Understanding Consumers’ Purchase Intention for Online Paid Knowledge: A Customer Value Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Customer Value Theory
2.2. Cognitive–Affective–Conative Framework
3. Research Model and Hypotheses
3.1. Affective Elements
3.2. Customer Value Elements
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Development of Instruments
4.2. Sample and Procedure
5. Data Analysis and Results
5.1. Model Fit
5.2. Measurement Model
5.3. Structural Model
6. Discussion and Implications
6.1. Discussion
6.1.1. Affective Elements
6.1.2. Customer Value Elements
6.2. Implications for Research
6.3. Implications for Practice
7. Limitations and Future Research
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Iresearch. 2018 China’s Online Paid Knowledge Market Report. 2018. Available online: https://Www.Iresearchchina.Com/Content/Details8_42838.Html (accessed on 31 July 2018).
- Cathy. Zhihu.Com, Bridging The Gap of Growing Knowledge Sharing Demand in China. 2017. Available online: https://Digit.Hbs.Org/Submission/Zhihu-Com-Bridging-the-Gap-of-Growing-Knowledge-Sharing-Demand-In-China/ (accessed on 31 July 2019).
- Feng, E. Chinese Tech Apps Trade Knowledge for Cash. 2017. Available online: https://Www.Ft.Com/Content/Add21080-0ace-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b#Comments-Anchor (accessed on 6 May 2019).
- Guo, S.; Guo, X.; Fang, Y.; Vogel, D. How doctors gain social and economic returns in online health-care communities: A professional capital perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2017, 34, 487–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wasko, M.L.; Faraj, S. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, L. Chinese willing to pay for trustworthy web content. Wall Street Journal, 4 January 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, H.-M.; Chen, T.T. Knowledge sharing in interest online communities: A comparison of posters and lurkers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 35, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koo, D.-M.; Choi, Y.-Y. Knowledge search and people with high epistemic curiosity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsabawy, A.Y.; Cater-Steel, A.; Soar, J. Determinants of perceived usefulness of e-learning systems. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 64, 843–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, J.; Yan, X.; Li, Y.; Li, Y. How users adopt healthcare information: An empirical study of online q&a community. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2015, 86, 91–103. [Google Scholar]
- Joo, Y.J.; Joung, S.; Son, H.S. Structural relationships among effective factors on e-learners’ motivation for skill transfer. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 32, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, H. Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of tam and is success model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 45, 359–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, X.L.; Cheung, C.M.K.; Lee, M.K.O. What leads students to adopt information from wikipedia? An empirical investigation into the role of trust and information usefulness. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2013, 44, 502–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Jian, L. Beyond Reciprocity: The bystander effect of knowledge response in online knowledge communities. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 76, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiao, K.-L.; Chen, C.-C. Value-based adoption of e-book subscription services: The roles of environmental concerns and reading habits. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 434–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeha, C.-H.; Wanga, Y.-S.; Yieh, K. Predicting smartphone brand loyalty: Consumer value and consumer-brand identification perspectives. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavidge, R.J.; Steiner, G.A. A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. J. Mark. 1961, 25, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, C.-M.; Hsu, M.-H.; Lai, H.; Chang, C.-M. Re-examining the influence of trust on online repeat purchase intention: The moderating role of habit and its antecedents. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 53, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, M.-H.; Chang, C.-M.; Chuang, L.-W. Understanding the determinants of online repeat purchase intention and moderating role of habit: The case of online group-buying in taiwan. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.-W.; Gupta, S.; Koh, J. Investigating the intention to purchase digital items in social networking communities: A customer value perspective. Inf. Manag. 2011, 48, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.-S.; Yeh, C.-H.; Liao, Y.-W. What drives purchase intention in the context of online content services? The moderating role of ethical self-efficacy for online piracy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.-T.; Wang, Y.-S.; Liu, E.-R. The stickiness intention of group-buying websites: The integration of the commitment–trust theory and e-commerce success model. Inf. Manag. 2016, 53, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, F.; Ward, R.; Ahmed, E. Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of tam on students’ perceived ease of use (peou) and perceived usefulness (pu) of e-portfolios. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.-T.; Hajiyev, J.; Su, C.-R. Examining the students? behavioral intention to use e-learning in azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Comput. Educ. 2017, 111, 128–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouibah, K.; Lowry, P.B.; Hwang, Y. The effects of perceived enjoyment and perceived risks on trust formation and intentions to use online payment systems: New perspectives from an Arab country. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2016, 19, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, Y.; Kim, D.J. Customer self-service systems: The effects of perceived web quality with service contents on enjoyment, anxiety, and e-trust. Decis. Support Syst. 2007, 43, 746–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakefield, R. The influence of user affect in online information disclosure. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2013, 22, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oestreicher-Singer, G.; Zalmanson, L. Content or community? A digital business strategy for content providers in the social age. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 591–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, J.; Shao, Y.; Wen, C. Transactional quality, relational quality, and consumer e-loyalty: Evidence from sem and fsqca. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 1205–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.; Moon, J.; Kim, Y.J.; Yi, M.Y. Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone usability: Linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chul, W.Y.; Kim, Y.J.; Sanders, D.L. The impact of interactivity of electronic word of mouth systems and e-quality on decision support in the context of the e-marketplace. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 496–505. [Google Scholar]
