Moderating Effect of Dynamic Environment in the Relationship between Guanxi, Trust, and Repurchase Intention of Agricultural Materials
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Base and Hypotheses
2.1. Theoretical Base
2.1.1. Guanxi
2.1.2. Trust
2.1.3. Repeat Purchase Intention
2.1.4. Dynamic Environment
2.2. Research Hypothesis
2.2.1. The Impact of Guanxi on Trust
2.2.2. Impact of Guanxi on Repeated Purchase Intentions
2.2.3. Impact of Trust on Repeated Purchase Intentions
2.2.4. Moderation Role of Dynamic Environment Played in the Relationship between Trust and Repeated Purchase Intentions
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Sampling and Data
3.2. Measurement
3.3. Reliability and Validity
4. Results
4.1. Results of Regression Equation Modeling
4.2. Robustness Test
4.2.1. Comparative Analysis of Models
4.2.2. Comparison of the Hypotheses Test Results
5. Discussions
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
5.2. Implications for Management
5.3. Limitations and Further Research
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Completion Instructions:
Basic Information:
01.The type of respondent: 1) ordinary farmers; 2) farming expert; 3) village cadres; 4) agricultural technicians |
02. Address of the village: _________ City __________ County _________ Township _______ VillageYour name: _____________ Contact number: ____________ |
03. Your gender: 0—male; 1—female |
04. Your age: 1) under 36 years old; 2) 37~46 years old; 3) 47~54 years old; 4) 55~65 years old; 5) over 66 years old |
05. Education level: 1) less literacy; 2) elementary school; 3) junior high school; 4) high school or technical school; 5) college and above |
06. Farming experience: 1) 10 years and below; 2) 11 to 30 years; 3) 30 years or more |
07. Size of your farm: 1) 5 mu and below; 2) 6 ~ 15 mu; 3) more than 15 mu |
08. Type of land: 1) cultivated land; 2) mountainous land; 3) forest fruit land; 4) water surface; 5) pasture |
10. The average annual income of your family: 1) less than 10,000 (inclusive) yuan; 2) 10,000 to 30,000 (inclusive) yuan; 3) 40,000 to 60,000 (inclusive) yuan; 4) 70,000 to 90,000 (inclusive) yuan; 5) 100,000 yuan or more |
11. Agricultural income as a percentage of total income: 1) 25% and below; 2) 26% ~ 50%; 3) 51% or more |
Please choose according to the actual situation: 1—completely disagree; 2—basically disagree; 3—do not agree; 4—does not matter; 5—partially agree; 6—basically agree; 7—fully agree | ||||||||
Guanxi | ||||||||
Personal relations | ||||||||
S1.1 | When local farmers interact with sales staff in agricultural retail stores, they think each other is a friend of their own. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
S1.2 | Local farmers are willing to help each other on non-work issues when they interact with sales staff at agricultural retail stores. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
S1.3 | Local farmers often talk about some personal issues when they interact with salespeople in agricultural retail stores. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
S1.4 | When local farmers interact with the sales staff of the agricultural retail store, even if the current buying and selling relationship is over, they will keep in constant contact with each other. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
S1.5 | Local farmers think of each other as a circle when they interact with sales staff at agricultural retail stores. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
S1.6 | When the local farmers interact with the sales staff of the agricultural retail store, the relationship between the two parties is tested for a long time. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Instrumentality | ||||||||
S2.1 | Local farmers maintain their relationship with agricultural retail stores and contribute to the choice of agricultural products (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
S2.2 | Local farmers maintain relationships with agricultural retail stores and help to obtain information or resources on agricultural products (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
S2.3 | Local farmers maintain their relationship with agricultural retail stores, helping to reduce the cost of agricultural products (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
S2.4 | If local farmers are not buying agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds), they are not willing to contact agricultural retail stores. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
S2.5 | I believe that if there is not a demand for agricultural materials, local farmers will not be willing to contact agricultural retail stores. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Dynamic environment | ||||||||
Demand uncertainty | ||||||||
T1.1 | The demand of local farmers in the agricultural retail industry is difficult to predict. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
T1.2 | Local farmers in the agricultural retail industry always seek new differences. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
T1.3 | The preferences of local farmers in the agricultural retail industry are always changing. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Competition intensity | ||||||||
T2.1 | There are many agricultural retail stores in the agricultural retail market that provide similar agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds). | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
T2.2 | Agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds) in the agricultural retail industry are changing rapidly. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
T2.3 | In the agricultural retail industry, the strategy of price competition is often adopted between agricultural retail stores. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
