Determinants of Continuous Usage Intention in Community Group Buying Platform in China: Based on the Information System Success Model and the Expanded Technology Acceptance Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Information System Success Model (D&M Model)
2.2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
2.3. Integrated Theories and the Proposed Model
3. Research Hypothesis Development
3.1. Expectation Confirmation
3.2. Perceived Usefulness
3.3. Perceived Ease of Use
3.4. Subjective Norms
3.5. Perceived Trust
3.6. System Quality
3.7. Service Quality
3.8. User Satisfaction
3.9. Continuous Usage Intention
3.10. Mediating Effect
4. Research Method
4.1. Design of Research Scheme
4.2. Data Collection and Sample Profile
5. Statistical Analysis
5.1. Reliability Test
5.2. Validity Test
5.3. Structural Equation Model Testing
6. Discussion and Implications
6.1. Discussion
6.2. Theoretical Implications
6.3. Practical Implications
7. Limitations and Future Research Directions
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, Y.-C.; Wu, J.-H.; Peng, L.; Yeh, R.C. Consumer benefit creation in online group buying: The social capital and platform synergy. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2015, 14, 499–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Zhao, J.; Yu, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y. How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed Urban Consumers’ Ways of Buying Agricultural Products? Evidence from Shanghai, China. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, L. Analyzing consumer online group buying motivations: An interpretive structural modeling approach. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 629–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Hassan, H.; Migin, M.W. Exploring the Consumers’ Purchase Intention on Online Community Group Buying Platform during Pandemic. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ong, J.-B.; Ng, W.-K.; Vorobev, A.; Ho, T.-N. Groupon and groupon now: Participating firm’s profitability analysis. Comput. Econ. 2019, 53, 617–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, C.; Bodkin, C.D. Community in context: Comparing brand communities and retail store communities. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 45, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, G.; Gao, X. Precision retail marketing strategy based on digital marketing model. Sci. J. Bus. Manag. 2019, 7, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiau, W.-L.; Luo, M.M. Factors affecting online group buying intention and satisfaction: A social exchange theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 2431–2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.S.; Wu, S. Exploring antecedents of online group buying: Social commerce perspective. Hum. Syst. Manag. 2015, 34, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, H.-H.; Huang, S.-W. Exploring antecedents and consequence of online group buying intention: An extended perspective on theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Z.; Li, Y. In To Study the Development and Problems of Community Group Buying after the Epidemic. In Proceedings of the 2022 7th International Conference on Financial Innovation and Economic Development (ICFIED 2022), Harbin, China, 21–23 January 2022; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 548–553. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2003, 19, 9–30. [Google Scholar]
- Mohammadi, H. Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 45, 359–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilahun, B.; Fritz, F. Modeling antecedents of electronic medical record system implementation success in low-resource setting hospitals. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2015, 15, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, M.-H.; Chang, C.-M.; Chu, K.-K.; Lee, Y.-J. Determinants of repurchase intention in online group buying: The perspectives of DeLone & McLean IS success model and trust. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 36, 234–245. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.S. Assessing e-commerce systems success: A respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Inf. Syst. J. 2008, 18, 529–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.-C.; Lin, C.-L.; Yan, C.-F. The Influence of Perceived Convenience and Curiosity on Continuous English Learning Intention in Mobile Environment. J. Educ. Media Libr. Sci. 2011, 48, 571–588. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, S.A.; Venkatesh, V.; Goyal, S. Expectation confirmation in technology use. Inf. Syst. Res. 2012, 23, 474–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, C.; Kim, S. Convenience and TAM in a ubiquitous computing environment: The case of wireless LAN. