The Impact of Information Overload of E-Commerce Platform on Consumer Return Intention: Considering the Moderating Role of Perceived Environmental Effectiveness
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Mediating Effect of Impulsive Buying Behavior
2.2. Mediating Effect of Cognitive Dissonance
2.3. Chain Mediating Effect of Impulsive Buying Behavior and Cognitive Dissonance
2.4. Moderating Effect of Consumers’ Perceived Environmental Effectiveness
3. Methodology
3.1. Questionnaire Design
3.2. Data Collection and Sample
4. Results
4.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis
4.2. Common Method Bias Tests
4.3. Correlation Analysis
- Perceived information overload is positively correlated with impulsive buying behavior (r = 0.393, p < 0.01), cognitive dissonance (r = 0.447, p < 0.01), and online return intention (r = 0.167, p < 0.01). Meanwhile, it is negatively correlated with consumers’ perceived environmental effectiveness (r = −0.441, p < 0.01).
- Impulsive buying behavior is positively correlated with cognitive dissonance (r = 0.380, p < 0.01) and online return intention (r = 0.332, p < 0.01), while it is negatively correlated with consumers’ perceived environmental effectiveness (r = −0.262, p < 0.01).
- Cognitive dissonance is positively correlated with online return intention (r = 0.167, p < 0.01) and negatively correlated with consumers’ perceived environmental effectiveness (r = −0.609, p < 0.01).
- There is no significant correlation between online return intention and consumers’ perceived environmental effectiveness (p > 0.05).
4.4. Mediation Model Hypothesis Test
4.5. Moderating Effect Hypothesis Test
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. The Mediating Effect of Impulsive Buying Behavior and Cognitive Dissonance
5.2. The Moderating Effect of Perceived Environmental Effectiveness
6. Conclusions and Further Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Scales | Items |
---|---|
Perceived Information Overload | I think a large amount of information will distract my attention. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) |
I often feel that the information on online shopping platforms is too much and over-whelming. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
I often feel like there’s more information on the platform than I can handle. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
I often find that there are so many choices that I don’t want to make the effort to compare and choose. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
Impulsive Buying Behavior | I sometimes spend more than my budget on online shopping. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) |
I sometimes buy things on impulse. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
Sometimes I want to buy something when I see a picture of a product. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
I sometimes have a sudden urge to buy something, even if it’s not in my shopping plan. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
Cognitive Dissonance | After receiving the product, I sometimes find that there is a gap between it and my expectation. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) |
After receiving the product, I sometimes doubt whether I made a right purchase decision. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
After receiving the product, I wondered if I really needed it. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
After receiving the product, I would wonder if the merchant was making false claims. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
Online Return Intention | Even if the return process is troublesome, I will choose to return. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) |
I only use the return to deal with inappropriate products purchased online. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
As long as the product doesn’t fit, I intend to return it. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
Even if I buy something cheap, I will choose to return it. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
I think it is the right decision to return the unsuitable product. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
Perceived environmental effectiveness | I realize that consumer behavior affects society and the environment. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) |
I realize that reducing returns is environmentally friendly. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
I believe I can make a contribution to the solution of environmental problems. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | |
I believe that reducing returns can have a positive impact on the environment. 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) |
References
- Ertekin, N. Immediate and long-term benefits of in-store return experience. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2018, 27, 121–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- NRF. Customer Returns in the Retail Industry. Available online: https://nrf.com/research/customer-returns-retail-industry (accessed on 27 November 2021).
- Mangiaracina, R.; Perego, A.; Perotti, S.; Tumino, A. Assessing the environmental impact of logistics in online and offline B2C purchasing processes in the apparel industry. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2016, 23, 98–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertram, R.F.; Chi, T. A study of companies’ business responses to fashion e-commerce’s environmental impact. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2018, 11, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jia, L. “Buy It” Changes to “Return It”: The High Return Rate of the “Double 11” Shopping Festival with Chaos. Available online: http://www.zqrb.cn/finance/hangyedongtai/2021-11-24/A1637739473075.html (accessed on 6 May 2022). (In Chinese).
