceived ease of use Perceived usefulness Confirmation Perceived risk Satisfaction | ||
| Alghamdi et al., 2018 | Performance expectancy Effort expectancy Social influence Facilitating conditions Satisfaction Confirmation Technology readiness Uncertainty Avoidance | |
Satisfaction Service quality Effort expectancy Perceived risk Convenience Social value | ||
Perceived ease of use Perceived usefulness Social influence Confirmation Satisfaction Continuance intention | ||
Performance expectancy Effort expectancy Social influence Satisfaction Perceived trust Perceived compatibility Customer involvement Epistemic value Comparative value | ||
Confirmation Satisfaction Performance expectancy Effort expectancy Social influence Facilitating conditions Hedonic motivation Price value Habit | ||
Performance expectancy Effort expectancy Hedonic motivation Social influence Attitude |
Fig. 1The proposed conceptual model integrating UTAUT, ECM and Task-technology fit model.
Demographic distribution of participates.
| Measure | Item | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 264 | 49.62 % |
| Female | 268 | 50.38 % | |
| Age | <21 | 158 | 29.70 % |
| 21−30 | 285 | 53.57 % | |
| 31−40 | 62 | 11.65% | |
| 41−50 | 12 | 2.26% | |
| >50 | 15 | 2.82% | |
| Education | High school and lower | 32 | 6.02% |
| Bachelor’s or college | 382 | 71.80 % | |
| Master’s | 107 | 20.11% | |
| PhD and above | 9 | 1.69% | |
| other | 2 | 0.38% | |
| Occupation | Student | 168 | 31.58 % |
| Employee | 229 | 43.05 % | |
| Public Servant | 30 | 5.64% | |
| Retiree | 10 | 1.88% | |
| Unemployed | 5 | 0.94% | |
| Freelancer | 38 | 7.14% | |
| Other | 52 | 9.77% | |
| Frequency | At least 1 time every 3 days | 243 | 45.68 % |
| At least 1 time per 1 week | 208 | 39.10% | |
| At least 1 time every 2 weeks | 66 | 12.41% | |
| At least 1 time per 1 month | 11 | 2.07% | |
| Never used during the pandemic | 4 | 0.75% |
The factor loadings, Cronbach's alphas (CA), Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE).
| Variables | Items | Loading | CA | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy (PE) | PE1 | 0.84 | 0.881 | 0.838 | 0.634 |
| PE2 | 0.832 | ||||
| PE3 | 0.784 | ||||
| PE4 | 0.771 | ||||
| Effort expectance (EE) | EE1 | 0.845 | 0.883 | 0.883 | 0.654 |
| EE2 | 0.845 | ||||
| EE3 | 0.771 | ||||
| EE4 | 0.77 | ||||
| Social influence (SI) | SI1 | 0.807 | 0.860 | 0.862 | 0.609 |
| SI2 | 0.77 | ||||
| SI3 | 0.732 | ||||
| SI4 | 0.81 | ||||
| Trust (TR) | TR1 | 0.737 | 0.852 | 0.852 | 0.591 |
| TR2 | 0.788 | ||||
| TR3 | 0.762 | ||||
| TR4 | 0.787 | ||||
| Perceived task-technology fit (TTF) | TTF1 | 0.824 | 0.880 | 0.880 | 0.647 |
| TTF2 | 0.801 | ||||
| TTF3 | 0.796 | ||||
| TTF4 | 0.797 | ||||
| Confirmation (COF) | COF1 | 0.78 | 0.848 | 0.848 | 0.582 |
| COF3 | 0.769 | ||||
| COF2 | 0.76 | ||||
| COF4 | 0.741 | ||||
| Satisfaction (SA) | SA1 | 0.808 | 0.848 | 0.850 | 0.586 |
| SA2 | 0.777 | ||||
| SA3 | 0.719 | ||||
| SA4 | 0.755 | ||||
| Continuance intention (CI) | CI1 | 0.842 | 0.888 | 0.889 | 0.666 |
| CI2 | 0.82 | ||||
| CI3 | 0.814 | ||||
| CI4 | 0.788 |
Descriptive statistics and correlation among constructs.
