Do Psychological Ownership and Communicative Presence Matter? Examining How User-Generated Content in E-Commerce Live Streaming Influences Consumers’ Purchase Intention
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Elaboration Likelihood Model
2.1.1. UGC Quality
2.1.2. UGC Emotion
2.1.3. UGC Interaction
2.2. Purchase Intention
2.3. User-Generated Content (UGC)
2.4. Psychological Ownership
2.5. Communication Presence
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Questionnaire and Measurements
3.2. Sample Description
3.3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Reliability Analysis
4.2. Validity Analysis
4.3. Correlation Analysis
4.4. Structural Equation Modeling
4.4.1. Model Fit Test
4.4.2. Main Effect Test
4.4.3. Mediating Effect Test
5. Discussion and Conclusions
6. Research Implications
6.1. Theoretical Implications
6.2. Practical Implications
7. Limitations and Further Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wu, D.; Wang, X.; Ye, H.J. Transparentizing the “Black Box” of Live Streaming: Impacts of Live Interactivity on Viewers’ Experience and Purchase. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024, 71, 3820–3831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- E-commerce in China Experienced Consistent Growth During the First Ten Months. Available online: http://finance.people.com.cn/n1/2023/1118/c1004-40121035.html (accessed on 24 March 2024).
- Oriental Selection’s Earnings in the Middle of the Fiscal Year 2024 Saw a Total Revenue of ¥2.795 Billion, Marking a 34.4% Year-Over-Year Increase. Available online: http://www.199it.com/archives/1673959.html (accessed on 24 March 2024).
- Gao, M.; Wang, J.; Liu, O. Is UGC Sentiment Helpful for Recommendation? An Application of Sentiment-Based Recommendation Model. IMDS 2024, 124, 1356–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, J.; Chen, L.; Wen, C.; Prybutok, V.R. Co-Viewing Experience in Video Websites: The Effect of Social Presence on E-Loyalty. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2018, 22, 446–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Wang, W.; Chen, Y. Frontiers: In-Consumption Social Listening with Moment-to-Moment Unstructured Data: The Case of Movie Appreciation and Live Comments. Mark. Sci. 2020, 39, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Huang, H. Influence of Perceived Value on Consumers’ Continuous Purchase Intention in Live-Streaming E-Commerce—Mediated by Consumer Trust. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, H.; Oh, C.; Kim, N.Y.; Choi, H.; Kim, B.; Ji, Y.G. Evaluating and Eliciting Design Requirements for an Improved User Experience in Live-Streaming Commerce Interfaces. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2024, 150, 107990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henkel, L.; Toporowski, W. Hurry up! The Effect of Pop-up Stores’ Ephemerality on Consumers’ Intention to Visit. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Sun, L.; Qin, F.; Wang, G.A. E-Service Quality on Live Streaming Platforms: Swift Guanxi Perspective. JSM 2021, 35, 312–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, H.; Wu, L.; Yi, S.; Xue, L. The Effect of Online Interaction and Trust on Consumers’ Value Co-Creation Behavior in the Online Travel Community. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2020, 37, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiang, Y.; Chae, S.W. Influence of Perceived Interactivity on Continuous Use Intentions on the Danmaku Video Sharing Platform: Belongingness Perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2022, 38, 573–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fei, M.; Tan, H.; Peng, X.; Wang, Q.; Wang, L. Promoting or Attenuating? An Eye-Tracking Study on the Role of Social Cues in e-Commerce Livestreaming. Decis. Support Syst. 2021, 142, 113466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.-L.; Liu, L.-C.; Sun, K. The Path of Influence of Pop-up Information Quality on Consumers’ Purchase Intention in E-commerce Live Streaming—The Moderating Role of Shopping Orientation and Anchor’s Visibility. Intell. Theor. Pract. 2023, 46, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, Q.; Guo, Q.; Zhuang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, W. Do Real-Time Reviews Matter? Examining How Bullet Screen Influences Consumers’ Purchase Intention in Live Streaming Commerce. Inf. Syst. Front. 2023, 25, 2051–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, N.; Yang, Y. The Role of Influencers in Live Streaming E-Commerce: Influencer Trust, Attachment, and Consumer Purchase Intention. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 18, 1601–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, X.; Xu, X.-Y.; Tayyab, S.M.U.; Li, Q. How the Live Streaming Commerce Viewers Process the Persuasive Message: An ELM Perspective and the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2021, 49, 101087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zang, W.; Cui, Y.-Q.; Xu, L. A Study of the Impact of Live Brand Experience on Customers’ Psychological Ownership of Brands. Soft Sci. 2022, 36, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, H.-G.; Zhang, Y.-K.; He, Y. On the Impact of Customer Cognition of brand Psychological Ownership-The Mediating Role Based on the Consistency of Brand Value. J. N. Minzu U. Philos. Social. Sci. 2020, 1, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slater, J.S. Collecting The Real Thing: A Case Study Exploration of Brand Loyalty Enhancement Among Coca-Cola Brand Collectors. Adv. Consum. Res. 2000, 27, 202–208. [Google Scholar]
