MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of Word of Mouth, Product Quality, and Price on Trust and Repurchase Intentions: A SEM-Based Case Study of Indonesian Live Streaming E-Commerce

2025· article· en· W4410206442 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amin Tohari, Sugiono Sugiono, Elis Irmayanti, Mar’atus Solikah, Restin Meilina, Teguh Arie Sandy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianWord of mouthProduct (mathematics)BusinessQuality (philosophy)AdvertisingMarketingLive streamingMathematicsComputer scienceMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates how Word of Mouth (WoM), Product Quality (PQ), and Price (PR) influence Trust (TR) and Repurchase Intentions (RI) in the context of live streaming e-commerce in Indonesia. Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and data from 300 respondents, the results show that trust plays a key role in influencing Repurchase Intentions. WoM and PR have a significant impact on trust, with WoM having a dual effect—it positively affects trust but negatively influences repurchase intentions directly. PQ does not significantly affect either trust or repurchase intentions, suggesting that in live streaming e-commerce, consumer interactions and experiences may be more influential than product attributes. The model fit indices support the reliability of the results, with strong explanatory power for both trust (R² = 0.765) and repurchase intentions (R² = 0.890). This research enhances our understanding of consumer behavior in live streaming e-commerce, highlighting the importance of trust-building strategies, managing WoM effectively, and transparent pricing to encourage consumer loyalty. Future studies should consider other factors like platform usability and influencer credibility for a broader view.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.384 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207