| Literature DB >> 34948614 |
Yuyang Zhao1, Fernando Bacao1.
Abstract
Shopping through Live-Streaming Shopping Apps (LSSAs) as an emerging consumption phenomenon has increased dramatically in recent years, especially during the COVID-19 lockdown period. However, insufficient studies have focused on the psychological processes undergone in different customer demographics while shopping via LSSAs under pandemic conditions. This study integrated the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 with Flow Theory into a Stimulus-Organism-Response framework to investigate the psychological processes of different customer demographics during the COVID-19 lockdown period. A total of 374 validated data were analyzed by covariance-based structural equation modelling. The statistical results demonstrated by the proposed model showed a significant discrepancy between different gender groups, in which Flow, as a mediator, representing users' engagement and immersion in shopping via LSSAs, was significantly moderated by gender where connection between stimulus components, hedonic motivation, trust and social influence and response component perceived value are concerned. This study contributed a theoretical development and a practical framework to the explanation of the mental processes of different customer demographics when using an innovative e-commerce technology. Furthermore, the results can support the relevant stakeholders in e-commerce in their comprehensive understanding of customers' behavior, allowing better strategical and managerial development.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Flow Theory; Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2; age; customer behavior; gender; live-streaming shopping apps; psychological process; stimulus-organism-response framework
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34948614 PMCID: PMC8701664 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182413004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Literature review of the SOR framework.
| Studies | Topic | Stimulus | Organism | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Mobile shopping | Ubiquity; | Impulsive buying tendency;Normative evaluation; | Purchase intention |
| Ease of use; | ||||
| Information exchange; | ||||
| Discounted price; | ||||
| Scarcity | ||||
| [ | Social commerce | Structural capital; | Consumer value | Consumer loyalty |
| Cognitive capital; | ||||
| Relational capital; | ||||
| Social identification; | ||||
| Social influence; | ||||
| Social commerce needs; | ||||
| Social commerce risk; | ||||
| Social commerce convivence; | ||||
| [ | Mobile payment | Usefulness; | Flow | Satisfaction; |
| Emotion; | ||||
| Security | ||||
| [ | Virtual reality tourism | Actual experiences | Enjoyment, | Attachment; |
| Emotional involvement, | ||||
| Flow | ||||
| [ | Massive open online courses | Interactivity; | Virtual Experience; | Continuance intention |
| Media richness; | ||||
| Sociability |
Figure 1Proposed research model.
Online questionnaire.
| Dear participant: | ||
|---|---|---|
| Thank you for your support! | ||
|
| ||
|
|
| |
| Gender | Male | |
| Female | ||
| Age | <20 | |
| 21–35 | ||
| 36–50 | ||
| >51 | ||
| Frequency of using LSSAs during lockdown period | At least 1 time per 1 day | |
| At least 1 time per 1 week | ||
| At least 1 time per 2 weeks | ||
| At least 1 time per 1 month | ||
| At least 1 time per 3 months | ||
| At least 1 time per 6 months | ||
| Never used during lockdown period | ||
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| Performance expectancy (PE) | PE1: I feel using LSSA is a useful way of shopping during lockdown period. | [ |
| PE2: Using LSSAs makes purchasing easier during lockdown period. | ||
| PE3: Using LSSAs improves my shopping efficiency during lockdown period. | ||
| PE4: Using LSSAs makes shopping more convenient during lockdown period. | ||
| Effort expectancy (EE) | EE1: Learning how to use LSSAs is easy. | [ |
| EE2: It is easy to follow all the functions of LSSAs. | ||
| EE3: It is easy to become skillful at using LSSAs. | ||
| EE4: Interaction with LSSAs is clear and comprehensible. | ||
| Social influence (SI) | SI1: People who are important to me (e.g., family members, close friends, and colleagues) recommend I use LSSAs for shopping during lockdown period. | [ |