- Preston, S.D.; Gelman, S.A. This Land Is My Land: Psychological Ownership Increases Willingness to Protect the Natural World More than Legal Ownership. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 70, 101443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritze, M.P.; Marchand, A.; Eisingerich, A.B.; Benkenstein, M. Access-Based Services as Substitutes for Material Possessions: The Role of Psychological Ownership. J. Serv. Res. 2020, 23, 368–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, D.T.N.; Hoang, S.D.; Chovancová, M.; Tran, K.H. The Influence of the Generation Z’s Perception and Psychological Ownership on Repurchase Intention of e-Shopping: Evidence from Vietnam. J. East. Eur. Cent. Asian Res. 2022, 9, 240–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, S.; Saxena, G.; Chatterjee, R. Battle between Psychological Ownership and Consumer Animosity to Influence Consumers’ Buying Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2023, 35, 944–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, H.-C. Factors Affecting Continued Purchase Intention in Live Streaming Shopping: Parasocial Relationships and Shared Communication Networks. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2023, 42, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horton, D.; Richard Wohl, R. Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry 1956, 19, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, J.-L.; Chen, D.-X. Research Progress on the Quasi-social Relationship between Audience and Media Characters—A New Perspective on the Research of Audience Psychology in China. J. Mass Commun. 2011, 8, 26–28+47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheibe, K.; Zimmer, F.; Fietkiewicz, K.; Stock, W. Interpersonal Relations and Social Actions on Live Streaming Services. A Systematic Review on Cyber-Social Relations. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, Z.; Benckendorff, P.; Wang, J. From Interaction to Relationship: Rethinking Parasocial Phenomena in Travel Live Streaming. Tour. Manag. 2022, 93, 104583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomson, M. Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers’ Strong Attachments to Celebrities. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, J.S.; Choe, M.-J.; Zhang, J.; Noh, G.-Y. The Role of Wishful Identification, Emotional Engagement, and Parasocial Relationships in Repeated Viewing of Live-Streaming Games: A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 108, 106327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawkins, S.; Tian, A.W.; Newman, A.; Martin, A. Psychological Ownership: A Review and Research Agenda. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 163–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morewedge, C.K.; Monga, A.; Palmatier, R.W.; Shu, S.B.; Small, D.A. Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework. J. Mark. 2021, 85, 196–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, M.; Alam, F.; Lahuerta-Otero, E.; Mengyuan, C. Get Ready to Buy With Me: The Effect of Social Presence Interaction and Social Commerce Intention on S-Commerce Live Streaming. SAGE Open 2024, 14, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Bao, Z.; Zheng, C. Exploring Consumers’ Purchase Intention in Social Commerce: An Empirical Study Based on Trust, Argument Quality, and Social Presence. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 378–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Jin, J.; Liu, Y. The Influence of Interpersonal Interaction on Consumers’ Purchase Intention under e-Commerce Live Broadcasting Mode: The Moderating Role of Presence. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1097768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shen, P.-Y.; Zhao, W.-J. The Influence of Multi-channel Retail Service Quality on Online Customer Loyalty Intention: Based on the Empirical Analysis of China’s Retail Situation. J. Cent. Univ. Financ. Econ. 2020, 8, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, J.; Han, B.; Chen, L.; Zhang, K. Feeling Present Matters: Effects of Social Presence on Live-Streaming Workout Courses’ Purchase Intention. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2023, 32, 1082–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, B.; Fan, W.; Zhou, M. Social Presence, Trust, and Social Commerce Purchase Intention: An Empirical Research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 56, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, C.-Z.; Ye, X.-Y. The Effect of Live Anchor Information Source Characteristics on Consumer Brand Attitudes. J. Commer. Econ. 2023, 17, 68–73. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, Y.; Li, C.; Gao, P.; Liu, Y. The Effect and Mechanism of Social Presence in Live Marketing on Online Herd Consumption from Behavioral and Neurophysiological Perspectives. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 27, 990–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osei-Frimpong, K.; McLean, G. Examining Online Social Brand Engagement: A Social Presence Theory Perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2018, 128, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, N.; Xuan, C.; Chen, R. Different Roles of Two Kinds of Digital Coexistence: The Impact of Social Presence on Consumers’ Purchase Intention in the Live Streaming Shopping Context. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 80, 103890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1981, 41, 847–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.M.; Park, K.K.; Mariani, M.M. Do Online Review Readers React Differently When Exposed to Credible versus Fake Online Reviews? J. Bus. Res. 2023, 154, 113377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wongkitrungrueng, A.; Assarut, N. The Role of Live Streaming in Building Consumer Trust and Engagement with Social Commerce Sellers. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, L.-Y.; Yuan, D.-H.; Zhang, J.-Y. The Impact of Online User Reviews Quality and Commentators Rank on Consumer Purchasing Intention —The Moderating Role of Product Involvement. Manag. Rev. 2017, 29, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, D.-H.; Lee, J.; Han, I. The Effect of On-Line Consumer Reviews on Consumer Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of Involvement. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2007, 11, 125–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyu, W.; Wei, M.; Teo, B.S.-X. Research on the Impact of UGC Quality on Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Front. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2023, 7, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, Q.-H. The Empirical Study of Adoption of the LBS Based on Elaboration Likelihood Model. Inform. Sci. 2016, 34, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, B.; Chen, Z. Live Streaming Commerce and Consumers’ Purchase Intention: An Uncertainty Reduction Perspective. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puente-Díaz, R.; Cavazos-Arroyo, J. That Is Disgusting! Should I Trust You?: The Role of Mindsets in Brand Trust after a Negative Incident. Rev. Bras. Gest. Neg. 2019, 21, 254–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Xu, F.; Luo, X.R.; Peng, L. Effect of Sponsorship Disclosure on Online Consumer Responses to Positive Reviews: The Moderating Role of Emotional Intensity and Tie Strength. Decis. Support Syst. 2022, 156, 113741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, L.M.; Duan, S.; Zhao, Y.; Lü, K.; Chen, S. The Impact of Online Celebrity in Livestreaming E-Commerce on Purchase Intention from the Perspective of Emotional Contagion. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pallak, S.R. Salience of a Communicator’s Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion: A Heuristic Versus Systematic Processing Interpretation. Soc. Cogn. 1983, 2, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, D.; Jayaraman, K.; Kamal, S.B.M. A Conceptual Model of Interactive Hotel Website: The Role of Perceived Website Interactivity and Customer Perceived Value Toward Website Revisit Intention. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 37, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Q.; Zhou, H.; Li, X. The Influence Mechanism of Social Interactions on Online Purchasing Intention of Mobile Social Users in a Low-Trust Business Environment. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 73190–73203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, H.H.; Grether, M.; Leach, M. Building Customer Relations over the Internet. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2002, 31, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, L.; Hu, X.; Lu, J.; Ma, L. Effects of Customer Trust on Engagement in Live Streaming Commerce: Mediating Role of Swift Guanxi. Internet Res. 2021, 31, 1718–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Z.; Li, Y.; Li, R.; Chen, W. How Electronic Word-of-Mouth Influence the Purchasing Intention—An Empirical Study of Fruit E-Commerce in China. In Proceedings of the 2023 7th International Conference on E-Commerce, E-Business and E-Government, Plymouth, UK, 27–29 April 2023; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 40–45. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffman, D.L.; Fodor, M. Can You Measure the ROI of Your Social Media Marketing? MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2010, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
- Mathur, S.; Tewari, A.; Singh, A. Modeling the Factors Affecting Online Purchase Intention: The Mediating Effect of Consumer’s Attitude towards User- Generated Content. J. Mark. Commun. 2022, 28, 725–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, P. Online Reviews: Do Consumers Use Them?: Advances in Consumer Research. Adv. Consum. Res. 2001, 28, 129–133. [Google Scholar]
- Pavlou, P.A. Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 101–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peña-García, N.; Gil-Saura, I.; Rodríguez-Orejuela, A.; Siqueira-Junior, J.R. Purchase Intention and Purchase Behavior Online: A Cross-Cultural Approach. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Musto, J.; Dahanayake, A. Quality Characteristics for User-Generated Content. In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications; Tropmann-Frick, M., Jaakkola, H., Thalheim, B., Kiyoki, Y., Yoshida, N., Eds.; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; ISBN 978-1-64368-242-6. [Google Scholar]
- Geng, R.; Chen, J. The Influencing Mechanism of Interaction Quality of UGC on Consumers’ Purchase Intention—An Empirical Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 697382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pookulangara, S.; Koesler, K. Cultural Influence on Consumers’ Usage of Social Networks and Its’ Impact on Online Purchase Intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2011, 18, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, P.; Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Jiang, X.; Zhu, M.X. The Influences of Livestreaming on Online Purchase Intention: Examining Platform Characteristics and Consumer Psychology. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2023, 123, 862–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Qin, F.; Wang, G.A.; Luo, C. The Impact of Live Video Streaming on Online Purchase Intention. Serv. Ind. J. 2020, 40, 656–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, L.; Liu, K.; Zhang, J.-Q. Influence of social commerce platform UGC on the purchase intention of wedding dress. Wool Text. J. 2023, 51, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.; Xu, J.; Xiao, Z. Utilization of Sentiment Analysis and Visualization in Online Video Bullet-screen Comments. Data Anal. Knowl. Disc. 2015, 31, 82–90. [Google Scholar]
