Switch or Stay? Applying a Push–Pull–Mooring Framework to Evaluate Behavior in E-Grocery Shopping
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis
2.1. Push–Pull–Mooring Framework
2.2. Perceived Dissatisfaction with Physical Market as a Push Factor
2.3. Alternative Attractiveness of E-Grocery as a Pull Factor
2.3.1. Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness
2.3.2. Perceived Value
2.4. Switching Cost toward E-Grocery Shopping as a Mooring Factors
2.4.1. Health Consciousness
2.4.2. Personal Innovativeness
2.4.3. The Role of Mooring Factor as a Moderator
3. Methodology
3.1. Sampling and Data Collection
3.2. Research Instrument
3.3. Analytical Method
4. Data Analysis and Result
5. Discussion and Conclusions
6. Managerial Implication, Limitation, and Future Research Direction
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variables and Items | References |
---|---|
Push Factors—Perceived Dissatisfaction (DSAT) DSAT1. I feel unhappy making purchases in the physical market. DSAT2. The crowd of physical markets makes me uncomfortable. DSAT3. I am worried about the cleanliness of the physical market during the COVID-19 pandemic. DSAT4. Shopping at the physical market wastes my time. DSAT5. I cannot flexibly arrange my schedule to shop in the physical market. DSAT6. I can arrive at the physical market without effort (R). DSAT7. The environment of the physical market is appropriate to my situation during COVID-19 pandemic. DSAT8. Overall, I feel dissatisfied shopping in the physical market. | [10,24,31] |
Pull Factors—Alternative Attractiveness (ATT) ATT1. E-grocery shopping has better offers than physical market. ATT2. The service performance on e-grocery shopping is more interesting than physical market. ATT3. The e-grocery shopping application is effective to meet my needs. ATT4. Overall, the e-grocery shopping application is more exciting than physical market. | [8] |
Perceived Usefulness (USE) USE1. Using e-grocery shopping application helps me accomplish thing so quickly. USE2. Using e-grocery shopping application increases my productivity. USE3. Using e-grocery shopping application enhances my effectiveness. USE4. Overall, using e-grocery shopping application give me a benefit. | [24,34] |
Perceived Ease of Use (EAS) EAS1. Learning to use the e-grocery shopping application is easy for me. EAS2. There is a clear and understandable navigation at the e-grocery shopping application. EAS3. It is easy for me to become skillful at using the e-grocery shopping application. EAS4. Overall, the e-grocery shopping application is easy to use. | [24,34] |
Perceived Value (VAL) VAL1. Compared to physical market, the product’s price at the e-grocery shopping application is acceptable. VAL2. Compared to physical market, the product’s price at the e-grocery shopping application is very economical. VAL3. Compared to physical market, the product at e-the grocery shopping application has a good value. VAL4. The e-grocery shopping application has a good level of service performance for the money I spend. | [9,10,33] |
Mooring Factors—Switching cost (SWC) SWC1. It would take a lot of time changing to e-grocery shopping. SWC2. It would take a lot of effort changing to e-grocery shopping. SWC3. It would take a lot of learning costs to switch to e-grocery shopping. SWC4. In general, it would be a hassle changing to e-grocery shopping. | [19] |
Health Consciousness (HEA) HEA1. I am very conscious about my health and the health of others for whom I shop. HEA2. I assume accountability for the state of my health and others in the household for whom I shop. HEA3. I am very involved with my health and the health of others for whom I shop. HEA4. I am very concerned about the number of artificial preservatives in food. HEA5. The safety of food nowadays concerns me a lot. | [47] |
Personal Innovativeness INO1. If I heard about a new information technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it. INO2. Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out new information technologies. INO3. For me, experimenting with new technologies is challenging. INO4. I like to experiment with new information technologies. | [19] |
Switching intention (SWI) SWI1: I plan to use e-grocery shopping in the future. SWI2: I will reduce my physical grocery shopping to e-grocery shopping. SWI3: E-grocery shopping is likely to become the primary shopping method of mine in the future. | [19] |
References
- Darley, W.K.; Blankson, C.; Luethge, D.J. Toward an integrated framework for online consumer behavior and decision making process: A review. Psychol. Mark. 2010, 27, 94–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statista. Food Items Frequently Purchased Online during COVID-19 Indonesia 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1128347/indonesia-food-items-frequently-bought-from-e-commerce-sites-covid-19 (accessed on 3 June 2022).