| SI2: People who are important to me view LSSA as beneficial way for shopping during lockdown period. | ||
| SI3: People who are important to me think it is a good idea to use LSSAs for shopping during lockdown period. | ||
| SI4: People who are important to me support my use of LSSAs. | ||
| Hedonic motivation (HM) | HM1: Shopping via LSSAs is entertaining during lockdown period. | [ |
| HM2: Shopping via LSSAs relaxes me during lockdown period. | ||
| HM3: Shopping via LSSAs gives me pleasure during lockdown period. | ||
| HM4: Activities (e.g., flash sales, freebies) on LSSAs make me excited. | ||
| HM5: I enjoy shopping via LSSAs during lockdown period. | ||
| Trust (TR) | TR1: I believe LSSAs are competent and effective in handling customers’ shopping activities. | [ |
| TR2: I believe LSSAs keep customers’ interests in mind. | ||
| TR3: I trust the product demonstration from high-reputation sellers on LSSAs. | ||
| TR4: I believe that the products I purchase from LSSAs will be the same as those demonstrated on LSSAs. | ||
| TR5: Overall, I believe LSSAs are trustworthy way for shopping during lockdown period. | ||
| Flow (FL) | FL1: When using LSSAs, my attention is focused on the shopping activities. | [ |
| FL2: When shopping via LSSAs, I do not realize how time passes. | ||
| FL3: Using LSSAs gives me a temporary escape from the real-world pandemic situation. | ||
| FL4: While shopping through LSSAs, I am able to forget my problems. | ||
| FL5: When shopping via LSSAs, I often forget the work I should do. | ||
| Perceived value (PV) | PV1: Using LSSAs makes shopping more efficient and safer during lockdown period. | [ |
| PV2: Shopping via LSSAs would allow me to take advantage of additional promotions during live-streaming. | ||
| PV3: Shopping via LSSAs provides me with a lot of enjoyment, or gives me happiness during lockdown period. | ||
| PV4: Given the time I need to spend doing it during lockdown period, shopping via LSSAs is worthwhile to me. | ||
| Behavioral intention (BI) | BI1: Shopping via LSSAs had become one of consumption and entertainment patterns for me. | [ |
| BI2: Given the opportunity, I will continuously shop via LSSAs in future. | ||
| BI3: I would like to recommend others to use LSSAs for shopping during lockdown period. | ||
Demographic distribution of participants.
| Measure | Item |
| % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 180 | 48.13% |
| Female | 194 | 51.87% | |
| Age | <20 | 90 | 24.06% |
| 21–35 | 101 | 27.01% | |
| 36–50 | 96 | 25.67% | |
| >51 | 87 | 23.26% | |
| Frequency of using LSSAs during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown period | At least 1 time per 1 day | 59 | 15.78% |
| At least 1 time per 1 week | 90 | 24.06% | |
| At least 1 time per 2 weeks | 81 | 21.66% | |
| At least 1 time per 1 month | 55 | 14.71% | |
| At least 1 time per 3 months | 41 | 10.96% | |
| At least 1 time per 6 months | 29 | 7.75% | |
| Never used during the pandemic lockdown period | 19 | 5.08% |
Latent constructs’ CA, CR, AVE, MSV, and items’ factor loading.
| Factors | CA | CR | AVE | MSV | Items | Loadings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy (PE) | 0.943 | 0.943 | 0.807 | 0.510 | PE1 | 0.875 |
| PE2 | 0.912 | |||||
| PE3 | 0.905 | |||||
| PE4 | 0.899 | |||||
| Effort expectancy (EE) | 0.935 | 0.932 | 0.820 | 0.326 | EE1 | 0.896 |
| EE2 | 0.874 | |||||
| EE3 | 0.916 | |||||
| EE4 | 0.858 | |||||
| Social influence (SI) | 0.949 | 0.936 | 0.785 | 0.264 | SI1 | 0.896 |
| SI2 | 0.904 | |||||
| SI3 | 0.925 | |||||
| SI4 | 0.902 | |||||
| Hedonic motivation (HM) | 0.946 | 0.949 | 0.822 | 0.416 | HM1 | 0.868 |
| HM2 | 0.89 | |||||
| HM3 | 0.909 | |||||
| HM4 | 0.869 | |||||
| HM5 | 0.869 | |||||
| Trust (TR) | 0.948 | 0.946 | 0.776 | 0.412 | TR1 | 0.905 |
| TR2 | 0.883 | |||||
| TR3 | 0.873 | |||||
| TR4 | 0.898 | |||||
| TR5 | 0.873 | |||||
| Flow (FL) | 0.965 | 0.948 | 0.786 | 0.446 | FL1 | 0.911 |
| FL2 | 0.923 | |||||
| FL3 | 0.930 | |||||
| FL4 | 0.910 | |||||
| FL5 | 0.927 | |||||
| Perceived value (PV) | 0.943 | 0.965 | 0.847 | 0.510 | PV1 | 0.882 |
| PV2 | 0.901 | |||||
| PV3 | 0.909 | |||||
| PV4 | 0.900 | |||||
| Behavioral Intention (BI) | 0.923 | 0.923 | 0.800 | 0.394 | BI1 | 0.892 |
| BI2 | 0.892 | |||||
| BI3 | 0.899 |
(CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = maximum shared squared variance).