- Hao, X.; Xu, S.; Zhang, X. Barrage Participation and Feedback in Travel Reality Shows: The Effects of Media on Destination Image among Generation Y. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2019, 12, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, H.; Tian, Y.; Wang, S.; Gong, X.; Que, X.; Wang, W. Personalized Video Recommendation Based on Latent Community. SEKE 2020, 473–474. [Google Scholar]
- Chintagunta, P.K.; Gopinath, S.; Venkataraman, S. The Effects of Online User Reviews on Movie Box Office Performance: Accounting for Sequential Rollout and Aggregation Across Local Markets. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29, 944–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayrhofer, M.; Matthes, J.; Einwiller, S.; Naderer, B. User Generated Content Presenting Brands on Social Media Increases Young Adults’ Purchase Intention. Int. J. Advert. 2020, 39, 166–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vazquez, D.; Cheung, J.; Nguyen, B.; Dennis, C.; Kent, A. Examining the Influence of User-Generated Content on the Fashion Consumer Online Experience. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2021, 25, 528–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendes-Filho, L.; Mills, A.M.; Tan, F.B.; Milne, S. Empowering the Traveler: An Examination of the Impact of User-Generated Content on Travel Planning. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 425–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huyen, T.T.; Costello, J. Quality versus Quantity: An Investigation into Electronic Word of Mouthâ€TMs Influence on Consumer Buying Intention. J. Promot. Commun. 2017, 5, 137–155. [Google Scholar]
- Maslowska, E.; Malthouse, E.C.; Bernritter, S.F. Too Good to Be True: The Role of Online Reviews’ Features in Probability to Buy. Int. J. Advert. 2017, 36, 142–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, K.; Zhang, P.; Lee, H.-M. Understanding the Impacts of User- and Marketer- Generated Content on Free Digital Content Consumption. Decis. Support Syst. 2022, 154, 113684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, J.L.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K.T. Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations: Academy of Management Review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.-X.; Li, D.-J.; Li, Y. The Influence of Out-of-Stock of New Products on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay Price Premium: Based on the Mediating Effect of Psychological Ownership and Relative Deprivation. Manag. Rev. 2020, 32, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, J.L.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K.T. The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2003, 7, 84–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, C.; Prandelli, E.; Schreier, M. The Psychological Effects of Empowerment Strategies on Consumers’ Product Demand. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peck, J.; Shu, S.B. The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership. J Consum. Res. 2009, 36, 434–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, R.; Ling, W.-Q.; Liu, S.-S. The Antecedents and Outcomes of Psychological Ownership for the Organization: An Analysis from the Perspective of Person-Situation Interactions. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2012, 44, 1202–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jussila, I.; Tarkiainen, A.; Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F. Individual Psychological Ownership: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications for Research in Marketing. J. Market. Theory Prac. 2015, 23, 121–139. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, X.; Qi, C.; Zhang, C.; Li, Y. Psychological Ownership and Users’ Continuous Usage of Domestic vs. Foreign Mobile Payment Apps: A Comparison between China and the U.S. J. Bus. Res. 2024, 174, 114517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gineikiene, J.; Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Auruskeviciene, V. “Ours” or “Theirs”? Psychological Ownership and Domestic Products Preferences. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 72, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmon, Z.; Ariely, D. Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers. J. Consum. Res. 2000, 27, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, Y.; Gao, P.; Li, C.-Q. Research on Live-broadcast Social Presence: Scale Development and Validity Test. Nankai Bus. Rev. 2021, 24, 28–36+71+37–38. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, S.-Y. An Exploration of the Characteristics, Development Dynamics and Development Strategies of Live E-commerce. Times Econ. Trade. 2021, 18, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.-R.; Chen, F.-S.; Chen, D.-F. Effect of Social Presence toward Livestream E-Commerce on Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, C.; Rashid, R.M.; Wang, J. Investigating the Role of Social Presence Dimensions and Information Support on Consumers’ Trust and Shopping Intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Zhang, L.; Wang, A.; Huang, K. Quality Evaluation of Academic User Generated Content on Social Media. Inf. Stud. Theor. Appl. 2023, 46, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, C.; Jin, M.