Explore the Feeling of Presence and Purchase Intention in Livestream Shopping: A Flow-Based Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Livestream Shopping
2.2. Presence
2.3. The Flow Theory
2.4. A Flow-Based Research Model on Livestream Shopping
3. Hypotheses
4. Methods
4.1. Sample and Data Collection
4.2. Measures
4.3. Data Analysis and Results
4.3.1. Common Method Bias
4.3.2. Validity Test
4.3.3. Hypothesis Test
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variables | Items | Sources | |
Physical Presence | When shopping in live streaming, I felt as if I was shopping in a brick-and-mortar store | Barfield, W., Zeltzer, D., Sheridan, T.B., and Slater, M., Presence and performance within virtual environments. In Barfield, W., and Furness III, T.A. (eds.) Virtual Environments and Advanced Interface Design, 1995, Oxford, Oxford University Press. [33] | |
While I was shopping in live streaming, I felt as if I were in a real world created by the live streaming | |||
When shopping in live streaming, although my body was in the room, I felt that my mind was inside the world created by live streaming. | |||
While I was shopping in live streaming, I felt the products presented by the anchor were right in front of me. | |||
Social Presence | I felt a sense of sociability when shopping in live streaming. | Gunawardena, C. N., and Zittle, F. J., Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 1997, 11(3), 8–26. [89] | |
I felt a sense of human warmth when shopping in live streaming. | |||
I felt a sense of human contact when shopping in live streaming. | |||
I was aware of the presence of anchor and other consumers when shopping in live streaming. | |||
The anchor and other consumers were aware of the presence of me when shopping in live streaming. | |||
I was able to communicate with anchor and other consumers when shopping in live streaming. | |||
Flow | Concentration | When shopping in live streaming, I was absorbed intensely in the activity. | Koufaris, M., Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 2002, 13(2), 205–223. [39] |
When shopping in live streaming, my attention was focused on the activity. | |||
When shopping in live streaming, I concentrated fully on the activity. | |||
When shopping in live streaming, I was deeply engrossed in the activity. | |||
Perceived Control | When shopping in live streaming, I felt confused. | ||
When shopping in live streaming, I felt calm. | |||
When shopping in live streaming, I felt in control. | |||
When shopping in live streaming, I felt frustrated. | |||
Enjoyment | When shopping in live streaming, I found it interesting. | ||
When shopping in live streaming, I found it enjoyable. | |||
When shopping in live streaming, I found it exciting. | |||
When shopping in live streaming, I found it funny. | |||
Purchase Intention | I will likely buy the products recommended in the live streaming shopping. | Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., and Grewal, D., Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 1991, 28(3), 307–319. [90] | |
I would recommend live streaming shopping to my friends. | |||
I would prefer to use the products recommended in the live streaming shopping. |
References
- Addo, P.C.; Fang, J.; Asare, A.O.; Kulbo, N.B. Customer engagement and purchase intention in live-streaming digital marketing platforms. Serv. Ind. J. 2021, 40, 767–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyer, W.D.; Kroschke, M.; Schmitt, B.; Kraume, K.; Shankar, V. Transforming the customer experience through new technologies. J. Interact. Mark. 2020, 51, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rietveld, R.; van Dolen, W.; Mazloom, M.; Worring, M. What you feel, is what you like influence of message appeals on customer engagement on Instagram. J. Interact. Mark. 2020, 49, 20–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, R.C.; Rajadurai, K.G. Live streaming meets online shopping in the connected world: Interactive social video in online marketplace. In Strategies and Tools for Managing Connected Consumers; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 130–142. [Google Scholar]
- Jai, T.-M.; Fang, D.; Bao, F.S.; James, R.N.; Chen, T.; Cai, W. Seeing it is like touching it: Unraveling the effective product presentations on online apparel purchase decisions and brain activity (An fMRI study). J. Interact. Mark. 2021, 53, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Li, X.; Cai, J. How attachment affects user stickiness on live streaming platforms: A socio-technical approach perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 60, 102478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ming, J.; Zeng, J.; Bilal, M.; Akram, U.; Fan, M. How social presence influences impulse buying behavior in live streaming commerce? The role of SOR theory. Int. J. Web Inf. Syst. 2021, 17, 300–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waltenrath, A.; Brenner, C.; Hinz, O. Some interactions are more equal than others: The effect of influencer endorsements in social media brand posts on engagement and online store performance. J. Interact. Mark. 2022, 57, 541–560. [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]
