Modeling Positive Electronic Word of Mouth and Purchase Intention Using Theory of Consumption Value
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Functional Value
2.2. Emotional Value
2.3. Social Value
2.4. Conditional Value
2.5. Epistemic Value
2.6. Positive Word-of-Mouth
2.7. Methods
3. Data Analysis and Results
3.1. Measurement Model
3.2. Structural Model
4. Discussion
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Literature Survey
No | Title | Authors/Year | Country | Key Takeaways/Findings | Theory |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Effect of consumption values on customers’ green purchase intention: a mediating role of green trust | Amin and Tarun (2022) | Bangladesh | Emotional value has significant impact on green purchase intention (GPI). Functional value and social value did not lead to GPI. All three values have significant relationship with GPI when mediated by green trust. | Theory of Consumption value (TCV) |
2 | Sustainable consumption in Chinese cities: green purchasing intention of young adults based on the theory of consumption value | Awuni and Du (2016) | China | Social value and emotional value leads to GPI. Functional, conditional, and epistemic values failed to render its effect on GPI. | TCV |
3 | Consumption value dimension of green purchase intention with green trust a mediating variable | Dewi and Anas (2022) | Indonesia | Emotional value, upon mediated by green trust, leads to GPI. Functional and social values did not lead to GPI despite the presence of green trust as the mediator. | TCV |
4 | Investigating consumers’ green purchase intention: examining the role of economic value, emotional value and perceived marketplace influence | Joshi et al. (2021) | Economic and emotional values lead to attitude towards purchasing green products. Perceived marketplace influence, economic and emotional values lead to attitude towards purchasing green. | TCV & TPB | |
5 | The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the theory of consumption values | Pei-Chun and Yi-Hsuan (2012) | Taiwan | Emotional, conditional, and epistemic values lead to green product choice. Functional and social values failed to render its impact. | TCV |
6 | How do ethical consumers utilize sharing economy platforms as part of their sustainable resale behavior? The role of consumers’ green consumption value | Tan et al. (2022) | Nordic countries | Recreational(emotional), generative(conditional), societal(social), protester(epistemic), economic (functional), practical (functional) values lead to green consumption. Green consumption leads to sustainable resale behavior. | TCV |
7 | The influence factors on young consumers’ green purchase behavior: Perspective based on theory of consumption value | Wang et al. (2018) | Conditional and epistemic values lead to green purchase. Functional, social, and emotional values did not render its impact on green purchase. | TCV | |
8 | Food consumption values and the influence of physical activity | Thome et al. (2022) | Brasilia, Brazil | A. Healthy food: social and emotional values lead to consumption. Functional, conditional, and epistemic values failed to render its effect; B. Hybrid food: emotional, conditional, and epistemic values lead to consumption whereas functional and social values did not deliver its impact; C. Unhealthy food: emotional and conditional values lead to consumption. Functional, social, and epistemic values did not render its impact on consumption. | TCV |
9 | What affects Malaysian consumers’ intention to purchase hybrid car? | Wen and Noor (2015) | Malaysia | Functional, emotional, and conditional values render its impact on purchase intention of hybrid cars. Symbolic and novelty values failed to render its impact on hybrid car purchase intention. | TCV |
10 | The moderating effect of price sensitivity on the relationship between consumers environmental knowledge and green purchase intention | Marwat et al. (2022) | Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan | Environmental knowledge does not lead to GPI. Price sensitivity renders its impact as the moderator between environmental knowledge and GPI. | TPB |
Appendix B. Questionnaire
Latent Construct | Questionnaire Item |
---|---|
Functional value | FV1. The green product has an acceptable standard of quality. FV2. The green product would perform consistently. FV3. The green product offers value for money. FV4. The green product would be economical.FV5. The green product is made from non-hazardous substances |
Emotional value | EV1. Buying green product would feel such as making good personal contribution to something better. EV2. Buying the green product would feel such as the morally right thing. EV3. Buying the green product would make me feel such as a better person. EV4. I enjoy using green products. EV5. Overall, the use of green products makes me feel good. |
