TAM-Based Study of Farmers’ Live Streaming E-Commerce Adoption Intentions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
2.2. Government Support
2.3. Platform Support
2.4. Social Learning
3. Research Design
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Variable Measurement
3.3. Research Methods
4. Results Analysis
4.1. Reliability Analysis
4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis
4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.4. Model Fitting
4.5. Hypothesis Test
4.6. Moderating Effect Analysis
5. Conclusions and Future Studies
5.1. Conclusions and Discussions
5.2. Theoretical Contribution
5.3. Practical Implication
5.4. Limitations and Future Studies
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Check List of Variables Items
Construct | Items | Source |
Intention to adopt | ITA1: I am willing to try to adopt live streaming e-commerce for marketing. ITA2: I will continue to pay attention to and use live streaming e-commerce to sell agricultural products in the future. ITA3: I will recommend selling agricultural products through the live streaming e-commerce model to others. | [64,65] |
Attitude | AT1: It’s a good idea to use live streaming e-commerce to sell products. AT2: I like the idea of using live streaming e-commerce to sell produce. AT3: There is a lot of value in using live streaming e-commerce to sell produce. | [66,67,68] |
Perceived usefulness | PU1: I think using live streaming e-commerce can increase my income. PU2: I think the use of live streaming e-commerce can improve the efficiency of transactions. PU3: I think adopting live streaming e-commerce can reduce operating costs. PU4: I think the adoption of live streaming e-commerce is good for market expansion. | |
Perceived ease of use | PEU1: It is easier to sell agricultural products using live streaming e-commerce. PEU2: It is easier to learn how to sell agricultural products using live streaming e-commerce. PEU3: It is easier to train people to use live streaming e-commerce. PEU4: It is easier to maintain live streaming e-commerce platforms (e.g., Taobao, TikTok, Kuaishou, Pinduoduo, etc.). | |
Government support | GS1: The government provides policy support for farmers’ live streaming e-commerce. GS2: The government organizes live streaming e-commerce training for farmers. GS3: The government provides financial subsidies for farmers to sell agricultural products through live streaming e-commerce. GS4: The government actively promotes live streaming e-commerce for farmers. GS5: The government has cooperated with live streaming e-commerce platforms. | [69] |
Platform support | PS1: The platform provides training support to farmers for live streaming e-commerce. PS2: The platform provides certain network traffic support for farmers’ live streaming e-commerce. PS3: The platform provides technical support for farmers’ live streaming e-commerce. PS4: Platform provides regular promotion for farmers’ live streaming e-commerce and products. PS5: The platform provides financial support for farmers’ live streaming e-commerce. | [50] |
Social learning | SL1: Frequency of learning about live streaming e-commerce through communication with friends and neighbors SL2: Frequency of learning about live streaming e-commerce through exchanges with big e-commerce players SL3: Frequency of learning live streaming e-commerce related knowledge through communication with e-commerce extension workers SL4: Frequency of learning about live streaming e-commerce through mass media such as the Internet, TV, radio, etc. | [70,71] |
References
