| Literature DB >> 36034153 |
Richa Misra1, Renuka Mahajan1, Nidhi Singh1, Sangeeta Khorana2, Nripendra P Rana3.
Abstract
The pandemic has accelerated e-commerce adoption for both consumers and sellers. This study aims to identify factors critical to the adoption of electronic markets (EM) during the pandemic, from the perspective of small sellers in non-metro cities. The research design utilizes core dimensions of the UTAUT model and selected constructs from protection motivation theory; since business closure vulnerability also triggers electronic market adoption. A questionnaire survey method was used to collect data from 150 sellers from tier-II/III cities of India. Study results identified performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and perceived vulnerability as significant determinants of behavioural intention towards adoption of EM. The findings also explain the moderating impact of sellers' awareness of information technology and merchants' age on behavioural outcomes. Given the growing demands from such cities, the research offers insights for marketers to understand the bottlenecks and ways to motivate small sellers to get associated with EMs.Entities:
Keywords: Electronic marketplace; Perceived vulnerability; Protection motivation theory; Self-efficacy; UTAUT
Year: 2022 PMID: 36034153 PMCID: PMC9395906 DOI: 10.1007/s12525-022-00578-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Electron Mark ISSN: 1019-6781
Summary of recent studies of EM adoption
| Research profile | Purpose of the study | Findings of the study | Theory(s) adopted |
|---|---|---|---|
Authors: Duan et al., ( Method: Empirical (DEA) Sample: 43 electronic markets | The purpose of the study is to identify the efficiency-oriented important factors in the development of e-market in electronic trade | The efficiency of electronic markets depends on their international coverage, fixed price mechanism, social media engagement, years in operations, product specialization and ownership | NA |
Authors: Wan and Wang ( Method: Empirical Sample: 267 sellers | The study talks about entrepreneurial self-efficacy and remote work-efficacy, and their impact on operational creativity and performance in online marketplaces | Operational creativity improves sellers’ performance in online marketplaces. Customer engagement and attractive page layout enhance the operational creativity of sellers | Social cognitive theory |
Authors: Edwards et al., ( Method: SEM analysis Sample: 252 B2B salespeople | The research explores the relationship between B2B sales performance, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial sales behaviours | Self-efficacy enhances creative selling and sales innovation. To improve effectiveness, management should promote and recognize new selling methods | NA |
Authors: Idris et al., ( Method: Descriptive Sample: NA | Critical analysis of existing innovation adoption theories for explaining SMEs’ e-commerce adoption | There is a need for an integration framework. The synergy between the perceived e-readiness model and the technology organization environment framework is considered | Perceived E-readiness Model Technology organization environment framework |
Authors: Ikumoro and Jawad ( Method: Descriptive Sample: NA | The study examined extrapolative elements to explain Malaysian SMEs' inclination to use intelligent conversational agents for e-commerce | The study identified 11 critical factors including usefulness, relative advantages, security and others that influence AI based technology adoption in e-commerce among SMEs | UTAUT Technology-organization -environment framework (TOE) |