-H.; Kim, J.; Shin, N. User perception of the quality, value, and utility of user-generated content. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2012, 13, 305–319. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, A.J.; Johnson, K.K.P. Power of Consumers Using Social Media: Examining the Influences of Brand-Related User-Generated Content on Facebook. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 58, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Chen, B.; Wang, Y. The Impact of User-Generated Content Quality on Consumer Purchase Intention in Non-Transactional Virtual Communities. J. Commer. Econ. 2018, 37, 63–66. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Ma, Y.-R.; Jiang, S. Can User-Generated Content Quality Affect Customer Brand Engagement?—Research on Virtual Brand Community. Theor. Pract. Financ. Econ. 2021, 42, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, M.L.; Leung, W.K.; Cheah, J.-H.; Ting, H. Exploring the Effectiveness of Emotional and Rational User-Generated Contents in Digital Tourism Platforms. J. Vacat. Mark. 2022, 28, 152–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Min, Q.; Song, Y. Research on the Affecting Factors of User-generated Contents in Social Media Based on Perceived Interactivity. Inf. Sci. 2018, 36, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.-H.; Zhang, Q.-L. Influencing Mechanism of User-generated Content Quality on Brand Equity of Multichannel Retailers. J. Manage. Sci. 2015, 28, 71–85. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, X.; Ye, Z.; Liu, K.; Wu, N. The Effects of Live Platform Exterior Design on Sustainable Impulse Buying: Exploring the Mechanisms of Self-Efficacy and Psychological Ownership. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dyne, L.; Pierce, J.L. Psychological Ownership and Feelings of Possession: Three Field Studies Predicting Employee Attitudes and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2004, 25, 439–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, T.-Z.; Wildt, A.R. Price, Product Information, and Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1994, 22, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hai, D.N.; Minh, C.C.; Huynh, N. Meta-Analysis of Driving Behavior Studies and Assessment of Factors Using Structural Equation Modeling. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2024, 14, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisinga, R.; Grotenhuis, M.T.; Pelzer, B. The Reliability of a Two-Item Scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int. J. Public Health 2013, 58, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrestha, N. Factor Analysis as a Tool for Survey Analysis. Am. J. Appl. Math. Stat. 2021, 9, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gim Chung, R.H.; Kim, B.S.K.; Abreu, J.M. Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale: Development, Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity. Cult. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol. 2004, 10, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentler, P.M. Some Contributions to Efficient Statistics in Structural Models: Specification and Estimation of Moment Structures. Psychometrika 1983, 48, 493–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiang, T.C.; Lien, C.C.; Xinguo, S.; Chao, S. Consumer Evaluation of Xianyu E-Commerce. Infse 2024, 5, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuncer, İ.; Kartal, A.S. Do the Importance of Influencer- and Customer-generated Content on Social Media Affect Willingness to Pay More for Potential Customers? J. Consum. Behav. 2024, 23, 1002–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muda, M.; Hamzah, M.I. Should I Suggest This YouTube Clip? The Impact of UGC Source Credibility on eWOM and Purchase Intention. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2021, 15, 441–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mudambi, S.M.; Schuff, D. Schuff Research Note: What Makes a Helpful Online Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.Com. MIS Quarterly 2010, 34, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filieri, R.; McLeay, F. E-WOM and Accommodation: An Analysis of the Factors That Influence Travelers’ Adoption of Information from Online Reviews. J. Travel Res. 2014, 53, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghose, A.; Ipeirotis, P.G. Estimating the Helpfulness and Economic Impact of Product Reviews: Mining Text and Reviewer Characteristics. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2011, 23, 1498–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, M.-H.; Rust, R.T. Artificial Intelligence in Service. J. Serv. Res. 2018, 21, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X. Quantifying the Long-Term Impact of Negative Word of Mouth on Cash Flows and Stock Prices. Mark. Sci. 2009, 28, 148–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, W.; Gao, W.; Geng, R. The Impact of the Interactivity of Internet Celebrity Anchors on Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 757059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berger, J.; Milkman, K.L. What makes online content viral? J. Mark. Res. 2012, 49, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Q.; Gu, B.; Whinston, A.B. Content Contribution for Revenue Sharing and Reputation in Social Media: A Dynamic Structural Model. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2012, 29, 41–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schramm, H.; Hartmann, T. The PSI-Process Scales. A New Measure to Assess the Intensity and Breadth of Parasocial Processes. Communications 2008, 33, 385–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Policarpo, V. What Is a Friend? An Exploratory Typology of the Meanings of Friendship. Soc. Sci. 2015, 4, 171–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, S.; Cho, H. Parasocial Relationship via Reality TV and Social Media: Its Implications for Celebrity Endorsement. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK, 25–27 June 2014; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 47–54. [Google Scholar]
