The effect of perceived convenience and perceived value on intention to repurchase in online shopping: the mediating effect of e-WOM and trust

Figures & data

Figure 1. The research framework concept.

Source: Authors.

Table 2. Demographic profile.

Age		Frequency	Percent
	20-30	198	67
	31-40 41-50 50+	63 25 12	21 8 4
Monthly incomes		Frequency	Percent
	Up to 300EU	96	32
	310-500EU	78	26
	501-700EU	56	19
	More than 7001EU	68	23
Any Bank card holder		Frequency	Percent
	Yes	298	100
	No	0
Online experience		Frequency	Percent
	Negative	72	24
	Nor negative nor positive	63	21
	Positive	163	55

Source: Authors.

Table 1. Construct items.

Constructs	Code items	Source
Access convenience	AC1. I can buy products from online stores at any time AC2. I can order products online from wherever I am AC3. The website is always accessible	Jiang et al. (2013); Benoit et al. (2017)
Search convenience	SC1. I can find the desired products quickly	Jiang et al. (2013); Benoit et al. (2017)
	SC2.It is easy to understand the information and navigate the website of the online store
	SC3. It is easy to follow product classification
	SC4. A variety of products are available in the online store
Evaluation convenience	EC1. The online store describes the characteristics of the products	Jiang et al. (2013); Benoit et al. (2017)
	EC2. The online store provides enough information to identify different products
	EC3. The online store describes the product in words and pictures
Transaction convenience	TC1. I can shop online without difficulty	Jiang et al. (2013); Benoit et al. (2017)
	TC2. The online store offers flexible payment methods
	TC3. The online store enables online product payment in a simple and convenient way
Post purchase convenience	PPC1. All the products I ordered have arrived	Jiang et al. (2013); Benoit et al. (2017)
	PPC2. Prices have been identical to those on the online invoice
	PPC3. The products were delivered undamaged to me
	PPC4. Products were delivered on time
Trust	Trust1. I trust the information on the website of the online store
	Trust2. I trust the online store as it offers me convenient options for returning items.	Raman (2019); Doney and Cannon (1997)
	Trust3. I trust the online store as it offers a guarantee for my purchases
	Trust4. I trust the online store as it seems safe
	Trust5. The online store website protects my credit card information
	Trust6. I trust the online store as it keeps my personal information safe
	Trust7. I trust the administrators of the online store that will not misuse my personal information
	Trust8. The online store protects information about my behaviour as a consumer
	Trust9. I believe in the support provided by the customer service employees
e-WOM	WOM1. I leave positive comments with others about this online store	Kajtazi and Zeqiri (2020)
	WOM2. I recommend this online store to anyone who seeks my advice
	WOM3. I encourage friends and others to buy goods from this online store
Perceived value	PV1. The prices of products and services available in the online store are lower than in the physical store	De Toni et al. (2018)
	PV2. Overall, the value I get from shopping at the online store justifies the money and effort
	PV3. In general, it is very convenient for me to buy from the online store
Repurchase intention	RI1. I intend to visit this online store again in the future	Toska et al. (2022)
	RI2. I will continue to repurchase from this online store

Source: Authors.

Table 3. Construct items loadings.

Constructs	Items	Factor loadings	Mean	STDEV	VIF
Access convenience	AC1	0.835	4.057	0.855	1.621
	AC2	0.809	4.077	0.968	1.627
	AC3	0.842	4.007	0.875	1.535
Search convenience	SC1	0.804	4.074	0.877	1.645
	SC2	0.841	4.020	0.870	2.104
	SC3	0.822	4.017	0.869	2.199
	SC4	0.743	4.233	0.836	1.646
Evaluation convenience	EC1	0.897	3.755	0.947	2.309
	EC2	0.903	3.732	0.891	2.502
	EC3	0.834	4.081	0.840	1.802
Transaction convenience	TC1	0.805	4.101	0.896	1.385
	TC2	0.824	3.859	0.923	1.759
	TC3	0.853	4.094	0.793	1.811
Post purchase convenience	PPC1	0.819	4.107	0.949	1.885
	PPC2	0.822	4.319	0.770	1.851
	PPC3	0.809	4.221	0.838	1.738
	PPC4	0.762	3.668	1.084	1.543
Trust	Trust1	0.799	3.631	0.979	2.256
	Trust2	0.798	3.725	0.965	2.709
	Trust3	0.819	3.597	1.026	3.470
	Trust4	0.847	3.661	0.946	3.293
	Trust5	0.771	3.617	0.980	2.830
	Trust6	0.845	3.654	0.982	4.044
	Trust7	0.848	3.631	0.951	4.628
	Trust8	0.856	3.745	0.876	4.253
	Trust9	0.786	3.809	0.848	2.550
e-WOM	WOM1	0.891	3.839	0.868	2.536
	WOM2	0.924	3.886	0.819	3.042
	WOM3	0.899	3.782	0.932	2.428
Perceived value	PV1	0.764	3.530	1.150	1.513
	PV2	0.823	3.691	0.982	1.587
	PV3	0.812	3.681	1.050	1.299
Repurchase intention	RI1	0.951	3.916	0.779	2.871
	RI2	0.950	3.859	0.803	2.871

Source: Authors.