Latent constructs’ square root of AVE and correlation.
| PV | PE | EE | SI | HM | TR | FL | BI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.571 |
| ||||||
|
| 0.514 | 0.416 |
| |||||
|
| 0.645 | 0.408 | 0.427 |
| ||||
|
| 0.642 | 0.422 | 0.463 | 0.551 |
| |||
|
| 0.668 | 0.506 | 0.460 | 0.565 | 0.535 |
| ||
|
| 0.714 | 0.523 | 0.470 | 0.599 | 0.592 | 0.635 |
| |
|
| 0.608 | 0.494 | 0.486 | 0.538 | 0.541 | 0.600 | 0.628 |
|
(Number in Bold: Latent constructs’ square root of AVE).
The Model-fit of each model.
| X2/df | CFI | GFI | AGFI | NFI | TLI | RMSEA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommend Value | <3 | >0.9 | >0.8 | >0.8 | >0.9 | >0.9 | <0.08 |
| Single-Factor Model | 12.471 | 0.526 | 0.398 | 0.360 | 0.505 | 0.525 | 0.175 |
| Measurement Model | 1.166 | 0.994 | 0.918 | 0.902 | 0.959 | 0.993 | 0.021 |
| Original Structural Model | 1.477 | 0.982 | 0.899 | 0.882 | 0.947 | 0.980 | 0.036 |
| Model with Age Subgroups | 1.433 | 0.968 | 0.825 | 0.796 | 0.902 | 0.965 | 0.034 |
| Model with Gender Subgroups | 1.371 | 0.972 | 0.829 | 0.801 | 0.906 | 0.970 | 0.032 |
R2 values of endogenous variables in different models.
| Endogenous Variables | R2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Original Structural Model | Model with Age Subgroups | Model with Gender Subgroups | |
|
| 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.35 |
|
| 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.70 |
|
| 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.52 |
|
| 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.45 |
Hypotheses testing of the original structural model.
| Original Model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PE→FL | 0.187 | 0.047 | 3.958 | *** | Supported |
|
| EE→FL | 0.078 | 0.043 | 1.825 | 0.068 | Rejected |
|
| EE→PE | 0.209 | 0.048 | 4.319 | *** | Supported |
|
| SI→FL | 0.205 | 0.044 | 4.642 | *** | Supported |
|
| HM→FL | 0.232 | 0.052 | 4.485 | *** | Supported |
|
| TR→FL | 0.275 | 0.053 | 5.196 | *** | Supported |
|
| TR→PE | 0.38 | 0.052 | 7.323 | *** | Supported |
|
| FL→PV | 0.732 | 0.046 | 15.799 | *** | Supported |
|
| FL→BI | 0.44 | 0.069 | 6.38 | *** | Supported |
|
| PV→BI | 0.308 | 0.069 | 4.469 | *** | Supported |
(Est. = estimate; S.E. = standard error; T = t-value; P = p-value; ***: p-value < 0.01).
Hypotheses testing of the subgroups.