- Liebers, N.; Schramm, H. Parasocial Interactions and Relationships with Media Characters—An Inventory of 60 Years of Research. Commun. Res. Trends 2019, 38, 4–31. [Google Scholar]
- Xiang, L.; Zheng, X.; Lee, M.K.O.; Zhao, D. Exploring Consumers’ Impulse Buying Behavior on Social Commerce Platform: The Role of Parasocial Interaction. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Ko, E.; Kim, J. SNS Users’ Para-Social Relationships with Celebrities: Social Media Effects on Purchase Intentions. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci. 2015, 25, 279–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lou, C.; Kim, H.K. Fancying the New Rich and Famous? Explicating the Roles of Influencer Content, Credibility, and Parental Mediation in Adolescents’ Parasocial Relationship, Materialism, and Purchase Intentions. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, K.; Zhang, Q. Influence of Parasocial Relationship between Digital Celebrities and Their Followers on Followers’ Purchase and Electronic Word-of-Mouth Intentions, and Persuasion Knowledge. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 87, 155–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokolova, K.; Kefi, H. Instagram and YouTube Bloggers Promote It, Why Should I Buy? How Credibility and Parasocial Interaction Influence Purchase Intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashraf, A.; Hameed, I.; Saeed, S.A. How Do Social Media Influencers Inspire Consumers’ Purchase Decisions? The Mediating Role of Parasocial Relationships. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2023, 47, 1416–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puente-Díaz, R. Context Effects: The Role of Collectivism as a Moderator. Int. J. Psychol. 2011, 46, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Z.; Benyoucef, M. From E-Commerce to Social Commerce: A Close Look at Design Features. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2013, 12, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skadberg, Y.X.; Kimmel, J.R. Visitors’ Flow Experience While Browsing a Web Site: Its Measurement, Contributing Factors and Consequences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2004, 20, 403–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karahanna, E.; Xin Xu, S.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, N. The Needs–Affordances–Features Perspective for the Use of Social Media. MISQ 2018, 42, 737–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ou, C.X.; Pavlou, P.A.; Davison, R.M. Swift Guanxi in Online Marketplaces: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication Technologies. MISQ 2014, 38, 209–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Forsythe, S. Examining Drivers of Online Purchase Intensity: Moderating Role of Adoption Duration in Sustaining Post-Adoption Online Shopping. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2011, 18, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Zou, X.; Lv, J. Why Do Consumers Hesitate to Purchase in Live Streaming? A Perspective of Interaction between Participants. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2022, 55, 101193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, X.; Zhao, H.; Li, T. The Role of Live-Streaming E-Commerce on Consumers’ Purchasing Intention Regarding Green Agricultural Products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Construct | Item | References |
---|---|---|
UGC quality (UQ) | UQ1: The bullet screen on the live feed describes the reality of what occurred, and is believable. | [96] |
UQ2: The content provided by the live streaming bullet screen is timely. | [97] | |
UQ3: The information contained in the live streaming bullet screen contains valuable tips on featured brands and products. | [98] | |
UQ4: The live stream’s bullet screen contains information relevant to that live stream’s content. | [99] | |
UGC emotion (UM) | UM1: The bullet screens sent by others in the live stream evoke my enthusiasm. | [92] |
UM2: The likes and dislikes reflected in the live streaming bullet screen affect my emotions to a certain extent. | [92] | |
UM3: I have some expectations for user-generated content in the live room. | [100] | |
UM4: Different emotional atmospheres and emotional intensities of the live streaming bullet screen have different impacts on live streaming sales. | [101] | |
UGC interaction (UI) | UI1: I received positive responses from the anchor or other viewers regarding the content I posted on that broadcast. | [100] |
UI2: I have participated in the sweepstakes for that live stream. | [100] | |
UI3: I retweeted the live feed from that broadcast. | [100] | |
UI4: I received likes from other users regarding the content I posted on that live stream. | [100] | |
UI5: The live room allows for mutual communication between one or more senders of messages and one or more receivers. | [102] | |
