Journal of Marketing Thought: Please Scroll Down For Article

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 14

On: 28 Aug 2015

Access Details: [Online: 2298-0750]


Publisher SS Foundation
Online International Standard Serial Number: 2288-0750
Editorial office: School of Business, Sungkyunkwan University, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea

Journal of Marketing Thought


Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.ejmt.org

“Effects of Mobile Shopping Characteristics on


Purchase Intention in a Smart Media Environment”
Young Dong Janga*
a. Chief of Research Fellow, Dexmedia
Online publication date: 28 Aug 2015

To cite this Article Young Dong Jang (2015) ‘Effects of mobile shopping Characteristics on purchase inten-
tion in a smart media environment’, Journal of Marketing Thought, 2(2): 60-72. To link to this Article:
10.15577/jmt.2015.02.02.7

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE


Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-
access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-
licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Marketing Thought, 2015
Vol. 2, No. 2, 60 - 72, DOI: 10.15577/jmt.2015.02.02.7

Young Dong Jang*

Effects of Mobile Shopping


Characteristics on Purchase Inten-
tion in a Smart Media Environment
The explosion of readily available technology and accessible commercial Internet service has provided a new distri-
bution channel: mobile commerce. The convenience of the Internet without any restrictions of space and time serves
consumers by enriching their shopping experience with easy access and comfortable shopping applications.
As Internet-enabled mobile service becomes widespread, it enables many people to expedite work processes,
browse enormous amounts of information, and make online transactions. The growth of wireless mobile commerce
transactions attracts the attention of many companies and researchers to further their studies.
Based on previous studies on mobile commerce, I identify three important factors of mobile commerce in this paper:
interactivity, convenience, and playfulness. I explore how the characteristics of applications influence the buying be-
haviors of consumers. I consider price sensitivity and brand loyalty as moderating variables to purchase intention. I
examine how features of applications affect the purchase intention of shoppers and eventually have a positive effect
on the online purchases of products.
In addition, I compare buying behaviors with and without considering the moderating variables and discover the sig-
nificance of interactivity, convenience, and playfulness on purchase intention in groups with price sensitivity and
brand loyalty.

Keyword: M-Commerce, Purchase Intention, Brand Loyalty

variety of online shopping malls and mobile ap- Several papers have introduced three distinctive fea-

A plications provide great tools for the shopping


experience. Particularly, smart phones have be-
come essential gadgets that have opened a new
distribution channel. Mobile commerce (m-commerce) us-
tures of m-commerce (Griffin, 1996: Hagel III etc, 1997):
intuitive interaction, convenience of use, and playfulness.
Those studies examine how those factors affect the pur-
chase intention of consumers using m-commerce. Those
ing smart phones has features distinctive from those of e- studies also investigate the importance of customer prefer-
commerce using conventional personal computers. ences in m-commerce and how much they affect buying
Users have a growing number of choices in personal- behavior, and they find that the application brand prefer-
izing their phones with selective applications that range ence and price sensitivity are major variables affecting pur-
from daily shopping tools to banking transactions. Mobile chase intention.
applications expedite shopping and banking regardless of According to Juniper Research, mobile transactions
time and space restrictions. The advantages of these appli- through NFC mobile payments, which are only a small
cations have created an important commercial channel for fraction of m-commerce, are expected to soar to $205 bil-
companies and consumers. lion globally by 2015. However, few in-depth studies
The success of m-commerce depends on transaction have examined the mobile applications that are the main
safety, website design, the quality of information (Chang, drivers of m-commerce.
etc, 1994), reputation, reliability, convenience of use (Sung- I contribute to the literature in two ways with this pa-
jun Yoon, 2000), interactivity (Bauer, etc, 2000), the ad- per. First, although existing studies have often identified
vantages of using customers’ databases, good products and frequency of use as a mediating variable to determine ap-
services, easy accessibility, and cost reduction (Schubert, plication preferences (Griffin, 1996: Hagel III etc, 1997;
2000). Kim, 1998), they did not measure buying behavior. I intro-
duce consumer brand preference and verify the effect of
brand preference on buying behavior. Second, few empiri-
cal studies have examined mobile applications, despite the
growing market and interest in m-commerce. Here I suggest
Young Dong Jang*, Corresponding Author
Chief of Research Fellow, Dexmedia
relevant business strategies for m-commerce through mo-
jangmedia@gmail.com bile applications.
Young Dong Jang* / 61