T2.4 | The market competition of the agricultural materials retail industry is very fierce. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Trust | ||||||||
X2.1 | Agricultural retail stores are committed to us. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
X2.2 | Agricultural retail stores do not always treat us honestly (R). | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
X2.3 | We believe the information provided by agricultural retail stores. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
X2.4 | Agricultural retail stores really care about our agricultural harvest. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
X2.5 | When making important decisions, the agricultural retail store will consider giving both-sides benefits. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
X2.6 | We believe that agricultural retail stores are always concerned about our interests. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
X2.7 | Agricultural retail stores are worthy of trust. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
X2.8 | We found it necessary to be cautious about agricultural retail stores (R). | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Repeat purchase intention | ||||||||
Z2.1 | Local farmers will have more business dealings with agricultural retail stores in the future. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Z2.2 | Local farmers will purchase new agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds) or new services provided by frequent agricultural retail stores. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Z2.3 | Local farmers will buy more agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds) or services from frequent agricultural retail stores. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
References
- Dodds, W.; Monroe, K. The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations. Adv. Consum. Res. 1985, 12, 85–90. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, L.Y.; Chen, K.Y.; Chen, P.Y.; Cheng, S.L. Perceived value, transaction cost, and repurchase-intention in online shopping: A relational exchange perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2768–2776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rust, R.T.; Zahorik, A.J. Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share. J. Retail. 1993, 69, 193–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, Y.; La, S. What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty. Psychol. Mark. 2010, 21, 351–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 20–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Upamannyu, N.K.; Gulati, C.; Chack, A.; Kaur, G. The effect of customer trust on customer loyalty and repurchase intention: The moderating influence of perceived CSR. Int. J. Res. IT Manag. Eng. 2015, 5, 1–31. [Google Scholar]
- Lang, B.; Colgate, M. Switching barriers in consumer markets: An investigation of the financial services industry. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 332–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Lu, H.; Liu, H. An empirical study of the influence of interpersonal relationship on enterprise purchase intention—Based on china’s cultural background. J. Shanxi Univ. Financ. Econ. 2010, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.; Yan, Y.; Chen, S. Understanding the impact of social commerce website technical features on repurchase intention: A Chinese guanxi perspective. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2017, 18, 225–244. [Google Scholar]
- Gustafsson, A.; Johnson, M.D.; Roos, I. The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.J.; Ferrin, D.L.; Rao, H.R. Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-commerce relationships: A longitudinal exploration. Inf. Syst. Res. 2009, 20, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; Zhou, T.; Li, Y. Trust, commitment, relationship behavior and relationship performance: buyer’s perspective. Manag. Rev. 2011, 23, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leung, T.K.P.; Chan, R.Y.K.; Lai, K.; Ngai, E.W. An examination of the influence of guanxi and xinyong (utilization of personal trust) on negotiation outcome in China: An old friend approach. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2011, 40, 1193–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kriz, A.; Fang, T. Interpersonal trust in Chinese relational networks: Moving from guanxi to xinren. In Proceedings of the IMP 19th Annual International Conference; IMP Group: Lugano, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, S. The establishment of trust: Relationship operation and legal means. Sociol. Res. 1999, 2, 53–66. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Yan, G. The impact of personal relations and contractual relationship on two-level trust between enterprises—An empirical analysis from the distribution channel of household appliances. Shanghai Manag. Sci. 2006, 28, 5–8. [Google Scholar]
- Fei, X. Native China; Beijing People’s Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2008; ISBN 9787208118164. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, J.; Li, Y. Willingly or helplessly? The preliminary study on the driving factors of farmers’ lock-in purchasing behavior of agricultural materials. Econ. Manag. J. 2014, 81–93. Available online: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-JJGU201411011.htm (accessed on 25 September 2019).
- Xin, K.R.; Pearce, J.L. Guanxi: Connections as subtitutes for formal institutional support. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 1641–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, M.; Zhang, W.; Xia, C. Market uncertainty and the speculative behavior of agricultural product buyers: The role of guanxi. J. Bus. Econ. 2013, 11–20. Available online: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-SYJG201312003.htm (accessed on 25 September 2019).