Table 4. Construct reliability.

Construct	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	AVE
Access convenience	0.774	0.868	0.687
Evaluation convenience	0.852	0.910	0.772
Perceived value	0.724	0.841	0.639
Post purchase convenience	0.817	0.879	0.645
Repurchase intention	0.893	0.949	0.904
Search convenience	0.818	0.879	0.646
Transaction convenience	0.770	0.867	0.685
Trust	0.939	0.948	0.671
e-WOM	0.890	0.931	0.819

Source: Authors.

Table 5. Discriminant validity.

	AC	EC	PV	PPC	RI	SC	TC	Trust	e-WOM
AC	0.829
EC	0.531	0.878
PV	0.354	0.379	0.799
PPC	0.412	0.457	0.325	0.803
RI	0.452	0.509	0.588	0.458	0.951
SC	0.584	0.545	0.263	0.491	0.397	0.804
TC	0.512	0.565	0.338	0.590	0.439	0.581	0.828
Trust	0.453	0.528	0.395	0.513	0.55	0.465	0.498	0.819
e-WOM	0.379	0.466	0.505	0.414	0.633	0.329	0.442	0.554	0.905

Source: Authors.

Table 6. Higher order construct validity.

HOC	LOCs	Outer weight	T statistics	P values	Outer loadings	VIF
Convenience	Access	0.261	11.852	0.000	0.772	1.735
	Search	0.216	10.158	0.000	0.795	1.946
	Evaluation	0.288	15.810	0.000	0.802	1.760
	Transaction	0.251	12.346	0.000	0.823	2.067
	Post purchase	0.254	10.943	0.000	0.746	1.643

Source: Authors.

Figure 2. Structural equation modelling.

Source: Authors.

Table 7. Hypotheses testing.

	Hypotheses	Path coefficient	STDEV	T statistics	P values
H1	Perceived convenience -> Perceived value	0.422	0.054	7.892	0.000
H2	Perceived convenience -> Repurchase intention	0.224	0.063	3.369	0.001
H3	Perceived value -> Repurchase intention	0.286	0.062	4.720	0.000
H4	Perceived value -> Trust	0.394	0.052	7.531	0.000
H5	Perceived value -> e-WOM	0.504	0.056	9.057	0.000
H6	Trust -> Repurchase intention	0.136	0.063	2.177	0.030
H7	e-WOM -> Repurchase intention	0.293	0.062	4.842	0.000

Source: Authors.

Table 8. Mediation effects.

Mediation effect	Path coefficient	STDEV	T statistics	P values
Perceived value -> e-WOM -> Repurchase intention	0.151	0.036	4.210	0.000
Perceived value -> Trust -> Repurchase intention	0.054	0.029	1.879	0.060
Perceived convenience -> Perceived value -> Trust	0.167	0.039	4.315	0.000
Perceived convenience -> Perceived value -> e-WOM	0.213	0.043	4.913	0.000

Source: Authors.

Handi, H., Hendratono, T., Purwanto, E., & Ihalauw, J. J. (2018). The effect of e-WOM and perceived value on the purchase decision of foods by using the go-food application as mediated by trust. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 22(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v22i2.1062

 Google Scholar

Banerjee, S., & Sreejesh, S. (2022). Examining the role of customers’ intrinsic motivation on continued usage of mobile banking: a relational approach. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-06-2021-0216

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kuo, Y. F., Wu, C. M., & Deng, W. J. (2009). The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 887–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Toni, D., Eberle, L., Larentis, F., & Milan, G. S. (2018). Antecedents of perceived value and repurchase intention of organic food. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24(4), 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1314231

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hasani, V. V., & Zeqiri, J. (2015). Using factor analysis tool to analyze the important packaging elements that impact consumer buying behavior. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 5(6), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v5-i6/1677

 Google Scholar

Chen, Q., & Wells, W. D. (1999). Attitude toward the site. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(5), 27–37.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ramayah, T., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. Pearson.

 Google Scholar