Cited by 471Technology Adoption and User BehaviourConsumer Behavior and Marketing InfluenceDigital Marketing and Social Media

Factors affecting online group buying intention and satisfaction: A social exchange theory perspective

Shiau, Wen-Lung, Luo, Margaret Meiling·2012·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.030

Cites

138 of 138 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shiau, W.-L., & Luo, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Ming Chuan University (TW)
  • Strayer University (US)
Corresponding author
Luo, Margaret Meiling
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
2431-2444
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970556277
Cited by
471
References
138
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 5
FWCI
39.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
online group buying, consumer purchase intention, customer satisfaction, social exchange theory, reciprocity, trust, online reputation, continuance intention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review