MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408094358 · doi:10.1108/jcm-03-2024-6668

When we are alike: homophily in livestream commerce

2025· article· en· W4408094358 on OpenAlexaff
Yusuf Oc, Fang Wang, Yanli Pei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Marketing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomophilyMarketingBusinessAdvertisingPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Homophily, a prominent phenomenon in social networking, profoundly shapes user behaviors on social media but has not been well studied in the livestream commerce context. This study aims to investigate its moderation role in leveraging the effects of key livestream commerce factors – perceived expertise of live streamers and perceived interaction during live streaming – on audience trust, a critical determinant of purchase intentions. Design/methodology/approach A survey was conducted among livestream shoppers on Taobao. A sample of 313 responses was analyzed. SPSS (version 29) was used for general statistical analysis. The partial least squares structural equation modeling approach with SmartPLS 4.1 software was used to assess the research model and hypotheses. Findings The results reveal noteworthy differential effects of homophily: it negatively moderates the expertise–trust association but positively moderates the interaction–trust relationship. When the audience perceives strong homophily with live streamers, their trust in these live streamers becomes increasingly contingent on the level of interaction, whereas the effect of perceived expertise diminishes. Originality/value The insights on the differential effects of homophily are novel to the literature. These findings extend theoretical understanding of the homophily effect and provide valuable guidance for live streamers, marketers and platforms seeking to reinforce audience trust and drive purchase intentions in livestream commerce.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer MarketingSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207