Theoretical Background Schroder, and Lacobucci 2001). Not only do sellers and
buyers interact, but also buyers can provide information to
Mobile Shopping one another, boosting customers’ purchase intention and
The mobile Internet, which began in May 1999, made a leading consumers to favor certain brands or products (Ev-
basic infrastructure for mobile shopping services. The ans and Wurster 1999).
number of users has grown exponentially over time, along Companies provide consumers with necessary infor-
with the number of hours users spend with mobile applica- mation in many intuitive, interactive ways. Some online
tions, which grew 274% in 2012 compared to the year ear- sites provide 3D images of products for consumers to expe-
lier (Flurry year?). Mobile Internet has provided a new rience in online shopping malls or UCC video clips that
way of using e-commerce because mobile devices are port- show how other people are using products after their pur-
able and instantly connect to mobile Internet service. chase. Some sites try to provide customized information
The development of m-commerce relies on connection to each customer based on their past browsing or buying
with wireless mobile communication networks (Durlacher behaviors, which helps to build and reinforce customer loy-
1999), which provides a different environment from con- alty to the sites. When customers receive customized in-
ventional e-commerce. With customized mobile applica- formation, they tend to trust the information about products
tions that users download selectively, mobile devices have and services more willingly and use it as a decision-making
become a “personal multiprocessor.” criterion (Cho, 2007).
Though mobile Internet has picked up speed across Most shopping sites provide space where customers
countries, m-commerce has not yet seen the same level of can freely make comments and send feedback to share their
traction. But in some markets, such as Japan and Korea, 40% personal experiences with other online customers. Those
of online commerce was transacted via mobile phones in online communities provide useful information to potential
the first quarter of 2015 (Criteo’s report 2015). customers, particularly those with little experience in online
Walgreens, one of the largest US drugstore chains, is shopping. Sometimes information that other consumers
upgrading the pharmacy services in its mobile application, share has more power than information that sellers offer
which supports users when ordering refills or sends them officially (Seunghyun Lee, etc, 2009). Usually customers
pill notifications even when they don’t open the application. can accumulate valuable information through repeated
Chow Tai Fook, a Chinese jewelry retailer, adopted loca- online shopping experiences and use their own past experi-
tion-based service and proximity marketing with the ence as their decision-making standard for products or ser-
WeChat mobile text and voice messaging communication vices (Smith & Swinyard, 1983).
service. It generated more than $16 million by pointing out Using mobile applications to share vital information
potential retailers and brands in the proximity of customers’ about products or services between buyers and sellers or
physical locations through their mobile phones. among buyers increases customers’ satisfaction and will
Mobile ticketing is another sector that has enjoyed ex- positively influence mobile transaction intention in m-
ponential growth. Juniper Research projects that mobile commerce (Lewis, 1999). Thus,
ticketing will account for more than one in two ticket trans-
actions by 2019 as the sector expands its mobile offerings. H1: The perceived interactivity of mobile shopping appli-
(source ; mobile marketer ; “Walgreens embraces customer cations will positively affect purchase intention.
convenience with interactive lock screen notification – mo-
bile commerce daily, April 14, 2015). These convenient A second advantage of m-commerce is offering conven-
tools and applications have greatly encouraged customers to ience to customers. For instance, m-commerce uses the
engage in mobile transactions. downtime of a long commute, or it offers the ability to add
something to a digital shopping cart. Tesco, the UK's lead-
The Advantage of M-Commerce ing retailer, offers its customers a mobile app through
Although the size of a mobile display can be a constraining which they can place orders and opt for home delivery, if
factor, m-commerce provides ubiquity and comes with sev- they wish. To add to the convenience, customers can use
eral other advantages over traditional e-commerce channels. the application to scan the barcode of a product and add it
First, m-commerce has the advantage of interactivity, two- directly to their shopping cart without having to wait in a
way communication between senders and receivers, that long line at the counter for checkout. Access to remote
becomes a source for vital information (Kang 2002). In stores, especially for people not situated in major urban
the m-commerce environment, interactions between buyers centers, can be a big advantage for m-commerce users.
and sellers and interactions among buyers become easy and Convenience of use is the degree of comfort and ease
even vital to promote any mobile transaction. users feel with a certain system (Michael and Segev 1996).
A limitation of m-commerce is its virtual environment. In m-commerce, it indicates the convenience of searching
It has to satisfy customers’ needs and requirements without for information with the fewest number of clicks and in-
providing any tangible experience before they decide to cludes relevant tools and functions used in the process.
purchase products. Therefore, proper information offered Thus, convenience of use assists consumers in searching for
by shopping applications through instant interactivity is a information and making a purchase decision.
vital factor in mobile transactions (Wulf, Odekerken- Easy and user-friendly systems are accepted more
speedily and used more widely by consumers than compli-
62 / Journal of Marketing Thought