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2007, 6, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goundar, S.; Lal, K.; Chand, A.; Vyas, P. Consumer perception of electronic commerce–incorporating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. In e-Services; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; p. 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Sikdar, P.; Alam, M.M. E-retail adoption in emerging markets: Applicability of an integrated trust and technology acceptance model. Int. J. E-Bus. Res. 2016, 12, 44–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeba, F.; Ganguli, S. Word-of-mouth, trust, and perceived risk in online shopping: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Serv. Sect. 2016, 8, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inthong, C.; Champahom, T.; Jomnonkwao, S.; Chatpattananan, V.; Ratanavaraha, V. Exploring Factors Affecting Consumer Behavioral Intentions toward Online Food Ordering in Thailand. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosli, M.S.; Saleh, N.S.; Md. Ali, A.; Abu Bakar, S.; Mohd Tahir, L. A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model for the Sustainability of Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Identified Research Gaps. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mei, Y.; Liu, J.; Jia, L.; Wu, H.; Lv, J. Exploring the Acceptance of the Technical Disclosure Method Based on 3D Digital Technological Process by Construction Workers through the Perspective of TAM. Buildings 2023, 13, 2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Wong, S.L.; Khambari, M.N.M.; Noordin, N.B.; Geng, J.; Bai, Y. Factors Affecting English Language Teachers’ Behavioral Intentions to Teach Online under the Pandemic Normalization of COVID-19 in China. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miandari, G.A.K.D.D.; Yasa, N.N.K.; Wardana, M.; Giantari, I.G.A.K.; Setini, M. Application of Technology Acceptance Model to Explain Repurchase Intention in Online Shopping Consumers. Webology 2021, 18, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kariapper, R. Application of technology acceptance model (TAM) in consumer behavioral intention towards online shopping. PalArch’s J. Archaeol. Egypt/Egyptol. 2020, 17, 13529–13546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, S.-H.; Kang, J.-Y.; Lim, J.-I. Analysis of factors affecting intention of continuous use for mobile wallet based on the information system success model. J. Inf. Technol. Serv. 2014, 13, 325–340. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, R.-Z.; Tian, X.-F. Investigating the impact of critical factors on continuous usage intention towards enterprise social networks: An integrated model of is success and TTF. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, G.; Liu, W. Consumer choice in online vegetable distribution terminals: A Planned Behavior approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 68, 103019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, C.; Zhang, Y. An empirical study on online group buying adoption behavior in china. Pak. J. Stat. 2014, 30, 987–1009. [Google Scholar]
- German Ruiz-Herrera, L.; Valencia-Arias, A.; Gallegos, A.; Benjumea-Arias, M.; Flores-Siapo, E. Technology acceptance factors of e-commerce among young people: An integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, G.; Singh, D. Personality matters: Does an individual’s personality affect adoption and continued use of green banking channels? Int. J. Bank Mark. 2022, 40, 746–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joo, S.; Choi, N. Understanding users’ continuance intention to use online library resources based on an extended expectation-confirmation model. Electron. Libr. 2016, 34, 554–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.-C.; Chung, P.; Yeh, R.C.; Chen, Y.-C. An Empirical Study of College Students’ Learning Satisfaction and Continuance Intention to Stick with a Blended e-Learning Environment. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2016, 11, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akdim, K.; Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C. The role of utilitarian and hedonic aspects in the continuance intention to use social mobile apps. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 66, 102888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.-C. Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, C.M.; Kim, Y.K. Older consumers’ TV home shopping: Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and perceived convenience. Psychol. Mark. 2011, 28, 763–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eun, Y.-R.; Yoo, Y.-J. The Effects of Foodservice Consumer’s Consumption Value and Subjective Norm of Social Commerce Usage Intention. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 2016, 16, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alzaidi, M.S.; Agag, G. The role of trust and privacy concerns in using social media for e-retail services: The moderating role of COVID-19. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 68, 103042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Y.; Chan, T.J.; Suki, N.M.; Kasim, M.A.; Yan, Z. Moderating Role of Perceived Trust and Perceived Service Quality on Consumers’ Use Behavior of Alipay e-wallet System: The Perspectives of Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2023, 2023, 5276406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamboj, S.; Sarmah, B.; Gupta, S.; Dwivedi, Y. Examining branding co-creation in brand communities on social media: Applying the paradigm of Stimulus-Organism-Response. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 39, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.; Zhao, K.; Stylianou, A. The impacts of information quality and system quality on users’ continuance intention in information-exchange virtual communities: An empirical investigation. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 56, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, L.; Ma, Y.; Addo, P.C.; Liao, M.; Fang, J. The Role of Platform Quality on Consumer Purchase Intention in the Context of Cross-Border E-Commerce: The Evidence from Africa. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padlee, S.F.; Thaw, C.Y.; Zulkiffli, S.N.A. The relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 25, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aliman, N.K.; Mohamad, W.N. Linking service quality, patients’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions: An investigation on private healthcare in Malaysia. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 224, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Perols, J.; Sanford, C. Information technology continuance: A theoretic extension and empirical test. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2008, 49, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keeney, R.L. The value of Internet commerce to the customer. Manag. Sci. 1999, 45, 533–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, H.G.; Jo, H. Understanding the Continuance Intention of Omnichannel: Combining TAM and TPB. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Li, C.; Wu, J.; Zhou, G. Research on the Adoption Behavior Mechanism of BIM from the Perspective of Owners: An Integrated Model of TPB and TAM. Buildings 2023, 13, 1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, Y.; Guo, H.; Liu, X. A Study of Young People’s Intention to Use Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Quantitative Analysis Model Based on the Extended TPB-TAM. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasongko, D.T.; Handayani, P.W.; Satria, R. Analysis of factors affecting continuance use intention of the electronic money application in Indonesia. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 197, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hai, L.; Sang, G.; Wang, H.; Li, W.; Bao, X. An Empirical Investigation of University Students’ Behavioural Intention to Adopt Online Learning: Evidence from China. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharabati, A.-A.A.; Al-Haddad, S.; Al-Khasawneh, M.; Nababteh, N.; Mohammad, M.; Abu Ghoush, Q. The Impact of TikTok User Satisfaction on Continuous Intention to Use the Application. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, A.; Sunny, P. Why do people continue using mobile wallets? An empirical analysis amid COVID-19 pandemic. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulfraz, M.B.; Sufyan, M.; Mustak, M.; Salminen, J.; Srivastava, D.K. Understanding the impact of online customers’ shopping experience on online impulsive buying: A study on two leading E-commerce platforms. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 68, 103000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhakar, S.; Agrawal, A.K.; Suthar, B.; Verma, S.; Verma, A.; Singhal, K.; Singh, P. Impact of service quality, physical environment, employee behavior on consumer perception. Prestig. Int. J. Manag. IT-Sanchayan 2013, 2, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hongsuchon, T.; Li, J. Accessing the Influence of Consumer Participation on Purchase Intention Toward Community Group Buying Platform. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 887959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, B.; Shen, B. Study of Consumers’ Purchase Intentions on Community E-commerce Platform with the SOR Model: A Case Study of China’s “Xiaohongshu” App. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- AL Hilal, N.S.H. The Impact of the Use of Augmented Reality on Online Purchasing Behavior Sustainability: The Saudi Consumer as a Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable Factor | Item Content | Reference Source |