- Haridasan, A.C.; Fernando, A.G. Online or in-store: Unravelling consumer’s channel choice motives. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2018, 12, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, G.; Möhring, M. Effectiveness of product return-prevention instruments: Empirical evidence. Electron. Mark. 2017, 27, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Yang, Y. No One can Join in “Double 11” Shopping Festival without Some Olympiad Mathematics Skills. Legal Daily, 8 November 2021; 004, (In Chinese). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartog, P. A generation of information anxiety: Refinements and recommendations. Christ. Libr. 2017, 60, 8. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, W.K.; Chen, C.W.; Lin, Y.C. Understanding the influence of impulse buying toward consumers’ post-purchase dissonance and return intention: An empirical investigation of apparel websites. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2020, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, B.; Li, Q. Impacts of returning unsold products in retail outsourcing fashion supply chain: A sustainability analysis. Sustainability 2015, 7, 1172–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alizadeh Foroutan, R.; Rezaeian, J.; Mahdavi, I. Green vehicle routing and scheduling problem with heterogeneous fleet including reverse logistics in the form of collecting returned goods. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 94, 106462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hjort, K.; Lantz, B.; Ericsson, D.; Gattorna, J. Customer segmentation based on buying and returning behaviour. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013, 43, 852–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.H. An alternative explanation of consumer product returns from the postpurchase dissonance and ecological marketing perspectives. Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, G.; Pekgün, P.; Ferguson, M.; Galbreth, M. How much do online consumers really value free product returns? Evidence from eBay. J. Oper. Manag. 2017, 53, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pei, Z.; Paswan, A. Consumers’ legitimate and opportunistic product return behaviors in online shopping. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2018, 19, 301–319. [Google Scholar]
- Wachter, K.; Vitell, S.J.; Shelton, R.K.; Park, K. Exploring consumer orientation toward returns: Unethical dimensions. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2012, 21, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powers, T.L.; Jack, E.P. The Influence of Cognitive Dissonance on Retail Product Returns. Psychol. Mark. 2013, 30, 724–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, J.A.; Kumar, V. Perceived Risk, Product Returns, and Optimal Resource Allocation: Evidence from a Field Experiment. J. Mark. Res. 2015, 52, 268–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seo, J.Y.; Yoon, S.; Vangelova, M. Shopping plans, buying motivations, and return policies: Impacts on product returns and purchase likelihoods. Mark. Lett. 2015, 27, 645–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Yi, Y. “Seize the Deal, or Return It Losing Your Free Gift”: The Effect of a Gift-With-Purchase Promotion on Product Return Intention. Psychol. Mark. 2017, 34, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.-H.; Yang, T.-S. Consumer rights or unethical behaviors: Exploring the impacts of retailer return policies. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akram, U.; Junaid, M.; Zafar, A.U.; Li, Z.; Fan, M. Online purchase intention in Chinese social commerce platforms: Being emotional or rational? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rook, D.W. The buying impulse. J. Consum. Res. 1987, 14, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beatty, S.E.; Ferrell, M.E. Impulse buying: Modeling its precursors. J. Retail. 1998, 74, 169–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadikoglu, G. Modeling of consumer buying behaviour using Z-number concept. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2017, 24, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L. A diary study of impulsive buying during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 39, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.H.; Lee, S.; Kim, D.J. Is Online Consumers’ Impulsive Buying Beneficial for E-Commerce Companies? An Empirical Investigation of Online Consumers’ Past Impulsive Buying Behaviors. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2016, 34, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, S.C.; Yurchisin, J. Fast fashion environments: Consumer’s heaven or retailer’s nightmare? Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2017, 45, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhagen, T.; van Dolen, W. The influence of online store beliefs on consumer online impulse buying: A model and empirical application. Inf. Manag. 2011, 48, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lins, S.; Bottequin, E.; Dóka, Á.; Golasa, A.; Hylander, F.; Merchán, A.; Odabašić, A.; Pavlović, S. To Think, to Feel, to Have: The Effects of Need for Cognition, Hedonism and Materialism on Impulse Buying Tendencies in Adolescents. J. Eur. Psychol. Stud. 2013, 4, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1957; p. 291. [Google Scholar]
- Wurman, R.S. Information Anxiety; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1989; p. 356. [Google Scholar]
- Wirth, J.; Laumer, S.; Maier, C.; Weitzel, T. Drivers and consequences of frustration when using social networking services: A quantitative analysis of facebook users. In Proceedings of the 2015 Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2015, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, 13–15 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bright, L.F.; Kleiser, S.B.; Grau, S.L. Too much Facebook? An exploratory examination of social media fatigue. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 44, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.R.; Son, S.-M.; Kim, K.K. Information and communication technology overload and social networking service fatigue: A stress perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 55, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jo, H.; Chung, N.; Hlee, S.; Koo, C. Perceived Affordances and Regret in Online Travel Agencies. J. Travel Res. 2022, 61, 1024–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afzal, W.; Roland, D.; Al-Squri, M.N. Information asymmetry and product valuation: An exploratory study. J. Inf. Sci. 2009, 35, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y. Product Returns in a Digital Era: The Role of Multidimensional Cognitive Dissonance, Regret, and Buying Con-text in the Post-Purchase Appraisal Process. Doctoral thesis; Durham University, 2018. Available online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12489/ (accessed on 12 February 2018).