| Model with Gender Subgroups | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PE→FL | 0.146 | 0.061 | 2.401 | 0.016 | Sup. | 0.186 | 0.068 | 2.73 | 0.006 | Sup. | 0.446 |
|
| EE→FL | 0.162 | 0.054 | 3.014 | 0.003 | Sup. | 0.038 | 0.064 | 0.598 | 0.55 | Rej. | −1.485 |
|
| EE→PE | 0.265 | 0.066 | 4.009 | *** | Sup. | 0.151 | 0.07 | 2.151 | 0.031 | Sup. | −1.173 |
|
| SI→FL | 0.283 | 0.056 | 5.075 | *** | Sup. | 0.124 | 0.067 | 1.866 | 0.062 | Rej | −1.83 * |
|
| HM→FL | 0.07 | 0.061 | 1.154 | 0.248 | Rej. | 0.465 | 0.088 | 5.297 | *** | Sup. | 3.699 *** |
|
| TR→FL | 0.367 | 0.064 | 5.697 | *** | Sup. | 0.12 | 0.084 | 1.421 | 0.155 | Rej. | −2.331 ** |
|
| TR→PE | 0.385 | 0.071 | 5.447 | *** | Sup. | 0.389 | 0.076 | 5.145 | *** | Sup. | 0.035 |
|
| FL→PV | 0.681 | 0.066 | 10.293 | *** | Sup. | 0.771 | 0.065 | 11.902 | *** | Sup. | 0.973 |
|
| FL→BI | 0.555 | 0.099 | 5.609 | *** | Sup. | 0.337 | 0.096 | 3.526 | *** | Sup. | −1.583 |
|
| PV→BI | 0.179 | 0.103 | 1.734 | 0.083 | Rej. | 0.409 | 0.092 | 4.46 | *** | Sup. | 1.664 * |
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PE→FL | 0.196 | 0.063 | 3.106 | 0.002 | Sup. | 0.182 | 0.071 | 2.57 | 0.01 | Sup. | 1.431 |
|
| EE→FL | 0.076 | 0.056 | 1.341 | 0.18 | Rej. | 0.084 | 0.067 | 1.263 | 0.207 | Rej. | −0.153 |
|
| EE→PE | 0.145 | 0.068 | 2.131 | 0.033 | Sup. | 0.285 | 0.07 | 4.097 | *** | Sup. | −0.411 |
|
| SI→FL | 0.21 | 0.063 | 3.319 | *** | Sup. | 0.205 | 0.062 | 3.295 | *** | Sup. | 0.096 |
|
| HM→FL | 0.287 | 0.066 | 4.383 | *** | Sup. | 0.155 | 0.082 | 1.892 | 0.058 | Rej | −0.058 |
|
| TR→FL | 0.204 | 0.076 | 2.666 | 0.008 | Sup. | 0.342 | 0.075 | 4.58 | *** | Sup. | −1.259 |
|
| TR→PE | 0.479 | 0.074 | 6.512 | *** | Sup. | 0.277 | 0.073 | 3.773 | *** | Sup. | 1.293 |
|
| FL→PV | 0.744 | 0.065 | 11.37 | *** | Sup. | 0.72 | 0.065 | 10.995 | *** | Sup. | −1.947 * |
|
| FL→BI | 0.352 | 0.099 | 3.566 | *** | Sup. | 0.51 | 0.096 | 5.308 | *** | Sup. | −0.268 |
|
| PV→BI | 0.341 | 0.1 | 3.405 | *** | Sup. | 0.284 | 0.095 | 2.983 | 0.003 | Sup. | 1.15 |
(Est. = estimate; S.E. = standard error; T = t-value; P = p-value; Dec.= decision; Sup. = Supported; Rej. = Rejected; ***: p-value < 0.01; **: p-value < 0.05; *: p-value < 0.1).
Comparison between the models of gender and age subgroups.
| Model with Gender Subgroups | Model with Age Subgroups | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-Square | df | Chi-Square | df | |||
| Unconstrained | 1401.159 | 1022 | 1464.315 | 1022 | ||
| Fully Constrained | 1451.548 | 1058 | 1496.514 | 1058 | ||
| Number of Groups | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Difference | 50.389 | 36 | 0.056 | 32.199 | 36 | 0.650 |
| Model Invariant | NO | YES | ||||
The significant determinants of each subgroup.
| Mediator | Subgroup | Stimulus | Organism | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | Performance expectancy; | Flow | Behavioral Intention |
| Effort expectancy; | ||||
| Social influence; | ||||
| Trust | ||||
| Female | Performance expectancy; | Flow | Perceived value; | |
| Hedonic motivation; | Behavioral Intention | |||
| Age | ≤35 | Performance expectancy; | Flow | Perceived value; |
| Social influence; | ||||
| Hedonic motivation; | ||||
| Trust | ||||
| >35 | Performance expectancy; | Flow | Perceived value; | |
| Social influence; | ||||
| Trust |