- Liu, X.; Walsh, J. Study on development strategies of fresh agricultural products e-commerce in China. Int. Bus. Res. 2019, 12, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Shi, P.; Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Huang, J. Do farmers get a greater return from selling their agricultural products through e-commerce? Rev. Dev. Econ. 2023, 27, 1481–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Chang, K. Mobile immobility: An exploratory study of rural women’s engagement with e-commerce livestreaming in China. J. Chin. Sociol. 2024, 11, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, H. Clustering and Analysis of Rural E-commerce Live Broadcast Mode Based on Data Orientation. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2023, 16, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, S. A study on the influence of E-commerce live streaming on consumer’s purchase intentions in mobile internet. In HCI International 2020—Late Breaking Papers: Interaction, Knowledge and Social Media, Proceedings of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–24 July 2020; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 720–732. [Google Scholar]
- Wongsunopparat, S.; Deng, B. Factors influencing purchase decision of Chinese consumer under live streaming E-commerce model. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 2021, 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, G.-J. Analysis and Research on the New Model of E-Commerce Poverty Alleviation: E-Commerce Live Broadcast of Agricultural Products. J. Account. Financ. Manag. Strategy 2022, 17, 33–59. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Q.; Zhen, J.; Zhang, M. Ease of accessibility, prior experience, government support and farmers’ e-commerce entrepreneurial intention. Shandong Soc. Sci. 2022, 3, 118–125. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Feng, X. Control, exploitation and exclusion: Experiences of small farmer e-tailers in agricultural e-commerce in China. J. Agrar. Chang. 2024, 24, e12567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haryanti, T.; Subriadi, A.P. Factors and theories for E-commerce adoption: A literature review. Int. J. Electron. Commer. Stud. 2020, 11, 87–106. [Google Scholar]
- Susilo, R.D.; Daniawan, B.; Wijaya, A.; Suwitno, S. The acceptance study of e-commerce customers based on tam. bit-Tech 2021, 3, 124–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatzimichael, K.; Genius, M.; Tzouvelekas, V. Informational cascades and technology adoption: Evidence from Greek and German organic growers. Food Policy 2014, 49, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toraman, Y.; Geçit, B.B. User acceptance of metaverse: An analysis for e-commerce in the framework of technology acceptance model (TAM). Sosyoekonomi 2023, 31, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cloete, E.; Doens, M. B2B e-marketplace adoption in South African agriculture. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2008, 14, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakhan, G.R.; Ullah, M.; Channa, A.; Abbas, M.; Khan, M. Factors effecting consumer purchase intention: Live streaming commerce. Psychol. Educ. 2021, 58, 601–611. [Google Scholar]
- Lo, P.-S.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Tan, G.W.-H.; Ooi, K.-B.; Aw, E.C.-X.; Metri, B. Why do consumers buy impulsively during live streaming? A deep learning-based dual-stage SEM-ANN analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 147, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azizah, F.D.; Nur, A.N.; Putra, A.H.P.K. Impulsive buying behavior: Implementation of IT on technology acceptance model on E-Commerce purchase decisions. Gold. Ratio Mark. Appl. Psychol. Bus. 2022, 2, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X. Based on the Perspective of Rural Revitalization, the Current Situation and Countermeasures of Rural Live-Streaming in China. In Proceedings of the 2022 7th International Conference on Social Sciences and Economic Development (ICSSED 2022), Wuhan, China, 25–27 March 2022; pp. 1372–1375. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, C.; Yu, J.; Huang, S.S.; Zhang, J. Tourism e-commerce live streaming: Identifying and testing a value-based marketing framework from the live streamer perspective. Tour. Manag. 2022, 91, 104513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, M.; Deng, P.; Chen, B.; Liang, Q.; Deng, G. Research on Tik Tok platform live streaming e-commerce to help rural revitalization based on SOR model. Acad. J. Bus. Manag. 2021, 3, 91–94. [Google Scholar]
