The effect of groups’ reference, usefulness perception, and products quality on intention to buy and online shopping decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study is to investigate how group reference, perceived usefulness, and product quality influence online shoppers' desire to purchase and final purchase decisions. Multiple methods of quantitative analysis and processing of data are used to evaluate and validate the study's hypotheses. Using a Structural Equation Model, the study's theories were tested and analyzed. Customers of digital market websites in Jordan participated in this study by responding to an online poll. Data was compiled from 220 study questionnaires using a systematic sampling strategy. Data analysis with the Structural Equation Model revealed significant favorable effects of group reference, perceived usefulness, and product quality on both purchase intent and final online purchase decisions. The authors chose to center their study around the perspectives, comments, attitudes, and impressions of groups of individuals. Perceived usefulness can be gauged along the aspects of experience, enjoyment, and subjective norm. The words customer expectations, real product specifications, and the quality of the service received all shed light on the product's quality. The originality of this study rests in the model that was created to explain the relationship between group reference, perceived usefulness of products, and product quality as they relate to purchase intent and digital market website use in Jordan.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".