- Consulting, L.E.K. COVID-19 a Catalyst for Growth in Indonesia’s E-Grocery Market. Available online: https://www.consultancy.asia/news/3941/covid-19-a-catalyst-for-growth-in-indonesias-e-grocery-market (accessed on 3 June 2022).
- Sosianika, A.; Najib, M.F. Retail service quality scale in the context of Indonesian traditional market. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 2018, 21, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maltese, I.; Le Pira, M.; Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V.; Evangelinos, C. Grocery or @grocery: A stated preference investigation in Rome and Milan. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 101096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maruyama, M.; Wu, L.; Huang, L. The modernization of fresh food retailing in China: The role of consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 30, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antón, C.; Camarero, C.; Carrero, M. The Mediating Effect of Satisfaction on Consumers’ Switching Intention. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 511–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, R. Why do online grocery shoppers switch or stay? An exploratory analysis of consumers’ response to online grocery shopping experience. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2019, 47, 1300–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asti, W.P.; Handayani, P.W.; Azzahro, F. Influence of Trust, Perceived Value, and Attitude on Customers’ Repurchase Intention for E-Grocery. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2021, 27, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handayani, P.W.; Nurahmawati, R.A.; Pinem, A.A.; Azzahro, F. Switching Intention from Traditional to Online Groceries Using the Moderating Effect of Gender in Indonesia. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020, 26, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Driediger, F.; Bhatiasevi, V. Online grocery shopping in Thailand: Consumer acceptance and usage behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 48, 224–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handarkho, Y.D.; Harjoseputro, Y. Intention to adopt mobile payment in physical stores: Individual switching behavior perspective based on Push–Pull–Mooring (PPM) theory. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 33, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartono, A.; Ishak, A.; Abdurrahman, A.; Astuti, B.; Marsasi, E.G.; Ridanasti, E.; Roostika, R.; Muhammad, S. COVID-19 Pandemic and Adaptive Shopping Patterns: An Insight from Indonesian Consumers. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2021, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.H.N.; Yeh, Q.J.; Huang, C.Y. Understanding consumer’ switching intention toward traceable agricultural products: Push-pull-mooring perspective. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 46, 870–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statista. Product Frequently Bought Online during the COVID-19 Pandemic Indonesia 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1225848/indonesia-products-bought-online-during-covid-19-pandemic/ (accessed on 3 June 2022).