cated ones (Chiagouris, 2000). Specifically, the level of coupons are another example of this pleasure of instant
difficulty customers feel when using a certain product or gratification. Many m-commerce sites deliver digital gift
service is inversely related to their willingness to buy. coupons over mobile Internet at the click of the sender.
Therefore, being easy and convenient to use will work as an Again, both senders and receivers enjoy using this function
important factor in increasing consumer satisfaction and because they can save time and complete their missions
loyalty to a certain brand. with ease. Mobile store point systems also give pleasure to
Convenience of use can be measured by the optimiza- customers when they make their purchase on their mobile
tion of a product search (Ham 2004) or a product compari- devices. Customers gain store points they can use the next
son feature that allows users to view products side by side time they make a purchase.
instead of flipping through many pages. A convenient app Eye-catching designs and exciting interactivity with
also provides attractive page layouts, product details, and certain applications can be another pleasant experience. An
other relevant information. easy-to-navigate app that delivers a suite of key functionali-
The convenience of m-commerce empowers sellers to ties and mobile services through an intuitive, entertaining
run their businesses more efficiently as well. They can in- user interface is something customers will certainly want to
teract with customers in real time wherever they are with download and use steadily. Sellers can even provide a cus-
applications that provide updated information. Sellers can tomized website based on individualized past purchases and
also sell a wide range of products at a lowered price be- preferences. Interacting with specially customized web-
cause they do not have to bear the cost of storage. Further- sites increases customer satisfaction and creates a pleasant
more, they can receive payment instantly when customers shopping experience. Such features and systems greatly
make an m-commerce transaction and manage and maintain encourage customers to stick with mobile shopping applica-
their inventory with their own mobile applications. tions and enjoy mobile shopping with their small handheld
Convenient use of a mobile application enhances the devices. Thus,
efficiency of shopping applications, maximizing the shop-
ping experience and simplifying mobile shopping proce- H3: The playfulness of mobile shopping applications will
dures (Chiagouris, 2000). Thus, the convenience of a mo- positively affect consumer purchase intentions.
bile application will promote a decision to buy.
Brand Loyalty
H2: Convenient use of mobile shopping applications will Based on those features of m-commerce, customers form
positively affect purchase intention. their personal preferences for certain shopping applications
(Arnould & Zinkhan, 2002). Keller (2001) asserted that
The third major advantage of m-commerce is provid- brand loyalty is formed of the attitudes and favoritism of
ing playfulness to customers (Kim 2005). Playfulness refers customers toward certain brands. A preferred brand is as-
to activities that people enjoy for no particular purpose or sumed to satisfy the basic needs and expectations of con-
reason (Kim 2005). Playfulness is an important part of daily sumers and cognitively influence them to choose its prod-
life and an essential element in supporting psychological ucts or services, as well as inspire them to come back for
wellbeing with qualities such as fun, enjoyment, joyfulness, their next purchase.
and interest. Cho, Yeol and Suh, Yunjeong (2004) asserted Brand loyalty is shown as consumers continue to pur-
that smart phone users experience playfulness through a chase certain brands of products or services repeatedly and
variety of features and that playfulness is an important fac- have a favorable attitude toward a brand (Day 1968). Con-
tor in increasing user interactivity and loyalty to certain sumer preference is formed through repeated and accumu-
services. They emphasized the importance of entertainment lated experiences of purchasing and using certain brands,
factors in smart phone services. which are credited for building the tendency to favor certain
One of the many fun factors users experience when brands over others.
using m-commerce is gaining special deals on their person- Brand loyalty includes not only the quality and price
al mobile phones. As more people use m-commerce, many of products, but also the social image or lifestyle that a
companies are using m-commerce sites to reach them by brand conveys. Customers buy not only a product itself but
giving different and better deals than their competitors. also the holistic image the brand provides. Therefore, brand
They provide special coupons and deals to mobile custom- loyalty is an important factor affecting any product or ser-
ers that are not available online or in-store. Customers can vice purchase, which is why I consider brand preference as
purchase products instantly 24 hours a day without having a mediating variable for mobile shopping.
to go to a store and wait in line to use those coupons or cus- From the consumers’ point of view, a brand guaran-
tomized deals. Some stores even offer exclusive savings tees a producer’s claims and the quality of its products.
rewards to customers if they simply scan an NFC or QR Based on their past experiences, consumers instantly per-
code with their smart phones at the point of sale. ceive which brand will satisfy them and reduce their search
The instant delivery of certain digital products is a time and cost when making a purchase decision.
great pleasure m-commerce can provide. Customers can From the sellers’ point of view, a brand simplifies the
download their favorite music, movies, games, and online process of manufacturing, marketing, and distributing
programs and start using them immediately. Neither sellers products as it becomes a standard of those procedures. The
nor buyers need any physical storage space. Digital gift brand also protects the features and exterior shape of a
Young Dong Jang* / 63

