Exploring the meteoric rise of online food ordering apps (OFOAs): the moderating role of visibility
Abstract
Purpose: Online food ordering apps (OFOAs) have become increasingly popular, and consumers have widely recognized their benefits, particularly during pandemics or lockdowns. Despite the growing popularity of OFOAs, little is known about technology acceptance theories and their impact on purchase intention. The current study proposes the amalgamation of three theories to bridge this gap, better explaining customer behaviour toward OFOAs. Design/methodology/approach: To create a model, the researcher applied technology acceptance theories, visibility and purchase intention. To obtain results, the researcher used structural equation modelling (SEM) and moderation analysis on 432 responses obtained through a questionnaire. Findings: According to the research, all constructs were found to have a favourable and significant impact on the intention to use OFOAs, except compatibility. The moderating effect of visibility on intent to purchase is shown in the study. The study's findings add to the knowledge of consumer behaviour and practice. Research limitations/implications: This work sheds light on technology acceptance theories that ensure that OFOA platforms are used indefinitely. Furthermore, the significance of visibility as a mediator of purchase intention provides a deep insight into customer behaviour. Originality/value: This model, which combines technology acceptance theories' original constructs with visibility to moderate purchase intention on OFOA platforms, is the first of its type in the current literature. Furthermore, this theoretical progress paves the way for future research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Emotional value is a significant motivational factor for users' purchase intention.
“It is a significant motivational factor for users’ purchase intention [153].”
From Consumers purchase intention in live-streaming e-commerce: A consumption value perspective and the role of streamer popularity (2024) · cites this paper as [153]
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
Moslehpour, M., Pham, V., Wong, W.-K., & Bilgiçli, İ. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10010234 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, Q., Wang, Y., & Ariffin, S. K. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296339 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chakraborty, D.
- Affiliations
- Symbiosis International University (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Chakraborty, Debarun
- ORCID
- Chakraborty, Debarun
- Venue
- British Food Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2021-12-20
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3871-3887
- ISSN
- 0007-070X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4200575618
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7
- FWCI
- 4.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Food Journal (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
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
- Keywords
- technology acceptance, purchase intention, moderating effect, consumer behavior, compatibility, pandemic lockdown, food delivery apps
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