---|---|---|
Perceived usefulness | 1. The community group buying platform provides a wide range of commodities that can meet my daily needs. 2. I can buy cost-effective, cheap, and cost-effective goods on the community group buying platform. 3. The goods delivery service of community group purchase should satisfy me. 4. Using the community group buying platform can increase my choice space and improve my quality of life. | Bhattacharjee [37] Davis [18] Lee [42] |
Perceived trust | 1. My brand trust in the community group buying platform makes me more interested in using it for shopping. 2. I think the leader is very concerned about my interests and needs 3. The leader tries to be fair in his dealings with others. 4. I think the leader is capable of doing his job well. | Shiau [8] Kamboj [47] Alzaidi [45] |
Perceived ease of use | 1. I know how to complete shopping, pick-up, return, and exchange with a community group buying platform on a mobile phone, which is easy to master. 2. I think using a community buying platform can save a lot of time and effort. 3. I think the after-sale service of the community group buying platform solves my concerns to a large extent. | Yoon [21] Chang [19] Lim [43] |
Subjective norms | 1. My friends and family are happy to use the community group buying platform. 2. I think a lot of people are using community group buying platforms. 3. People who have influenced me greatly support my use of the community buying platform. | Zhai and Zhang [35] Tian and Suki [46] |
System quality | 1. I think the system has a strong response processing capacity. 2. I think the community group buying platform has high privacy and security. | Jeon [31] Zheng [48] |
Service quality | 1. My application for services on the community group buying platform was quickly responded to. 2. The leader can help the platform solve problems promptly. | Han [49] Padlee [50] Aliman [51] |
Expectation confirmation | 1. The “leader & self-pickup” service provided by the community group buying platform is reasonable. 2. The goods I bought met my expectations after using the community group buying platform. 3. After using the community group buying platform, I felt that the levels of platform services, content, and other aspects were higher than expected. | Bhattacharjee [37] Joo [39] Lin [40] |
User satisfaction | 1. I am satisfied with using the community group buying platform for shopping. 2. I am happy with the functionality of using the community group buying platform. 3. The life brought by the community group buying platform helps me feel satisfied. | Wang [17] Bhattacharjee [37] Delone& McLean [13] |
Continuous usage intention | 1. I am happy to recommend community group buying platforms to my friends. 2. I would like to continue using the community group buying platform. 3. Under the same conditions, I would like to prioritize the community group buying platform. | Bhattacharjee [52] |
Cronbach Reliability Analysis | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Total Correlation of Correction Items | The α Coefficient of the Term Has Been Deleted | Cronbach α Coefficient | Total Cronbach α Coefficient |
Perceived usefulness 1 | 0.563 | 0.754 | 0.789 | 0.908 |
Perceived usefulness 2 | 0.680 | 0.693 | ||
Perceived usefulness 3 | 0.577 | 0.747 | ||
Perceived usefulness 4 | 0.573 | 0.749 | ||
Perceived trust 1 | 0.530 | 0.724 | 0.763 | |
Perceived trust 2 | 0.579 | 0.699 | ||
Perceived trust 3 | 0.589 | 0.693 | ||
Perceived trust 4 | 0.555 | 0.711 | ||
Perceived ease of use 1 | 0.619 | 0.743 | 0.796 | |
Perceived ease of use 2 | 0.622 | 0.742 | ||
Perceived ease of use 3 | 0.689 | 0.671 | ||
Subjective norm 1 | 0.671 | 0.651 | 0.781 | |
Subjective norm 2 | 0.569 | 0.756 | ||
Subjective norm 3 | 0.634 | 0.690 | ||
System quality 1 | 0.630 | - | 0.765 | |
System quality 2 | 0.630 | - | ||
Service quality 1 | 0.665 | - | 0.783 | |
Service quality 2 | 0.665 | - | ||
Expectation confirmation 1 | 0.669 | 0.648 | 0.781 | |
Expectation confirmation 2 | 0.635 | 0.687 | ||
Expectation confirmation 3 | 0.561 | 0.763 | ||
User satisfaction 1 | 0.785 | 0.855 | 0.884 | |
User satisfaction 2 | 0.761 | 0.850 | ||
User satisfaction 3 | 0.827 | 0.807 | ||
Continuous usage intention 1 | 0.735 | 0.851 | 0.877 | |
Continuous usage intention 2 | 0.727 | 0.858 | ||
Continuous usage intention 3 | 0.828 | 0.766 |
Results of Validity Analysis | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Factor Load Coefficient | Common Degree (Variance of Common Factor) | ||||||||
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | Factor 6 | Factor 7 | Factor 8 | Factor 9 | ||
Perceived usefulness 1 | 0.599 | 0.542 | ||||||||
Perceived usefulness 2 | 0.841 | 0.771 | ||||||||
Perceived usefulness 3 | 0.671 | 0.610 | ||||||||
Perceived usefulness 4 | 0.688 | 0.617 | ||||||||