FIGURE1
Research Model and Hypotheses

product from any illegal copies made by competitors and convenient tools for navigating applications might influ-
guarantees the legal right to possess certain intellectual ence even customers with high brand loyalty. Thus,
property associated with it. It surely indicates a certain
level of product or service quality and delivers a corre- H5: High brand loyalty enhances the positive relationship
sponding social and financial image. between convenience and purchase intention.
Brand loyalty can apply to mobile website shopping
malls and mobile application preferences as well as to the A playful and enjoyable mobile application surely invites
products and services they sell. A preference for mobile customers to use its functions and interesting features,
websites and applications is indicated by how much time which increases the satisfaction of their mobile shopping
customers stay with a certain site or application and the experience. Particularly, customers with relatively high
frequency of their visits, which lead to steady purchases brand loyalty will be more interested in buying an applica-
through the site or app. Recurrent experience with certain tion than customers with low brand loyalty, even if they do
applications shapes customers’ brand preferences and in- not feel playfulness in the application. Customers with rela-
creases the perceived reliability of the information on a tively high brand loyalty might not be interested in buying a
particular application when considering future purchases. different application if it does not provides greater joy than
Once brand loyalty forms in customers’ minds, they the application to which they are loyal. Thus,
tend to use the particular application for their regular shop-
ping, extending the duration and frequency of their applica- H6: High brand loyalty enhances the positive relationship
tion use. Customers use their preferred applications for fu- between playfulness and purchase intention.
ture purchases, and satisfied customers recommend their
preferred application brands to other people, acting as ad- Price Sensitivity
vertising agents to potential consumers. Moreover, custom- Price is the amount of money for which any product or ser-
ers with a high preference for a certain application will be vice is bought, sold, or offered for sale (Kotler 2010). Price
less price sensitive and more willing to purchase products is one of the most important mediating factors to any buy-
through their favorite applications, even if they have to pay ing decision (Jacoby and Olson 1997). Each individual has
a slightly higher price. Thus, insofar as customers possess his or her own perception of price and shows different sen-
brand loyalty, they are more likely to purchase a through sitivity. Price is the value of exchanging products and pos-
certain application, despite a low level of interaction be- sessing certain services and is expressed in the units of
tween buyer and seller. Thus, some form of currency (Kotler, 1993).
Customers with high price sensitivity react greatly to
H4: High brand loyalty enhances the positive relationship any price change when purchasing a product (Teller, 1988).
between interactivity and purchase intention. As online and mobile shopping increase, many companies
compete on price. Price competition among online sellers
Buyers with special loyalty to certain brands can be hard to boosts customers’ price sensitivity (Bakos, 1997).
persuade to change their favorite applications. However,
64 / Journal of Marketing Thought

TABLE 1
Items for Interactivity
Measuring Interactivity

I express my suggestions using a mobile shopping application.

I share information and opinions about mobile shopping applications with people.

TABLE 2
Items for Convenience
Measuring Convenience

A mobile shopping application is a convenient way to purchase products.

A mobile shopping application is easy to use.

A mobile shopping application provides fast access and page loading.

A mobile shopping application provides an easy user interface.

However, the in-depth product information offered by ever, when customers are price sensitive, it might negative-
a website can reduce price sensitivity because it provides ly affect purchase intention. As a key variable affecting
vital information that customers need (Shankar 1999). Cus- purchase decisions, price sensitivity will moderate the ef-
tomers want to ensure the quality or particular features of a fect of convenient application use on purchase intention.
product they are considering. Hence, as customers can Enjoyable and fun features in applications certainly have a
gain significant effect on mobile transaction intention among m-
and share accurate information about their purchase commerce users. Among price sensitive customers, howev-
experiences, price sensitivity might be mitigated. Accord- er, purchase intention might be affected by price pressure.
ingly, if mobile applications provide easy access to the in- Thus, despite the fun features of m-commerce, price might
formation customers need, they can also lessen customers’ discourage consumers from purchasing.
sensitivity to price by reducing search and time costs.
Distinguishing brand values can also mediate price H5-2: Price sensitivity will negatively moderate the posi-
sensitivity because customers obtain whatever value they tive relationship between convenience and purchase
perceive a brand to possess (Bakos, 1997). For instance, intention.
when wines were sold online, customers showed lower
price sensitivity when the wines were offered with distin- H5-3: Price sensitivity will moderate the relationship be-
guished products from particular brands than they did when tween playfulness and purchase intention.
the wines were paired with similar brands and information.
A popular application brand can ensure the proper Figure 1 presents the proposed model, the m-commerce
process for a product from purchase to delivery and thereby transaction intention model. I designed the research model
reduce customer price sensitivity. User interactivity will for this study to investigate the effect of customers’ percep-
certainly mitigate price sensitivity when customers can en- tions of interactivity, convenient use, and playfulness in
joy interesting and fun experiences while interacting with their mobile shopping applications. The model includes
certain mobile applications. customer preference for particular mobile applications and
Active and instant interactivity with shopping applica- price sensitivity as the moderating factors for their buying
tions provides essential shopping information to customers, decisions. I expect that interactivity, convenient use, and
reducing search and time costs. It also positively influences playfulness, three key components of mobile applications in
consumers to have relatively low price sensitivity insofar as m-commerce, will influence consumers’ purchase inten-
they perceive other features as more important. Thus, tion of mobile shopping applications.

H5-1: Price sensitivity will moderates the relationship be- Research Methodology
tween interactivity and purchase intention.
Sample
As discussed in H2, easy-to-navigate applications have a I collected data through personal interviews with under-
positive effect on the buying behaviors of consumers. How- graduate and graduate students and business workers in
Young Dong Jang* / 65

TABLE 3
Items for Playfulness
Measuring Playfulness

A mobile shopping application displays items with an intuitive, entertaining user interface.

A mobile shopping application contains intriguing layout and sound effects.

A mobile shopping application increases the pleasure of shopping with special discount coupons and events.

A mobile shopping application increases my vicarious pleasure in browsing various items.

TABLE 4
Items for Brand Preference
Measuring Brand Preference

My favorite mobile shopping application has a special brand image.

My favorite mobile shopping application inspires special familiarity.