Authors: Wang et al., ( Method: Case study method Sample: NA | This paper examines EM adoption from both buyers and sellers’ perspectives | The results of the case studies show that performance expectancy is the most crucial factor for adoption | NA |
Authors: Naughton et al., ( Method: Case study method Sample: NA | The purpose is to analyze how SMEs create and apply supply chain agility (SCA) in the context of rising environmental uncertainty | Organizational attitudes shape how SMEs perceive environmental unpredictability, address organizational vulnerabilities and establish SCA | NA |
Authors: Indriastuti and Fuad ( Method: Descriptive Sample: NA | The purpose the study is to explore the sustainable framework for SMEs during pandemic times | To be sustainable, SMEs must adopt a new business mindset based on technology. The study confirmed that SMEs lack knowledge on digital skills | NA |
Authors: Ferreira et al., ( Method: Semi-structured interviews method Sample: NA | This study looks into the supply chain during the COVID-19 pandemic for SME food firms, identifying relevant areas for improvement | There are a few constraints related to lack of supply chain process, lack of alternative suppliers, low budget and others that influence SME performance | Complex adaptive system theory |
Fig. 1The proposed model
Demographic profile of respondents
| Demographics | Frequencies | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 91 | 59.16 |
| Female | 59 | 40.84 | |
| Age (years) | 18–30 | 40 | 26.67 |
| 31–40 | 48 | 32.00 | |
| 41–50 | 35 | 23.33 | |
| Above 50 | 27 | 18.00 | |
| No of years registered with EM | Less than 6 months | 60 | 40 |
| 6 months to less than a year | 48 | 32 | |
| 1–3 years | 25 | 16.67 | |
| More than 3 years | 17 | 11.33 | |
| Frequency of receiving order | None | 20 | 13.33 |
| An order in several weeks | 45 | 30 | |
| An order per week | 38 | 25.33 | |
| An order in a day | 29 | 19.33 | |
| Multiple orders in a day | 18 | 12 | |
| Type of business | General Store | 41 | 27.33 |
| Footwear and Apparel | 44 | 29.33 | |
| Gift shops | 37 | 24.67 | |
| Stationery and office products | 28 | 18.67 | |
Construct validity
| Research construct | Item | Item loading | Average variance extracted (AVE) | Composite rReliability (CR) | Cronbach aAlpha (CA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effort expectancy | EE1 | 0.852 | 0.645 | 0.843 | 0.716 |
| EE2 | 0.887 | ||||
| EE3 | 0.700 | ||||
| Facilitating conditions | FC1 | 0.844 | 0.631 | 0.835 | 0.717 |
| FC2 | 0.863 | ||||
| FC3 | 0.700 | ||||
| Perceived vulnerability | PV1 | 0.89 | 0.631 | 0.863 | 0.683 |
| PV2 | 0.851 | ||||
| Self-efficacy | SE1 | 0.909 | 0.740 | 0.850 | 0.658 |
| SE2 | 0.809 | ||||
| Performance expectancy | PE1 | 0.741 | 0.501 | 0.797 | 0.660 |
| PE2 | 0.701 | ||||
| PE3 | 0.715 | ||||
| PE4 | 0.702 | ||||
| Behavioural intention | BI1 | 0.779 | 0.628 | 0.835 | 0.703 |
| BI2 | 0.835 | ||||
| BI3 | 0.763 | ||||
| Social influence | SI1 | 0.875 | 0.677 | 0.863 | 0.766 |
| SI2 | 0.793 | ||||
| SI3 | 0.799 |
Discriminant validity
| EE | FC | PB | PC | PE | Sat | SI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EE | 0.803 | ||||||
| FC | 0.282 | 0.794 | |||||