- Hu, M.; Chaudhry, S.S. Enhancing consumer engagement in e-commerce live streaming via relational bonds. Internet Res. 2020, 30, 1019–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, T. Can “Live Streaming” really drive visitors to the destination? From the aspect of “Social Presence”. SAGE Open 2021, 11, 21582440211006691. [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]
- Ma, Y. To shop or not: Understanding Chinese consumers’ live-stream shopping intentions from the perspectives of uses and gratifications, perceived network size, perceptions of digital celebrities, and shopping orientations. Telemat. Inform. 2021, 59, 101562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilvert-Bruce, Z.; Neill, J.T.; Sjöblom, M.; Hamari, J. Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 84, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kang, K.; Lu, J.; Guo, L.; Li, W. The dynamic effect of interactivity on customer engagement behavior through tie strength: Evidence from live streaming commerce platforms. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 56, 102251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, B.; Fan, W.; Zhou, M. Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 56, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ang, T.; Wei, S.; Anaza, N.A. Livestreaming vs pre-recorded: How social viewing strategies impact consumers’ viewing experiences and behavioral intentions. Eur. J. Mark. 2018, 52, 2075–2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Lee, K. Getting in the flow together: The role of social presence, perceived enjoyment and concentration on sustainable use intention of mobile social network game. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IJsselsteijn, W.A.; de Ridder, H.; Freeman, J.; Avons, S.E. Presence: Concept, determinants and measurement. In SPIE, Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V; SPIE Press: San Jose, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Lombard, M.; Ditton, T. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 1997, 3, JCMC321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Ma, Z.; Meng, Y. High performance work systems and employee engagement: Empirical evidence from China. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2018, 56, 341–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Z.; Bu, M. A new research horizon for mass entrepreneurship policy and Chinese firms’ CSR. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 169, 603–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Z.; Jin, Q. Success factors for product innovation in China’s manufacturing sector: Strategic choice and environment constraints. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 2019, 49, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Z.; Yu, M.; Gao, C.; Zhou, J.; Yang, Z. Institutional constraints of product innovation in China: Evidence from international joint ventures. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 949–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, N.; Yin, J.; Ma, Z.; Liao, M. The influence mechanism of rewards on users’ knowledge sharing behaviors in virtual communities. J. Knowl. Manag. 2022, 26, 485–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Shao, X.; Li, X.; Guo, Y.; Nie, K. How live streaming influences purchase intentions in social commerce: An IT affordance perspective. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2019, 37, 100886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.C.; Lin, Y.C. What drives live-stream usage intention? The perspectives of flow, entertainment, social interaction, and endorsement. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, W. Examining students’ online interaction in a live video streaming environment using data mining and text mining. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Wigand, R.T.; Nilan, M.S. Optimal experience of web activities. Comput. Hum. Behav. 1999, 15, 585–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nah, F.F.H.; Eschenbrenner, B.; DeWester, D.; Park, S.R. Impact of flow and brand equity in 3D virtual worlds. J. Database Manag. 2010, 21, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Minsky, M. Telepresence; Omni: Campinas, Brazil, 1980; pp. 45–51. [Google Scholar]