My favorite mobile shopping application is reliable.

My favorite mobile shopping application will be welcomed by other people.

My favorite mobile shopping application will be popular.

TABLE 5
Items for Price Sensitivity
Measuring Price Sensitivity

I check and compare prices before buying any product.

I make an effort to purchase products at a cheaper price.

I use many mobile shopping apps to find products at a cheaper price.

I spend much time searching for products at a cheaper price.

I think I should check and compare price before making any purchase.

Seoul, Korea. The subjects for this study were mobile users sumers based on a review of Mcwilliam (2000) and Palmer
who have experience with mobile shopping applications. (2002). I use the five dimensions shown in TABLE 1 rated
The surveys began with an introductory statement that on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 equals strongly disagree, and 5
asked respondents to administer their own responses and indicates strongly agree (Likert scaling).
assured them of confidentiality. Convenience: I measure speed, searchability (easy ac-
The sample consisted of 150 respondents, including 101 cess to information), simultaneity, and display layout as the
college graduates (67.3%) and 65 office workers (44%) in main attributes of convenience and adopt items from
Korea. The male/female ratio of the sample was 48.8% and Michael & Segev (2003) and JinHee Gwan (2014).
51.3%, respectively. In the sample, 27.3% of respondents Based on their research, I use the variables in TABLE 2,
were in their twenties, and 28.7% were in their thirties. rated on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 equals strongly disagree,
and 5 indicates strongly agree.
Measure Development Playfulness: I posit playfulness as increased enjoy-
Interactivity: I identify the interactivity of a mobile shop- ment experienced through pleasant interactivity with a mo
ping application as the capability of exchanging useful in-
formation between sellers and consumers and among con-
66 / Journal of Marketing Thought

TABLE 6
Items for Purchase Intention
Measuring Purchase Intention

I intend to purchase products on mobile shopping applications.

I intend to use my current shopping applications for my future purchases.

I intend to give priority to products offered by my current shopping applications.

I intend to purchase products on my favorite apps, even if the price is slightly higher.

I consider my favorite application first when I purchase anything on my mobile.

TABLE 7
Correlation Coefficients

Interactivity Convenience Playfulness Brand Loyalty Price Sens. Pur.Inten.

Interactivity 1 .198* .443** .343** -.014 .248**

.002

150
Convenience .198* 1 .529** .458** .284** .540**

.000

150
Playfulness .443** .529** 1 .684** .319** .585**

.000

150
Brand Loyalty .343** .458** .684** 1 .362** .721**

.000

150
Price Sensitivity -.014 .284** .319** .362** 1 .521**

.000

150
Purchase Inten- .248** .540** .585** .721** .521** 1
tion

150
Young Dong Jang* / 67

TABLE 8
Reliability Analysis
Construct Items Cronbach’s alpha
Dependent variables Interactivity 2 .600 (correlation)
(App features) Convenience 4 .885
Playfulness 4 .758
Dependent variables Purchase Intention 5 .722
Mediating variables Brand Preference 5 .850
Price Sensitivity 5 .868

TABLE 9
Convergent and Discriminant Validity for App Factors Using SPSS
Average loading Variance extracted
Factor 1 (convenience) 0.858582474 0.737164
Factor 2 (playfulness) 0.748515904 0.560276
Factor 3 (interactivity) 0.786256611 0.618199

Variance extracted between


Correlation Correlation square
factors

Factor 1 and Factor 2 0.648719962 .457 0.209266


Factor 2 and Factor 3 0.589237759 .269 0.072179
Factor 1 and Factor 3 0.677681662 .063 0.003957
Variance extracted > correlation
Correlation square Variance extracted
square
Factor 1 and Factor 2 0.209266 0.64872 Yes
Factor 2 and Factor 3 0.072179 0.589238 Yes
Factor 1 and Factor 3 0.003957 0.677682 Yes

bile shopping application, based on the studies of Nam agree, and 5 indicates strongly agree.
(2007) and Hwang (2003). I define the variables as shown
in TABLE 3, rated on a 1 to 5 scale where 1 equals strongly Reliability and Validity Tests
disagree, and 5 indicates strongly agree. I assessed internal consistency by computing Cronbach’s
Brand preference: I define brand preference as strong alpha. As shown in TABLE 7, Cronbach’s alpha was great-
favoritism toward certain brands as a decisive factor in a er than 0.70, which proves the reliability of the data, in ac-
buying decision, based on Elen & Jose Luis (2001) and cordance with Nunnally’s standard (Nunnally 1967).
Erdem & Swait (1998). The items are shown in TABLE 4, Convergent and discriminant validity work together.
rated on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 equals strongly disagree, To establish convergent validity, measures should be re-
and 5 indicates strongly agree. lated are in reality related. To establish discriminant va-
Price sensitivity: I define price sensitivity as the desire lidity, measures should not be related are in reality not re-
to purchase products or services at a cheaper price and lated.
measure it using the attributes in TABLE 5, based on Shan- The convergent correlations should be higher than the
kar, Rangawamy & Pustein (1999) and rated on a 1 to 5 discriminant ones. I would conclude from this that the cor-
scale, where 1 equals never, and 5 indicates almost always. relation matrix provides evidence for both convergent and
Purchase intention: I define purchase intention as the discriminant validity.
conscious plan to purchase a specific brand (Spears & In TABLE 8 below, the item intercorrelations for all
Singh, 2004). Purchase intention indicates a planned behav- item pairings are very high. This provides evidence that the
ior in the future and thus is the probability that beliefs and theory that three items are related to the same construct is
attitudes will develop into an actual purchase (Blackwell &. supported.
Miniard & Engel, 2006). I use the variables shown in TA- These three cross-construct correlations are very low
BLE 6, rated on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 equals strongly dis- and certainly much lower than the convergent correlations.
68 / Journal of Marketing Thought