- Putra, A.H.P.K. The Effect of Social Interaction and Social Support on E-Commerce Purchase Intention: UGT and TAM Theory Perspective. J. Law Sustain. Dev. 2023, 11, e987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malatji, W.R.; Eck, R.V.; Zuva, T. Understanding the usage, modifications, limitations and criticisms of technology acceptance model (TAM). Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 2020, 5, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumajas, C.; Pusung, D.; Undap, M. Evaluation of Acceptance Model in E-Commerce Using TAM. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 2021, 1, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
- Tahar, A.; Riyadh, H.A.; Sofyani, H.; Purnomo, W.E. Perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, perceived security and intention to use e-filing: The role of technology readiness. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’souza, D.J.; Harisha, G.; Raghavendra, P. Assessment of consumers acceptance of e-commerce to purchase geographical indication based crop using technology acceptance model (tam). AGRIS-Line Pap. Econ. Inform. 2021, 13, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majumder, M.G.; Gupta, S.D.; Paul, J. Perceived usefulness of online customer reviews: A review mining approach using machine learning & exploratory data analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 150, 147–164. [Google Scholar]
- Al Kurdi, B.; Alshurideh, M.; Salloum, S.A. Investigating a theoretical framework for e-learning technology acceptance. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2020, 10, 6484–6496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dishaw, M.T.; Strong, D.M. Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs. Inf. Manag. 1999, 36, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Qaysi, N.; Mohamad-Nordin, N.; Al-Emran, M. Employing the technology acceptance model in social media: A systematic review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 4961–5002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rafique, H.; Almagrabi, A.O.; Shamim, A.; Anwar, F.; Bashir, A.K. Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Comput. Educ. 2020, 145, 103732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuen, K.F.; Cai, L.; Qi, G.; Wang, X. Factors influencing autonomous vehicle adoption: An application of the technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 33, 505–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei-Moghaddam, K.; Salehi, S. Agricultural specialists’ intention toward precision agriculture technologies: Integrating innovation characteristics to technology acceptance model. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 1191–1199. [Google Scholar]
- Mohr, S.; Kühl, R. Acceptance of artificial intelligence in German agriculture: An application of the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior. Precis. Agric. 2021, 22, 1816–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarei, R.; Zamani, G.H.; Karimi, H.; Micheels, E.T. An extension of the technology acceptance model: Understanding farmers’ behavioral intention towards using agricultural e-commerce. Int. J. Agric. Manag. Dev. 2022, 12, 27–42. [Google Scholar]
- Alfaro-Serrano, D.; Balantrapu, T.; Chaurey, R.; Goicoechea, A.; Verhoogen, E. Interventions to promote technology adoption in firms: A systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2021, 17, e1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ye, R.; Zhou, D. Government Support, Entrepreneurship Training and Inclusive Entrepreneurship-An Analysis of a Sample of Farmers’ E-Commerce from Poverty-Reduced Areas. Rural Econ. 2023, 6, 106–115. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Berry, F.S.; Berry, W.D. Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In Theories of the Policy Process; Westview Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 253–297. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, O.; Shrestha, A.; Osmanaj, V.; Muhammed, S. Cloud computing technology adoption: An evaluation of key factors in local governments. Inf. Technol. People 2021, 34, 666–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amini, M.; Jahanbakhsh Javid, N. A Multi-Perspective Framework Established on Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory and Technology, Organization and Environment (TOE) Framework toward Supply Chain Management System Based on Cloud Computing Technology for Small and Medium Enterprises. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Innov. Adopt. 2023, 11, 1217–1234. [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee, S.; Bhattacharjee, K.K.; Tsai, C.-W.; Agrawal, A.K. Impact of peer influence and government support for successful adoption of technology for vocational education: A quantitative study using PLS-SEM technique. Qual. Quant. 2022, 55, 2041–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, N.K.; Bhaskar, K.; Jain, S. What drives adoption intention of electric vehicles in India? An integrated UTAUT model with environmental concerns, perceived risk and government support. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 42, 100730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soe, M.-H. Do they really intend to adopt e-wallet? Prevalence estimates for government support and perceived susceptibility. Asian J. Bus. Res. 2022, 12, 77–98. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, R.; Meng, Q.; Yu, J.J. Optimal government incentives to improve the new technology adoption: Subsidizing infrastructure investment or usage? Omega 2023, 114, 102740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.; Jeyaraj, A.; Clement, M.; Williams, M.D. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 719–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, S.; Lim, W.M.; Pandey, N.; Westland, J.C. 20 years of electronic commerce research. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 21, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, K.; Sheng, Y. A Research on the Influencing Factors of Usage Intention of Regional Agricultural Products E-commerce Platforms. China Bus. Mark. 2018, 32, 67–74. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Han, F.; Li, B. Effects of the Mechanism Innovation of E-commerce Platform on the Farmers’ Online Shopping Intention—Mediating Effect of Adoption Readiness and Perceived Risk. J. Bus. Econ. 2018, 5, 17–27. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Gangwar, H.; Date, H.; Ramaswamy, R. Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2015, 28, 107–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, F.; Li, B.; Han, F.Y.; Li, B. Research on Farmers’ Entrepreneurial Intention Analysis with Government Support and E-Commerce Platform—Based on Structural Equation Model. J. Tianjin Univ. 2019, 21, 8–16. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Takahashi, K.; Muraoka, R.; Otsuka, K. Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature. Agric. Econ. 2020, 51, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.; Zhang, B.; Chen, H.; Liu, B. Research on Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Rural E-commerce Activities and Influencing Factors Based on a Multivariate Logistic Model. In Proceedings of the 2021 2nd International Conference on E-Commerce and Internet Technology (ECIT), Hangzhou, China, 5–7 March 2021; pp. 206–212. [Google Scholar]
- Akers, R.L.; Jennings, W.G. Social learning theory. In The Handbook of Criminological Theory; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 230–240. [Google Scholar]
- Beaman, L.; BenYishay, A.; Magruder, J.; Mobarak, A.M. Can network theory-based targeting increase technology adoption? Am. Econ. Rev. 2021, 111, 1918–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.; Wang, M.; Wan, Y.; Jin, J.; Pan, Y. The power of social learning: How do observational and word-of-mouth learning influence online consumer decision processes? Inf. Process. Manag. 2021, 58, 102632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotter, J.B. Social learning theory. In Expectations and Actions; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2021; pp. 241–260. [Google Scholar]
