| Literature DB >> 35756134 |
Abstract
The year 2021 is one of the most significant years for live streaming commerce, since numerous sectors and businesses have begun to sell their items in the form of live broadcast influence. Especially in China, Taobao live streaming often promotes an event by inviting internet celebrities to cooperate with brands to broadcast the products. For many brands, that is a very successful technique for increasing conversion rates. Researchers have lately grown interested in investigating the factors influencing the purchase decisions of Chinese consumers in the context of Taobao live streaming commerce with online celebrities. The present study is the first to theoretically combine three primarily literature-based disciplines, including source credibility, match-up hypothesis, and parasocial relationship theory, into a unified framework to bridge the research gaps. In this study, the quantitative method was employed through the use of partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The SmartPLS 3.0 software was applied to examine the proposed model. The data were obtained from 454 Chinese consumers who have ever purchased a cosmetic product from a famous internet celebrity on Taobao live streaming. The results indicated that the positive impact of a celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise was the powerful antecedent that affected purchase intentions, while celebrity endorsers' perceived attractiveness and trustworthiness had no significant effect. A good match-up between celebrity and product can improve the celebrity endorsers' perceived attractiveness, trustworthiness, and expertise. Moreover, it was found that the celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise acted as a mediator of the relationship between celebrity-product congruence and purchase intentions. Finally, the findings showed that parasocial relationships have vital mediating effects on increasing purchase intentions.Entities:
Keywords: Congruence; Internet celebrity; Live streaming commerce; Parasocial relationships; Source credibility; Taobao
Year: 2022 PMID: 35756134 PMCID: PMC9213714 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09676
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Conceptual framework.
Measurement model, results of standardized item loadings, construct reliability and convergent validity.
| Constructs | Items | Loading (>0.6) | CA (>0.9) | AVE (>0.5) | CR (>0.8) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purchase Intentions | INT1: Products recommended by the famous internet celebrity are worth buying. | 0.904 | 0.911 | 0.849 | 0.944 |
| INT2: You are willing to buy famous internet celebrity's products on Taobao live stream | 0.929 | ||||
| INT3: You will buy famous internet celebrity's products on Taobao live stream | 0.931 | ||||
| Attractiveness | ATT1: The famous internet celebrity has a strong attractiveness. | 0.825 | 0.925 | 0.692 | 0.940 |
| ATT2: The famous internet celebrity has a very beautiful face. | 0.769 | ||||
| ATT3: The famous internet celebrity has very beautiful lips. | 0.790 | ||||
| ATT4: The famous internet celebrity has a very persuasive voice. | 0.871 | ||||
| ATT5: The famous internet celebrity has a very professional manner. | 0.852 | ||||
| ATT6: The famous internet celebrity catches your attention. | 0.877 | ||||
| ATT7: The famous internet celebrity is a style icon. | 0.832 | ||||
| Trustworthiness | TRU1: The famous internet celebrity is a sincere person. | 0.906 | 0.930 | 0.826 | 0.950 |
| TRU2: The famous internet celebrity is an honest person. | 0.909 | ||||
| TRU3: The famous internet celebrity is trustworthy. | 0.926 | ||||
| TRU4: The famous internet celebrity is a reliable source of information. | 0.895 | ||||
| Expertise | EXP1: The famous internet celebrity has expertise in her/his field. | 0.894 | 0.937 | 0.800 | 0.952 |
| EXP2: The famous internet celebrity has product experience. | 0.864 | ||||
| EXP3: The famous internet celebrity has extensive product knowledge. | 0.893 | ||||
| EXP4: The famous internet celebrity has high professional sales qualifications. | 0.904 | ||||
| EXP5: The famous internet celebrity has skills about this product/brand. | 0.916 | ||||
| Celebrity-Product Congruence | CPC1: The characteristics of the famous internet celebrity is consistent with the attributes of the product that she/he promotes and sells. | 0.915 | 0.907 | 0.843 | 0.942 |
| CPC2: The product attributes that the famous internet celebrity promotes and sells are highly appropriate for her/him. | 0.921 | ||||
| CPC3: The pairing of the famous internet celebrity with the product is natural. | 0.919 | ||||
| Parasocial Relationship | PSR1: You feel comfortable about the famous internet celebrity's words on Taobao live streaming. | 0.782 | 0.907 | 0.730 | 0.931 |
| PSR2: You want to have a cordial conversation with the famous internet celebrity. | 0.854 | ||||
| PSR3: You can identify the personality of the famous internet celebrity. | 0.896 | ||||
| PSR4: You like to talk about the famous internet celebrity with other people. | 0.870 | ||||
| PSR5: When something bad about the famous internet celebrity appears in the media, You feel bad. | 0.867 |
Note: CA = Cronbach's Alpha, AVE = Average Variance Extracted, CR = Composite Reliability.
