Influence of Perceived Value on Consumers’ Continuous Purchase Intention in Live-Streaming E-Commerce—Mediated by Consumer Trust

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This paper has been improved reflecting many of the review comments. For example, the explanation of the theory got clearer. Also, the topic of live commerce is impressive as it is the latest important e-commerce platform. However, there are a few more points to improve.

 1. Conclusively cultivate popular streamers and enhance the quality of products. It was mentioned that celebrity streamers with social influence act as streamers, forming a quality endorsement effect on the goods in the live broadcast room. However, in reality, live-streaming commerce is used not only by famous or popular streamers but also by general sellers. The authors may want to add the significance of the results from this perspective.

 

 

2. According to demographic statistics, 87% of survey respondents earn less than 3000 yuan. More detailed explanations about the context are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to your manuscript and comment on your research. Your research topic is intriguing, but I am not sure that „Sustainability“ is the right journal for this manuscript.

Please see my comments below:

-          More information on the sampling is needed. What are the geographic limits of the sample? Are there any geographic clusters in the sample?

-          Your research collected the information „income“ but did not use the variable in its analysis. As students usually belong to the low-income group of society, the research itself has its limitation on this point.

-          Your manuscript still needs to provide more information on the responses. You discuss in detail your hypothesis analysis, but you do not provide detailed information on the relevant responses to the different survey questions.

-          In your questionnaire, UV1 and UV2 are grouped under utilitarian value, which seems to be a very weak argument. "Being real“ or better "not being fake“ could be considered a value related to authenticity or honesty, rather than utilitarianism.

-          I have problems understanding UV4: „I think that sale is great for that live shopping“. It is probably the translation, but the English statement would need more explanation for participants to understand what the researchers mean.

-        The biggest issue I have is the value of the research. The points you highlight in your conclusion support the value of live-streaming shopping events. It is not clear how the „new“ differentiation into utilitarian, hedonic and social value have an impact on the application of live streaming. The contribution to the field is not clear. We understand that „trust“ is the most important factor for purchase or continuous purchase intentions. It is as well known that trust is based on different perceived consumer values. The classification into utilitarian, hedonic and social seems not to add to the research field.

-          Most of all, your research seems not to be a good fit for „Sustainability“.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for your revised version and comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review this article entitled, “Influence of Perceived Value on Consumers’ Continuous Purchase Intention in Live Streaming E-Commerce - Mediated By Consumer Trust” submitted to Sustainability. I have read the article with great interest and suggested certain changes, which will improve the manuscript.

 

1.      While mentioning abbreviations for the first-time authors should write them in full for the first time. For example, LS e-commerce in the second line of the introduction section, S-O-R in the second para of page 2, etc.

 

2.      In the introduction, the authors can give an international perspective on LS e-commerce instead of just China. If they want to offer just a “Chinese perspective” they should mention so in the title, abstract, objectives, and limitations.

 

3.      Clarity is missing in the supporting arguments for the research gap. The author should mention what has been explored in the previous studies and what is yet to be explored in the research gap with suitable references (page 2, para 1).

 

4.      There is no elaboration of the analytical framework based on the S-O-R model under the literature review section.

 

5.      While articulating the LR of social value, authors can emphasize social influence and blogger credibility and its effect on purchase intention. The authors can refer to:

 

Kalia, P., Zia, A., Kaur, K., 2022. Social Influence in Online Retail: A Review and Research Agenda. Eur. Manag. J. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.012

 

6.       They should also articulate separate paragraphs for mediators (trust in product and streamer) in the LR.

 

7.      Authors should report their results related to common method bias.

 

8.      Authors should also report discriminant validity. For understanding the different types of validity to be reported. The authors can refer to:

 

Kalia, P., 2017. Service quality scales in online retail: methodological issues. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 37, 630–663. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0133

 

9.      Authors should write the theoretical and managerial implications of their research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper investigates the latest trend in live commerce. The topic is interesting. However, there is so much to improve.

 

In this text, previous studies used only hedonic and utilitarian values ​​and did not mention the use of social values. However, the previous literature has used these three values as a reference. The authors may want to refer the following paper. 

Wongkitrungrueng & Assarut, (2020) ‘The Role of Live Streaming in Building Consumer Trust and Engagement with Social Commerce Sellers.’

Since the parameters variables were the same as in the previous study, I would like the authors to explain the differentiations of this study more clearly. 

 

 

It is stated that it is based on the SOR theory, but there are only brief explanations of the theory in the abstract and discussion. If the theory has been applied, it is suggested to explain in more detail in the theoretical background sections.

 

The writing should be improved for clarity as well. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved after revision.