Research on the Purchase Intention of Social Commerce Consumers in Video Streams: Dual Pathways of Affection and Rationality
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Background
2.1. Social Commerce
2.2. Field Theory
3. Hypotheses Development
3.1. Atmosphere Characteristics and Similarity
3.2. Social Capital and Power
3.3. Similarity and Purchase Intention
3.4. Power and Purchase Intention
3.5. Research Model
4. Methodology
4.1. Research Design
4.2. Participants and Data Collection
- Prohibition of repeated participation;
- Restriction of credit scores to ensure only eligible individuals could participate;
- Integration of validation questions to eliminate careless or irrelevant responses;
- Establishment of human–computer verification mechanisms to deter automatic generation or other forms of computer-generated responses;
- Request for participants to complete all items within the questionnaire.
- Failure to pass the validation question;
- Answer time less than 360 s or more than 900 s;
- More than 80% of the questions were assigned an identical value.
5. Data Analysis
5.1. Validation of the Measuring Scales
5.2. Hypothesis Test
5.3. Mediating Effect Test
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
8. Implications
8.1. Theoretical Implications
8.2. Practical Implications
9. Limitations and Future Lines
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Han, H.; Xu, H.; Chen, H. Social commerce: A systematic review and data synthesis. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2018, 30, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, J.-R.; Lu, I.W.; Chen, J.H.F.; Farn, C.-K. Investigating consumers’ online social shopping intention: An information processing perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, S.; Panda, R.; Venkatesh, V.G.; Swar, B.N.; Shi, Y. Measuring the impact of online reviews on consumer purchase decisions—A scale development study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 68, 103066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajli, N. Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.T.; Theokary, C. The superstar social media influencer: Exploiting linguistic style and emotional contagion over content? J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 860–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, A.; Sharma, V.M. Consumer decision-making styles, involvement, and the intention to participate in online group buying. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, L.; Pan, X. Aesthetics of hotel photos and its impact on consumer engagement: A computer vision approach. Tour. Manag. 2023, 94, 104653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Xie, Y. Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? An Empirical Study of Image Content and Social Media Engagement. J. Mark. Res. 2019, 57, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vazquez, E.E.; Patel, C.; Alvidrez, S.; Siliceo, L. Images, reviews, and purchase intention on social commerce: The role of mental imagery vividness, cognitive and affective social presence. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, Y.; Cheng, X.; Shen, J. Design shopping as an experience: Exploring the effect of the live-streaming shopping characteristics on consumers’ participation intention and memorable experience. Inf. Manag. 2023, 60, 103810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Luo, J.; Zhou, T. Research on Determinants Affecting Users’ Impulsive Purchase Intention in Live Streaming from the Perspective of Perceived Live Streamers’ Ability. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, C.Y.; Chen, J.-S.; Lin, S.-K. Value cocreation in livestreaming and its effect on consumer-simulated experience and continued use intention. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2022, 46, 2183–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Wu, J.-H.; Li, Q. What Drives Consumer Shopping Behavior in Live Streaming Commerce. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2020, 21, 144. [Google Scholar]