- López-Miguens, M.J.; Vázquez, E.G. An integral model of e-loyalty from the consumer’s perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 72, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albert, N.; Merunka, D.; Valette-Florence, P. Brand passion: Antecedents and consequences. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 904–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Huang, Q.; Davison, R.M.; Hua, Z. What drives trust transfer? The moderating roles of seller-specific and general institutional mechanisms. Int. J. Electron. Comm. 2015, 20, 261–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W. Trust and tam in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 51–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.J.; Ferrin, D.L.; Rao, H.R. A Trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decis. Support Syst. 2008, 44, 544–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 709–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D. E-Commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega 2000, 28, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Zhao, L.; Wang, B. From virtual community members to c2c e-commerce buyers: Trust in virtual communities and its effect on consumers’ purchase intention. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2010, 9, 346–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mcknight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 297–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajli, N.; Sims, J.; Zadeh, A.H.; Richard, M.-O. A social commerce investigation of the role of trust in a social networking site on purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 71, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hashim, K.F.; Tan, F.B. The mediating role of trust and commitment on members’ continuous knowledge sharing intention: A commitment-trust theory perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koufaris, M.; Hampton-Sosa, W. The development of initial trust in an online company by new customers. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 377–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, T.-Y.; Lin, C.A. Predicting the effects of ewom and online brand messaging: Source trust, bandwagon effect and innovation adoption factors. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 470–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tajfel, H.; Turner, J.C. The Social Identity Theory of Inter-Group Behavior in Psychology of Intergroup Relations; Nelson-Hall Publishers: Chicago, IL, USA, 1986; pp. 7–24. [Google Scholar]
- Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. J. Mark. 2003, 67, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keh, H.T.; Xie, Y. Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Ind. Market. Manag. 2009, 38, 732–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popp, B.; Woratschek, H. Consumers’ relationships with brands and brand communities—The multifaceted roles of identification and satisfaction. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 35, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, H.; Li, Y.; Harris, L. Social identity perspective on brand loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 648–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elbedweihy, A.M.; Jayawardhena, C.; Elsharnouby, M.H.; Elsharnouby, T.H. Customer relationship building: The role of brand attractiveness and consumer—Brand identification. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2901–2910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.-S.; Kim, H.-M. The effect of online fan community attributes on the loyalty and cooperation of fan community members: The moderating role of connect hours. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dağhan, G.; Akkoyunlu, B. Modeling the continuance usage intention of online learning environments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 60, 198–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anselmsson, J.; Burt, S.; Tunca, B. An integrated retailer image and brand equity framework: Re-examining, extending, and restructuring retailer brand equity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 38, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spielberger, C.D. Theory and research on anxiety. In Anxiety and Behavior Newyork; Spileberger, C.D., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1966; pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
- Zolkepli, I.A.; Kamarulzaman, Y. Social media adoption: The role of media needs and innovation characteristics. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 43, 189–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.Y.; Lee, L.; Yap, A.J. Control deprivation motivates acquisition of utilitarian products. J. Consum. Res. 2016, 43, 1031–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darrat, A.A.; Darrat, M.A.; Amyx, D. How impulse buying influences compulsive buying: The central role of consumer anxiety and escapism. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 31, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallagher, C.E.; Watt, M.C.; Weaver, A.D.; Murphy, K.A. “I fear, therefore, i shop!” Exploring anxiety sensitivity in relation to compulsive buying. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2017, 104, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habibi, M.R.; Laroche, M.; Richard, M.-O. The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 37, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Packard, G.; Wooten, D.B. Compensatory knowledge signaling in consumer word-of-mouth. J. Consum. Psychol. 2013, 23, 434–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stokburger-Sauer, N.; Ratneshwar, S.; Sen, S. drivers of consumer—Brand identification. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2012, 29, 406–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. Consumer Trust in b2c e-commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega 2004, 32, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. Smartpls 3. 2015. Available online: www.smartpls.com (accessed on 12 December 2018).