TABLE 10
Convergent and Discriminant Validity for App Factors Using SPSS
Average loading Variance extracted

Factor 1 (brand loyalty) 0.812781 0.660613


Factor 2 (price sensitivity) 0.790063 0.6242

Variance extracted be-


Correlation Correlation square
tween factors

Factor 1 and Factor 2 0.642406 0.36 0.1296


Variance extracted > Correlation
Correlation square Variance extracted
square
Factor 1 and Factor 2 0.1296 0.642406 Yes
The variance extracted > correlation square; hence discriminant validity is established.

TABLE 11
Application Features and Purchase Intention
Standardized
Model Unstandardized Coefficient t Significance
coefficients
B Std. error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.414 .227 6.240 .000

Interactivity .001 .052 .001 .021 .983


Convenience .265 .062 .320 4.292 .000
Playfulness .365 .072 .414 5.081 .000
a. Dependent variable: purchase intention
The correlations do provide evidence that the sets of BLE 11 (R2=.416). Convenient use (β=.321, ρ=.000) and
measures are discriminated from each other. variance ex- playfulness (β=.414, ρ=.000) significantly influence mobile
tracted > correlation square, hence discriminant validity transaction intention. Therefore, H2 and H3 can be accept-
established. ed. However, perceived interactivity (β=0.001, ρ=.983) has
The variance extracted > correlation square; hence no significant effect on purchase intention, and thus H1
discriminant validity is established. In TABLE 10 below, cannot be accepted.
the item intercorrelations for all item pairings are very high. To examine the contribution of the three features in
This provides evidence that the theory that two items are forming customer preference for certain mobile application
related to the same construct is supported. brands and transaction intention using mobile commerce, I
These two cross-construct correlations are very low conducted multiple regression analyses.
and certainly much lower than the convergent correlations. I measured mobile application preference using two
The correlations do provide evidence that the sets of groups: consumers with high brand loyalty and those with
measures are discriminated from each other. variance ex- low brand loyalty. The mean of brand loyalty was 3.3880. I
tracted > correlation square, hence discriminant validity classified respondents with values higher than the median
established. as the high brand preference group and those with values
lower than the mean as the low brand preference group.
Hypothesis tests and results The multiple regression result in the high brand loyal-
To test the effects of the three distinctive features of mobile ty group was R2=.348. For this group, interactivity (β=.100,
shopping applications on behavioral intention to make a ρ=.341) has no significant influence on purchase intention,
purchase decision, I used multiple regression analyses. I with a p value greater than 0.05. However, convenience
selected interactivity, convenience, and playfulness as in- of use (β=.280, ρ=.010) and playfulness (β=.363, ρ=.002)
dependent variables that exercise critical influence on buy- both play important roles in purchase intention.
ing behavior. The multiple regression result for the low brand loyal-
The multiple regression analysis is displayed in TA- ty group was R2=.141. For this group, interactivity (β=.084,
Young Dong Jang* / 69

TABLE 12
a
Coefficients Between Application Features and Brand Preference
In High Brand Preference Group
Standardized
Model Unstandardized Coefficient t Significance
Coefficients

1 (Constant) 1.855 .343 5.416 .000

Interactivity .062 .065 .100 .959 .341


Convenience .200 .076 .280 2.634 .010
Playfulness .300 .092 .363 3.240 .002
a. Dependent variable: purchase intention

TABLE 13
a
Coefficients Between Application Features and Brand Preference
in Low Brand Preference Group
Standardized
Model Unstandardized Coefficient t Significance
Coefficients
B Std. error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.775 .836 2.123 .044