Demographic characteristics of respondents. (N = 454).
| Variable | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 87 | 19.16 |
| Female | 298 | 65.64 | |
| LGBTQ | 69 | 15.20 | |
| Age | 18–20 years old | 58 | 12.78 |
| 21–23 years old | 252 | 55.51 | |
| 24–26 years old | 78 | 17.18 | |
| 27–30 years old | 66 | 14.54 | |
| Education level | Bachelor's degree | 302 | 66.52 |
| Master's degree | 115 | 25.33 | |
| Doctoral's degree | 37 | 8.15 | |
| Status | Single | 360 | 79.30 |
| Married | 90 | 19.82 | |
| Divorced | 3 | 0.66 | |
| Widowed | 1 | 0.22 | |
| Income | <10,000 baht | 45 | 9.91 |
| 10,000–30,000 baht | 229 | 50.44 | |
| 30,001–50,000 baht | 71 | 15.64 | |
| >50,000 baht | 109 | 24.01 |
Common method variance via single factor.
| Factor | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loading | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | |
| 16.285 | 46.527 | 46.527 | 16.285 | 46.527 | 46.527 | |
| 3.038 | 8.681 | 55.208 | ||||
| 1.736 | 4.959 | 60.167 | ||||
| 1.315 | 3.759 | 63.926 | ||||
| Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring. | ||||||
Figure 2Results of R-Squared, path coefficient and standardized item loadings.
Results of discriminant validity.
| ATT | CPC | EXP | PSR | INT | TRU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT | ||||||
| CPC | 0.746 | |||||
| EXP | 0.887 | 0.768 | ||||
| PSR | 0.665 | 0.481 | 0.576 | |||
| INT | 0.755 | 0.622 | 0.764 | 0.766 | ||
| TRU | 0.832 | 0.746 | 0.881 | 0.685 | 0.774 |
Bold values indicate square root of AVE in the diagonal.
Results of hypothesis testing.