- Sheridan, T.B. Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1992, 1, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barfield, W.; Zeltzer, D.; Sheridan, T.B.; Slater, M. Presence and performance within virtual environments. In Virtual Environments and Advanced Interface Design; Barfield, W., Furness, T.A., III, Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Loomis, J.M. Presence and distal attribution: Phenomenology, determinants, and assessment. In Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display III; SPIE: San Jose, CA, USA, 1992; Volume 1666, pp. 590–595. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, L.; Li, H.; Wang, F.K.; He, W.; Tian, Z. How online reviews affect purchase intention: A new model based on the stimulus-organism-response (SOR) framework. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 72, 463–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csikszentmihalyi, M.; LeFevre, J. Optimal experience in work and leisure. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 56, 815–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prentice, R.C.; Witt, S.F.; Hamer, C. Tourism as experience: The case of heritage parks. Ann. Tour. Res. 1998, 25, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Thapa, B. Perceived value and flow experience: Application in a nature-based tourism context. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 8, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koufaris, M. Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rheinberg, F.; Vollmeyer, R. Flow experience in a computer game under experimentally controlled conditions. Z. Fur Psychol. 2003, 211, 161–170. [Google Scholar]
- Trevino, L.K.; Webster, J. Flow in computer-mediated communication: Electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Commun. Res. 1992, 19, 539–573. [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]
- Mahfouz, A.Y.; Joonas, K.; Opara, E.U. An overview of and factor analytic approach to flow theory in online contexts. Technol. Soc. 2020, 61, 101228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Mollen, A.; Wilson, H. Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 919–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pelet, J.É.; Ettis, S.; Cowart, K. Optimal experience of flow enhanced by telepresence: Evidence from social media use. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steuer, J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. J. Commun. 1992, 42, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biocca, F.; Harms, C.; Burgoon, J.K. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2003, 12, 456–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, R.; Karahanna, E. Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q. 2000, 24, 665–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finneran, C.M.; Zhang, P. A person–artefact–task (PAT) model of flow antecedents in computer-mediated environments. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2003, 59, 475–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajjadi, P.; Hoffmann, L.; Cimiano, P.; Kopp, S. A personality-based emotional model for embodied conversational agents: Effects on perceived social presence and game experience of users. Entertain. Comput. 2019, 32, 100313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slater, M.; Lotto, B.; Arnold, M.M.; Sánchez-Vives, M.V. How we experience immersive virtual environments: The concept of presence and its measurement. Anu. De Psicol. 2009, 40, 193–210. [Google Scholar]
- Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology; MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Downes, E.J.; McMillan, S.J. Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media Soc. 2000, 2, 157–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Yao, M.Z. Did you notice the ads? Examining the influence of telepresence and user control on the effectiveness of embedded billboard ads in a VR racing game. J. Interact. Advert. 2020, 20, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fulk, J.; Steinfield, C.W.; Schmitz, J.; Power, J.G. A social information processing model of media use in organizations. Commun. Res. 1987, 14, 529–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felnhofer, A.; Kothgassner, O.D.; Hauk, N.; Beutl, L.; Hlavacs, H.; Kryspin-Exner, I. Physical and social presence in collaborative virtual environments: Exploring age and gender differences with respect to empathy. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 31, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D. Managing user trust in B2C e-services. E-Service 2003, 2, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coyle, J.R.; Thorson, E. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. J. Advert. 2001, 30, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fortin, D.R.; Dholakia, R.R. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 387–396. [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]