- Salzberger, T.; Koller, M. Investigating the Impact of Cognitive Dissonance and Customer Satisfaction on Loyalty and Complaint Behaviour. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ. 2010, 9, 20–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkins, S.; Beckenuyte, C.; Butt, M.M. Consumers’ behavioural intentions after experiencing deception or cognitive dissonance caused by deceptive packaging, package downsizing or slack filling. Eur. J. Mark. 2016, 50, 213–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Robertson, T.S.; Hamilton, R.; Jap, S.D. Many (Un)happy Returns? The Changing Nature of Retail Product Returns and Future Research Directions. J. Retail. 2020, 96, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leong, L.-Y.; Jaafar, N.I.; Ainin, S. The effects of Facebook browsing and usage intensity on impulse purchase in f-commerce. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 78, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powers, T.L.; Jack, E.P. Understanding the causes of retail product returns. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2015, 43, 1182–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.-T.; Chen, C.-W.; Wang, S.-J.; Lin, C.-C. The influence of impulse buying toward consumer loyalty in online shopping: A regulatory focus theory perspective. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2018, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antil, J.H. Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and Implications for Public Policy. J. Macromarketing 1984, 4, 18–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.; Nguyen, D.; Trinh, V.; Tran, T.; Cao, T. Factors Affecting Intention to Purchase Green Products in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, D.; Johnson, K.K.P. Influences of environmental and hedonic motivations on intention to purchase green products: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 18, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panda, T.K.; Kumar, A.; Jakhar, S.; Luthra, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kazancoglu, I.; Nayak, S.S. Social and environmental sustainability model on consumers’ altruism, green purchase intention, green brand loyalty and evangelism. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kramer, R.; Subramanian, A.; Vidal, T.; Cabral, L.d.A.F. A matheuristic approach for the Pollution-Routing Problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 243, 523–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Silva, M.; Wang, P.; Kuah, A.T.H. Why wouldn’t green appeal drive purchase intention? Moderation effects of consumption values in the UK and China. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.-J.; Kang, H.-M.; Lee, E.-K.; Song, B.-M.; Jeong, J.; Kwon, Y.-K.; Kim, H.-R.; Lee, K.-J.; Hong, M.-S.; Jang, I.; et al. Novel Reassortant Influenza A(H5N8) Viruses, South Korea, 2014. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2014, 20, 1087–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stojanova, S.; Zečević, M.; Culiberg, B. From Words to Deeds: How Do Knowledge, Effectiveness, and Personal Relevance Link Environmental Concern and Buying Behavior? J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2021, 33, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karr-Wisniewski, P.; Lu, Y. When more is too much: Operationalizing technology overload and exploring its impact on knowledge worker productivity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 1061–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Zhao, L.; Lu, Y.; Yang, J. Do you get tired of socializing? An empirical explanation of discontinuous usage behaviour in social network services. Inf. Manag. 2016, 53, 904–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Özyörük, H.E. What’s going on in my mind? The effects of cognitive differences on buying impulsiveness, cognitive dissonance, and price consciousness. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 46, 889–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Choudhury, A.H. Using website information to reduce postpurchase dissonance: A mediated moderating role of perceived risk. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 38, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeelenberg, M.; Pieters, R. Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction. J. Bus. Res. 2004, 57, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leary, R.B.; Vann, R.J.; Mittelstaedt, J.D.; Murphy, P.E.; Sherry, J.F. Changing the marketplace one behavior at a time: Perceived marketplace influence and sustainable consumption. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1953–1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, T.-C.; Situmorang, R.O.P.; Liao, M.-C.; Chang, S.-C. The Relationship of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness, Subjective Knowledge, and Purchase Intention on Carbon Label Products—A Case Study of Carbon-Labeled Packaged Tea Products in Taiwan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stride, C.B.; Gardner, S.E.; Catley, N.; Thomas, F. Mplus Code for the Mediation, Moderation, and Moderated Mediation Model Templates from Andrew Hayes’ Process Analysis Examples. Available online: http://offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/FIO/index.htm (accessed on 6 May 2022).
