| Literature DB >> 36081723 |
Ahsan Zubair1, Rohaizat Baharun1, Faiqa Kiran2, Muhammad Azeem Abro1,3.
Abstract
This study evaluates the relationship between diversified relationships established under the umbrella of the Stimuli-Organism-Response (SOR) framework to study the consumer continuation intention of the Airbnb platform from a Malaysian perspective. A web-based survey was conducted among Malaysian Airbnb consumers, and a sample of 303 respondents was obtained. SmartPLS has been used for data analysis. The statistical output of the respondent's data indicates that social overload and information overload influence consumer continuation intention. Moreover, the satisfaction and trust in the platform partially mediate the relationship between the stimuli and behavioral response. Further, perceived health risk strengthens the negative relationship between continuation and trust in the platform. The theoretical implications include enacting a SOR framework to understand the consumer's internal state of mind and ability to influence the consumer platform continuation intention. The practical implications suggest that the managers and business owners focus on limiting the social exposure at the host destination and the flow of information from the application.Entities:
Keywords: continuation intentions; information overload; perceived risk (PR); social overload; trust in platform
Year: 2022 PMID: 36081723 PMCID: PMC9447428 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.929060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1The theoretical framework of study.
Construct items and sources.
| S. No. | Var. | Items | Statements | References |
| 1 | IO | IO1 | There are too much information on Airbnb website that I am burdened in handling it. |
|
| IO2 | Because of too much information on Airbnb website, it is difficult to me to understand all of information. | |||
| IO3 | I have no idea about where to find the information I needed on Airbnb website | |||
| 2 | SO | SO1 | I take too much care of my friends’ wellbeing on social networking sites. | |
| SO2 | I deal too much with my friends’ problems on social networking sites. |
| ||
| SO3 | My sense of being responsible for how much fun my friends have on social networking sites is too strong. | |||
| SO4 | I am too often caring for my friends on social networking sites. | |||
| SO5 | I pay too much attention to the posts of my friends on social networking sites. | |||
| 3 | ST | ST1 | I am satisfied with my Airbnb booking experience | |
| ST2 | Using Airbnb website is a pleasant experience |
| ||
| ST3 | Overall, I am satisfied with my Airbnb booking experience | |||
| 4 | TinP | TinP1 | As a platform, Airbnb cannot be trusted at all times | |
| TinP2 | As a platform, Airbnb cannot be counted on to do what is right |
| ||
| TinP3 | As a platform, Airbnb has low integrity | |||
| TinP4 | Airbnb is a incompetent platform | |||
| 5 | PR | PR1 | For me, using Airbnb when traveling involves considerable health risk | |
| PR2 | For me, using Airbnb when traveling involves a high potential health risk for loss |
| ||
| PR3 | My decision to use Airbnb when traveling is health wise risky | |||
| 6 | CI | SI1 | I intend to switch to Airbnb accommodation service |
|
| SI2 | I will be looking to use Airbnb accommodation service for the future | |||
| SI3 | I will stop using my current accommodation provider service |
IO, information overload; SO, social overload; SAT, satisfaction; TP, trust in platform; PR, perceived health risk; CI, continuance intention; Var, variable.
Respondents profile.
| Measures | Frequency | (%) | |
| Gender | Male | 153 | 50.5 |
| Female | 150 | 49.5 | |
| Age | 18–25 | 138 | 45.54 |
| 26–33 | 62 | 20.46 | |
| 34–41 | 57 | 18.81 | |
| 42 and Above | 46 | 15.18 | |
| Education | Secondary school | 45 | 14.85 |
| Intermediate | 55 | 18.15 | |
| Graduation | 180 | 59.41 | |
| Post-graduation | 23 | 07.59 | |
| Income | 2000–3500 | 201 | 66.34 |
| 3600–5000 | 55 | 18.15 | |
| 5100–Above | 47 | 15.51 |
Construct validity.