- Shen, J. Social comparison, social presence, and enjoyment in the acceptance of social shopping websites. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2012, 13, 198–212. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, I.L.; Chen, K.W.; Chiu, M. Defining key drivers of online impulse purchasing: A perspective of both impulse shoppers and system users. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 284–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novak, T.; Hoffman, D.; Yung, Y. INFORMS Marketing Science and the Internet Mini-Conference; MIT: Boston, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Quinn, R.W. Flow in knowledge performance experience. Adm. Sci. Q. 2005, 50, 610–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghani, J.A.; Deshpande, S.P. Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human-computer interaction. J. Psychol. 1994, 128, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novak, T.P.; Hoffman, D.L.; Yung, Y.F. Measuring the customer experience in online environments: A structural modeling approach. Mark. Sci. 2000, 19, 22–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Z.; Yang, J.; Ling, L. Exploring the Influence of Live Streaming in Mobile Commerce on Adoption Intention from a Social Presence Perspective. Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2020, 12, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathwick, C.; Rigdon, E. Play, flow, and the online search experience. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 31, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, J.W.; Kim, Y.G. Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Inf. Manag. 2001, 38, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, J.; Trevino, L.K.; Ryan, L. The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interactions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 1993, 9, 411–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atombo, C.; Wu, C.; Zhang, H.; Wemegah, T.D. Perceived enjoyment, concentration, intention, and speed violation behavior: Using flow theory and theory of planned behavior. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2017, 18, 694–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, L.; Sudharshan, D. An examination of the effects of cognitive interruptions on consumer online decision processes. In Proceedings of the Second Marketing Science Internet Conference 2020, USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 11–13 June 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, L.C.; Hsiao, D.F. Antecedents of flow in retail store shopping. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2012, 19, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Todd, P.A. Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the World Wide Web. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 1996, 1, 59–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clawson, P. Study: Consumers want interactive TV. Electron. Media 1993, 23, 24–25. [Google Scholar]
- Tracy, B. E-tailing: What Web customers really want. Advert. Age’s Bus. Mark. 1998, 83, 39–41. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffman, D.; Novak, T.P. Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 50–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 1992, 3, 60–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dedeke, A.N. Travel web-site design: Information task-fit, service quality and purchase intention. Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 541–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blakney, V.L.; Sekely, W. Retail attributes: Influence on shopping mode choice behavior. J. Manag. Issues 1994, 6, 101–118. [Google Scholar]
- Eighmey, J.; McCord, L. Adding value in the information age: Uses and gratifications of sites on the World Wide Web. J. Bus. Res. 1998, 41, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolfinbarger, M.; Gilly, M.C. Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2001, 43, 34–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2000, 11, 342–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dholakia, U.M. Temptation and resistance: An integrated model of consumption impulse formation and enactment. Psychol. Mark. 2000, 17, 955–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Deci, E.L.; Koestner, R.; Ryan, R.M. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125, 627–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brislin, R.W. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology 1980, 2, 389–444. [Google Scholar]
