Exploring e-deal proneness: the interplay of price consciousness and anticipatory regret
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This research investigates the factors influencing consumers' intention to purchase e-deals from group buying websites, focussing on e-deal proneness, price consciousness and anticipatory regret. Design/methodology/approach Three studies (n = 539) were conducted using data collected from an online consumer panel and tested via structural equation modelling and PROCESS macro in SPSS. Findings The findings suggest that subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and attitudes positively influence consumers' e-deal purchase intention. Additionally, price consciousness amplifies the relationship between consumers' e-deal proneness and purchase intention, and price-conscious respondents are more likely to have the intention to buy e-deals when faced with some form of anticipatory regret. Practical implications Based on the research findings, practitioners are advised to prioritise social norms and entertainment value when promoting the attractiveness of e-deals, using strategies such as social media and influencer marketing. Brands should also emphasise the value of e-deals by showcasing comparative price savings and discounts to motivate consumers to buy. Originality/value This paper addresses an interesting and practical issue related to the effects of group buying websites, focussing on e-deal proneness, price consciousness and anticipatory regret.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".