- Bansal, H.S.; Taylor, S.F.; James, Y.S. “Migrating” to new service providers: Toward a unifying framework of consumers’ switching behaviors. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2005, 33, 96–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, B. Paradigms in migration research: Exploring ‘moorings’ as a schema. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 1995, 19, 504–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, X.; Wu, R.Z. An Empirical Study on the Dairy Product Consumers’ Intention to Adopt the Food Traceability’s Technology: Push-Pull-Mooring Model Integrated by D&M ISS Model and TPB with ITM. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 612889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singh, R.; Rosengren, S. Why do online grocery shoppers switch? An empirical investigation of drivers of switching in online grocery. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, L.; Zhang, X.; Rai, L.; Du, Y. Mobile payment: The next frontier of payment systems?—An empirical study based on push-pull-mooring framework. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Liu, D.; Chen, S.; Wu, X.; Shen, X.L.; Zhang, X. Understanding users’ switching behavior of mobile instant messaging applications: An empirical study from the perspective of push-pull-mooring framework. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 75, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, J.Y.; Debbarma, S.; Ulhas, K.R. An empirical study of consumer switching behaviour towards mobile shopping: A Push-Pull-Mooring model. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 2012, 10, 386–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.L.; Jin, Y.Q.; Zhao, Q.; Yu, S.W.; Su, Y.S. Factors Influence Students’ Switching Behavior to Online Learning under COVID-19 Pandemic: A Push–Pull–Mooring Model Perspective. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2021, 30, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.H.; Wong, K.H.; Li, S.Y. Applying push-pull-mooring to investigate channel switching behaviors: M-shopping self-efficacy and switching costs as moderators. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2017, 24, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faraoni, M.; Rialti, R.; Zollo, L.; Pellicelli, A.C. Exploring e-Loyalty Antecedents in B2C e-Commerce: Empirical results from Italian grocery retailers. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 574–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, L.L.; Seiders, K.; Grewal, D. Understanding Service Convenience. J. Mark. 2002, 66, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLean, G.; Al-Nabhani, K.; Wilson, A. Developing a Mobile Applications Customer Experience Model (MACE)- Implications for Retailers. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 85, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anshu, K.; Gaur, L.; Singh, G. Impact of customer experience on attitude and repurchase intention in online grocery retailing: A moderation mechanism of value Co-creation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yokoyama, N.; Azuma, N.; Kim, W. Moderating effect of customer’s retail format perception on customer satisfaction formartion: An empirical study of mini-supermarkets in an urban retail market setting. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 66, 102935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clulow, V.; Reimers, V. How do consumers define retail centre convenience? Australas. Mark. J. 2009, 17, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kordi Ghasrodashti, E. Explaining brand switching behavior using pull-push-mooring theory and the theory of reasoned action. J. Brand Manag. 2018, 25, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, R.Z. Why do people switch mobile payment service platforms? An empirical study in Taiwan. Technol. Soc. 2020, 62, 101312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keaveney, S.M. Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.; Wang, H.W. The Moderating Effect of Customer Perceived Value on Online Shopping Behaviour. Online Inf. Rev. 2011, 35, 333–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Susanty, A.; Handoko, A.; Puspitasari, N.B. Push-pull-mooring framework for e-commerce adoption in small and medium enterprises. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 33, 381–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1989, 13, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, S.W.; Sung, H.J.; Jeon, H.M. Determinants of continuous intention on food delivery apps: Extending UTAUT2 with information quality. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anesbury, Z.; Nenycz-Thiel, M.; Dawes, J.; Kennedy, R. How do shoppers behave online? An observational study of online grocery shopping. J. Consum. Behav. 