- Gars, J.; Ward, P.S. Can differences in individual learning explain patterns of technology adoption? Evidence on heterogeneous learning patterns and hybrid rice adoption in Bihar, India. World Dev. 2019, 115, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khechine, H.; Raymond, B.; Augier, M. The adoption of a social learning system: Intrinsic value in the UTAUT model. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 2306–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillingham, K.T.; Bollinger, B. Social learning and solar photovoltaic adoption. Manag. Sci. 2021, 67, 7091–7112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conley, T.; Christopher, U. Social Learning Through Networks: The Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies in Ghana. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2001, 83, 668–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genius, M.; Koundouri, P.; Nauges, C.; Tzouvelekas, V. Information Transmission in Irrigation Technology Adoption and Diffusion: Social Learning, Extension Services, and Spatial Effects. Work. Pap. 2014, 96, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leta, G.; Stellmacher, T.; Kelboro, G.; Van Assche, K.; Hornidge, A.K. Social learning in smallholder agriculture: The struggle against systemic inequalities. J. Workplace Learn. 2018, 30, 469–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, X.; Li, S.; Nan, N.; Guo, H. Impact of social learning and environmental cognition on farmers’ pro-environmental behavior. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2021, 35, 34–40. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ariansyah, K.; Sirait, E.R.E.; Nugroho, B.A.; Suryanegara, M. Drivers of and barriers to e-commerce adoption in Indonesia: Individuals’ perspectives and the implications. Telecommun. Policy 2021, 45, 102219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, K.; Sheng, Y. Research on the Influencing Factors and Mechanism of Livestreaming Commerce Adoption Intention of New Agricultural Operation Entities. China Bus. Mark. 2021, 35, 65–73. [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]
- Huang, Y.-P. Diffusion Innovation, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Learning, E-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and E-Government, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 16–19 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Mullins, J.K.; Cronan, T.P. Enterprise systems knowledge, beliefs, and attitude: A model of informed technology acceptance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 59, 102348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, G.; Zhou, H.; Wang, Q.; Wang, L.; Zhao, X. Digitalization and third-party logistics performance: Exploring?the roles of customer collaboration and government support. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2023, 53, 467–488. [Google Scholar]
- Barham, B.L.; Chavas, J.P.; Fitz, D.; Ríos-Salas, V.; Schechter, L. Risk, learning, and technology adoption. Agric. Econ. 2015, 46, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crane-Droesch, A. Technology diffusion, outcome variability, and social learning: Evidence from a field experiment in Kenya. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 100, 955–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churchill, G.A., Jr. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronk, B.C. How to Use SPSS®: A Step-by-Step Guide to Analysis and Interpretation; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kohli, A.K.; Shervani, T.A.; Challagalla, G.N. Learning and performance orientation of salespeople: The role of supervisors. J. Mark. Res. 1998, 35, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition; Pearson Education Limited: Essex, UK, 2014; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awang, Z. Structural Equation Modeling Using AMOS Graphic; Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA: Bandar Puncak Alam, Malaysia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J., Jr.; Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Whittaker, T.A.; Schumacker, R.E. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, R.B.; Santor, D.A. Principles & practice of structural equation modelling. Can. Psychol. 1999, 40, 381. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.-J.; Hsu, Y.; Wei, W.; Yang, C. Continuance intention of augmented reality textbooks in basic design course. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoque, M.R.; Ali, M.A.; Mahfuz, M.A. An Empirical Investigation on the adoption of e-Commerce in Bangladesh. Asia Pac. J. Inf. Syst. 2015, 25, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fayad, R.; Paper, D. The technology acceptance model e-commerce extension: A conceptual framework. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 26, 1000–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sample | Category | Number | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | Male | 227 | 53.5 |