- Gunawardena, C.N.; Zittle, F.J. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. Am. J. Distance Educ. 1997, 11, 8–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zait, A.; Bertea, P.E. Methods for Testing Discriminant Validity. Manag. Mark. J. 2021, IX, 217–224. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, A. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. J. Educ. Meas. 2013, 51, 335–337. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, S.; Lei, S.I.; Shen, H.; Xiao, H. Social presence, telepresence and customers’ intention to purchase online peer-to-peer accommodation: A mediating model. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 42, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulu, S.T. Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.L. Exploring the player flow experience in e-game playing. Int. J. Technol. Hum. Interact. 2010, 6, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaye, L.K. Exploring flow experiences in cooperative digital gaming contexts. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 55, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weibel, D.; Wissmath, B.; Habegger, S.; Steiner, Y.; Groner, R. Playing online games against computer-vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2008, 24, 2274–2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilgihan, A. Gen Y customer loyalty in online shopping: An integrated model of trust, user experience and branding. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.M.; Poole, M.S. Antecedents of flow in online shopping: A test of alternative models. Inf. Syst. J. 2009, 19, 369–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novak, T.P.; Hoffman, D.L.; Duhachek, A. The influence of goal-directed and experiential activities on online flow experiences. J. Consum. Psychol. 2003, 13, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slater, M. Measuring presence: A response to the Witmer and Singer presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1999, 8, 560–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witmer, B.G.; Singer, M.J. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1998, 7, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalgarno, B.; Lee MJ, W. What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 41, 10–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, C.W.; Chen, N.S. A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2012, 60, 529–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antecedents of Purchase Intentions in Livestreaming | Studies |
---|---|
Interface features | [27] |
Comments made in livestreaming | [28,29] |
Psychological distance | [11] |
Para-social interaction | [10] |
Live content—product fit | [30] |
Consumer trust | [9,11,12,16] |
Consumer engagement | [1,8,14] |
Social presence | [7,13,17,18,26] |
Variables | Category | Number | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 146 | 38 |
Female | 238 | 62 | |
Age | Under 18 | 12 | 3.1 |
18–30 | 226 | 58.9 | |
30–45 | 129 | 33.6 | |
Above 45 | 17 | 4.4 | |
Education | High school or below | 36 | 9.4 |
College or university | 298 | 77.6 | |
Postgraduate or above | 50 | 13 |
Variables | Mean | S.D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Gender | 1.62 | 0.49 | ||||||||
2. Age | 2.39 | 0.63 | −0.02 | |||||||
3. Education | 2.04 | 0.47 | 0.14 ** | 0.00 | ||||||
4. Physical Presence | 3.35 | 0.84 | 0.11 * | 0.25 ** | 0.06 | |||||
5. Social Presence | 3.42 | 0.80 | 0.12 * | 0.25 ** | 0.11 * | 0.77 *** | ||||
6. Concentration | 3.42 | 0.86 | 0.17 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.09 | 0.75 *** | 0.69 *** | |||
7. Perceived Control | 3.47 | 0.75 | 0.08 | 0.22 ** | 0.01 | 0.40 *** | 0.42 *** | 0.36 *** | ||
8. Enjoyment | 3.67 | 0.82 | 0.25 ** | 0.19 ** | 0.10 | 0.73 *** | 0.73 *** | 0.78 *** | 0.38 *** | |
9. Purchase Intention | 3.45 | 0.88 | 0.23 ** | 0.23 ** | 0.11 * | 0.71 *** | 0.70 *** | 0.74 *** | 0.76 *** | 0.76 *** |
Models | NFI | IFI | TLI | CFI | χ2/df | RMSEA | DF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One-factor model | 0.812 | 0.850 | 0.835 | 0.849 | 4.189 | 0.091 | 252 |
Two-factor model A (PP + SP + C+PI + E, PI) | 0.818 | 0.856 | 0.841 | 0.855 | 4.070 | 0.090 | 251 |
Two-factor model B (PP + SP, C + PC + E+PI) | 0.827 | 0.866 | 0.852 | 0.865 | 3.860 | 0.086 | 251 |