| MSV | CI | PE | EE | SI | TR | TTF | COF | SA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CI | 0.610 | ||||||||
| PE | 0.612 | 0.781 | |||||||
| EE | 0.429 | 0.421 | 0.544 | ||||||
| SI | 0.551 | 0.697 | 0.666 | 0.622 | |||||
| TR | 0.575 | 0.758 | 0.700 | 0.549 | 0.742 | ||||
| TTF | 0.612 | 0.781 | 0.782 | 0.530 | 0.642 | 0.699 | |||
| COF | 0.575 | 0.625 | 0.709 | 0.655 | 0.677 | 0.671 | 0.658 | ||
| SA | 0.581 | 0.762 | 0.726 | 0.587 | 0.699 | 0.714 | 0.659 | 0.758 |
Models fit indices of the measurement model and structural model.
| X²/df | CFI | GFI | AGFI | NFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommend value | <3 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | <0.08 | <0.05 |
| Measurement model | 1.207 | 0.992 | 0.942 | 0.0.929 | 0.953 | 0.990 | 0.020 | 0.0240 |
| structural model | 1.235 | 0.990 | 0.940 | 0.9228 | 0.952 | 0.989 | 0.021 | 0.0265 |
Summary of hypotheses testing.
| Hypotheses | Relations | Estimate | S.E. | T-values | P-values | Decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | PE→CI | 0.228 | 0.066 | 3.444 | *** | Supported |
| H2 | PE→SA | 0.210 | 0.052 | 4.027 | *** | Supported |
| H3 | EE→CI | −0.267 | 0.048 | −5.57 | *** | Rejected |
| H4 | EE→PE | 0.038 | 0.052 | 0.729 | 0.466 | Rejected |
| H5 | EE→SA | 0.041 | 0.049 | 0.844 | 0.399 | Rejected |
| H6 | SI→CI | 0.163 | 0.064 | 2.55 | 0.011 | Supported |
| H7 | SI→SA | 0.141 | 0.062 | 2.278 | 0.023 | Supported |
| H8 | TR→CI | 0.271 | 0.081 | 3.333 | *** | Supported |
| H9 | TR→SA | 0.223 | 0.074 | 3.022 | 0.003 | Supported |
| H10 | TTF→CI | 0.309 | 0.063 | 4.907 | *** | Supported |
| H11 | TTF→PE | 0.536 | 0.051 | 10.564 | *** | Supported |
| H12 | COF→SA | 0.339 | 0.073 | 4.61 | *** | Supported |
| H13 | COF→PE | 0.389 | 0.071 | 5.442 | *** | Supported |
| H14 | SA→CI | 0.341 | 0.070 | 4.836 | *** | Supported |
Fig. 2Hypotheses testing results.
Table of questionnaire with constructs, items and references.
| Constructs | Items | References |
|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy (PE) | PE1-I feel that food delivery apps (FDAs) are useful for ordering and receiving delivery food during the COVID-19 pandemic. | |
| Effort expectancy (EE) | EE1-Learning how to use FDAs is easy. | |
| Social influence (SI) | SI1-People who are important to me (e.g., family members, close friends, and colleagues) recommend I use FDAs during the COVID-19 pandemic. | |
| Trust (TR) | TR1- I believe FDAs are trustworthy. | Zhu |
| Perceived task-technology fit (TTF) | TTF1-The functions of FDAs are enough for me to order and receive the delivery food. | |
| Confirmation (COF) | COF1-My experience with using FDAs is better than what I expected. | |
| Satisfaction (SA) | SA1- I am very satisfied that FDAs meet my requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. | |
| Continuance intention (CI) | CI1-I intend to use FDAs during the COVID-19 pandemic continuingly. |