Social value | SV1. Buying the green product would help me to feel acceptable. SV2. Buying the green product would improve the way that I am perceived. SV3. Buying the green product would give its owner social approval. SV4. Purchase of green product will make a positive impression on peer groups. SV5. I would buy green products on peer’s suggestion or preference. |
Conditional value | CV1. I would buy the green product instead of conventional products under worsening environmental conditions. CV2. I would buy the green product instead of conventional products when there is a subsidy for green products. CV3. I would buy the green product instead of conventional products when there are discount rates for green products or promotional activity. CV4. I would buy the green product instead of conventional products when green products are available. CV5. I would buy green products when they are easily accessible. |
Epistemic value | EPV1. I prefer to check the green-labels and certifications on green products before purchase. EPV2. I would prefer to gain substantial information on green products before purchase. EPV3. I want to have a deeper insight of the inputs, processes and impacts of green products before purchase. EPV4. I am willing to seek out new information on green product. EPV5. I such as to search for the new and different green product. |
Positive word-of-mouth | PWOM1. I would say positive things about green products to other people. PWOM2. I would recommend green products to someone who seeks my advice. PWOM3. I would encourage friends and relatives who wish to buy green products. PWOM4. I generally regard my family, friends and neighbors as a good source of advice about green products. PWOM5. I would post positively about green products on social media. |
Green purchase intention | GPI1. Given a choice between two products, I intend to choose the one having more green credentials. GPI2. While purchasing the goods in future, I will consider whether it has green credentials. GPI3. I intend to switch to a green version of a product. GPI4. I plan to purchase green products. GPI5. I will purchase green products in my next purchase. |
Appendix C. Demography
Profiling | Frequency | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 177 | 52.7% |
Female | 159 | 47.3% | |
Age | 18–29 | 120 | 35.7% |
30–39 | 96 | 28.6% | |
40–49 | 60 | 17.9% | |
50–59 | 51 | 15.2% | |
60 and above | 9 | 2.7% | |
Race | Malay | 160 | 47.6% |
Chinese | 33 | 9.8% | |
Indian | 131 | 39.0% | |
Other race | 12 | 3.6% | |
Highest Education Level | SPM | 5 | 1.5% |
Foundation/Diploma | 40 | 11.9% | |
Degree | 189 | 56.3% | |
Master | 81 | 24.1% | |
PhD | 18 | 5.4% | |
Others | 3 | 0.9% | |
Profession | Student | 37 | 11.0% |
Non-Executive | 44 | 13.1% | |
Executive | 198 | 58.9% | |
Entrepreneur/Business Owner | 25 | 7.4% | |
Educator | 20 | 6.0% | |
Others | 3 | 0.9% | |
Retiree/Housewife | 9 | 2.7% | |
Monthly Income Range | Less than RM 2000 | 20 | 6.0% |
RM 2000–RM 4999 | 123 | 36.6% | |
RM 5000–RM 7999 | 85 | 25.3% | |
RM 8000–RM 10,999 | 46 | 13.7% | |
RM 11,000 and above | 29 | 8.6% | |
No income | 33 | 9.8% |
References
- Alfaro, M.T.B.; Diaz, R.A. Impact of Green Initiatives on the Financial Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises: The Case of Manufacturing Firm in Central Luzon. WPOM Work. Pap. Oper. Manag. 2021, 12, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, D.; Hou, C.; Jo, M.S.; Sarigöllü, E. Pollution avoidance and green purchase: The role of moral motions. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 210, 1301–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loeser, F.; Recker, J.; Brocke, J.V.; Molla, A.; Zarnekow, R. How IT executives create organizational benefits by translating environmental strategies into Green IS initiatives. Inf. Syst. J. 2017, 27, 503–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twelfth Malaysia Plan. A Prosperous, Inclusive, Sustainable Malaysia, 2021 to 2025. 2021. Available online: https://rmke12.epu.gov.my/en (accessed on 16 January 2020).
- Eleventh Malaysia Plan. Anchoring Growth on People, 2016 to 2020 (2015). Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad. Available online: https://www.epu.gov.my/sites/default/files/2021-05/Chapter%201.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2019).
- Lim, R. Green Ways to Manage Waste. The STAR Online. 2018. Available online: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/09/09/green-ways-to-manage-waste-swcorp-goes-for-green-technology-and-educating-the-young (accessed on 11 March 2019).
- Chu, M.M. Generating More Waste Than Ever. 2019. Available online: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/07/30/ (accessed on 19 July 2019).