| S. No. | Constructs | Items | Loadings | α | CR | AVE |
|
|
| 1 | Social overload (SO) | SO1 | 0.743 | 0.904 | 0.929 | 0.725 | ||
| SO2 | 0.859 | |||||||
| SO3 | 0.896 | |||||||
| SO4 | 0.890 | |||||||
| SO5 | 0.859 | |||||||
| 2 | Information overload (IO) | IO1 | 0.894 | 0.870 | 0.920 | 0.793 | ||
| IO2 | 0.907 | |||||||
| IO3 | 0.612 | |||||||
| 3 | Satisfaction (ST) | DS1 | 0.839 | 0.865 | 0.918 | 0.788 | 0.590 | 0.459 |
| DS2 | 0.911 | |||||||
| DS3 | 0.911 | |||||||
| 4 | Trust-in-platform (TP) | TP1 | 0.793 | 0.869 | 0.911 | 0.719 | 0.647 | 0.454 |
| TP2 | 0.838 | |||||||
| TP3 | 0.896 | |||||||
| TP4 | 0.863 | |||||||
| 5 | Perceived risk (PR) | PR1 | 0.904 | 0.819 | 0.892 | 0.735 | ||
| PR2 | 0.907 | |||||||
| PR3 | 0.752 | |||||||
| 6 | Continuance intentions (SI) | CI1 | 0.914 | 0.851 | 0.910 | 0.771 | 0.660 | 0.481 |
| CI2 | 0.891 | |||||||
| CI3 | 0.827 |
Measurement model and discriminant validity.
| Variables | DS | IO | PR | SO | SI | TP |
| Satisfaction (ST) |
| |||||
| Information overload (IO) | 0.712 |
| ||||
| Perceived risk (PR) | 0.554 | 0.468 |
| |||
| Social overload (SO) | 0.667 | 0.620 | 0.461 |
| ||
| Continuance intention (SI) | 0.703 | 0.654 | 0.523 | 0.586 |
| |
| Trust in platform (TP) | 0.762 | 0.778 | 0.486 | 0.642 | 0.732 |
|
SO, social overload; DS, satisfaction; IO, information overload; TP, trust in platform; PR, perceived risk; SI, continuance intentions.
Presenting the HTMT criterion.
| Variables | DS | IO | PR | SO | SI | TP |
| Satisfaction (ST) |
| |||||
| Information overload (IO) | 0.855 |
| ||||
| Perceived risk (PR) | 0.834 | 0.768 |
| |||
| Social overload (SO) | 0.821 | 0.720 | 0.861 |
| ||
| Continuance intention (SI) | 0.793 | 0.704 | 0.723 | 0.786 |
| |
| Trust in platform (TP) | 0.782 | 0.700 | 0.686 | 0.742 | 0.732 |
|
SO, social overload; DS, satisfaction; IO, information overload; TP, trust in platform; PR, perceived risk; SI, continuance intentions.
FIGURE 2Presents the structural model of study.
Hypotheses and moderation results.
| Hyp. | Relationship | Std beta | Mean | Decision | ||
| H1 | SO→ST | −0.177 | 0.365 | 4.847 | 0.000 | Significant |
| H2 | SO→TinP | −0.401 | 0.256 | 3.704 | 0.000 | Significant |
| H3 | IO→TinP | −0.190 | 0.620 | 9.744 | 0.000 | Significant |
| H4 | IO→ST | −0.553 | 0.489 | 6.440 | 0.000 | Significant |
| H5 | ST→SWI | −0.169 | 0.197 | 2.587 | 0.000 | Significant |
| H6 | TP→SWI | −0.326 | 0.383 | 4.890 | 0.000 | Significant |
|
| ||||||
| H7 | ST*PR*SI | −0.169 | 0.017 | 0.173 | 0.863 | Insignificant |
| H8 | TinP*PR*SI | −0.201 | 0.269 | 3.564 | 0.000 | Significant |
SO, social overload; ST, dissatisfaction; IO, information overload; TP, trust in platform; PR, perceived risk; CI, continuance intentions. * Shows the direction of relationship in moderation.
Variance accounted for (VAF) of the mediating variables (satisfaction and trust in platform).
| Mediation | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| H9a | SO→ST→SI | SO | SI | ST | 0.071 | 0.171 | 41.52 | Partial mediation |
| H9b | SO→Tin→PSI | SO | SI | TinP | 0.101 | 0.334 | 30.23 | Partial mediation |
| H9c | IO→ST→SI | IO | SI | ST | 0.094 | 0.171 | 28.14 | Partial mediation |
| H9d | IO→Tin→PSI | IO | SI | TinP | 0.240 | 0.334 | 71.86 | Partial mediation |
SO, social overload; ST, satisfaction; IO, information overload; TP, trust in platform; PR, perceived risk; SI, continuance intentions.
FIGURE 3Presents the moderating relationship.