Three-factor model A (PP + SP, C + PC + E, PI) | 0.832 | 0.871 | 0.856 | 0.870 | 3.772 | 0.085 | 249 |
Four-factor model A (PP + SP, C, PC + E, PI) | 0.844 | 0.881 | 0.865 | 0.881 | 3.723 | 0.084 | 224 |
Four-factor model B (PP, SP, C + PC + E, PI) | 0.835 | 0.873 | 0.857 | 0.872 | 3.771 | 0.085 | 246 |
Five-factor model A (PP + SP, C, PC, E, PI) | 0.891 | 0.945 | 0.937 | 0.945 | 2.211 | 0.056 | 242 |
Five-factor model B (PP, SP, C, PC + E, PI) | 0.845 | 0.883 | 0.866 | 0.883 | 3.584 | 0.082 | 242 |
Six-factor model | 0.908 | 0.948 | 0.939 | 0.948 | 2.175 | 0.055 | 260 |
Variables and Measurement Items | Standardized Loading | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|
Social Presence | |||
SP1 | 0.750 | 0.834 | 0.503 |
SP3 | 0.750 | ||
SP4 | 0.702 | ||
SP5 | 0.669 | ||
SP6 | 0.669 | ||
Physical Presence | |||
PP1 | 0.728 | 0.802 | 0.503 |
PP2 | 0.726 | ||
PP3 | 0.676 | ||
PP4 | 0.706 | ||
Concentration | |||
C1 | 0.774 | 0.855 | 0.597 |
C2 | 0.785 | ||
C3 | 0.794 | ||
C4 | 0.736 | ||
Perceived Control | |||
PC1 | 0.800 | 0.811 | 0.521 |
PC2 | 0.622 | ||
PC3 | 0.813 | ||
PC4 | 0.630 | ||
Enjoyment | |||
E1 | 0.788 | 0.869 | 0.624 |
E2 | 0.712 | ||
E3 | 0.825 | ||
E4 | 0.830 | ||
Purchase Intention | |||
PI1 | 0.824 | 0.831 | 0.621 |
PI2 | 0.773 | ||
PI3 | 0.766 |
Relationship | Model | Chi-Square | df. | Probability Level | c1−c2 | df1−df2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PP & SP | Model 1 | 416.7 | 27 | 0.000 | 343.5 | 1 |
Model 2 | 73.2 | 26 | 0.000 | |||
SP &C | Model 1 | 324.4 | 27 | 0.000 | 251.8 | 1 |
Model 2 | 72.6 | 26 | 0.000 | |||
SP & E | Model 1 | 382.7 | 27 | 0.000 | 313.5 | 1 |
Model 2 | 69.2 | 26 | 0.000 | |||
SP & PI | Model 1 | 307.3 | 20 | 0.000 | 264.5 | 1 |
Model 2 | 42.8 | 19 | 0.000 | |||
PP &C | Model 1 | 354.4 | 20 | 0.000 | 298 | 1 |
Model 2 | 56.4 | 19 | 0.000 | |||
PP & E | Model 1 | 304.1 | 20 | 0.000 | 286.8 | 1 |
Model 2 | 17.3 | 19 | 0.000 | |||
PP & PI | Model 1 | 281.1 | 14 | 0.000 | 270.8 | 1 |
Model 2 | 10.3 | 13 | 0.000 | |||
PP & PC | Model 1 | 147.4 | 20 | 0.000 | 73.9 | 1 |
Model 2 | 73.5 | 19 | 0.000 | |||
SP & PC | Model 1 | 184 | 27 | 0.000 | 75.1 | 1 |
Model 2 | 108.9 | 26 | 0.000 | |||
C & PC | Model 1 | 144.3 | 20 | 0.000 | 56.9 | 1 |
Model 2 | 87.4 | 19 | 0.000 | |||
E & PC | Model 1 | 153.8 | 20 | 0.000 | 69.4 | 1 |
Model 2 | 84.4 | 19 | 0.000 | |||
PC & PI | Model 1 | 154.2 | 14 | 0.000 | 77.3 | 1 |
Model 2 | 76.9 | 13 | 0.000 | |||
C & E | Model 1 | 396.9 | 20 | 0.000 | 341.6 | 1 |
Model 2 | 55.3 | 19 | 0.000 | |||
C & PI | Model 1 | 331.5 | 14 | 0.000 | 287.2 | 1 |
Model 2 | 44.3 | 13 | 0.000 | |||
E & PI | Model 1 | 371.7 | 14 | 0.000 | 348.6 | 1 |
Model 2 | 23.1 | 13 | 0.000 |
Variables | Concentration | Perceived Control | Enjoyment | Purchase Intention | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | |
Gender | 0.15 * | 0.16 * | 0.04 | 0.19 * | 0.20 * | 0.13 * | 0.10 |
Age | −0.00 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
Education Level | 0.07 | 0.01 | −0.03 | −0.01 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
Physical Presence | 0.75 *** | 0.24 ** | 0.34 *** | ||||
Social Presence | 0.73 *** | 0.38 *** | 0.25 ** | ||||
Concentration | 0.12 * | 0.47 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.30 *** | 0.29 *** | ||
Perceived Control | 0.12 * | 0.11 * | |||||
Enjoyment | 0.36 *** | 0.38 *** |
Path | βa | βb | Indirect Effect | 95% Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|---|
PP→C→PI | 0.75 | 0.44 | 0.33 | (0.2450, 0.4161) |
PP→PC→PI | 0.24 | 0.11 | 0.03 | (0.0054, 0.0616) |
PP→C→PC→PI | 0.01 | (0.0001, 0.0307) | ||
SP→C→PI | 0.73 | 0.30 | 0.22 | (0.1341, 0.3148) |
SP→E→PI | 0.38 | 0.36 | 0.14 | (0.0872, 0.1959) |
SP→C→E→PI | 0.12 | (0.0817, 0.1753) |
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. |
© 2023 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
Yin, J.; Huang, Y.; Ma, Z. Explore the Feeling of Presence and Purchase Intention in Livestream Shopping: A Flow-Based Model. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 18, 237-256. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010013
Yin J, Huang Y, Ma Z. Explore the Feeling of Presence and Purchase Intention in Livestream Shopping: A Flow-Based Model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2023; 18(1):237-256. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010013
Chicago/Turabian StyleYin, Jielin, Yinghua Huang, and Zhenzhong Ma. 2023. "Explore the Feeling of Presence and Purchase Intention in Livestream Shopping: A Flow-Based Model" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 18, no. 1: 237-256. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010013