- Ling, S.; Zheng, C.; Cho, D.; Kim, Y.; Dong, Q. The Impact of Interpersonal Interaction on Purchase Intention in Livestreaming E-Commerce: A Moderated Mediation Model. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bourdieu, P. The social space and the genesis of groups. Soc. Sci. Inf. 1985, 24, 195–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husu, H.-M. Bourdieu and Social Movements: Considering Identity Movements in Terms of Field, Capital and Habitus. Soc. Mov. Stud. 2013, 12, 264–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levina, N.; Arriaga, M. Distinction and Status Production on User-Generated Content Platforms: Using Bourdieu’s Theory of Cultural Production to Understand Social Dynamics in Online Fields. Inf. Syst. Res. 2014, 25, 468–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnould, E.J.; Thompson, C.J. Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research. J. Consum. Res. 2005, 31, 868–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazaris, C.; Vrechopoulos, A.; Sarantopoulos, P.; Doukidis, G. Additive omnichannel atmospheric cues: The mediating effects of cognitive and affective responses on purchase intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busalim, A.H.; Hussin, A.R.C.; Iahad, N.A. Factors Influencing Customer Engagement in Social Commerce Websites: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2019, 14, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.Z.K.; Benyoucef, M. Consumer behavior in social commerce: A literature review. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 86, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, D.; Pandey, V. The Dimensions and Roles of Online Content in Social Commerce: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2024, 48, e13004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Park, H. Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, A.; Guerreiro, J.; Moro, S.; Henriques, R. Unfolding the characteristics of incentivized online reviews. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 47, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eslami, S.P.; Ghasemaghaei, M.; Hassanein, K. Understanding consumer engagement in social media: The role of product lifecycle. Decis. Support Syst. 2022, 162, 113707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.-C.; Yao, J.-Y. What drives impulse buying behaviors in a mobile auction? The perspective of the Stimulus-Organism-Response model. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1249–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadeem, W.; Khani, A.H.; Schultz, C.D.; Adam, N.A.; Attar, R.W.; Hajli, N. How social presence drives commitment and loyalty with online brand communities? the role of social commerce trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.-Y. How social commerce constructs influence customers’ social shopping intention? An empirical study of a social commerce website. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 282–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Tang, J.; Men, J.; Zheng, X. Consumer perceived value and impulse buying behavior on mobile commerce: The moderating effect of social influence. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Li, K.; Qian, C.; Li, X.; Yuan, Q. How real-time interaction and sentiment influence online sales? Understanding the role of live streaming danmaku. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 78, 103793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourdieu, P.; Wacquant, L.J.D. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Collyer, F.M.; Willis, K.F.; Franklin, M.; Harley, K.; Short, S.D. Healthcare choice: Bourdieu’s capital, habitus and field. Curr. Sociol. 2015, 63, 685–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourdieu, P.; Pavlou, P.; Fygenson, M.; Smith, H.; Dinev, T.; Xu, H.; Cheung, C.M.Y.; Sia, C.; Kuan, K.; Bayer, J.; et al. Outline of a Theory of Practice; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1977; Volume 30, pp. 115–143. [Google Scholar]
- van Dijk, J.A.G.M. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 2006, 34, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ignatow, G.; Robinson, L. Pierre Bourdieu: Theorizing the digital. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2017, 20, 950–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, L. Information-Channel Preferences and Information-Opportunity Structures. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2011, 14, 472–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd Iii, H.C.; Helms, J.E. Consumer entitlement theory and measurement. Psychol. Mark. 2005, 22, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coleman, J. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, S95–S120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindell, J. Bringing Field Theory to Social Media, and Vice-Versa: Network-Crawling an Economy of Recognition on Facebook. Soc. Media Soc. 2017, 3, 2056305117735752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevenson, M. The cybercultural moment and the new media field. New Media Soc. 2016, 18, 1088–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.-C.; Huang, C.-Y.; Chu, C.-H.; Liao, H.-C. Virtual Community Loyalty: An Interpersonal-Interaction Perspective. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2010, 15, 49–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, S.; Yan, Q.; Feng, G.C. Who will attract you? Similarity effect among users on online purchase intention of movie tickets in the social shopping context. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 40, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Huang, Q. Digital influencers, social power and consumer engagement in social commerce. Internet Res. 2023, 33, 178–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, X.; Li, Y.; Qiao, S.; Han, N.; Wu, Y.; Peng, J.; Li, B. An emotional contagion model for heterogeneous social media with multiple behaviors. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2018, 490, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, J.; Fan, X.; Feng, T. Multiple emotional contagions in service encounters. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 449–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Döveling, K.; Harju, A.A.; Sommer, D. From Mediatized Emotion to Digital Affect Cultures: New Technologies and Global Flows of Emotion. Soc. Media Soc. 2018, 4, 2056305117743141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wetherell, M. Trends in the Turn to Affect: A Social Psychological Critique. Body Soc. 2014, 21, 139–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, J.; Moe, W.W.; Schweidel, D.A. What Holds Attention? Linguistic Drivers of Engagement. J. Mark. 2023, 87, 793–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barsade, S.G. The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on Group Behavior. Adm. Sci. Q. 2002, 47, 644–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, N.; Koh, N.S.; Reddy, S.K. Ratings lead you to the product, reviews help you clinch it? The mediating role of online review sentiments on product sales. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 57, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, A.K.; Shah, S. Social Influence on Future Review Sentiments: An Appraisal-Theoretic View. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2019, 36, 610–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunyk, D.; Olson, J.K. Clarification of conceptualizations of empathy. J. Adv. Nurs. 2001, 35, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hassanein, K.; Head, M. The Impact of Infusing Social Presence in the Web Interface: An Investigation Across Product Types. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2005, 10, 31–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savelli, E.; Cioppi, M.; Tombari, F. Web atmospherics as drivers of shopping centres’ customer loyalty. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2017, 45, 1213–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega 2004, 32, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, N.; Benbasat, I. Research Note: The Influence of Recommendations and Consumer Reviews on Evaluations of Websites. Inf. Syst. Res. 2006, 17, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cyr, D.; Hassanein, K.; Head, M.; Ivanov, A. The role of social presence in establishing loyalty in e-Service environments. Interact. Comput. 2007, 19, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Tian, L.; Wang, S. Impact of Social Interaction on Customer Engagement in China’s Social Commerce—A Moderated Chain Mediation Model. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheng, F.-F.; Wu, C.-S.; Chen, Y.-C. Creating customer loyalty in online brand communities. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 107, 105752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, P.; Friedkin, N.E.; Bullo, F. Opinion Dynamics and Social Power Evolution: A Single–Timescale Model. IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst. 2020, 7, 899–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belanche, D.; Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, M.; Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. Understanding influencer marketing: The role of congruence between influencers, products and consumers. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goes, P.B.; Lin, M.; Au Yeung, C.-m. “Popularity Effect” in User-Generated Content: Evidence from Online Product Reviews. Inf. Syst. Res. 2014, 25, 222–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, S.-A.A.; Phua, J. Following Celebrities’ Tweets About Brands: The Impact of Twitter-Based Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’ Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention, and Social Identification With Celebrities. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bi, S.; Liu, Z.; Usman, K. The influence of online information on investing decisions of reward-based crowdfunding. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 71, 10–18. [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]