Perceived trust 1 | 0.627 | 0.538 | ||||||||
Perceived trust 2 | 0.735 | 0.639 | ||||||||
Perceived trust 3 | 0.810 | 0.708 | ||||||||
Perceived trust 4 | 0.667 | 0.596 | ||||||||
Perceived ease of use 1 | 0.738 | 0.687 | ||||||||
Perceived ease of use 2 | 0.746 | 0.690 | ||||||||
Perceived ease of use 3 | 0.863 | 0.803 | ||||||||
Subjective norm 1 | 0.822 | 0.758 | ||||||||
Subjective norm 2 | 0.752 | 0.648 | ||||||||
Subjective norm 3 | 0.791 | 0.712 | ||||||||
System quality 1 | 0.845 | 0.803 | ||||||||
System quality 2 | 0.884 | 0.821 | ||||||||
Service quality 1 | 0.859 | 0.823 | ||||||||
Service quality 2 | 0.880 | 0.829 | ||||||||
Expectation confirmation 1 | 0.841 | 0.770 | ||||||||
Expectation confirmation 2 | 0.769 | 0.709 | ||||||||
Expectation confirmation 3 | 0.706 | 0.617 | ||||||||
User satisfaction 1 | 0.858 | 0.834 | ||||||||
User satisfaction 2 | 0.788 | 0.796 | ||||||||
User satisfaction 3 | 0.867 | 0.864 | ||||||||
Continuous usage intention 1 | 0.838 | 0.808 | ||||||||
Continuous usage intention 2 | 0.694 | 0.748 | ||||||||
Continuous usage intention 3 | 0.851 | 0.868 | ||||||||
Cumulative variance interpretation rate % (after rotation) | 72.63% | - | ||||||||
KMO | 0.884 | - | ||||||||
Bartlett | 5030.334 | - | ||||||||
df | 351 | - | ||||||||
p | 0 | - |
Model Fit Coefficients | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMIN | df | CMIN/DF | NFI | IF | TLI | CFI | GFI | RMSEA |
468.065 | 292 | 1.603 | 0.909 | 0.964 | 0.956 | 0.963 | 0.926 | 0.038 |
Suggested value | <3 | >0.8 | >0.9 | >0.8 | >0.9 | >0.8 | <0.08 |
Pathway Test Results | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Path | Relationship Path between Variables | Non-Standardized Regression Coefficient | Standardized Regression Coefficient β | Standard Error | t | p | Pathway Test Results | ||
Path 1 | Perceived usefulness | ← | Expectation confirmation | 0.334 | 0.360 | 0.064 | 5.207 | *** | Support |
Path 2 | Perceived usefulness | ← | Subjective norms | 0.312 | 0.372 | 0.057 | 5.445 | *** | Support |
Path 3 | User satisfaction | ← | Expectation confirmation | 0.303 | 0.191 | 0.119 | 2.536 | 0.011 | Support |
Path 4 | User satisfaction | ← | Subjective norms | −0.178 | −0.124 | 0.102 | −1.751 | 0.080 | Nonsupport |
Path 5 | User satisfaction | ← | Perceived usefulness | 0.441 | 0.258 | 0.122 | 3.624 | *** | Support |
Path 6 | User satisfaction | ← | Perceived ease of use | 0.202 | 0.167 | 0.076 | 2.668 | 0.008 | Support |
Path 7 | User satisfaction | ← | Perceived trust | 0.353 | 0.231 | 0.106 | 3.326 | *** | Support |
Path 8 | User satisfaction | ← | System quality | −0.079 | −0.060 | 0.073 | −1.083 | 0.279 | Nonsupport |
Path 9 | User satisfaction | ← | Service quality | 0.159 | 0.141 | 0.061 | 2.592 | 0.010 | Support |
Path 10 | Continuous usage intention | ← | Expectation confirmation | 0.181 | 0.166 | 0.078 | 2.315 | 0.021 | Support |
Path 11 | Continuous usage intention | ← | Subjective norms | 0.154 | 0.156 | 0.067 | 2.307 | 0.021 | Support |
Path 12 | Continuous usage intention | ← | Perceived usefulness | 0.185 | 0.157 | 0.081 | 2.289 | 0.022 | Support |
Path 13 | Continuous usage intention | ← | User satisfaction | 0.092 | 0.133 | 0.041 | 2.251 | 0.024 | Support |
Path 14 | Continuous usage intention | ← | Perceived ease of use | 0.111 | 0.133 | 0.050 | 2.220 | 0.026 | Support |
Path 15 | Continuous usage intention | ← | Perceived trust | 0.151 | 0.144 | 0.070 | 2.156 | 0.031 | Support |
Path 16 | Continuous usage intention | ← | System quality | −0.057 | −0.063 | 0.047 | −1.209 | 0.227 | Nonsupport |
Path 17 | Continuous usage intention | ← | Service quality | 0.093 | 0.119 | 0.040 | 2.298 | 0.022 | Support |
Mediation Effect Test | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Path | Mediating Variable | Indirect Effect | ||
Boot CI Lower Limit | Boot CI Upper Limit | p | ||
Service quality → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | User satisfaction | 0.001 | 0.056 | 0.031 |
System quality → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | User satisfaction | −0.034 | 0.004 | 0.174 |
Perceived trust → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | User satisfaction | 0.003 | 0.076 | 0.029 |
Perceived ease of use → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | User satisfaction | 0.002 | 0.065 | 0.031 |
Subjective norms → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention Subjective norms → Perceived usefulness → Continuous usage intention Subjective norms → Perceived usefulness → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | User satisfaction and perceived usefulness | −0.007 | 0.134 | 0.084 |
Perceived usefulness → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | User satisfaction | 0.004 | 0.091 | 0.026 |