- Zhang, W.; Xu, J.; Du, N.; Zhou, N. Research on the influence of personal relations on speculation in marketing channels based on local culture. Chin. J. Manag. 2016, 13, 958–971. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, D.Y.; Dawes, P.L. Guanxi, trust, and long-term orientation in Chinese business markets. J. Int. Mark. 2005, 13, 28–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, G.; Xi, Y.; Tsang, A. Power, conflict, and cooperation: The impact of guanxi in Chinese marketing channels. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2010, 39, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yan, Y. Difference pattern and hierarchical view of Chinese culture. Sociol. Res. 2006, 201–213. Available online: http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&filename=SHXJ200604011&dbname=CJFD2006&uid=WEEvREdxOWJmbC9oM1NjYkZCbDdrdXJKMFptQjdpaStkamhnUy83U3lMQ3g%3D%24R1yZ0H6jyaa0en3RxVUd8df-oHi7XMMDo7mtKT6mSmEvTuk11l2gFA!! (accessed on 25 September 2019).
- Weber, M. translated by Hong, T. ; Confucianism and Taoism; Jiangsu People’s Publishing House: Nanjing, Jiangsu, China, 1995; ISBN 9787214049520. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, F. Investigating interpersonal relationships in the period of market economy. J. Jiangxi Soc. Sci. 1994, 63–65. Available online: http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&filename=JXSH406.027&dbname=CJFD9495&uid=WEEvREcwSlJHSldRa1FhdkJkVG1ERERDdzB1clMrUnA5VnhMWnd3ZDE2bz0%3D%249A4hF_YAuvQ5obgVAqNKPCYcEjKensW4IQMovwHtwkF4VYPoHbKxJw!! (accessed on 25 September 2019).
- Liu, H. An Empirical Study of the Influence of Interpersonal Relationships on Business Intention in Chinese Culture Background. Master’s Dissertation, Nankai University, Tianjin, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Zhuang, G.; Xi, Y. Cultural basis of relationship marketing in China. Manag. World 2003, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X. The formation process of employee organizational commitment: Internal mechanism and external influence—An empirical study based on social exchange theory. Manag. World 2011, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Li, G.; Chan, S. Corporate responsibility for employees and service innovation performance in manufacturing transformation: The mediation role of employee innovative behavior. Career Dev. Int. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.; Deng, L.; Fang, E. Market orientation, strategic flexibility and firm performance: The regulating effect of environmental uncertainty. China Soft Sci. 2010, 130–139. Available online: http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&filename=ZGRK201009015&dbname=CJFD2010&uid=WEEvREdxOWJmbC9oM1NjYkZCbDdrdXJKMFptQjdpaStkamhnUy83U3lMQ3g%3D%24R1yZ0H6jyaa0en3RxVUd8df-oHi7XMMDo7mtKT6mSmEvTuk11l2gFA!! (accessed on 25 September 2019).
- Jaworski, B.J.; Kohli, A.K. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Li, G.; Yang, X.; Yang, Z. Pursuing superior performance of service innovation through improved corporate social responsibility. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 925–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Li, Y.; Li, W. Research on trust chain model in farmers’ purchase decision based on psychological distance situation. Forecast 2016, 35, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
- Doney, P.M.; Cannon, J.P. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J. Mark. 1997, 61, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churchill, G.A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paolo, G.; Laurent, G. Interpersonal trust in commercial relationships. Eur. J. Mark. 2010, 44, 114–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; Zhou, T.; Li, Y. Trust, commitment, relationship behavior and relationship performance: A vendor perspective. Chin. J. Manag. 2010, 7, 1032–1038. [Google Scholar]