- Ghasemzadeh, Z.; Sadeghieh, A.; Shishebori, D. A stochastic multi-objective closed-loop global supply chain concerning waste management: A case study of the tire industry. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 5794–5821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, B.; Li, L. How can urban agglomeration market integration promote urban green development: Evidence from China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 29, 10649–10664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, T.M.; Makkonen, H.; Kaur, P.; Salo, J. How do ethical consumers utilize sharing economy platforms as part of their sustainable resale behavior? The role of consumers’ green consumption values. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 176, 121432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, S.; Danish, M.; Khuwaja, F.M.; Sajjad, M.S.; Zahid, H. The Intention to Adopt Green IT Products in Pakistan: Driven by the Modified Theory of Consumption Values. Environments 2019, 6, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaidi, S.M.M.R.; Yifei, L.; Bhutto, M.Y.; Ali, R.; Alam, F. The influence of consumption value on green purchase intention: A moderated mediation of greenwash perception and green trust. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2019, 13, 826–848. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Han, X.; Kuang, D.; Hu, Z. The Influence Factors on Young Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior: Perspective Based on Theory of Consumption Value. In Proceedings of the PICMET ’18: Technology Management for Interconnected World, Honolulu, HI, USA, 19–23 August 2018; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Kaur, P.; Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Ghuman, K. The value proposition of food delivery apps from the perspective of theory of consumption value. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 1129–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomé, K.M.; Cappellesso, G.; Pinho, G.M. Food consumption values and the influence of physical activity. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 943–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, C.-I. Look to the future: Enhancing online gamer loyalty from the perspective of the theory of consumption values. Decis. Support Syst. 2018, 114, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Jaharuddin, N.S. Influences of background factors on consumers’ purchase intention in China’s organic food market: Assessing moderating role of word-of-mouth (WOM). Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1876296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hisham, M.I.B.; Bogal, N.; Royali, S.A.; Harun, N.A.; Tamrin, M. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) Intention among Generation Y (Gen Y) towards Travel Destination. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Analytics for Business and Industry: Way Towards a Sustainable Economy, Sakheer, Bahrain, 26–27 October 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Shankar, A.; Jebarajakirthy, C. Ashaduzzaman How do electronic word of mouth practices contribute to mobile banking adoption? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, Z.; Li, M.; Han, X.; He, X. Innovative green product diffusion through word of mouth. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020, 134, 101833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaini, A.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Hussin, N. “I buy green products, do you…?”. The moderating effect of eWOM on green purchase behavior in Malaysian cosmetics industry. Int. J. Pharm. Healthc. Mark. 2020, 14, 89–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konuk, F.A. The influence of perceived food quality, price fairness, perceived value and satisfaction on customers’ revisit and word-of-mouth intentions towards organic food restaurants. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, T.C.; Noor, N.A.M. What Affects Malaysian Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Hybrid Car? Asian Soc. Sci. 2015, 11, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. From Intention to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior, Action-Control: From Cognition to Behaviour; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977; pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
- Joshi, Y.; Uniyal, D.P.; Sangroya, D. Investigating consumers’ green purchase intention: Examining the role of economic value, emotional value and perceived marketplace influence. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 328, 129638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenthal, S.; Yu, M.S. Anticipated guilt and anti-littering civic engagement in an extended norm activation model. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 80, 101757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheth, J.N.; Newman, B.I.; Gross, B.L. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. J. Bus. Res. 1991, 22, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, H.M.; Lourenço, T.F.; Silva, G.M. Green buying behavior and the theory of consumption values: A fuzzy-set approach. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1484–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasnain, A.; Raza, S.H.; Qureshi, U.S. The Impact of Personal and Cultural Factors on Green Buying Intentions with Mediating Roles of Environmental Attitude and Eco-Labels as Well as Gender as a Moderator. South Asian J. Manag. Sci. 2020, 14, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Li, D.; Cao, C.; Huang, S. The influence of geenwashing perception on green purchasing intentions: The mediating role of green word-of-mouth and moderating role of green concern. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 740–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matzler, K.; Teichmann, K.; Strobl, A.; Partel, M. The effect of price on word of mouth: First time versus heavy repeat visitors. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iyer, P.; Davari, A.; Paswan, A.; Pramod, I.; Arezoo, D.; Audhesh, P. Green products: Altruism, economics, price fairness and purchase intention. Soc. Bus. 2016, 6, 39–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, Y.; Chen, R.; Fan, Z. Worth It or Not: Effects of Price Premium on Purchase Intent of Products with Environmental Benefits. J. Mark. Dev. Compet. 2019, 13, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, Z.; Shan, Q.; Tahir, A. Environmental Knowledge and Premium Price on Green Purchase Behavior; Testing through Advanced Statistical Approach, Smart Partial Least Squares. J. Manag. Sci. 2021, 19, 18–35. [Google Scholar]
- Popp, B.; Woratschek, H. Consumer–brand identification revisited: An integrative framework of brand identification, customer satisfaction, and price image and their role for brand loyalty and word of mouth. J. Brand Manag. 2017, 24, 250–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anastasiei, B.; Dospinescu, N. Electronic Word-of-Mouth for Online Retailers: Predictors of Volume and Valence. Sustainability 2019, 11, 814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusumo, D.S.; Rachbini, D.J.; Rekarti, E. Quality of services and prices in promoting customer satisfaction and customer loyalty services of container transportation facilities. Case Study at PT. Yang Ming Shipping Indonesia. Tech. Soc. Sci. J. 2021, 21, 645–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, L.; Yuan, H. Investigation of construction waste recycling decisions by considering consumers’ quality perceptions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dropulić, B.; Zoran Krupka, Z. Are consumers always greener on the other side of fence? Factors that influence green purchase intention—The context of Croatian and Swedish consumers. Market-Tržište 2020, 32, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, D. Local SMEs Producing More Green Products. SMEBIZ, The STAR. 2018. Available online: https://www.thestar.com.my/business/smebiz/2018/05/28/local-smes-producing-more-green-products (accessed on 15 January 2019).