Items | Frequency (Percent) | |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 286 (53.36%) |
Female | 250 (46.64%) | |
Age | Younger than 18 | 3 (0.56%) |
18–25 | 58 (10.82%) | |
26–35 | 96 (17.91%) | |
36–45 | 232 (43.28%) | |
46–55 | 111 (20.71%) | |
Older than 55 | 36 (6.72%) | |
Education | High school degree or below | 81 (15.11%) |
Junior college degree | 127 (23.69%) | |
Bachelor’s degree | 287 (53.54%) | |
Master’s degree or above | 41 (7.65%) | |
Monthly Income | Less than 76 USD | 12 (2.24%) |
76–155USD | 31 (5.78%) | |
155–779 USD | 129 (24.07%) | |
779–1558 USD | 256 (47.76%) | |
1558–3116 USD | 79 (14.74%) | |
More than 3116 USD | 29 (5.41%) |
Variables | Items | EFA Loadings | CFA Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | KMO | CR | AVE | MSV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PIO | PIO1 | 0.840 | 0.873 | 0.914 | 0.855 | 0.915 | 0.728 | 0.200 |
PIO2 | 0.828 | 0.830 | ||||||
PIO3 | 0.874 | 0.832 | ||||||
PIO4 | 0.868 | 0.877 | ||||||
IB | IB1 | 0.782 | 0.688 | 0.851 | 0.803 | 0.852 | 0.592 | 0.155 |
IB2 | 0.816 | 0.742 | ||||||
IB3 | 0.765 | 0.779 | ||||||
IB4 | 0.831 | 0.859 | ||||||
CD | CD1 | 0.810 | 0.878 | 0.898 | 0.845 | 0.896 | 0.682 | 0.371 |
CD2 | 0.784 | 0.792 | ||||||
CD3 | 0.824 | 0.812 | ||||||
CD4 | 0.781 | 0.821 | ||||||
RI | RI1 | 0.852 | 0.831 | 0.882 | 0.870 | 0.886 | 0.609 | 0.110 |
RI2 | 0.725 | 0.681 | ||||||
RI3 | 0.829 | 0.788 | ||||||
RI4 | 0.832 | 0.804 | ||||||
RI5 | 0.835 | 0.790 | ||||||
PEE | PEE1 | 0.881 | 0.911 | 0.926 | 0.856 | 0.925 | 0.757 | 0.371 |
PEE2 | 0.828 | 0.838 | ||||||
PEE3 | 0.824 | 0.865 | ||||||
PEE4 | 0.845 | 0.864 | ||||||
Total | 0.748 | 0.824 |
Model | CFI | TLI | IFI | RMSEA | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Five-Factor Model: PIO, IB, CD, RI, PEE | 2.538 | 0.968 | 0.962 | 0.969 | 0.054 |
Four-Factor Model: PIO, IB + CD, RI, PEE | 5.952 | 0.895 | 0.876 | 0.895 | 0.096 |
Three-Factor Model: PIO + IB + CD, RI, PEE | 8.640 | 0.839 | 0.809 | 0.840 | 0.120 |
Two-Factor Model: PIO + IB + CD + RI, PEE | 11.473 | 0.780 | 0.738 | 0.781 | 0.140 |
One-Factor Model: PIO + IB + CD + RI + PEE | 15.499 | 0.703 | 0.637 | 0.704 | 0.165 |
Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PIO | 4.889 | 1.553 | (0.853) | ||||
IB | 5.047 | 1.287 | 0.393 ** | (0.770) | |||
CD | 4.979 | 1.398 | 0.447 ** | 0.380 ** | (0.826) | ||
RI | 4.883 | 1.315 | 0.167 ** | 0.332 ** | 0.167 ** | (0.781) | |
PEE | 3.922 | 1.615 | −0.411 ** | −0.262 ** | −0.609 ** | −0.047 | (0.870) |
Path | Indirect Effect Estimation | p-Values | CI at 95% Level | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total indirect effect | 0.164 | 0.000 | 0.106 | 0.232 | |
Indirect effect | PIO-IB-RI | 0.079 | 0.000 | 0.049 | 0.119 |
PIO-CD-RI | 0.069 | 0.005 | 0.024 | 0.122 | |
PIO-IB-CD-RI | 0.016 | 0.017 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
Conditional Moderator | Path: PIO-IB-CD-RI | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Indirect Effect | p-Values | CI at 95% Level | ||
Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
Low PEE | 0.027 | 0.009 | 0.011 | 0.053 |
Medium PEE | 0.016 | 0.017 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
High PEE | 0.005 | 0.262 | −0.003 | 0.017 |
Hypotheses | Results |
---|---|
Hypothesis 1 (H1). | Supported |
Hypothesis 2 (H2). | Supported |
Hypothesis 3 (H3). | Supported |
Hypothesis 4 (H4). | Supported |
Hypothesis 5 (H5). | Supported |
Hypothesis 6 (H6). | Supported |
Hypothesis 7 (H7). | Supported |
Hypothesis 8 (H8). | Supported |
Hypothesis 9 (H9). | Supported |
Hypothesis 10 (H10). | Supported |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lv, J.; Liu, X. The Impact of Information Overload of E-Commerce Platform on Consumer Return Intention: Considering the Moderating Role of Perceived Environmental Effectiveness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138060
Lv J, Liu X. The Impact of Information Overload of E-Commerce Platform on Consumer Return Intention: Considering the Moderating Role of Perceived Environmental Effectiveness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(13):8060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138060
Chicago/Turabian StyleLv, Jun, and Xuan Liu. 2022. "The Impact of Information Overload of E-Commerce Platform on Consumer Return Intention: Considering the Moderating Role of Perceived Environmental Effectiveness" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13: 8060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138060