- Tseng, M.L.; Chiu, A.S.; Chien, C.F.; Tan, R.R. Pathways and barriers to circularity in food systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 143, 236–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piergiuseppe, M.; Pasquale, M.F.; Valentina, E.T. Food waste valorisation: Assessing the effectiveness of collaborative research networks through the lenses of a COST action. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falcone, P.M. Tourism-Based Circular Economy in Salento (South Italy): A SWOT-ANP Analysis. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, J.H.B.; Poon, T.; Pongtip, T.; Richard, M.F.; Bob, D.; Samarthia, T. Looking at complex agri-food systems from an actor perspective: The case of Northern Thailand. In Advances in Food Security and Sustainability; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Profile |
---|---|
Gender | |
Male | 66.78 |
Female | 33.22 |
Farming Experience | |
≤10 years | 23.9 |
11–30 years | 38 |
≥31 years | 38.1 |
Education | |
Less literacy | 10.38 |
Elementary school | 31.66 |
Junior high school | 45.67 |
High school/technical school | 11.07 |
Diploma and above | 1.21 |
Agri. Income/Total Income | |
≤25% | 50.9 |
26–50% | 27.8 |
≥51% | 21.3 |
Age | |
≤36 | 10.38 |
37–46 | 26.12 |
47–54 | 27.85 |
55–65 | 23.70 |
Family Income (Yuan) | |
≤10,000 | 25.78 |
10,000–30,000 | 47.58 |
30,000–60,000 | 19.55 |
60,000–90,000 | 3.80 |
>90,000 | 3.29 |
Scale | Factor Loadings |
---|---|
Personal relations (CR = 0.837, AVE = 0.507, α = 0.752, Percentage of variance explained = 50.74%) | |
When local farmers interact with sales staff in agricultural retail stores, they think each other is a friend of their own. | 0.725 |
Local farmers are willing to help each other on non-work issues when they interact with sales staff at agricultural retail stores. | 0.712 |
Local farmers often talk about some personal issues when they interact with salespeople in agricultural retail stores. | 0.627 |
When local farmers interact with the sales staff of the agricultural retail store, even if the current buying and selling relationship is over, they will keep in constant contact with each other. | 0.736 |
Local farmers think of each other as a circle when they interact with sales staff at agricultural retail stores. | 0.688 |
Instrumentality (CR = 0.919, AVE = 0.850, α = 0.825, Percentage of variance explained = 85.08%) | |
If local farmers are not buying agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds), they are not willing to contact agricultural retail stores. | 0.922 |
I believe that if there is not a demand for agricultural materials, local farmers will not be willing to contact agricultural retail stores. | 0.922 |
Trust (CR = 0.876, AVE = 0.542, α = 0.826, Percentage of variance explained = 54.16%) | |
Agricultural retail stores are committed to us. | 0.657 |
We believe that the information provided by agricultural retail stores. | 0.775 |
Agricultural retail stores really care about our agricultural harvest. | 0.753 |
When making important decisions, the agricultural retail store will consider giving both-sides benefits. | 0.764 |
We believe that agricultural retail stores are always concerned about our interests. | 0.696 |
Agricultural retail stores are worthy of trust. | 0.764 |
Uncertainty in demand (CR = 0.870, AVE = 0.695, α = 0.775, Percentage of variance explained = 69.45%) | |
The demand of local farmers in the agricultural retail industry is difficult to predict. | 0.754 |
Local farmers in the agricultural retail industry always seek new differences. | 0.864 |
The preferences of local farmers in the agricultural retail industry are always changing. | 0.877 |
Competition intensity (CR = 0.793, AVE = 0.560, α = 0.607, Percentage of variance explained = 56.07%) | |
There are many agricultural retail stores in the agricultural retail market that provide similar agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds). | 0.704 |
Agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds) in the agricultural retail industry are changing rapidly. | 0.677 |
The market competition of agricultural materials retail industry is very fierce. | 0.752 |
Repeat purchase intention (CR = 0.878, AVE = 0.707, α = 0.789, Percentage of variance explained = 70.70%) | |
Local farmers will have more business dealings with agricultural retail stores in the future. | 0.763 |
Local farmers will purchase new agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds) or new services provided by frequent agricultural retail stores. | 0.881 |
Local farmers will buy more agricultural materials (pesticide, fertilizer, seeds) or services from frequent agricultural retail stores. | 0.873 |
