Cited by 12Technology Adoption and User BehaviourConsumer Behavior and Marketing InfluenceDigital Marketing and Social Media

Investigating the trust entities that influence consumers’ purchase intention in livestream e-commerce from trust transfer perspective: using analysis of SEM and fsQCA

Open access
Zhang, Yifei, Albattat, Ahmad, Rehman, Asad Ur, Azam, S. M. Ferdous·2025·Cogent Business & Management

Abstract

Livestream commerce’s operational challenges require deeper trust mechanism analysis to improve sales conversion. Integrating social cognitive and trust transfer theories, this study examines how trust in streamers, products, platforms, co-viewers and brands collectively influences purchase intention, employing SEM and fsQCA on 439 experienced consumers. PLS-SEM results indicate that trust in streamer, product, brand, platform and co-viewer significantly affect PIs. Trust in streamer and product mediate co-viewers’ indirect influence on purchase intention, while trust in platform transfers through streamer, product and brand. Among the five configurations identified by the fsQCA, the core drivers are trust in the streamer, co-viewers and brand (or platform trust), whereas trust in the product functions as a secondary condition. Theoretically, this study deepens social cognitive theory (SCT) by showing how individual cognition and social environments jointly shape trust and drive PI. It also enriches trust transfer theory (TTT) through a multilevel perspective that clarifies directional pathways. It further advances understanding of trust dynamics by revealing asymmetric interactions across trust levels in livestream e-commerce. Practically, platforms should prioritize security and transparency; vendors and streamers should enhance real-time interactions and authentic demonstrations to strengthen trust transfer. Brands should strategically emphasize their commitment to customers or create an interactive atmosphere.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23311975.2025.2582220

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 10.31004/innovative.v5i1.17045 · DOI
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  3. Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (2005). Socio-cognitive theory of trust. J. Pitt. Wiley.
  4. Dang, T. P. C., Nguyen, V. H., Pham, V. T., Nguyen, A. T., & Nguyen, H. T. (2024). Customer experience management in retail business: A theoretical debate. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 4(5), 854–863. https://www.multiresearchjournal.com/admin/uploads/archives/archive-1729165534.pdf
  5. Diputra, I. G. N. A. W. M., & Yasa, N. N. K. (2021). The influence of product quality, brand image, brand trust on customer satisfaction and loyalty. American International Journal of Business Management (AIJBM), 4(1), 25–34. https://www.aijbm.com
  6. Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3), 104–110. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kraig-Finstad/publication/265929744_Response_Interpolation_and_Scale_Sensitivity_Evidence_Against_5-Point_Scales/links/5b23fe4aaca272277fb27252/Response-Interpolation-and-Scale-Sensitivity-Evidence-Against-5-Point-Scales.pdf
  7. 10.1177/0149206310397213 · DOI
  8. 10.1080/21515581.2018.1525471 · DOI
  9. Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
  10. Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. Wiley.
  11. iResearch. (2024). China live streaming e-commerce industry research report. iResearch Consulting Group.
  12. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102349 · DOI
  13. 10.52970/armapb.v5i1.782 · DOI
  14. Oosterwyk, G., Elo, J., & Watkowski, L. (2025). Building trust in data-driven decision-making: A multi-level framework. AMCIS 2025: Proceedings of the 31st Americas Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2025/data_science/sig_dsa/12
  15. Pan L. & Hong X. (2023). Turning perceived value into created value in blockchain traceability: The role of trust. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4811558 · DOI
  16. Pearse, N. (2011). Deciding on the scale granularity of response categories of likert type scales: The case of a 21-point scale. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 159–171. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm/article/view/1278/1241
  17. 10.1287/orsc.14.1.5.12812 · DOI
  18. Syed, M., Ahmed, O., Azher, E., Salman, S., Siddiqui, H. M. A., & Javed, S. (2025). The impact of influencer marketing on consumer purchase intention: The mediating role of trust, content, consumer engagement, and popularity. Advance Social Science Archive Journal, 3(01), 147–166. https://assajournal.com/index.php/36/article/view/134
  19. Wiyata, Hsu, J. S.-C., Hung, Y. W., & Chiu, C. M. (2022). Cross-border social commerce: From a trust transfer perspective. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 23(2), 115–137. http://ojs.jecr.org/jecr/sites/default/files/2022vol23no2_Paper4.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, Y., Albattat, A., Rehman, A. U., & Azam, S. M. F.
Affiliations
  • Management and Science University (MY)
  • Taman Teknologi Malaysia, Asia Pacific University of Technology & Innovation (APU)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Yifei
Venue
Cogent Business & Management
Published
2025-11-10
Volume
12
Issue
1
ISSN
2331-1975 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416071171
Cited by
6
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 6
FWCI
6.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cogent Business & Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
purchase intention, trust transfer, platform trust, brand trust, product trust, social cognitive theory, trust transfer theory, consumer trust, sales conversion

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