Female | 197 | 46.5 | |
Type | New agricultural businesses entity | 217 | 51.2 |
Family farm | 109 | 25.7 | |
Large specialized household | 54 | 12.7 | |
Farmers’ cooperative | 46 | 10.8 | |
Agricultural enterprise | 8 | 1.9 | |
Traditional agricultural business entity | 207 | 48.8 | |
Education | Junior high school and below | 115 | 27.1 |
High school or polytechnic school | 135 | 31.8 | |
Junior college | 83 | 19.6 | |
Bachelor degree and above | 91 | 21.5 | |
Age | 18–25 | 119 | 28.1 |
26–35 | 114 | 26.9 | |
36–50 | 148 | 34.9 | |
51 and above | 43 | 10.1 | |
E-commerce experience | Yes | 165 | 38.9 |
No | 259 | 61.1 |
Construct | Items | Corrected Item-Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intention to adopt | ITA1 | 0.81 | 0.844 | 0.895 |
ITA2 | 0.786 | 0.848 | ||
ITA3 | 0.786 | 0.819 | ||
Attitude | AT1 | 0.768 | 0.844 | 0.885 |
AT2 | 0.764 | 0.848 | ||
AT3 | 0.796 | 0.819 | ||
Perceived usefulness | PU1 | 0.814 | 0.864 | 0.903 |
PU2 | 0.807 | 0.867 | ||
PU3 | 0.731 | 0.894 | ||
PU4 | 0.78 | 0.876 | ||
Perceived ease of use | PEU1 | 0.819 | 0.882 | 0.914 |
PEU2 | 0.783 | 0.895 | ||
PEU3 | 0.78 | 0.896 | ||
PEU4 | 0.832 | 0.877 | ||
Government support | GS1 | 0.864 | 0.943 | 0.953 |
GS2 | 0.881 | 0.94 | ||
GS3 | 0.854 | 0.945 | ||
GS4 | 0.882 | 0.94 | ||
GS5 | 0.871 | 0.942 | ||
Platform support | PS1 | 0.878 | 0.934 | 0.949 |
PS2 | 0.865 | 0.936 | ||
PS3 | 0.862 | 0.936 | ||
PS4 | 0.854 | 0.938 | ||
PS5 | 0.839 | 0.941 | ||
Social learning | SL1 | 0.830 | 0.914 | 0.932 |
SL2 | 0.867 | 0.902 | ||
SL3 | 0.841 | 0.910 | ||
SL4 | 0.819 | 0.917 |
Construct | Items | KMO | Bartlett’s Sphere Test | Commonality | Factor Loading | Eigenvalue | Total Variation Explained |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intention to adopt | ITA1 | 0.75 | 0 | 0.842 | 0.918 | 2.482 | 82.72 |
ITA2 | 0.82 | 0.905 | |||||
ITA3 | 0.82 | 0.905 | |||||
Attitude | AT1 | 0.744 | 0 | 0.806 | 0.898 | 2.439 | 81.306 |
AT2 | 0.801 | 0.895 | |||||
AT3 | 0.833 | 0.913 | |||||
Perceived usefulness | PU1 | 0.846 | 0 | 0.811 | 0.901 | 3.103 | 77.58 |
PU2 | 0.804 | 0.896 | |||||
PU3 | 0.714 | 0.845 | |||||
PU4 | 0.774 | 0.88 | |||||
Perceived ease of use | PEU1 | 0.852 | 0 | 0.814 | 0.902 | 3.18 | 79.498 |
PEU2 | 0.772 | 0.879 | |||||
PEU3 | 0.767 | 0.876 | |||||
PEU4 | 0.827 | 0.91 | |||||
Government support | GS1 | 0.913 | 0 | 0.835 | 0.914 | 4.215 | 84.292 |
GS2 | 0.857 | 0.926 | |||||
GS3 | 0.822 | 0.906 | |||||
GS4 | 0.857 | 0.926 | |||||
GS5 | 0.844 | 0.918 | |||||
Platform support | PS1 | 0.917 | 0 | 0.854 | 0.924 | 4.157 | 83.143 |
PS2 | 0.839 | 0.916 | |||||
PS3 | 0.835 | 0.914 | |||||
PS4 | 0.825 | 0.908 | |||||
PS5 | 0.805 | 0.897 | |||||
Social learning | SL1 | 0.861 | 0 | 0.819 | 0.905 | 3.319 | 82.985 |
SL2 | 0.861 | 0.928 | |||||
SL3 | 0.833 | 0.913 | |||||
SL4 | 0.807 | 0.898 |
Construct | Items | Factor Loading | SMC | AVE | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intention to adopt | ITA1 | 0.872 | 0.760 | 0.741 | 0.896 |
ITA2 | 0.848 | 0.719 | |||
ITA3 | 0.862 | 0.743 | |||
Attitude | AT1 | 0.841 | 0.707 | 0.72 | 0.885 |
AT2 | 0.841 | 0.707 | |||
AT3 | 0.864 | 0.746 | |||
Perceived usefulness | PU1 | 0.874 | 0.764 | 0.703 | 0.904 |
PU2 | 0.860 | 0.740 | |||
PU3 | 0.780 | 0.608 | |||
PU4 | 0.837 | 0.701 | |||
Perceived ease of use | PEU1 | 0.869 | 0.755 | 0.728 | 0.915 |
PEU2 | 0.838 | 0.702 | |||
PEU3 | 0.825 | 0.681 | |||
PEU4 | 0.880 | 0.774 | |||
Government support | GS1 | 0.889 | 0.790 | 0.803 | 0.953 |
GS2 | 0.904 | 0.817 | |||
GS3 | 0.877 | 0.769 | |||
GS4 | 0.913 | 0.834 | |||
GS5 | 0.898 | 0.806 | |||
