Consumer decision journey for online group buying: psychological and intentional procedure perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study investigates the relationship between buyers’ psychological antecedent and repurchase intentions in online group buying. Considering and evaluating pre-purchase, the authors measure the buyers’ overall experience of online group buying through their perceived value (PV) and risk. This study examines the influence of PV and perceived risk (PR) on positive electronic word-of-mouth (eWoM) communication and repurchase intention in online group buying. Design/methodology/approach The authors verify the research model using SPSS and the structural equation modeling-partial least square (SEM-PLS) to analyze 839 convincing respondents. This quantitative research provides insights into online group buying, including the food industry. Findings The results demonstrate that the buyers’ PV of online group buying enhanced positive eWoM communication and repurchase intention. The willingness of buyers to spread positive eWoM indicates their recognition and satisfaction with a product or brand. Thus, they have the behavioral intention to repurchase in online group buying. The study found that while positive eWoM communication significantly impacts repurchase intention, PR negatively affects PV. The research provides theoretical and practical implications at the end of the study. Research limitations/implications This study has some limitations. First, the study only used PV and PR to measure consumers’ considerations and evaluations of the initial stage in the consumer decision journey. Future studies can include more dimensions that may further affect these considerations and assessments to verify the research model. Second, the study only used positive eWoM communication to measure the “enjoy-advocate-bond” of consumption and usage in the post-purchase stage. Originality/value The study proposes the sequential relationship in the psychological decision procedure of participating in online group buying and provides valuable managerial implications for managers operating online group buying on third-party platforms. The findings provide good knowledge for the food industry to stay connected with customers and develop their satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".