- Filieri, R. What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1261–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundararaj, V.; Rejeesh, M.R. A detailed behavioral analysis on consumer and customer changing behavior with respect to social networking sites. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodside, A.G.; Davenport, J.W. The Effect of Salesman Similarity and Expertise on Consumer Purchasing Behavior. J. Mark. Res. 1974, 11, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Hanks, L. Online reviews: The effect of cosmopolitanism, incidental similarity, and dispersion on consumer attitudes toward ethnic restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 68, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, B.G.; Gallicano, T.D. Terms of engagement: Analyzing public engagement with organizations through social media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 53, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.; Huang, Q.; Zhong, X.; Davison, R.M.; Zhao, D. The influence of peer characteristics and technical features of a social shopping website on a consumer’s purchase intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 1218–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magee, J.C.; Smith, P.K. The Social Distance Theory of Power. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2013, 17, 158–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellison, N.B.; Steinfield, C.; Lampe, C. Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media Soc. 2011, 13, 873–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, Y.; Lennon, S.J. Online visual merchandising (VMD) cues and consumer pleasure and arousal: Purchasing versus browsing situation. Psychol. Mark. 2010, 27, 141–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raven, B.H.; Schwarzwald, J.; Koslowsky, M. Conceptualizing and Measuring a Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 307–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavlou, P.; Fygenson, M. Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce Adoption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 115–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çeliker, O.; Özen, Ü.; Bölen, M.C. Understanding Consumers’ Switching Intention from e-Commerce to Social Commerce: A Mixed Methods Study. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2023, 21, 2450006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salaün, Y.; Flores, K. Information quality: Meeting the needs of the consumer. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2001, 21, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Constructs | Items | Measurement | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Emotion | EMO1 | I feel the content in short video/live streaming touch me. | Lee and Theokary [5]; |
EMO2 | I feel the content in short video/live streaming move my emotions. | ||
EMO3 | I can feel the emotion from content in short video/live streaming. | ||
Social presence | SP1 | I feel a sense of human contact in short video/live streaming. | Gefen and Straub [55] |
SP2 | I feel a sense of sociability in short video/live streaming. | ||
SP3 | I feel a sense of human warmth in short video/live streaming. | ||
SP4 | I feel a sense of human sensitivity in short video/live streaming. | ||
Quantity | QUAN1 | The number of likes of the short video/live streaming is large. | Park et al. [65]; Filieri [66] |
QUAN2 | The number of favorites/focus of the short video/live streaming is large. | ||
QUAN3 | The number of reviews/danmu of the short video/live streaming is large. | ||
QUAN4 | The amount of information in short video/live streaming is large. | ||
Quality | QUAL1 | The short video/live streaming provides timely information. | Park et al. [65]; Filieri [66] |
QUAL2 | The short video/live streaming provides accurate information. | ||
QUAL3 | The short video/live streaming provides useful information. | ||
QUAL4 | The short video/live streaming provides relevant information. | ||
Similarity | SIM1 | As for styles about the products/services, I feel similar with the streamer in short video/live streaming. | Hu et al. [71] |
SIM2 | As for tastes about the products/services, I feel similar with the streamer in short video/live streaming. | ||
SIM3 | As for likes and dislikes about the products/services, I feel similar with the streamer in short video/live streaming. | ||
SIM4 | As for preferences about the products/services, I feel similar with the streamer in short video/live streaming. | ||
Power | POW1 | I think the streamer in short video/live streaming knows more about the products/services than I do. | Raven et al. [75] |
POW2 | I think the streamer in short video/live streaming has more expert knowledge of the products/services than I do. | ||