Platform support | PS1 | 0.914 | 0.835 | 0.789 | 0.949 |
PS2 | 0.897 | 0.805 | |||
PS3 | 0.883 | 0.780 | |||
PS4 | 0.882 | 0.778 | |||
PS5 | 0.864 | 0.746 | |||
Social learning | SL1 | 0.874 | 0.764 | 0.774 | 0.932 |
SL2 | 0.907 | 0.823 | |||
SL3 | 0.878 | 0.771 | |||
SL4 | 0.860 | 0.740 |
ITA | AT | PU | PEU | GS | PS | SL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITA | 0.861 | ||||||
AT | 0.798 | 0.849 | |||||
PU | 0.828 | 0.825 | 0.838 | ||||
PEU | 0.664 | 0.717 | 0.729 | 0.853 | |||
GS | 0.519 | 0.510 | 0.627 | 0.617 | 0.896 | ||
PS | 0.605 | 0.617 | 0.669 | 0.678 | 0.770 | 0.888 | |
SL | 0.564 | 0.551 | 0.570 | 0.739 | 0.601 | 0.664 | 0.880 |
ITA | AT | PU | PEU | GS | PS | SL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITA | |||||||
AT | 0.800 | ||||||
PU | 0.828 | 0.830 | |||||
PEU | 0.664 | 0.719 | 0.730 | ||||
GS | 0.521 | 0.511 | 0.627 | 0.616 | |||
PS | 0.604 | 0.618 | 0.668 | 0.677 | 0.768 | ||
SL | 0.570 | 0.554 | 0.579 | 0.746 | 0.603 | 0.660 |
Common Indices | χ2/df | RMSEA | GFI | NFI | TLI | CFI | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Judgment criteria | <5 | <0.08 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | <0.08 |
CFA Value | 1.711 | 0.041 | 0.910 | 0.951 | 0.977 | 0.979 | 0.028 |
Hypothesis | Path | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | VIF | p-Value | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | AT → ITA | 0.411 | 0.083 | 4.956 | 2.225 | 0 | Support |
H2 | PU → ITA | 0.570 | 0.079 | 7.172 | 2.225 | 0 | Support |
H3 | PU → AT | 0.607 | 0.059 | 10.33 | 1.791 | 0 | Support |
H4 | PEU → AT | 0.219 | 0.049 | 4.448 | 1.791 | 0 | Support |
H5 | PEU → PU | 0.470 | 0.062 | 7.576 | 2.217 | 0 | Support |
H6 | GS → PEU | 0.103 | 0.053 | 1.960 | 2.255 | 0.051 | No Support |
H7 | GS → PU | 0.117 | 0.050 | 2.369 | 2.294 | 0.018 | Support |
H8 | PS → PEU | 0.232 | 0.058 | 3.963 | 2.489 | 0 | Support |
H9 | PS → PU | 0.208 | 0.056 | 3.694 | 2.627 | 0 | Support |
H10 | SL → PEU | 0.477 | 0.052 | 9.255 | 1.710 | 0 | Support |
H11 | SL → PU | −0.047 | 0.055 | −0.864 | 2.174 | 0.388 | No Support |
Path | Type | Education | Experience | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMIN | p | CMIN | p | CMIN | p | |
AT → ITA | 0.046 | 0.830 | 0.047 | 0.827 | 1.929 | 0.165 |
PU → ITA | 0.262 | 0.609 | 0.154 | 0.694 | 0.424 | 0.515 |
PU → AT | 0.876 | 0.349 | 1.464 | 0.226 | 2.401 | 0.121 |
PEU → AT | 2.259 | 0.133 | 5.155 | 0.023 | 2.407 | 0.121 |
PEU → PU | 1.559 | 0.212 | 1.437 | 0.231 | 3.833 | 0.051 |
GS → PEU | 0.005 | 0.943 | 2.288 | 0.130 | 2.421 | 0.120 |
GS → PU | 6.737 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.924 | 2.682 | 0.101 |
PS → PEU | 0.081 | 0.777 | 0.004 | 0.948 | 0.304 | 0.581 |
PS → PU | 0.283 | 0.595 | 0.001 | 0.970 | 4.080 | 0.043 |
SL → PEU | 0.004 | 0.840 | 6.624 | 0.001 | 0.382 | 0.536 |
SL → PU | 0.497 | 0.481 | 0.048 | 0.700 | 2.147 | 0.143 |
Moderating Variable | Path | β | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
type | traditional | GS → PU | 0.289 | 0.001 |
new | 0.025 | 0.702 | ||
Education | low | PEU → AT | 0.326 | 0.001 |
high | 0.110 | 0.057 | ||
low | SL → PEU | 0.383 | 0.001 | |
high | 0.670 | 0.001 | ||
Experience | yes | PS → PU | 0.379 | 0.001 |
no | 0.123 | 0.062 |
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
Chen, X.; Zhang, X.-e.; Chen, J. TAM-Based Study of Farmers’ Live Streaming E-Commerce Adoption Intentions. Agriculture 2024, 14, 518. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040518
Chen X, Zhang X-e, Chen J. TAM-Based Study of Farmers’ Live Streaming E-Commerce Adoption Intentions. Agriculture. 2024; 14(4):518. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040518
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Xinqiang, Xiu-e Zhang, and Jiangjie Chen. 2024. "TAM-Based Study of Farmers’ Live Streaming E-Commerce Adoption Intentions" Agriculture 14, no. 4: 518. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040518
APA StyleChen, X., Zhang, X. -e., & Chen, J. (2024). TAM-Based Study of Farmers’ Live Streaming E-Commerce Adoption Intentions. Agriculture, 14(4), 518. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040518