Interactivity -.066 .160 -.084 -.415 .682


Convenience .084 .221 .088 .380 .707
Playfulness .405 .293 .328 1.382 .180
a. Dependent variable: purchase intention
ρ=.682), convenience of use (β=.088, ρ=.707), and playful ρ=.000) both play important roles in purchase intention.
ness (β=.328, ρ=.180) exert no significant influence on pur- The multiple regression result for the low-sensitive
chase intention, with a p value greater than 0.05. group was R2=.275. For this group, interactivity (β=.035,
The difference between the groups with different ρ=.743) and convenience of use (β=.232, ρ=.059) exert no
brand loyalty is acknowledged in both convenience of use significant influence on purchase intention, with a p value
and playfulness. The more an application is convenient and greater than 0.05. However, playfulness (β=.341, ρ=.010)
playful, the greater the effect convenience and playfulness plays an important role in purchase intention.
have on purchase intention, but only among the group with The difference between the groups with different price
high brand loyalty. Therefore, H4-2 and H4-3 are accepted, sensitivity is acknowledged only in the case of convenience
and H4-1 is rejected. of use, which has an important effect on purchase intention
only in the high-sensitive group. However, this result con-
Price sensitivity test tradicts expectations. Therefore, H5-1, H5-2, and H5-3 are
I used multiple regression analyses to verify the relation- all rejected.
ship between the three application features (interactivity,
convenience, playfulness) and price sensitivity. I measured Test result summary
price sensitivity using two groups: consumers with high The results of the hypothesis testing indicate that two ele-
price sensitivity and those with low price sensitivity. ments of mobile shopping applications, convenience of use
The mean of price sensitivity was 4.0307. I classified and playfulness, play an important role in consumer trans-
respondents with values higher than the median as the action intentions. Interactivity has no noticeable effect on
high-sensitive group and those with values lower than the purchase intention. When considering price sensitivity as a
mean as the low-sensitive group. moderating factor, I found no significant results. As for
The multiple regression result for the high-sensitive brand loyalty, both convenience of use and playfulness sig-
group was R2=.416. For this group, interactivity (β=.047, nificantly affect purchase intention in the high brand loyalty
ρ=.666) exerts no significant influence on purchase inten- group.
tion, with a p value greater than 0.05. However, conven-
ience of use (β=.332, ρ=.002) and playfulness (β=.445,
70 / Journal of Marketing Thought

TABLE 14
Coefficientsa Between Application Features and Price Sensitivity
In High-Sensitive Group
Standardized
Model Unstandardized Coefficient t Significance
Coefficients
B Std. error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.653 .297 5.562 .000

Interactivity .033 .075 .047 .434 .666


Convenience .238 .074 .332 3.221 .002
Playfulness .338 .088 .445 3.861 .000
a. Dependent variable: purchase intention

commerce, the field lacks an adequate theory to address


Discussion mobile application functions and preferences.
By reviewing the literature and identifying the key
In this study, I identify three components of mobile components of multidimensional mobile application func-
shopping applications and test their effects on purchase tionalities, I have here provided a theoretical step toward a
intention when using a mobile application. I also test the more comprehensive understanding of the mechanism of
moderating effects of a preference for mobile application mobile shopping behavior in an m-commerce environment.
brands and customer price sensitivity on the behavioral Based on the relational perspective of interactivity, conven-
intention to make a purchase through a mobile shopping ience, and playfulness in mobile applications in m-
application. commerce, marketers can find ways to interact with cus-
By indicating the relevance of brand loyalty and the tomers anytime and anywhere with enhanced convenience
main components of mobile shopping applications in the and playfulness, features that should be regarded as crucial
proposed model, this study makes a theoretical and empiri- factors for customer relationship building.
cal contribution to the literature. Specifically, I validate a
theory-driven research model for how to influence customer Limitations and future study
transaction intentions in mobile shopping applications. My I conducted this research using a small sample size, which
results suggest that convenience of use and playfulness might not adequately represent the total population using
have a significant effect on customer trust in mobile appli- mobile applications. Future research in this area can be
cations, which could extend into relationship building and done on a larger scale, possibly nationwide or even world-
explain customer preference for certain application brands. wide.
Researchers can also consider gender-wise research
Implications for preferences in mobile applications and purchase inten-
This research explains how the characteristics of mobile tion, which I did not examine in the current research. Fur-
applications could affect customer purchase intentions ther research can also address the three characteristics of
within certain application brands in an m-commerce context. mobile shopping applications from the sellers’ perspective,
Although several different theoretical perspectives from a as I focused on the perspective of consumers.
variety of disciplines have addressed specific aspects of m-

TABLE 15
Coefficientsa Between Application Features and Price Sensitivity
In Low-Sensitive Group
Standardized
Model Unstandardized Coefficient t Significance
Coefficients
B Std. error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.550 .363 4.272 .000

Interactivity .024 .074 .035 .330 .743


Convenience .214 .112 .232 1.919 .059
Playfulness .327 .125 .341 2.624 .010
a. Dependent variable: purchase intention
Young Dong Jang* / 71

Hagel III, John and Arthur G. Armstrong (1997), Net Gain:


<Received June 09, 2015> Expanding Market Through Virtual Communites,
<Received Review June 22, 2015> Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
<Accepted August 28, 2015>
Holzwarth, Martin, Chris Jniszewski and Marcus M. Neu-
mann (2006), “The influence of Avatars on Online
Consumer Shopping Behavior,” Journal of Marketing,
REFERENCES 70, 19-36