- Gefen, D.; Rigdon, E.E.; Straub, D. An update and extension to sem guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Q. 2011, 35, A7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavlou, P.A.; Fygenson, M. Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 115–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowry, P.B.; Gaskin, J. Partial least squares (pls) structural equation modeling (sem) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 2014, 57, 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.-C.; Gefen, D. Validation guidelines for is positivist research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2004, 13, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q. 1998, 22, Vii–Xvi. [Google Scholar]
- Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A.; Systems, D. Using pls path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.-T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An updated and expanded assessment of pls-sem in information systems research. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 442–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W.; Boudreau, M.-C. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, X.L.; Zhou, Z.; Lee, M.K.O.; Cheung, C.M.K. Why users keep answering questions in online question answering communities: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, C.M.; Hsu, M.H.; Wang, E.T.G. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1872–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, D.; Lin, Z.; Zhuo, R. What drives consumer knowledge sharing in online travel communities? Personal attributes or e-service factors? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Construct | Item | Wording | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Price utility (PU) | PU1 | The knowledge product sold offers value for my money. | [23] |
PU2 | The knowledge product sold here is appropriate for the price. | ||
Knowledge quality (KQ) | KQ1 | The knowledge product sold provides relevant knowledge that meets my needs. | [23,24] |
KQ2 | The knowledge product sold presents the knowledge in an appropriate format (e.g., appropriate words, pictures, audio, live example, or summary). | ||
KQ3 | The knowledge product sold has an acceptable standard of quality. | ||
KQ4 | The knowledge product on the online knowledge platform is up-to-date enough for my purposes. | ||
KQ5 | The knowledge product on the online knowledge platform provides me with the precise information I need. | ||
Perceived enjoyment (PE) | PE1 | Using the knowledge sold here stimulates my curiosity. | [21,25] |
PE2 | Using the knowledge sold here arouses my imagination. | ||
PE3 | I find using knowledge enjoyable. | ||
PE4 | I have fun using knowledge. | ||
Anxiety relief (AR) | AR1 | Using the knowledge sold reduces the fear I feel of a lack of knowledge. | [60] |
AR2 | Using the knowledge sold reduces my feeling of being upset or feeling panic about the lack of knowledge. | ||
AR3 | Using the knowledge sold reduces my worries about the lack of knowledge. | ||
Social knowledge-image expression (SKE) | SKE1 | Using the knowledge sold enhances my image of being knowledgeable to others. | [23] |
SKE2 | Using the knowledge sold improves my knowledge-expression to others. | ||
SKE3 | Using the knowledge sold makes a good knowledge impression on others. | ||
SKE4 | Using the knowledge sold improves how I am perceived. | ||
Social relational support (SRS) | SRS1 | Using the knowledge sold better enables me to form interpersonal bonds with others. | [21] |
SRS2 | Using the knowledge sold helps me maintain my social relationships with others. | ||
SRS3 | Using the knowledge sold helps me make new friends. | ||
SRS4 | Using the knowledge sold enhances my social relationships with others. | ||
Trust in online paid knowledge (TK) | TK1 | The performance of this online paid knowledge meets my expectations. | [38,41] |
TK2 | This paid knowledge can be relied upon as a good knowledge product. | ||
TK3 | This paid knowledge is a reliable knowledge product. | ||
Trust in the platform (TP) | TP1 | This online knowledge platform is a reliable online knowledge platform. | [39] |
TP2 | This online knowledge platform gives the impression that it keeps promises and commitments. | ||
TP3 | I believe that this online knowledge platform has my best interests in mind. | ||
Identification with the knowledge contributor (IKC) | IKC1 | This knowledge contributor indicates the kind of person I am. | [51,64] |
IKC2 | This knowledge product provider’s knowledge-image and my knowledge-image are similar. | ||
