Impact of perceived interactivity and perceived

value on mobile app stickiness: an emerging

economy perspective
Santosh Nandi
Walker College of Business, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA
Madhavi Latha Nandi
Continental Tires The Americas, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, USA, and
Varsha Khandker
Indian Institute of Management Nagpur, Nagpur, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the determinants of mobile app stickiness (MASS) in emerging economies.
Design/methodology/approach – The study proposes a research model about how perceived interactivity (PI), perceived value, flow and self-
efficacy influence MASS. The proposed model is then assessed in partial least square structural equation modeling using a survey sample of 587
mobile app users in India. Follow-up in-depth interviews are conducted to corroborate with statistical findings.
Findings – PI does not exert a significant direct influence on MASS. Rather, it is through perceived hedonic and utilitarian values and flow, which
magnifies MASS. Also, mobile app users in emerging economies perceive an app to be interactive based on the app’s higher degrees of
connectedness, non-verbal information and responsiveness, and not so much as reciprocity and control.
Research limitations/implications – Besides the demographic and geographic limitations of the sample, the study emphasizes only the positive
cursors of MASS, such as value and loyalty benefits. It presents a future scope to empirically examine stickiness using negative cursors, such as
identity theft, stress and health issues.
Practical implications – The study serves as a potential landscape for mobile app developers, consultants and service providers to identify unique
daily-life requirements for mobile apps in emerging economies.
Social implications – The study creates a case for the mobile-commerce industry to consider socio-economic and socio-environmental factors while
developing mobile apps for emerging economies.
Originality/value – Given the recent growth of mobile devices, services and broadband connectivity in emerging economies, this study provides a
new perspective about different factors leading to MASS.
Keywords Perceived value, Mobile commerce, Perceived interactivity, Human device interaction, Mobile app stickiness
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction 2021). Following these trends, businesses are exploring ways to

Over the past two decades, the mobile app [1] market has
indicated substantial growth in emerging economies as it brings
a wide variety of benefits to them and their societies (Silver
et al., 2019). In 2020, India was the fastest-growing app market
(49% annual rate) across the globe (Washington, 2021). India
presently has 700 million unique mobile phone subscribers, out
of which 451 million were internet users (Washington, 2021).
With the availability of faster internet technologies and mobility
constraints posed by the recent COVID-19 pandemic,
smartphones and data services have congregated into an ideal
communication platform in emerging economies (Wetzler,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0736-3761.htm
exploit the huge business potential that mobile communication
platform offers to serve their customers and making their
presence visible through mobile app mediums. Research on
mobile commerce is yet to catch up along with these mobile app
trends, especially in emerging economies, to offer guidance and
insights on the critical success factors of mobile apps.
Presently, consumer behavior research is predominantly
based on empirical evidence from developed economies,
especially using the USA and European context (Steenkamp
and Burgess, 2002). Such a one-sided understanding of user-
usage knowledge has exposed firms to mixed outcomes of
mobile technology adoptions in emerging economies. Given
their economic, cultural and demographic differences from
developed economies, consumers in emerging economies

Received 19 February 2020

Journal of Consumer Marketing
Revised 12 October 2020
38/6 (2021) 721–737 19 March 2021
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] 2 August 2021
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-02-2020-3661] Accepted 15 August 2021

721
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
perceive the value and risks of mobile commerce differently
compared to their counterparts in developed economies (Wong
et al., 2015). For instance, people in India remain reluctant to
adopt convenience-focused mobile technologies, such as
mobile shopping and mobile payment (Thakur and Srivastava,
2014), despite their rich exposure to mobile messaging and
social app tools for exchanging textual and graphic information.
These differences in value and risk perceptions can be
effectively mitigated with the collaborative efforts of mobile app
developers and connectivity providers (Madan and Yadav,
2018). In this regard, a robust understanding of the
antecedents to mobile app success in emerging economies,
such as South Korea, China, Brazil, South Africa, India and
others, is relevant, given their high rate of mobile penetration in
the recent few years (Lee et al., 2015).