Anderson, Rolph E. and Srini S. Srinivasan (2003), “E- Jacoby, Jacob (1971), “A Model of Multi-Brand Loyalty,”
Satisfaction and E-Loyalty: A Contingency Frame- Journal of Advertising Research, 11 (3), 25-31
work,” Psychology and Marketing, 20 (2), 123-138
____________and Jerry C. Olon (1997), “Consumer Re-
Arnould, Eric J., Linda L. Price and George martin Zinkhan sponse to Price: An Attitudinal, Information Pro-
(2002), Consumers, 2nd ed, New York: Mcgraw- cessing Perspective, in Moving Ahead with Attitude
Hill/Richard D. Irwin Research,” Wind, Y. and Greenberg, M. (eds), Ameri-
can Marketing Association, Chicago, 73-86
Bakos, Yannis J. (1997), “Reducing Buyer Search Costs:
Impliations for Electronic Market-Places,” Manage- Keller, Kevin Lane (2001), “Mastering the Marketing
ment Science, 43(12), 1676-1692 Communication Mix: Micro and Macro Perspectives
on Integrated Marketing Communication Programs,”
Bauer, Hans H., Mark Grether and Mark Leach (2002), Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 819-847.
“Building Customer Relations over the Internet,” In-
dustrial Marketing Management, 31(2), 155-163 Kim, Minseo (2007), “Visual Humor Interactive on Web-
sites : Renewed Brand Website,” Information and De-
Chiagouris, larry and Brant Wansley (2000), “Branding on sign Research, 10, 23-38.
the Internet,” Marketing Management, 9(2), 34-38
Kotler, Philip (1965), “Behavioral Models for Analyzing
Cho, HyunJin (2007), “The Effect of Turst and Distrust on Buyers,” Journal of Marketing, 29 (4), 37-45.
the Purchase Intention at Internet Shopping Mall,”
Journal of Commodity Science and Technology, 25(2), ___________ (1993), “The Major Tasks of Marketing
85-95 Management,” Marketing Management, 2 (3), 52-56.

Cho, Youl, Seo, YounJung (2004), “Amusable Structure Kotler, Philip and Gary Armstrong (2010) Principles of
of the Visual Perception in Visual Communication Marketing, 13th Ed. Pearson Education.
Design,” Korean Society of Basic Design & Art, 5(1),
227-237. Louise Balle, Demand Media (2015), “Characteristics of
Mobile Commerce,” Hearts newspapers. Retrieved
Criteo (2015), “State of Mobile Commerce Q1” Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/characteristics-
from http://www.criteo.com/resources/mobile- mobile-commerce-2197.html
commerce-q1-2015/
Lee, Seunghyun, Shin, Hyungwon, Jung, Taesoo (2009),
Day, George S. (1968), “A Two-Dimensional Concept of “Online Brand Communication Strategy for Compa-
Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Advertising research, 9(3), nies,” Issue Paper, Samsung Economic Research Insti-
29-35 tute

Durlacher (1999) “Mobile Commerce Report,” Michael, Bloch, Yves Pigneur and Arie Segev (1996), “On
Durlacher Research Ltd. Retrieved from the Road of Electronic Commerce-A Business Value
http://www.durlacher.com Framework,” Gaining Competitive Advantage and
Some Research Issues.
Evans, Philip and Thomas S. Wurster (1999), Blown to Bit:
How the New Economics of Information Transforms Spears, Nancy and Steve Singh (2004), “Measuring attitude
Strategy, Harvard Business School Press. toward the brand and purchase intentions,” Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2),
Griffin, Jill (1996), “The Internet’s Expanding Role in 53-66.
Building Customer Loyalty,” Direct Marketing Gar-
den City, 59(7), 50-53 Park, Sangkyu, Guhyun Won, Hongsik Ham (2005), “A
Effect of Internet Shopping Mall’ Perceived Ease of
72 / Journal of Marketing Thought

Use and Usefulness on Trust, Satisfaction and Loyal-


ty,” NuriMedia, 22(1), 83-101

Paul Rakowski, Robert Hasson and Reshma Patil (2012),


“Upward mobility” industry report by Accenture. Re-
trieved from http://www.accenture.com/us-
en/outlook/Pages/outlook-journal-2012-upward-
mobility.aspx

Blackwell, Roger D., Paul W. Miniard, and James F. Engel


(2006), “Consumer behavior: 10th ed.,” Thomson
South-Western, Thomson Higher Education.

Shankar, Venkatesh, Arvind Rangaswamy and Michael


Pusateri (1999), Customer Price Sensitivity and the
Online Medium, Working Paper.

Smith, Robert E. and William R. Swinyard (1983), “Atti-


tude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product
Trial Versus Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 20 (8), 257-267.

______________(1998), “Can You Bribe Your Way to


Customer Loyalty? Frequency Marketing Strategies,”
Strategic Research Institute, New York.

Teller, Gerard J. (1988), “The Price Elasticity of Selective


Demand: A Meta-Analysis of Econometric Model of
Sales,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (11), 331-
341.

Thomas M. Alexander (1987), John Dewey’s Theory of Art,


Experience, and nature: The Horizons of Feeling, New
York.

Wulf, Kristof De, Gaby Odekerken-Schroder and Dawn


Lacobucci (2001), “Investments in Consumer Rela-
tionships: A Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Explo-
ration,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (4), 33-50.

You might also like