KMO and Bartlett Sphericity Test | Personal Relations | Instrumentality | Trust | Demand Uncertainty | Competition Intensity | Repeated Purchase Intention | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin | 0.756 | 0.500 | 0.830 | 0.664 | 0.637 | 0.669 | |
Bartlett sphericity test | Approximate chi-square distribution | 663.836 | 390.141 | 1189.210 | 530.125 | 183.003 | 571.656 |
Freedom | 10 | 1 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Significant probability | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Variables | Means | Standard Deviation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Repeat purchase intention | 5.641 | 0.996 | (0.841) | |||||
2. Personal relations | 5.012 | 1.088 | 0.392 ** | (0.712) | ||||
3. Instrumentality | 4.001 | 1.665 | −0.137 ** | 0.095 | (0.922) | |||
4. Trust | 5.352 | 0.960 | 0.539 ** | 0.431 ** | −0.022 | (0.736) | ||
5. Demand uncertainty | 4.737 | 1.372 | 0.105 * | 0.236 ** | 0.160 ** | 0.144 ** | (0.834) | |
6. Competition intensity | 5.555 | 0.986 | 0.211 ** | 0.197 ** | 0.017 | 0.199 ** | 0.228 ** | (0.748) |
Variables | Trust (TR) | Repeat Purchase Intention (RI) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
Personal relation (PR) | 0.437 *** | 0.215 *** | 0.203 *** | 0.203 *** | 0.205 *** | 0.204 *** |
Instrumentality (IV) | −0.063 * | −0.148 *** | −0.148 *** | −0.149 *** | −0.153 *** | −0.153 *** |
Trust (TR) | 0.443 *** | 0.431 *** | 0.430 *** | 0.810 *** | 0.820 *** | |
Uncertainty in demand (DU) | −0.001 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.002 | ||
Competition intensity (CI) | 0.088 ** | 0.088 ** | 0.475 *** | 0.486 *** | ||
Uncertainty in demand × Trust (DU × TR) | −0.017 | 0.008 | ||||
Competition intensity × Trust (CI × TR) | −0.601 ** | −0.616 ** | ||||
R | 0.436 | 0.586 | 0.592 | 0.592 | 0.598 | 0.598 |
R2 | 0.190 | 0.343 | 0.350 | 0.351 | 0.358 | 0.358 |
ΔR2 | 0.187 | 0.340 | 0.345 | 0.344 | 0.351 | 0.350 |
F | 67.465 | 99.950 | 61.734 | 51.418 | 52.960 | 45.325 |
Variables | Trust (TR) | Repeated Purchase Intention (RI) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
Personal relations (PR) | 0.441 *** | 0.239 *** | 0.236 *** | 0.235 *** | 0.245 *** | 0.244 *** |
Instrumentality (IV) | −0.126 ** | −0.210 *** | −0.207 *** | −0.205 *** | −0.213 *** | −0.210 *** |
Trust (TR) | 0.452 *** | 0.447 *** | 0.449 *** | −0.021 *** | 0.433 *** | |
Uncertainty in demand (DU) | −0.026 | −0.033 | 0.068 | −0.031 | ||
Competition intensity (CI) | 0.057 | 0.055 | 0.433 | 0.066 | ||
Uncertainty in demand × Trust (DU × TR) | 0.038 | 0.059 | ||||
Competition intensity × Trust (CI × TR) | −0.084 * | −0.096 ** | ||||
R | 0.444 | 0.632 | 0.634 | 0.635 | 0.639 | 0.642 |
R2 | 0.197 | 0.399 | 0.402 | 0.403 | 0.409 | 0.412 |
ΔR2 | 0.192 | 0.393 | 0.392 | 0.391 | 0.397 | 0.398 |
F | 36.530 | 65.474 | 39.529 | 33.022 | 33.756 | 29.210 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, L.; Li, G.; Feng, X.; Liu, Z.; Tsai, F.-S. Moderating Effect of Dynamic Environment in the Relationship between Guanxi, Trust, and Repurchase Intention of Agricultural Materials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3773. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193773
Li L, Li G, Feng X, Liu Z, Tsai F-S. Moderating Effect of Dynamic Environment in the Relationship between Guanxi, Trust, and Repurchase Intention of Agricultural Materials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(19):3773. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193773
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Lan, Gang Li, Xiaoling Feng, Zhigao Liu, and Fu-Sheng Tsai. 2019. "Moderating Effect of Dynamic Environment in the Relationship between Guanxi, Trust, and Repurchase Intention of Agricultural Materials" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 19: 3773. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193773
APA StyleLi, L., Li, G., Feng, X., Liu, Z., & Tsai, F. -S. (2019). Moderating Effect of Dynamic Environment in the Relationship between Guanxi, Trust, and Repurchase Intention of Agricultural Materials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3773. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193773