2016, 15, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akram, U.; Fülöp, M.T.; Tiron-Tudor, A.; Topor, D.I.; Căpușneanu, S. Impact of digitalization on customers’ well-being in the pandemic period: Challenges and opportunities for the retail industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaimo, L.S.; Fiore, M.; Galati, A. How the COVID-19 pandemic is changing online food shopping human behaviour in Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T.H.; Nguyen, N.; Nguyen, T.B.L.; Phan, T.T.H.; Bui, L.P.; Moon, H.C. Investigating consumer attitude and intention towards online food purchasing in an emerging economy: An extended TAM approach. Foods 2019, 8, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- 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] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, Y.W.; Kim, D.J. Assessing the effects of consumers’ product evaluations and trust on repurchase intention in e-commerce environments. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 39, 199–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rafiq, M.; Lu, X.; Fulford, H. Measuring Internet retail service quality using E-S-QUAL. J. Mark. Manag. 2012, 28, 1159–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Toni, D.; Eberle, L.; Larentis, F.; Milan, G.S. Antecedents of Perceived Value and Repurchase Intention of Organic Food. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 456–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plank, R.E.; Gould, S.J. Health Consciousness, Scientific Orientation and Wellness. Health Mark. Q. 1990, 7, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birch, D.; Memery, J.; De Silva Kanakaratne, M. The mindful consumer: Balancing egoistic and altruistic motivations to purchase local food. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 40, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Pacho, F.; Liu, J.; Kajungiro, R. Factors influencing organic food purchase intention in Tanzania and Kenya and the moderating role of knowledge. Sustainability 2019, 11, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lea, E.; Worsley, T. Australians’ organic food beliefs, demographics and values. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 855–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Singh, S.; Srivastava, S. Moderating effect of product type on online shopping behaviour and purchase intention: An Indian perspective. Cogent Arts Humanit. 2018, 5, 1495043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tariq, A.; Wang, C.; Tanveer, Y.; Akram, U.; Akram, Z. Organic Food Consumerism through Social Commerce in China. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 202–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Fu, Z.; Huang, J.; Wang, J.; Xu, S.; Zhang, L. Consumers’ Perceptions, Purchase Intention, and Willingness to Pay a Premium Price for Safe Vegetables: A Case Study of Beijing, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1498–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Midgley, D.F.; Dowling, G.R. Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement. J. Consum. Res. 1978, 4, 229. [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] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reinhardt, R.; Hietschold, N.; Gurtner, S. Overcoming consumer resistance to innovations—An analysis of adoption triggers. RD Manag. 2017, 49, 139–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, O.; Somogyi, S. Consumer adoption of online food shopping in China. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2868–2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Droogenbroeck, E.; Van Hove, L. Adoption and usage of E-grocery shopping: A context-specific UTAUT2 model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Wong, Y.D.; Chen, T.; Yuen, K.F. Adoption of shopper-facing technologies under social distancing: A conceptualisation and an interplay between task-technology fit and technology trust. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 124, 106900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H. Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016, 5, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Black, W.C.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Cengage: Hampshire, UK, 2019; pp. 603–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Malholtra, N.K.; Nunan, B.; Birks, D.F. Marketing research. In Pearson; Pearson: London, UK, 2016; pp. 409–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ken Research. Population Aged 25–37 Are Top Online Grocery Shoppers in Indonesia: Ken Research. Available online: https://www.kenresearch.com/blog/2022/04/indonesia-online-grocery-industry/ (accessed on 22 October 2022).
- Nguyen, M.H.; Armoogum, J.; Nguyen Thi, B. Factors Affecting the Growth of E-Shopping over the COVID-19 Era in Hanoi, Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ken Research. Indonesia Online Grocery Market Outlook to 2026-Driven by Changing Shopping Habits of Consumers and Regional Expansion of Local & International Players in the Archipelago. Available online: https://www.kenresearch.com/consumer-products-and-retail/wholesale-and-retail/indonesia-online-grocery-market-outlook-to-2026-/524050-95.html (accessed on 22 October 2022).