- Mingione, M.; Cristofaro, M.; Mondi, D. ‘If I give you my emotions, what do I get?’ Conceptualizing and measuring the co-created emotional value of the brand. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 109, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, P.; Dhir, A.; Rajala, R.; Dwivedi, Y. Why people use online social media brand communities: A consumption value theory perspective. Online Inf. Rev. 2018, 42, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awuni, J.A.; Du, J. Sustainable Consumption in Chinese Cities: Green Purchasing Intentions of Young Adults Based on the Theory of Consumption Values. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 24, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boenigk, S.; Möhlmann, M. A Public Sector Marketing Model to Measure the Social and Environmental Values of Public Strategies: An Empirical Study on a Green Public Service. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2016, 28, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, M.; Chen, H.; Long, R.; Wang, Y.; Hou, C.; Liu, B. Will the public pay for green products? Based on analysis of the influencing factors for Chinese’s public willingness to pay a price premium for green products. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 61408–61422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayed, A.R.; El Saghier, N.M.; Sadek, H.H. The Effect of Green Brand Knowledge and Trust on Consumers’ Purchasing Intention. J. Alex. Univ. Adm. Sci. 2021, 58, 61–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahyuningtas, L.; Artanti, Y. Pengaruh Green Brand Positioning dan Green Brand Knowledge Terhadap Green Purchase Intention Melalui Sikap Pada Green Brand Sebagai Variable Mediasi. J. Muara Ilmu Ekon. Dan Bisnis 2020, 4, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, H.; Park, S.Y.; Woo, J. Staying on convention or leapfrogging to eco-innovation?: Identifying early adopters of hydrogen-powered vehicles. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 171, 120995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burnham, T.A.; Leary, R.B. Word of mouth opportunity: Why recommendation, likelihood overestimates positive word of mouth. J. Mark. Theory Pr. 2018, 26, 368–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohtasham, S.S.; Sarollahi, S.K.; Hamirazavi, D. The effect of service quality and innovation on word of mouth marketing success. Eurasian Bus. Rev. 2017, 7, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allard, T.; Dunn, L.H.; White, K. Negative Reviews, Positive Impact: Consumer Empathetic Responding to Unfair Word of Mouth. J. Mark. 2020, 84, 86–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, W.K.; Corkindale, D. The Effect of OnlineWord-of-Mouth on Risk Assessment for an Experience Service as Price Acceptability Changes. Serv. Mark. Q. 2016, 37, 156–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu-Hsi, Y.; Sheng-Hao, T.; Jiin-Tian, C.; Sang-Bing, T. An empirical study on effects of electronic word-of-mouth and Internet risk avoidance on purchase intention: From the perspective of big data. Soft Comput. 2020, 24, 5713–5728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarhan, A. The Influence of Product Involvement on Electronic Word of Mouth (EWOM) and Purchase Intention. Mark. Manag. J. 2021, 16–26. Available online: http://www.mmaglobal.org/ (accessed on 16 January 2020).