IKC3 | I am attached to the knowledge product provider. | ||
IKC4 | The knowledge product provider produces a strong sense of belonging. | ||
Purchase intention(PI) | PI1 | I am very likely to buy the knowledge product. | [65] |
PI2 | I would consider buying the knowledge product. | ||
PI3 | I intend to buy the knowledge product. |
Demographic Variable | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Sex | ||
Male | 257 | 50.99% |
Female | 247 | 49.01% |
Age | ||
Less than 18 years | 10 | 1.98% |
18–25 years | 459 | 91.07% |
26–30 years | 31 | 6.15% |
More than 31 years | 4 | 0.79% |
Education status | ||
Doctorate degree | 7 | 1.39% |
Master degree | 166 | 32.94% |
Bachelor degree | 323 | 64.09% |
College or less | 8 | 1.59% |
Experience with online knowledge platforms | ||
Less than 1 year | 175 | 34.72% |
1–2 years | 210 | 41.67% |
3–4 years | 108 | 21.43% |
More than 5 years | 11 | 2.18% |
Monthly spent on paid knowledge on platforms | ||
Less than 50 yuan | 292 | 57.94% |
51–100 yuan | 141 | 27.98% |
101–300 yuan | 56 | 11.11% |
More than 301 yuan | 15 | 2.98% |
Usage Frequency | ||
Every day | 60 | 11.91% |
Every three days | 119 | 23.61% |
Every week | 104 | 20.64% |
Every month | 93 | 18.45% |
More than a month | 128 | 25.40% |
Monthly expenses | ||
Less than 1000 yuan | 79 | 15.68% |
1001–2000 yuan | 323 | 64.09% |
2001–3000 yuan | 71 | 14.09% |
3001–4000 yuan | 18 | 3.57% |
More than 4000 | 13 | 2.58% |
Construct | Mean | SD | Cronbach’s α | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anxiety relief (AR) | 5.24 | 1.14 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.87 |
Knowledge quality (KQ) | 5.04 | 1.16 | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.73 |
Price utility (PU) | 5.29 | 1.09 | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.67 |
Perceived enjoyment (PE) | 5.24 | 1.13 | 0.90 | 0.93 | 0.78 |
Trust in knowledge (TK) | 4.72 | 1.31 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.88 |
Trust in platform (TP) | 4.74 | 1.24 | 0.87 | 0.94 | 0.89 |
Social knowledge-image expression (SKE) | 5.04 | 1.17 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.81 |
Social relational support (SRS) | 4.71 | 1.26 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.83 |
Identification with knowledge contributor (IKC) | 5.33 | 1.06 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.85 |
Purchase intention (PI) | 5.07 | 1.26 | 0.84 | 0.90 | 0.75 |
AR | IKC | KQ | PE | PI | PU | SKE | SRS | TK | TP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AR1 | 0.92 | 0.35 | 0.51 | 0.49 | 0.30 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.31 |
AR2 | 0.94 | 0.36 | 0.42 | 0.44 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.45 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 0.28 |
AR3 | 0.95 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.34 | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.29 |
IKC1 | 0.36 | 0.88 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.52 | 0.44 | 0.34 | 0.55 | 0.42 |
IKC2 | 0.29 | 0.86 | 0.43 | 0.33 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.34 |
IKC3 | 0.35 | 0.86 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.43 | 0.34 | 0.61 | 0.40 |
IKC4 | 0.25 | 0.81 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.41 | 0.31 |
KQ1 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 0.85 | 0.47 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.35 | 0.21 | 0.53 | 0.33 |
KQ2 | 0.41 | 0.46 | 0.80 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.54 | 0.35 | 0.26 | 0.47 | 0.36 |
KQ3 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.82 | 0.49 | 0.29 | 0.53 | 0.39 | 0.24 | 0.54 | 0.41 |
KQ4 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.80 | 0.42 | 0.25 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.17 | 0.47 | 0.24 |
KQ5 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.82 | 0.43 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.52 | 0.38 |
PE1 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.47 | 0.89 | 0.35 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.49 | 0.30 |
PE2 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.44 | 0.84 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.47 | 0.28 |
PE3 | 0.42 | 0.37 | 0.54 | 0.89 | 0.32 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.35 | 0.54 | 0.38 |
PE4 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.52 | 0.91 | 0.34 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.52 | 0.37 |
PI1 | 0.32 | 0.45 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.93 | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 0.22 |