UI6: I have seen very little offensive language on that broadcast. | [96] | |
Communication proximity (CP) | CP1: I experienced a sense of socialization in the live room. | [92] |
CP2: I can consistently engage in conversations with others in the live room. | [92] | |
CP3: I can engage in conversations with others in the live room without any problems. | [92] | |
CP4: Others could respond to my query on the air. | [92] | |
CP5: I have a sense of face-to-face interaction with other members in that live room. | [103] | |
CP6: I perceived the personalities of the other members in that broadcast. | [103] | |
CP7: I felt the enthusiasm of the other members in that live room. | [103] | |
CP8: I experienced what other users felt in that live room. | [103] | |
Psychological ownership (PO) | PO1: I felt a sense of intimacy watching the live stream in that live room. | [104] |
PO2: I felt like I was in my own live room when watching the live stream. | [105] | |
PO3: I felt like the stream/product belonged to me when watching a live stream. | [105] | |
PO4: I felt strongly that I could own this live room/product when watching a live stream. | [105] | |
Purchase intention (PI) | PI1: The user reviews on that live stream enriched my understanding of the products they sell. | [106] |
PI2: The product-related information in the user reviews of that live stream will change my thoughts and attitudes about purchasing. | [106] | |
PI3: When buying related products, I will refer to the live user reviews. | [106] |
Demographics | Item | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 161 | 39.85 |
Female | 243 | 60.15 | |
Age | 18–25 | 94 | 23.27 |
26–30 | 132 | 32.67 | |
31–40 | 79 | 19.55 | |
41–50 | 57 | 14.11 | |
51–60 | 35 | 8.67 | |
>60 | 7 | 1.73 | |
Education | High school and below | 138 | 34.16 |
Institutions of higher education | 204 | 50.49 | |
Postgraduate level or higher | 62 | 15.35 | |
Occupation | Students | 82 | 20.30 |
Enterprises and institutions in service | 173 | 42.82 | |
Self-employed | 141 | 34.90 | |
Others | 8 | 1.98 | |
Income (CNY) | Under 3000 | 85 | 21.04 |
3000–5000 | 114 | 28.22 | |
5001–10,000 | 137 | 33.91 | |
Over 10,000 | 68 | 16.83 |
Variable | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|
UGC quality | 0.853 |
UGC emotion | 0.854 |
UGC interaction | 0.905 |
Communication proximity | 0.922 |
Psychological ownership | 0.859 |
Purchase intention | 0.846 |
Total questionnaire | 0.943 |
KMO Value | 0.945 | |
---|---|---|
Bartlett sphericity test | Approx. chi-square | 6822.967 |
df | 406 | |
p-value | <0.001 |
CO | Initial Eigenvalue | Extracted Loading Squared Sums | Rotated Loading Squared Sums | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | VP | CU | Total | VP | CU | Total | VP | CU | |
1 | 11.246 | 38.78 | 38.78 | 11.246 | 38.78 | 38.78 | 5.291 | 18.245 | 18.245 |
2 | 2.524 | 8.702 | 47.482 | 2.524 | 8.702 | 47.482 | 4.124 | 14.222 | 32.467 |
3 | 1.963 | 6.771 | 54.252 | 1.963 | 6.771 | 54.252 | 2.832 | 9.766 | 42.233 |
4 | 1.609 | 5.547 | 59.799 | 1.609 | 5.547 | 59.799 | 2.826 | 9.744 | 51.977 |
5 | 1.432 | 4.936 | 64.735 | 1.432 | 4.936 | 64.735 | 2.776 | 9.573 | 61.549 |
6 | 1.275 | 4.396 | 69.131 | 1.275 | 4.396 | 69.131 | 2.199 | 7.582 | 69.131 |
7 | 0.589 | 2.031 | 71.162 | ||||||
8 | 0.56 | 1.93 | 73.093 | ||||||
9 | 0.529 | 1.823 | 74.916 | ||||||
10 | 0.514 | 1.772 | 76.688 | ||||||
11 | 0.498 | 1.716 | 78.404 | ||||||
12 | 0.468 | 1.614 | 80.018 | ||||||
13 | 0.441 | 1.521 | 81.539 | ||||||
14 | 0.436 | 1.505 | 83.044 | ||||||
15 | 0.415 | 1.431 | 84.474 | ||||||
16 | 0.404 | 1.393 | 85.867 | ||||||
17 | 0.39 | 1.345 | 87.212 | ||||||
18 | 0.377 | 1.301 | 88.513 | ||||||
19 | 0.363 | 1.252 | 89.765 | ||||||
20 | 0.347 | 1.198 | 90.963 | ||||||
21 | 0.343 | 1.183 | 92.146 | ||||||
22 | 0.334 | 1.153 | 93.299 | ||||||
23 | 0.323 | 1.115 | 94.414 | ||||||
24 | 0.307 | 1.059 | 95.474 | ||||||
25 | 0.3 | 1.033 | 96.506 | ||||||
26 | 0.284 | 0.978 | 97.484 | ||||||
27 | 0.258 | 0.889 | 98.373 | ||||||
28 | 0.254 | 0.876 | 99.249 | ||||||
29 | 0.218 | 0.751 | 100 |
Name | Factor Loadings | Communality | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor1 | Factor2 | Factor3 | Factor4 | Factor5 | Factor6 | ||
UQ1 | 0.165 | 0.122 | 0.134 | 0.774 | 0.165 | 0.073 | 0.691 |
UQ 2 | 0.136 | 0.213 | 0.136 | 0.750 | 0.179 | 0.115 | 0.689 |
UQ 3 | 0.185 | 0.151 | 0.204 | 0.733 | 0.168 | 0.143 | 0.685 |
UQ 4 | 0.158 | 0.160 | 0.127 | 0.787 | 0.089 | 0.171 | 0.724 |
UE 1 | 0.198 | 0.199 | 0.728 | 0.159 | 0.172 | 0.125 | 0.679 |
UE 2 | 0.143 | 0.149 | 0.769 | 0.132 | 0.118 | 0.164 | 0.692 |
UE 3 | 0.140 | 0.150 | 0.784 | 0.166 | 0.135 | 0.103 | 0.713 |
UE 4 | 0.196 | 0.173 | 0.780 | 0.129 | 0.067 | 0.098 | 0.708 |
UI 1 | 0.206 | 0.717 | 0.125 | 0.178 | 0.092 | 0.192 | 0.649 |
UI 2 | 0.153 | 0.748 | 0.172 | 0.109 | 0.224 | 0.107 | 0.687 |
UI 3 | 0.197 | 0.759 | 0.166 | 0.135 | 0.182 | 0.037 | 0.696 |
UI 4 | 0.174 | 0.790 | 0.090 | 0.058 | 0.214 | 0.100 | 0.722 |
UI 5 | 0.179 | 0.785 | 0.179 | 0.141 | 0.068 | 0.154 | 0.728 |
UI 6 | 0.175 | 0.756 | 0.091 | 0.160 | 0.054 | 0.115 | 0.652 |
CP 1 | 0.759 | 0.113 | 0.152 | 0.136 | 0.099 | 0.151 | 0.663 |
CP 2 | 0.744 | 0.180 | 0.077 | 0.065 | 0.143 | 0.180 | 0.649 |
CP 3 | 0.781 | 0.142 | 0.085 | 0.182 | 0.180 | 0.101 | 0.713 |
CP 4 | 0.717 | 0.169 | 0.139 | 0.075 | 0.166 | 0.127 | 0.612 |
CP 5 | 0.754 | 0.129 | 0.139 | 0.066 | 0.146 | 0.064 | 0.634 |
CP 6 | 0.769 | 0.149 | 0.092 | 0.178 | 0.119 | 0.106 | 0.679 |
CP 7 | 0.752 | 0.145 | 0.145 | 0.126 | 0.136 | 0.099 | 0.651 |
CP 8 | 0.742 | 0.197 | 0.106 | 0.084 | 0.145 | 0.041 | 0.631 |
PO 1 | 0.219 | 0.215 | 0.150 | 0.142 | 0.733 | 0.137 | 0.693 |