- Bond, S.D.; He, S.X.; Wen, W. Speaking for “Free”: Word of Mouth in Free- and Paid-Product Settings. J. Mark. Res. 2019, 56, 276–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasan, M. Effectiveness of Word of Mouth Communication: Receiver Perspectives. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC), Palladam, India, 7–9 October 2020; pp. 246–251. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Yang, F.; Li, J.; Song, J. Determinants of consumers’ remanufactured products purchase intentions: Evidence from China. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 2368–2383. [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]
- Ngoma, M.; Ntale, P.D. Word of mouth communication: A mediator of relationship marketing and customer loyalty. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2019, 6, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bougie, R.; Sekaran, U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 8th ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biasness in behavioural research: A critical review of literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahab, S.N.; Osman, L.H.; Koay, S.B.; Long, K.T. Exploring green packaging acceptance in fast moving consumer goods in emerging economy: The case of Malaysia. Logforum 2021, 17, 503–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Meng-Lewis, Y.; Ibrahim, F.; Zhu, X. Superfoods, super healthy: Myth or reality? Examining consumers’ repurchase and WOM intention regarding superfoods: A theory of consumption values perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 137, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markovic, S.; Iglesias, O.; Singh, J.J.; Sierra, V. How does the Perceived Ethicality of Corporate Services Brands Influence Loyalty and Positive Word-of-Mouth? Analyzing the Roles of Empathy, Affective Commitment, and Perceived Quality. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 148, 721–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Archer-Brown, C.; Kampani, J.; Marder, B.; Bal, A.S.; Kietzmann, J. Conditions in Prerelease Movie Trailers for Stimulating Positive Word of Mouth: A Conceptual Model Demonstrates the Importance of Understanding as a Factor for Engagement. J. Advert. Res. 2017, 57, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaiswal, D.; Kant, R. Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreen, N.; Purbey, S.; Sadarangani, P. Impact of culture, behavior and gender on green purchase intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardy, B.; Ford, L.R. It’s Not Me, It’s You: Miscomprehension in Surveys. Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 17, 138–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.; Sage Publication: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Chin, W.W.; Newsted, P.R. Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research; Hoyle, R., Ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Naruetharadhol, P.; Wongsaichia, S.; Zhang, S.; Phonthanukitithaworn, C.; Ketkaew, C. Understanding Consumer Buying Intention of E-Commerce Airfares Based on Multivariate Demographic Segmentation: A Multigroup Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Z.; Liu, C.; Shi, R. How Do Fresh Live Broadcast Impact Consumers’ Purchase Intention? Based on the SOR Theory. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kock, N.; Lynn, G.S. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 546–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Cain, M.K.; Zhang, Z.; Yuan, K.-H. Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behav. Res. Methods 2016, 49, 1716–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramayah, T.; Lee, J.W.C. System Characteristics, Satisfaction and e-learning Usage: A Structural Equation (SEM). Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 11, 196–206. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. 2017. Available online: https://books.google.com.my/books (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Chin, W.W.; Gopal, A.; Salisbury, W.D. Advancing the Theory of Adaptive Structuration: The Development of a Scale to Measure Faithfulness of Appropriation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1997, 8, 342–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franke, G.; Sarstedt, M. Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Res. 2019, 29, 430–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaskin, J.; James, M.; Lim, J. Master Validity Tool. AMOS Plugin. 2019. Available online: http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/index.php?title=Main_Page (accessed on 3 January 2020).
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 74–76. [Google Scholar]