| PB | 0.686 | 0.218 | 0.795 | ||||
| PC | 0.227 | 0.105 | 0.442 | 0.861 | |||
| PE | 0.595 | 0.238 | 0.528 | 0.167 | 0.707 | ||
| Sat | 0.679 | 0.292 | 0.749 | 0.292 | 0.677 | 0.792 | |
| SI | 0.191 | 0.682 | 0.075 | 0.235 | 0.178 | 0.281 | 0.822 |
Cross loadings
| EE | FC | PV | SE | PE | BI | SI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EE1 | 0.124 | 0.259 | 0.121 | 0.397 | 0.388 | -0.060 | |
| EE2 | 0.178 | 0.256 | 0.21 | 0.377 | 0.453 | -0.024 | |
| EE3 | 0.200 | 0.224 | 0.042 | 0.203 | 0.319 | 0.232 | |
| FC1 | 0.150 | 0.148 | 0.065 | 0.104 | 0.197 | 0.441 | |
| FC2 | 0.211 | 0.179 | 0.104 | 0.177 | 0.200 | 0.439 | |
| FC3 | 0.112 | 0.039 | -0.011 | 0.075 | 0.099 | 0.285 | |
| PV1 | 0.163 | 0.088 | 0.285 | 0.051 | 0.201 | 0.174 | |
| PV2 | 0.116 | 0.044 | 0.229 | 0.036 | 0.143 | 0.102 | |
| SE1 | 0.426 | 0.153 | 0.890 | 0.325 | 0.486 | 0.008 | |
| SE2 | 0.430 | 0.144 | 0.851 | 0.292 | 0.422 | 0.066 | |
| PE1 | 0.262 | 0.069 | 0.259 | -0.063 | 0.342 | 0.097 | |
| PE2 | 0.341 | 0.122 | 0.272 | 0.096 | 0.312 | 0.054 | |
| PE3 | 0.241 | 0.226 | 0.271 | -0.001 | 0.324 | 0.135 | |
| PE4 | 0.327 | 0.027 | 0.198 | 0.123 | 0.318 | 0.076 | |
| BI1 | 0.435 | 0.152 | 0.460 | 0.186 | 0.319 | 0.166 | |
| BI2 | 0.358 | 0.171 | 0.366 | 0.090 | 0.406 | 0.191 | |
| BI3 | 0.359 | 0.199 | 0.413 | 0.207 | 0.371 | 0.151 | |
| SI1 | 0.047 | 0.349 | 0.010 | 0.138 | 0.146 | 0.211 | |
| SI2 | -0.016 | 0.404 | 0.049 | 0.082 | 0.108 | 0.169 | |
| SI3 | 0.083 | 0.539 | 0.051 | 0.210 | 0.043 | 0.130 |
VIF values
| Construct | VIF |
|---|---|
| Effort expectancy | 1.475 |
| Facilitating conditions | 1.414 |
| Perceived vulnerability | 1.482 |
| Self-efficacy | 1.140 |
| Performance expectancy | 1.283 |
| Social influence | 1.403 |
Structural relationships and hypothesis testing
| Hypotheses (and desired relationship) | Standardized Beta coefficients | Std. error | t-value | P-value & decision | 2.5% CI LL | 97.5% CI UL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effort expectancy → Behavioural intention | 0.223 | 0.059 | 3.747 | 0.000 (S) | 0.11 | 0.345 |
| Facilitating conditions → Behavioural intention | 0.004 | 0.075 | 0.054 | 0.957 (NS) | -0.14 | 0.148 |
| Perceived vulnerability → Behavioural intention | 0.313 | 0.076 | 4.128 | 0.000 (S) | 0.164 | 0.458 |
| Self-efficacy → Behavioural intention | 0.037 | 0.057 | 0.644 | 0.520 (NS) | -0.08 | 0.145 |
| Performance expectancy → Behavioural intention | 0.234 | 0.066 | 3.543 | 0.000 (S) | 0.094 | 0.351 |
| Social influence → Behavioural intention | 0.153 | 0.068 | 2.232 | 0.026 (S) | 0.015 | 0.279 |
[*S-supported *NS-Not Supported]
Result of multigroup analysis
| Age | EM Experience | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 35 | > = 35 | Diff | Low | High | Diff | |
| PE- > BI | 0.659 | 0.462 | 0.209 | 0.314 | NS | |
| EE- > BI | 0.445 | 0.205 | 0.424 | 0.639 | S | |
| SI- > BI | 0.374 | 0.336 | NS | 0.48 | 0.355 | NS |
| FC- > BI | 0.128 | 0.667 | NS | 0.005 | 0.08 | NS |
| PV- > BI | 0.546 | 0.637 | 0.491 | 0.215 | S | |
| SE—> BI | 0.355 | 0.288 | NS | 0.5 | 0.657 | S |
IPMA results
| Construct | Total effect | Construct performances for BI |
|---|---|---|
| Effort expectancy | 0.223 | 76.448 |
| Facilitating conditions | 0.004 | 60.518 |
| Perceived vulnerability | 0.037 | 69.885 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.313 | 73.258 |
| Performance expectancy | 0.234 | 68.126 |
| Social influence | 0.153 | 55.907 |