PO 2 | 0.223 | 0.161 | 0.110 | 0.163 | 0.768 | 0.067 | 0.709 |
PO 3 | 0.266 | 0.153 | 0.154 | 0.136 | 0.735 | 0.172 | 0.705 |
PO 4 | 0.205 | 0.188 | 0.111 | 0.198 | 0.746 | 0.146 | 0.706 |
PI 1 | 0.189 | 0.213 | 0.183 | 0.177 | 0.141 | 0.770 | 0.759 |
PI 2 | 0.223 | 0.215 | 0.140 | 0.167 | 0.150 | 0.777 | 0.771 |
PI 3 | 0.217 | 0.155 | 0.182 | 0.160 | 0.196 | 0.768 | 0.759 |
PI | UQ | UE | UI | CP | PO | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PI | 1 | |||||
UQ | 0.467 ** | 1 | ||||
UE | 0.460 ** | 0.453 ** | 1 | |||
UI | 0.476 ** | 0.446 ** | 0.456 ** | 1 | ||
CP | 0.449 ** | 0.408 ** | 0.425 ** | 0.465 ** | 1 | |
PO | 0.480 ** | 0.478 ** | 0.430 ** | 0.485 ** | 0.508 ** | 1 |
Fitting Index | df | p | GFI | RMSEA | RMR | CFI | NFI | NNFI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended criteria | - | - | >0.05 | <3 | >0.9 | <0.10 | <0.05 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 |
Fitting value | 384.293 | 362 | 0.201 | 1.062 | 0.945 | 0.012 | 0.035 | 0.997 | 0.945 | 0.996 |
Factor | Variable | Coef. | Std. Estimate | z | S. E. | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UGC quality | UQ1 | 1 | 0.744 | - | - | - |
UQ 2 | 1.048 | 0.77 | 14.672 | 0.071 | <0.001 | |
UQ 3 | 1.116 | 0.782 | 14.883 | 0.075 | <0.001 | |
UQ 4 | 1.079 | 0.781 | 14.862 | 0.073 | <0.001 | |
UGC emotion | UE 1 | 1 | 0.775 | - | - | - |
UE 2 | 0.961 | 0.759 | 15.07 | 0.064 | <0.001 | |
UE 3 | 1.005 | 0.776 | 15.415 | 0.065 | <0.001 | |
UE 4 | 0.978 | 0.771 | 15.306 | 0.064 | <0.001 | |
UGC interaction | UI 1 | 1 | 0.76 | - | - | - |
UI 2 | 1.026 | 0.791 | 16.368 | 0.063 | <0.001 | |
UI 3 | 1.083 | 0.795 | 16.48 | 0.066 | <0.001 | |
UI 4 | 1.076 | 0.798 | 16.534 | 0.065 | <0.001 | |
UI 5 | 1.1 | 0.815 | 16.938 | 0.065 | <0.001 | |
UI 6 | 0.99 | 0.745 | 15.286 | 0.065 | <0.001 | |
Communication proximity | CP 1 | 1 | 0.781 | - | - | - |
CP 2 | 0.996 | 0.768 | 16.571 | 0.06 | <0.001 | |
CP 3 | 1.079 | 0.821 | 18.032 | 0.06 | <0.001 | |
CP 4 | 0.981 | 0.746 | 16.009 | 0.061 | <0.001 | |
CP 5 | 0.964 | 0.75 | 16.107 | 0.06 | <0.001 | |
CP 6 | 1.036 | 0.792 | 17.219 | 0.06 | <0.001 | |
CP 7 | 1.001 | 0.776 | 16.794 | 0.06 | <0.001 | |
CP 8 | 0.964 | 0.751 | 16.145 | 0.06 | <0.001 | |
Psychological ownership | PO 1 | 1 | 0.777 | - | - | - |
PO 2 | 0.933 | 0.765 | 15.437 | 0.06 | <0.001 | |
PO 3 | 0.972 | 0.784 | 15.848 | 0.061 | <0.001 | |
PO 4 | 0.927 | 0.78 | 15.758 | 0.059 | <0.001 | |
Purchase intention | PI 1 | 1 | 0.804 | - | - | - |
PI 2 | 1.008 | 0.813 | 16.592 | 0.061 | <0.001 | |
PI 3 | 0.978 | 0.797 | 16.298 | 0.06 | <0.001 |
Hypothesis | Path | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | Standard Error | z | p | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1a | UQ → PI | 0.221 | 0.189 | 0.077 | 2.882 | 0.004 | Supported |
H1b | UE → PI | 0.203 | 0.184 | 0.07 | 2.881 | 0.004 | Supported |
H1c | UI → PI | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.07 | 2.721 | 0.007 | Supported |
H2 | PO → PI | 0.179 | 0.176 | 0.071 | 2.517 | 0.012 | Supported |
H3a | UQ → PO | 0.278 | 0.243 | 0.072 | 3.867 | <0.001 | Supported |
H3b | UE → PO | 0.127 | 0.117 | 0.067 | 1.891 | 0.059 | Supported |
H3c | UI → PO | 0.23 | 0.211 | 0.066 | 3.486 | <0.001 | Supported |
H4 | CP → PI | 0.179 | 0.164 | 0.067 | 2.665 | 0.008 | Supported |
H5a | UQ → CP | 0.237 | 0.221 | 0.067 | 3.517 | <0.001 | Supported |
H5b | UE → CP | 0.218 | 0.215 | 0.064 | 3.391 | 0.001 | Supported |
H5c | UI → CP | 0.301 | 0.294 | 0.062 | 4.824 | <0.001 | Supported |
Path | Mediating Effect Value | Bootstrap (5000 Times) | 95%BootCI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boot SE | z-Value | p-Value | |||
UGC quality → Communication proximity → Purchase intention | 0.037 | 0.014 | 2.66 | 0.008 | 0.015~0.071 |
UGC emotion → Communication proximity → Purchase intention | 0.043 | 0.016 | 2.627 | 0.009 | 0.017~0.081 |
UGC interaction → Communication proximity → Purchase intention | 0.058 | 0.019 | 3.115 | 0.002 | 0.027~0.1 |
Path | Mediating Effect Value | Bootstrap (5000 Times) | 95%BootCI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boot SE | z-Value | p-Value | |||
UGC quality → Psychological ownership → Purchase intention | 0.062 | 0.017 | 3.588 | <0.001 | 0.024~0.091 |
UGC emotion → Psychological ownership → Purchase intention | 0.041 | 0.014 | 2.901 | 0.004 | 0.012~0.068 |
UGC interaction → Psychological ownership → Purchase intention | 0.064 | 0.018 | 3.535 | <0.001 | 0.026~0.097 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, N.; Hu, W. Do Psychological Ownership and Communicative Presence Matter? Examining How User-Generated Content in E-Commerce Live Streaming Influences Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080696
Zhang N, Hu W. Do Psychological Ownership and Communicative Presence Matter? Examining How User-Generated Content in E-Commerce Live Streaming Influences Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 14(8):696. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080696
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Nan, and Wen Hu. 2024. "Do Psychological Ownership and Communicative Presence Matter? Examining How User-Generated Content in E-Commerce Live Streaming Influences Consumers’ Purchase Intention" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 8: 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080696
APA StyleZhang, N., & Hu, W. (2024). Do Psychological Ownership and Communicative Presence Matter? Examining How User-Generated Content in E-Commerce Live Streaming Influences Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Behavioral Sciences, 14(8), 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080696