In the past two decades, mobile commerce research grew in
three phases following the industrial trends – mobile portals,
mobile internet and mobile apps (Kourouthanassis and Giaglis,
2012). Research on mobile apps is still in its nascency
concerning the adoption and behavior-related aspects of
mobile app users (Coursaris and Sung, 2012). The available
research in this stream continues to rely on prior understanding
of the aspects established in the website context. While
internet-based apps are developed based on considerations
specific to website users, mobile app development requires
consideration of mobile medium characteristics, such as,
portability, battery life, screen size, over-the-air internet and
alike, that do not hold in the case of website and desktop-based
application development (Nandi and Nandi, 2015). For
example, the way a user interacts with a location-based mobile
app on a smartphone to find a restaurant in the vicinity or to
watch the news differs from doing so through a website sitting
on a desk. The usage pattern of a mobile app also differs from
that of a website for a user’s specific need depending on the
user’s on-the-go priorities and external stimuli conditions
(Dholakia and Dholakia, 2004). Given these differences in the
user-usage context, a user’s perception of the interactivity of
mobile apps is expected to be different from that of websites. In
general, a user’s perception of interactivity of a technological
medium is based upon as follows:
 How reciprocal the app is (Johnson et al., 2006);
 How appropriately and relevantly does the app respond
(Song and Zinkhan, 2008);
 How useful are the app icons (Lee, 2005);
 The user’s ease of navigating the app (Lee et al., 2015);
and
 How diversely the app connects the user with the related
external environment (Wang et al., 2012).
Besides the app’s interactivity, the user’s value perception, flow
and self-efficacy play a vital role in making the user stick to the
app. A user must perceive value in sticking to a particular app,
no matter how interactive the app is. Such perception of value
may be purely monetary, convenience, emotional, social or
their combinations in different proportions (Yoo et al., 2013).
The perceived flow of a mobile app, which captures the extent
of the user’s involvement and interactions with the app content,
is another important factor that leads to positive attitudes
toward mobile apps (Van Noort et al., 2012). Self-efficacy,
which refers to the user’s capability perception to execute a task
722
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
to attain the desired outcomes using a mobile app, is critical for
an app’s acceptance (Luarn and Lin, 2005).
In a mobile-based medium, an app serves its purpose when a
user intends to stick to the app. In simpler words, the goal of an
app is not always to influence the user to purchase but to make
the user stick to the app for a longer period or more usage.
Stickiness in the website context has been acknowledged as a key
antecedent to several attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, such
as purchase intention, customer trust, loyalty and retention
(Roy et al., 2014). Broadly, website stickiness explains how a
website seeks to capture and retain the user’s attention. In the
mobile app context, stickiness portrays a user’s behavioral
intention of re-usage and prolonged engagement with the
mobile app (Liu et al., 2018). Mobile app stickiness (MASS)
garners greater importance than its website counterpart due to
the complex nature of the interaction between users and a
combination of mobile devices and apps when conjugated with
robust mobile platforms. With the outpouring trend of mobile
apps, a mobile app’s ability to differentiate itself from its
competitors correlates to how well it can continue improving
upon its stickiness. As a result, mobile app developers and
mobile service providers continue to crave for better
understanding of the criticalities of MASS and the factors that
build MASS. Our study contributes to this knowledge gap in
MASS and its antecedents in the context of India. The findings
of the study are relevant for other emerging economies that
have similar economic and social contexts.
In this paper, we examine the influence of some of the
antecedents of stickiness, namely, mobile app interactivity, self-
efficacy, flow, hedonic value and utilitarian value in the context
of an emerging economy context that is India. The structure of
the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we develop our theoretical
model of the factors influencing MASS based on reviews of
relevant studies. Then, in Section 3 we discuss the research
methods used for data collection and analysis. Specifically, in
Section 4 we adopted the survey technique in the first phase
and conducted in-depth interviews in the next phase to
corroborate our survey findings. In the following Section 5, we
present our results about the hypothesized relationships and
discuss our key findings of the research model using qualitative
insights from in-depth interviews. We conclude with the study’s
overall theoretical and managerial implications, major
limitations and future research directions in Section 6.
2. Theoretical background and research
hypothesis
2.1 Perceived interactivity
Interactivity in the context of computers or virtual reality is
defined as “our effect-ability: what our effectors affect”
(Naimark, 1990, p. 455) and as “the degree to which users of a
medium can influence the form and content of the mediated
environment” (Steuer, 1992, p. 76). Different technological
mediums provide varying levels and scopes for interactivity. A
radio or television demonstrates low levels of interactivity,
typically with a unidirectional flow of information. An
advanced medium enabled with networking technologies, such
as a smartphone or smart television, provides a high level of
interactivity through bi- or multi-directional information flow.
Interaction is richer and more flexible in mobile apps integrated
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
with features such as a global positioning system (GPS),
camera and microphone. However, limited screen size, screen
resolution and cumbersome input mechanisms present
significant challenges in mobile communication and interaction
(Nandi and Nandi, 2015).
In the advertising and marketing domains, interactivity is
conventionally measured in terms of the procedural efficiencies
of the website, such as interchange and responsiveness or the
number of features available that users can control. However,
the mere presence of efficient processes and better features or
both, may not be enough for technology-mediated
communication to generate interactivity (Rafaeli, 1988).