PI2 | 0.32 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.94 | 0.43 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.55 | 0.24 |
PI3 | 0.33 | 0.45 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.94 | 0.46 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.53 | 0.24 |
PU1 | 0.42 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.51 | 0.43 | 0.95 | 0.40 | 0.34 | 0.57 | 0.47 |
PU2 | 0.34 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.93 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.51 | 0.41 |
SKE1 | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.88 | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.31 |
SKE2 | 0.42 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.38 | 0.91 | 0.39 | 0.55 | 0.33 |
SKE3 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.38 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.92 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.32 |
SKE4 | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.48 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.89 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.30 |
SRS1 | 0.31 | 0.44 | 0.28 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.49 | 0.90 | 0.35 | 0.29 |
SRS2 | 0.32 | 0.41 | 0.25 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.47 | 0.92 | 0.33 | 0.25 |
SRS3 | 0.28 | 0.39 | 0.25 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.41 | 0.89 | 0.32 | 0.24 |
SRS4 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.25 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.42 | 0.93 | 0.31 | 0.23 |
TK1 | 0.51 | 0.55 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.37 | 0.92 | 0.42 |
TK2 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.92 | 0.37 |
TK3 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.30 | 0.93 | 0.44 |
TP1 | 0.29 | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.20 | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.25 | 0.39 | 0.89 |
TP2 | 0.27 | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.26 | 0.43 | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.38 | 0.86 |
TP3 | 0.26 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.18 | 0.37 | 0.25 | 0.16 | 0.39 | 0.86 |
AR | IKC | KQ | PE | PI | PU | SKE | SRS | TK | TP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AR | 0.93 | |||||||||
IKC | 0.37 | 0.85 | ||||||||
KQ | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.82 | |||||||
PE | 0.49 | 0.44 | 0.56 | 0.88 | ||||||
PI | 0.35 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.94 | |||||
PU | 0.40 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.52 | 0.48 | 0.94 | ||||
SKE | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.55 | 0.37 | 0.39 | 0.90 | |||
SRS | 0.34 | 0.44 | 0.28 | 0.41 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.49 | 0.91 | ||
TK | 0.52 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.36 | 0.92 | |
TP | 0.31 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.25 | 0.47 | 0.35 | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0.87 |
Hypothesis | Relationship between Variables | Path Coefficients (β) | t-Value | p-Value | Testing Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | TK → PI | 0.45 | 7.99 | 0.00 *** | Supported |
H2 | TP → PI | −0.06 | 1.34 | 0.18 | Rejected |
H3 | TP → TK | 0.07 | 1.33 | 0.19 | Rejected |
H4 | IKC → PI | 0.24 | 4.79 | 0.00 *** | Supported |
H5 | IKC → TK | 0.21 | 2.48 | 0.01 * | Supported |
H6 | KQ → TK | 0.19 | 2.00 | 0.05 * | Supported |
H7 | PU → TK | 0.13 | 2.17 | 0.03 * | Supported |
H8 | PE → TK | 0.13 | 2.25 | 0.03 * | Supported |
H9 | AR → TK | 0.14 | 3.29 | 0.00 ** | Supported |
H10 | SKE → TK | 0.18 | 2.35 | 0.02 * | Supported |
H11 | SRS → TK | −0.04 | 0.60 | 0.55 | Rejected |
© 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Su, L.; Li, Y.; Li, W. Understanding Consumers’ Purchase Intention for Online Paid Knowledge: A Customer Value Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195420
Su L, Li Y, Li W. Understanding Consumers’ Purchase Intention for Online Paid Knowledge: A Customer Value Perspective. Sustainability. 2019; 11(19):5420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195420
Chicago/Turabian StyleSu, Luyan, Ying Li, and Wenli Li. 2019. "Understanding Consumers’ Purchase Intention for Online Paid Knowledge: A Customer Value Perspective" Sustainability 11, no. 19: 5420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195420
APA StyleSu, L., Li, Y., & Li, W. (2019). Understanding Consumers’ Purchase Intention for Online Paid Knowledge: A Customer Value Perspective. Sustainability, 11(19), 5420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195420