- De Silva, M.; Wang, P.; Kuah, A.T. Why wouldn’t green appeal drive purchase intention? Moderation effects of consumption values in the UK and China. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarkson, C.; Mirosa, M.; Birch, J. Consumer acceptance of insects and ideal product attributes. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2898–2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, R.; Awan, T.M.; Fatima, T.; Javed, M. Driving forces of green consumption in sharing economy. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2021, 32, 41–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, M.; Boyer, S.; Fleming, D.; Cohen, S. Managing the Next Generation of Sales, Gen Z/Millennial Cusp: An Exploration of Grit, Entrepreneurship, and Loyalty. J. Bus. Bus. Mark. 2019, 26, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, J.; Rahman, S.M.; Rahman, M.M.; Wyllie, J.; Voola, R. Engaging Gen Y Customers in Online Brand Communities: A Cross-National Assessment. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 56, 102252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, M.; Banerjee, P. Understanding gen y: The motivations, values and beliefs. J. Manag. Res. 2016, 16, 148–164. [Google Scholar]
- Yadav, G.P.; Rai, J. The Generation Z and their Social Media Usage: A Review and a Research Outline. Glob. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2017, 9, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Construct | Functional Value | Emotional Value | Social Value | Conditional Value | Epistemic Value | Positive Word-of-Mouth |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VIF | 1.702 | 2.016 | 1.727 | 1.248 | 1.387 | 1.945 |
Construct | CR | AVE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Functional Value | 0.845 | 0.649 | 0.806 | ||||||
2. Emotional Value | 0.864 | 0.616 | 0.633 | 0.785 | |||||
3. Social Value | 0.895 | 0.636 | 0.480 | 0.643 | 0.798 | ||||
4. Conditional Value | 0.754 | 0.520 | 0.528 | 0.561 | 0.496 | 0.721 | |||
5. Epistemic Value | 0.843 | 0.575 | 0.376 | 0.399 | 0.322 | 0.431 | 0.758 | ||
6. Positive Word-of-mouth | 0.895 | 0.633 | 0.595 | 0.649 | 0.521 | 0.568 | 0.565 | 0.796 | |
7. Green Purchase Intention | 0.908 | 0.667 | 0.520 | 0.728 | 0.552 | 0.563 | 0.624 | 0.778 | 0.816 |
Construct | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Functional Value | |||||||
2. Emotional Value | 0.618 | ||||||
3. Social Value | 0.478 | 0.685 | |||||
4. Conditional Value | 0.596 | 0.613 | 0.574 | ||||
5. Epistemic Value | 0.371 | 0.441 | 0.364 | 0.429 | |||
6. Positive Word-of-mouth | 0.578 | 0.659 | 0.581 | 0.608 | 0.566 | ||
7. Green Purchase Intention | 0.518 | 0.741 | 0.571 | 0.616 | 0.655 | 0.785 |
Hypothesis | Relationship | Unstd | Std | S.E. | t-Value | p-Value | CI LL | CI UL |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Functional Value → Positive WOM | 0.214 | 0.166 | 0.074 | 2.878 | 0.002 | 0.092 | 0.336 |
H2 | Emotional Value → Positive WOM | 0.381 | 0.321 | 0.085 | 4.469 | p < 0.001 | 0.241 | 0.521 |
H3 | Social Value → Positive WOM | 0.063 | 0.089 | 0.040 | 1.578 | 0.061 | −0.003 | 0.129 |
H4 | Conditional Value → Positive WOM | 0.213 | 0.142 | 0.093 | 2.294 | 0.011 | 0.060 | 0.366 |
H5 | Epistemic Value → Positive WOM | 0.267 | 0.314 | 0.044 | 6.110 | p < 0.001 | 0.195 | 0.339 |
H6 | Positive WOM → Green Purchase | 0.656 | 0.813 | 0.054 | 12.133 | p < 0.001 | 0.567 | 0.745 |
H7 | Functional Value → Positive WOM → Green Purchase | 0.140 | 0.135 | 0.059 | 2.373 | 0.028 | 0.036 | 0.219 |
H8 | Emotional Value → Positive WOM → Green Purchase | 0.250 | 0.261 | 0.102 | 2.451 | 0.006 | 0.091 | 0.413 |
H9 | Social Value → Positive WOM → Green Purchase | 0.041 | 0.073 | 0.030 | 1.367 | 0.194 | −0.019 | 0.153 |
H10 | Conditional Value → Positive WOM → Green Purchase | 0.140 | 0.115 | 0.075 | 1.867 | 0.034 | 0.025 | 0.222 |
H11 | Epistemic Value → Positive WOM → Green Purchase | 0.175 | 0.256 | 0.040 | 4.375 | 0.001 | 0.172 | 0.365 |
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
Aravindan, K.L.; Ramayah, T.; Thavanethen, M.; Raman, M.; Ilhavenil, N.; Annamalah, S.; Choong, Y.V. Modeling Positive Electronic Word of Mouth and Purchase Intention Using Theory of Consumption Value. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043009
Aravindan KL, Ramayah T, Thavanethen M, Raman M, Ilhavenil N, Annamalah S, Choong YV. Modeling Positive Electronic Word of Mouth and Purchase Intention Using Theory of Consumption Value. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):3009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043009
Chicago/Turabian StyleAravindan, Kalisri Logeswaran, Thurasamy Ramayah, Munusamy Thavanethen, Murali Raman, Narinasamy Ilhavenil, Sanmugam Annamalah, and Yap Voon Choong. 2023. "Modeling Positive Electronic Word of Mouth and Purchase Intention Using Theory of Consumption Value" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 3009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043009
APA StyleAravindan, K. L., Ramayah, T., Thavanethen, M., Raman, M., Ilhavenil, N., Annamalah, S., & Choong, Y. V. (2023). Modeling Positive Electronic Word of Mouth and Purchase Intention Using Theory of Consumption Value. Sustainability, 15(4), 3009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043009