Instead, interactivity can be measured by quantifying the
perception or experience of the user of such technology-
mediated communication, irrespective of the number of
features and processes (Lee, 2005). Interactivity thus is defined
as “the extent to which users perceive their experiences as a
simulation of interpersonal interaction and sense they are in the
presence of a social other” (Thorson and Rodgers, 2006, p.
36). In this study, we measure the “perceived interactivity (PI)”
of the mobile app user by capturing the app’s influence on the
user’s usage intent.
2.1.1 Dimensions of perceived interactivity
Although research in different domains has gained a common
understanding of the concept of PI, the constituent factors and
the corresponding measurement scales vary and are specific to
their context (summarized in Appendix 1). We found that
studies have predominantly focused on operationalizing PI for
website media (Johnson et al., 2006). Some others have focused
on technology media such as micro-blogging, instant
messaging, mobile shopping and clickers (Zhao and Lu, 2012).
The scale developed by McMillan and Hwang (2002) is widely
used as they interpreted PI in terms of two-way directionality of
communication, user control and time spent in the website-
based advertisement context. Fortin and Dholakia (2005)
interpreted PI in terms of consumers’ perceived control,
mutual discourse and exchange of roles. Johnson et al. (2006)
operationalized it as responsiveness, non-verbal information
(NVF) and speed of response. Studies focusing on other media
contexts have established personalization and connectedness as
additional interactivity features (Zhao and Lu, 2012).
Recent studies extended the concept of PI from computer-
mediated to a ubiquitous context. In mobile commerce, users
may show continuity intent partly when they perceive control,
responsiveness, personalization and connectedness similar to
website interactivity and partly when their mobile provides
ubiquitous connectivity and offers relevant for them (Lee et al.,
2015). Similar to website stickiness, Furner et al. (2014)
introduced MASS as an effect of how mobile app features, in
terms of control, communication, responsiveness, influenced
the user’s interactivity perception. Given the unique
characteristics, such as small screen size, non-traditional input
methods and navigational difficulties, the usability of mobile
apps rest partly on users’ perception of control, responsiveness,
NVF and personalization as interactivity dimensions and partly
on the simplicity of the apps’ design (Lee et al., 2015). The
present interactivity literature on mobile device media
suggested control, personalization, playfulness, ubiquitous
723
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
connectivity, connectedness, responsiveness, communication
and synchronicity as dimensions of PI (Park and Yoo, 2020).
However, the interactivity dimensions can be either universal
or unique to the mobile app context. For example,
synchronicity is more relevant to mobile banking and mobile
shopping and personalization is critical in music apps and
advertising, but may not be necessary for other apps.
Accordingly, we include reciprocity, responsiveness, NVF,
control and connectedness, as the five key dimensions of PI.
We follow Diamantopoulos et al. (2008) to conceptualize PI
as a second-order formatively measured construct. While the
second-order formative modeling approach can cause the five
dimensions to covary nomologically (Jarvis et al., 2003), our
study does not hypothesize relationships among the five
antecedent dimensions or with the construct itself. Given our
theory-based ideation of PI, a formative approach is apt to
measure the construct (Bagozzi, 2007). The following sub-
sections discuss the five dimensions of interactivity.
Reciprocity is referred to as “talking back” (Rogers, 1986),
“participate” (Steuer, 1992), “two-way communication” (Alba
et al., 1997), “dialogue” (Evans and Wurster, 1997) and
“iterative” (Bezjian-Avery et al., 1998) in the interactivity
literature. It is also defined as “the extent to which
communication is perceived to be reciprocal or to allow mutual
action” (Johnson et al., 2006, p. 41). Reciprocity empowers the
user to participate jointly in conversing with other app users,
including the app provider. It helps to satisfy the user’s
informational and functional needs from the app.
Responsiveness is an important dimension of PI that refers to
the degree to which the responses in communication are
perceived to be appropriate and relevant (Song and Zinkhan,
2008). It resolves the information needs of the interaction
episode or event (Alba et al., 1997). Responsiveness explains
the user’s perception of fully interactive communications,
including reactions and references to the content, nature, form
or presence of earlier references (Rafaeli, 1988).
Control is the mobile app user’s perceived ease of executing
the target behavior, reflectiveness of one’s prior experience and
anticipated impediments in using the app (Ajzen, 2002). It
includes the ease of navigating through the menu and managing
the information on the mobile (Lee et al., 2015). Perceived
control shows the user’s level of confidence in performing
necessary actions and handling prospective situations and leads
to a higher perception of interactivity within the app.
