Table 2.
The measurement model (convergent validity).
| Constructs items (reflective) | Number of items | Number of items deleted | K | α > 0.7 | e | C.R. > 0.7 | AVE > 0.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCM in social media Koiso-Kanttila, 2004; Rowley, 2008; Holliman, 2014; Ahmad et al., 2016; Hollebeek and Macky, 2019 |
3 | 0 | 0.761 | 0.743 | 0.502 | ||
| DCM1: DCM under MR environment provides enough details and information about the Product/Service (e.g., the materials of the product/the functions of the product/some ideas to better utilize the product). | 0.765 | 0.58 | |||||
| DCM2: The Product/Service described in DCM under MR environment is attractive. | 0.751 | 0.56 | |||||
| DCM3: DCM under MR environment is relatively less intrusive than the paid-advertisement marketing campaign. | 0.821 | 0.27 | |||||
| Perceived value of the Product/Service Chinomona et al., 2013 |
3 | 0 | 0.863 | 0.749 | 0.503 | ||
| V1: I can perceive a great value of the Product/Service described in DCM. | 0.835 | 0.72 | |||||
| V2: It is worth the price to have the Product/Service described in DCM under MR environment. | 0.812 | 0.66 | |||||
| V3: The description in DCM under MR environment let me realized that the Product/Service can cater to my needs. | 0.873 | 0.76 | |||||
| Immediate OPI Koiso-Kanttila, 2004; Rowley, 2008; Holliman, 2014 |
5 | 0 | 0.834 | 0.833 | 0.621 | ||
| IPI 1: I want to buy the Product/Service because I found it has powerful features. | 0.731 | 0.53 | |||||
| IPI 2: The more I know the Product/Service, the more OPI on it. | 0.671 | 0.44 | |||||
| IPI 3: I want to buy the Product/Service because I believe I can make good use of it to improve my living quality. | 0.702 | 0.49 | |||||
| IPI 4: I want to buy the Product/Service because the excellent quality described in DCM. | 0.773 | 0.59 | |||||
| IPI 5: I want to buy the Product/Service because I believe it can create great value. | 0.773 | 0.59 | |||||
| Customer engagement Hollebeek and Macky, 2019 |
3 | 0 | 0.862 | 0.717 | 0.499 | ||
| CE1: DCM under MR environment is interactive that the communication between me and the company is bilateral. | 0.861 | 0.73 | |||||
| CE2: I have different ways to contact the companies/sellers, which adopted DCM under MR environment, either like, comment, direct message, story interaction, or hashtags in social media. | 0.892 | 0.77 | |||||
| CE3: I have positive customer experiences as I can get assistance in time. | 0.791 | 0.83 | |||||
| Trust on seller Hollebeek and Macky, 2019 |
4 | 0 | 0.840 | 0.803 | 0.505 | ||
| T1: More communication with the editor can leverage the trust on the company. | 0.761 | 0.58 | |||||
| T2: I can gain more Brand Trust by reviewing the comments from other users. | 0.753 | 0.56 | |||||
| T3: The continuous interaction makes me believe the company is trustworthy and reliable. | 0.774 | 0.59 | |||||
| T4: I believe that more customer engagement interprets the company cares what its customer wants so that they can offer a better and suitable Product/Service. | 0.771 | 0.55 | |||||
| Long-term OPI Ahmad et al., 2016; Hollebeek and Macky, 2019 |
4 | 0 | 0.829 | 0.798 | 0.501 | ||
| LPI 1: I will be at ease if the company cares about their followers, for example: gives a response to any enquires in time. | 0.852 | 0.73 | |||||
| LPI 2: The company is reliable if the company tackles the customer’s problem reasonably. | 0.811 | 0.65 | |||||
| LPI 3: I will shop online if the seller gains positive comments from other users. | 0.753 | 0.58 | |||||
| LPI 4: The reliable seller can leverage my OPI. | 0.632 | 0.39 |