| Path Coefficients | Result | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Attractiveness → Purchase Intentions | 0.019ns. | 0.163 | 0.861 | Not Supported |
| H2: Trustworthiness → Purchase Intentions | 0.084ns. | 0.594 | 0.550 | Not Supported |
| H3: Expertise → Purchase Intentions | 0.437∗∗∗ | 4.286 | 0.000 | Supported with large effect |
| H4a: Attractiveness - > Parasocial Relationships | 0.430∗∗∗ | 3.390 | 0.001 | Supported with large effect |
| H4b: Attractiveness - > Parasocial Relationships - > Purchase Intentions | 0.202∗∗ | 2.938 | 0.003 | Supported with medium effect |
| H5a: Trustworthiness - > Parasocial Relationships | 0.590∗∗∗ | 5.215 | 0.000 | Supported with large effect |
| H5b: Trustworthiness - > Parasocial Relationships - > Purchase Intentions | 0.278∗∗∗ | 4.905 | 0.000 | Supported with medium effect |
| H6a: Expertise - > Parasocial Relationships | 0.326∗∗ | 2.633 | 0.006 | Supported with medium effect |
| H6b: Expertise - > Parasocial Relationships - > Purchase Intentions | 0.153∗∗ | 2.658 | 0.008 | Supported with medium effect |
| H7: Parasocial Relationships - > Purchase Intentions | 0.470∗∗∗ | 8.002 | 0.000 | Supported with large effect |
| H8a: Celebrity-Product Congruence → Attractiveness | 0.746∗∗∗ | 26.730 | 0.000 | Supported with large effect |
| H8b: Celebrity-Product Congruence - > Attractiveness - > Purchase Intentions | 0.015ns. | 0.175 | 0.861 | Not Supported |
| H9a: Celebrity-Product Congruence → Trustworthiness | 0.746∗∗∗ | 26.322 | 0.000 | Supported with large effect |
| H9b: Celebrity-Product Congruence - > Trustworthiness - > Purchase Intentions | 0.063ns. | 0.595 | 0.552 | Not Supported |
| H10a: Celebrity-Product Congruence → Expertise | 0.768∗∗∗ | 28.262 | 0.000 | Supported with large effect |
| H10b: Celebrity-Product Congruence - > Expertise - > Purchase Intentions | 0.335∗∗∗ | 4.468 | 0.000 | Supported with medium effect |
Note: ∗∗∗ = p-value ≤ 0.001, ∗∗ = p-value ≤ 0.01, ∗ = p-value ≤ 0.05, ns. = not-significant.
Effect size >0.350 = large, > 0.150 and <0.350 = medium (Cohen, 1988; Aparicio et al., 2021).
Figure 3Results of structural model.
Multiple mediation analysis.
| Path | Indirect effects | Total effects | VAF | Bootstrap 95% | Confidence Interval | Mediation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5% | 97.5% | |||||
| ATT → PSR → INT | 0.202 | 0.222 | 0.912 | 0.074 | 0.323 | Full Mediation |
| CPC - > TRU - > PSR - > INT | 0.207 | 0.624 | 0.332 | 0.135 | 0.297 | Partial Mediation |
| CPC - > ATT - > PSR | 0.321 | 0.511 | 0.628 | 0.127 | 0.500 | Partial Mediation |
| EXP - > PSR - > INT | 0.153 | 0.590 | 0.260 | -0.281 | -0.050 | Partial Mediation |
| CPC - > TRU - > INT | 0.063 | 0.624 | 0.101 | -0.157 | 0.254 | No Mediation |
| CPC - > EXP - > PSR | 0.250 | 0.511 | 0.490 | -0.442 | -0.086 | Partial Mediation |
| CPC - > TRU - > PSR | 0.441 | 0.511 | 0.862 | 0.276 | 0.595 | Full Mediation |
| CPC - > ATT - > PSR- > INT | 0.151 | 0.624 | 0.242 | 0.053 | 0.246 | Partial Mediation |
| CPC - > ATT - > INT | 0.015 | 0.624 | 0.023 | -0.168 | 0.143 | No Mediation |
| CPC - > EXP - > INT | 0.335 | 0.624 | 0.537 | 0.181 | 0.469 | Partial Mediation |
| TRU - > PSR - > INT | 0.298 | 0.362 | 0.823 | 0.175 | 0.389 | Full Mediation |
| CPC - > EXP - > PSR - > INT | 0.158 | 0.624 | 0.253 | -0.220 | -0.041 | Partial Mediation |
Note: 1. VAF would be smaller than 0.2 in the presence of a significant indirect effect.
(VAF <0.2 = no mediation; 0.2 ≤ VAF ≤_0.8 = partial mediation; VAF >0.8 = full mediation) (Aparicio et al., 2021).
2. Mediation effects were present when the 95% bootstrap confidence interval did not straddle a 0 between the upper and lower intervals.
(Preacher and Hayes, 2008).