Socio-Demographic Items | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
n = 252 | ||
Gender | ||
Male | 59 | 23.4 |
Female | 193 | 76.6 |
Marital Status | ||
Single | 87 | 34.5 |
Married | 164 | 65.1 |
Divorced/Widowed | 1 | 0.4 |
Age | ||
25–30 years old | 181 | 71.8 |
30–39 years old | 56 | 22.2 |
40–49 years old | 11 | 4.4 |
50 years old and over | 4 | 1.6 |
Education | ||
High school degree | 20 | 8.0 |
Under-graduate | 194 | 77.0 |
Post-graduate | 38 | 15.0 |
Occupation | ||
Self-employed | 69 | 27.4 |
Employee | 126 | 50.0 |
Housewife | 57 | 22.6 |
Monthly Income | ||
Under USD 400 | 27 | 10.7 |
Between USD 400–700 | 128 | 50.8 |
Over USD 700 | 97 | 38.5 |
Variables | Items | Loading Factor | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|
Perceived dissatisfaction with physical market | DSAT1 | 0.952 | 0.936 |
DSAT2 | 0.937 | ||
DSAT3 | 0.939 | ||
DSAT4 | 0.833 | ||
DSAT5 | 0.885 | ||
DSAT6 | 0.887 | ||
DSAT8 | 0.818 | ||
Alternative attractiveness | ATT1 | 0.925 | 0.939 |
ATT2 | 0.891 | ||
ATT3 | 0.926 | ||
ATT4 | 0.935 | ||
Perceived ease of use | EAS1 | 0.948 | 0.962 |
EAS2 | 0.957 | ||
EAS3 | 0.943 | ||
EAS4 | 0.948 | ||
Perceived usefulness | USE1 | 0.933 | 0.955 |
USE2 | 0.941 | ||
USE3 | 0.942 | ||
Perceived value | VAL1 | 0.903 | 0.918 |
VAL2 | 0.874 | ||
VAL3 | 0.904 | ||
VAL4 | 0.904 | ||
Switching cost toward e-grocery shopping | SWC1 | 0.903 | 0.929 |
SWC2 | 0.898 | ||
SWC3 | 0.912 | ||
Health consciousness | HEA1 | 0.805 | 0.812 |
HEA2 | 0.826 | ||
HEA3 | 0.798 | ||
HEA4 | 0.767 | ||
Personal innovativeness | INO2 | 0.908 | 0.911 |
INO3 | 0.916 | ||
Switching intention toward e-grocery shopping | SWI1 | 0.896 | 0.901 |
SWI2 | 0.915 | ||
SWI3 | 0.932 |
Hypotheses | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p | Result | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1. | DSAT | → | SWC | 0.087 | 0.077 | 1.120 | 0.263 | Not supported |
H2. | DSAT | → | SWI | 0.127 | 0.070 | 1.817 | 0.069 | Not supported |
H3. | ATT | → | SWC | 0.504 | 0.111 | 4.550 | *** | Supported |
H4. | ATT | → | SWI | 0.314 | 0.129 | 2.435 | 0.015 | Supported |
H5. | EAS | → | ATT | 0.358 | 0.123 | 2.919 | 0.004 | Supported |
H6. | USE | → | ATT | 0.314 | 0.110 | 2.855 | 0.004 | Supported |
H7. | VAL | → | ATT | 0.332 | 0.062 | 5.382 | *** | Supported |
H8. | SWC | → | SWI | 0.294 | 0.123 | 2.388 | 0.017 | Supported |
H9. | HEA | → | SWC | 0.220 | 0.104 | 2.116 | 0.034 | Supported |
H10. | INO | → | SWC | 0.394 | 0.095 | 4.152 | *** | Supported |
Hypothesis of Moderating Effect | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p | Result | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H11. | SWC × DSAT | → | SWI | −0.151 | 0.034 | −4.407 | *** | Reversely Supported |
H12. | SWC × ATT | → | SWI | −0.129 | 0.036 | −3.604 | *** | Reversely Supported |
H13. | HEA × SWC | → | SWI | −0.076 | 0.030 | −2.576 | 0.010 | Reversely Supported |
H14. | INO × SWC | → | SWI | −0.112 | 0.040 | −2.780 | 0.005 | Reversely Supported |
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
Monoarfa, T.A.; Sumarwan, U.; Suroso, A.I.; Wulandari, R. Switch or Stay? Applying a Push–Pull–Mooring Framework to Evaluate Behavior in E-Grocery Shopping. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076018
Monoarfa TA, Sumarwan U, Suroso AI, Wulandari R. Switch or Stay? Applying a Push–Pull–Mooring Framework to Evaluate Behavior in E-Grocery Shopping. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7):6018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076018
Chicago/Turabian StyleMonoarfa, Terrylina A., Ujang Sumarwan, Arif I. Suroso, and Ririn Wulandari. 2023. "Switch or Stay? Applying a Push–Pull–Mooring Framework to Evaluate Behavior in E-Grocery Shopping" Sustainability 15, no. 7: 6018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076018