POW3 | I think the streamer in short video/live streaming has more information and experience about the products/services than I do. | ||
Purchase Intention | PI1 | I intend to purchase the products/services in short video/live streaming. | Pavlou and Fygenson [76] |
PI2 | I plan to purchase the products/services in short video/live streaming. | ||
PI3 | I predict that I would purchase the products/services in short video/live streaming. | ||
PI4 | It is highly likely I would purchase the products/services in short video/live streaming. |
Variable | Category | Absolute | Percent (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | male | 191 | 37.09 |
female | 324 | 62.91 | |
Age | <20 | 24 | 4.67 |
20–29 | 233 | 45.24 | |
30–39 | 206 | 40.00 | |
40–49 | 39 | 7.57 | |
≥50 | 13 | 2.52 | |
Education background | Primary and below | 3 | 0.58 |
Junior High School | 10 | 1.94 | |
Senior High School | 60 | 11.65 | |
Undergraduate degree | 351 | 68.16 | |
Master’s degree and above | 91 | 17.67 | |
Times of weekly use | once a week or less | 19 | 3.69 |
2–3 times a week | 79 | 15.34 | |
4–6 times a week | 140 | 27.18 | |
once a day or more | 277 | 53.79 |
Factor | Indicator | Loading | α | AVE | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emotion | EMO1 | 0.755 | 0.803 | 0.583 | 0.807 |
EMO2 | 0.742 | ||||
EMO3 | 0.792 | ||||
Social presence | SP1 | 0.709 | 0.822 | 0.536 | 0.822 |
SP2 | 0.720 | ||||
SP3 | 0.735 | ||||
SP4 | 0.763 | ||||
Quantity | QUAN1 | 0.752 | 0.843 | 0.576 | 0.845 |
QUAN2 | 0.775 | ||||
QUAN3 | 0.759 | ||||
QUAN4 | 0.750 | ||||
Quality | QUAL1 | 0.721 | 0.811 | 0.518 | 0.811 |
QUAL2 | 0.732 | ||||
QUAL3 | 0.715 | ||||
QUAL4 | 0.710 | ||||
Similarity | SIM1 | 0.762 | 0.838 | 0.565 | 0.838 |
SIM2 | 0.735 | ||||
SIM3 | 0.763 | ||||
SIM4 | 0.746 | ||||
Power | POW1 | 0.776 | 0.814 | 0.592 | 0.813 |
POW2 | 0.764 | ||||
POW3 | 0.769 | ||||
Purchase intention | PI1 | 0.723 | 0.835 | 0.561 | 0.836 |
PI2 | 0.755 | ||||
PI3 | 0.753 | ||||
PI4 | 0.764 |
EMO | SP | QUAN | QUAL | SIM | POW | PI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMO | 0.763 | ||||||
SP | 0.398 | 0.732 | |||||
QUAN | 0.372 | 0.590 | 0.759 | ||||
QUAL | 0.316 | 0.333 | 0.395 | 0.720 | |||
SIM | 0.295 | 0.446 | 0.330 | 0.672 | 0.752 | ||
POW | 0.215 | 0.494 | 0.388 | 0.350 | 0.447 | 0.770 | |
PI | 0.300 | 0.328 | 0.350 | 0.431 | 0.433 | 0.414 | 0.749 |
Hypothesis | Path | Standard Coefficient | S.E. | C.R. | p | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Emotion → Similarity | 0.165 | 0.061 | 2.892 | ** | Supported |
H2 | Social presence → Similarity | 0.411 | 0.064 | 6.740 | *** | Supported |
H3 | Quantity → Power | 0.330 | 0.060 | 5.708 | *** | Supported |
H4 | Quality → Power | 0.240 | 0.077 | 4.104 | *** | Supported |
H5 | Similarity → Purchase intention | 0.328 | 0.054 | 5.797 | *** | Supported |
H6 | Power → Purchase intention | 0.310 | 0.046 | 5.487 | *** | Supported |
Path | Path A | Path B | Path C | Indirect Effect | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X → M | M → Y | X → Y | 95% Confidence Interval | |||||
Coeff | Coeff | Coeff | Effect | S.E. | Lower | Upper | Rate | |
Emotion → Similarity → Purchase intention | 0.248 *** | 0.323 *** | 0.168 *** | 0.084 | 0.028 | 0.038 | 0.146 | 32.31% |
Social presence → Similarity → Purchase intention | 0.368 *** | 0.306 *** | 0.157 *** | 0.104 | 0.031 | 0.052 | 0.171 | 41.71% |
Quantity → Power → Purchase intention | 0.321 *** | 0.279 *** | 0.208 *** | 0.084 | 0.024 | 0.042 | 0.134 | 30.08% |
Quality → Power → Purchase intention | 0.283 *** | 0.265 *** | 0.282 *** | 0.082 | 0.026 | 0.037 | 0.142 | 21.01% |
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
Deng, M.; Yang, Y.; Sun, B. Research on the Purchase Intention of Social Commerce Consumers in Video Streams: Dual Pathways of Affection and Rationality. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 738. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090738
Deng M, Yang Y, Sun B. Research on the Purchase Intention of Social Commerce Consumers in Video Streams: Dual Pathways of Affection and Rationality. Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 14(9):738. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090738
Chicago/Turabian StyleDeng, Minwei, Yitong Yang, and Baiqing Sun. 2024. "Research on the Purchase Intention of Social Commerce Consumers in Video Streams: Dual Pathways of Affection and Rationality" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 9: 738. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090738
APA StyleDeng, M., Yang, Y., & Sun, B. (2024). Research on the Purchase Intention of Social Commerce Consumers in Video Streams: Dual Pathways of Affection and Rationality. Behavioral Sciences, 14(9), 738. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090738