Expectation confirmation → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention Expectation confirmation → Perceived usefulness → Continuous usage intention Expectation confirmation → Perceived usefulness → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | User satisfaction and perceived usefulness | 0.033 | 0.180 | 0.002 |
Expectation confirmation → Perceived usefulness → User satisfaction | Perceived usefulness | 0.034 | 0.183 | 0.001 |
Path | Effect | Effect Value | Relative Effect Value |
---|---|---|---|
Service quality → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | Total effect | 0.138 | |
Direct effect | 0.119 | 86.32% | |
Mediating effect | 0.019 | 13.77% | |
Perceived trust → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | Total effect | 0.174 | |
Direct effect | 0.143 | 82.18% | |
Mediating effect | 0.031 | 17.82% | |
Perceived ease of use → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | Total effect | 0.155 | |
Direct effect | 0.133 | 85.81% | |
Mediating effect | 0.022 | 14.19% | |
Perceived usefulness → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | Total effect | 0.191 | |
Direct effect | 0.157 | 82.20% | |
Mediating effect | 0.034 | 17.80% | |
Expectation confirmation → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention Expectation confirmation → Perceived usefulness → Continuous usage intention Expectation confirmation → Perceived usefulness → User satisfaction → Continuous usage intention | Total effect | 0.260 | |
Direct effect | 0.166 | 63.85% | |
Mediating effect | 0.094 | 36.15% | |
Expectation confirmation → Perceived usefulness → User satisfaction | Total effect | 0.284 | |
Direct effect | 0.191 | 67.25% | |
Mediating effect | 0.093 | 32.75% |
Number | Hypothetical Content | Inspection Result |
---|---|---|
H1a | Expectation confirmation has a significant positive impact on user satisfaction. | Support |
H1b | Expectation confirmation has a significant positive impact on consumers’ continuous usage intentions. | Support |
H2a | Perceived usefulness has a significant positive impact on user satisfaction. | Support |
H2b | Perceived usefulness has a significant positive impact on consumers’ continuous usage intentions. | Support |
H3a | Perceived ease of use has a significant positive impact on user satisfaction. | Support |
H3b | Perceived ease of use has a significant positive impact on consumers’ continuous usage intentions. | Support |
H4a | Subjective norms have a significant positive impact on user satisfaction. | Nonsupport |
H4b | Subjective norms have a significant positive impact on consumers’ continuous usage intentions. | Support |
H5a | Perceived trust has a significant positive impact on user satisfaction. | Support |
H5b | Perceived trust has a significant positive impact on consumers’ continuous usage intentions. | Support |
H6a | System quality has a significant positive impact on user satisfaction. | Nonsupport |
H6b | System quality has a significant positive impact on consumers’ continuous usage intentions. | Nonsupport |
H7a | Service quality has a significant positive impact on user satisfaction. | Support |
H7b | Service has a significant positive impact on consumers’ continuous usage intentions. | Support |
H8 | User satisfaction has a significant positive impact on consumers’ continuous usage intentions. | Support |
H9 | Expectation confirmation has a significant positive impact on consumers’ perceived usefulness. | Support |
H10 | Subjective norms have a significant positive impact on consumers’ perceived usefulness. | Support |
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
Song, Y.; Gui, L.; Wang, H.; Yang, Y. Determinants of Continuous Usage Intention in Community Group Buying Platform in China: Based on the Information System Success Model and the Expanded Technology Acceptance Model. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 941. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13110941
Song Y, Gui L, Wang H, Yang Y. Determinants of Continuous Usage Intention in Community Group Buying Platform in China: Based on the Information System Success Model and the Expanded Technology Acceptance Model. Behavioral Sciences. 2023; 13(11):941. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13110941
Chicago/Turabian StyleSong, Yingjie, Lin Gui, Hong Wang, and Yanru Yang. 2023. "Determinants of Continuous Usage Intention in Community Group Buying Platform in China: Based on the Information System Success Model and the Expanded Technology Acceptance Model" Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 11: 941. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13110941
APA StyleSong, Y., Gui, L., Wang, H., & Yang, Y. (2023). Determinants of Continuous Usage Intention in Community Group Buying Platform in China: Based on the Information System Success Model and the Expanded Technology Acceptance Model. Behavioral Sciences, 13(11), 941. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13110941