NVF is “the extent to which the communication is perceived
to be characterized through the use of multiple channels”
(Johnson et al., 2006, p. 46). It includes gestures, icons, facial
expressions, animations, sound notifications, images and other
similar elements (Lee et al., 2015) and increases the PI of the
app.
Connectedness refers to the perceived enhancement in the
social self-concept while using a platform (Sweeney and Soutar,
2001). In mobile apps, connectedness, by sharing experiences
and expressions, broadens one’s confidence in being more
resourceful about the subject of interest. Connectedness
enhances the ubiquity of a mobile interaction by allowing
people to connect with anyone, anytime, anywhere (Coursaris
and Sung, 2012). Connectedness also allows users to gain an
active personality and achieve social interactions. Hence,
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
businesses pay attention to developing features that satisfy
user’s desire to interact with other users (Kim, 2011).
Overall, we anticipate that PI formed by the five dimensions
directly influences MASS and is positively associated with it.
Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
H1. PI is positively related to MASS.
2.2 Perceived value
Perceived value is central to the consumer’s decision-making
process and is defined as “the consumer’s overall assessment of
the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received
and what is given” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14). In technology-
mediated interactions, it is described as “an interactive, relative
and preferential experience” (Holbrook, 1994, p. 27). The
perceived value depends upon subtle differences in value
judgments by the users. For example, millennials perceive more
value in smartphones than a traditional desktop or laptop
computer or television despite its smaller screen size. A
product’s perceived value grows superior when the user’s
satisfactory disposition triggers evaluation and intention to
consistently reuse the product (Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2012). In
typical buying decisions, value is loosely related to the buyer’s
perception of the five consumption values, namely, functional,
emotional, social, epistemic and conditional (Sheth et al., 1991;
Pihlström and Brush, 2008). Overall, perceived value
comprises of two dimensions, namely, hedonic and utilitarian
(i.e. emotional and cognitive) values (Kim and Han, 2011).
Accordingly, we operationalize perceived value using these two
dimensions.
2.2.1 Hedonic value
Hedonic value refers to the emotional aspects of pleasure, fun
or enjoyment of the transaction or the interaction process (Jeon
et al., 2017). It is defined as “the extent to which a product
creates appropriate feelings and emotions for the customers
such as aesthetics, pleasure, fun, excitement, adventure, etc.”
(Dovaliene et al., 2015, p. 661). Hedonic value increases the
user’s intention to pay for mobile internet service (Hsu and Lin,
2015), and hence, fosters loyalty for services like internet-based
mobile games (Liu et al., 2018). We argue that the PI of a
mobile app is important in increasing its hedonic value. Hence,
we hypothesize as follows:
H2: PI is positively related to hedonic value.
An increase in hedonic value about the mobile app increases the
user’s intent to stick to the app. Accordingly, we hypothesize as
follows:
H3: Hedonic value is positively related to MASS.
2.2.2 Utilitarian value.
Utilitarian value refers to the convenience aspects such as ease
and speed of achieving a task effectively and efficiently, saving
time and effort (Pura, 2005). It is demonstrated in
instrumental, functional and economic benefits of the
interaction process (Ryu et al., 2010).
In both website and mobile-based marketing, PI influences
marketing effectiveness when the user perceives utilitarian
724
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
value in the overall interaction process (Jeon et al., 2017).
When a mobile service provider creates value for its customers,
they exhibit as follows:
 Intention to pay and use the mobile apps and services;
 Intention to continue using them; and
 Make other third-party purchases using them.
Thus, the service provider achieves higher revenues (Pihlström
and Brush, 2008). We argue that the PI of a mobile app has a
positive influence on its user’s perception of convenience.
Hence, we hypothesize as follows:
H4. PI is positively related to utilitarian value.
When users perceive a greater utilitarian value of a particular
mobile app or service, they intend to stick to it (Chiu et al.,
2005). Users also tend to become more loyal to the app or
service, thereby reducing their tendency to seek alternate apps
(Chang et al., 2009). Accordingly, we frame the following
hypotheses:
H5. Utilitarian value is positively related to MASS.
2.3 Flow
Flow refers to “a holistic experience that people feel when they
act with total involvement” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, p. 36).
The concept was initially used in settings such as the workplace
and sports and leisure activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Flow
also refers to the user’s involvement level while interacting with
the technology (Wu and Chang, 2005). In this study, we adopt
Hoffman and Novak’s (1996) definition of flow as “the state
occurring during network navigation which is characterized by
a seamless sequence of responses facilitated by machine-
interactivity; intrinsically enjoyable; accompanied by a loss of
self-consciousness; and self-reinforcing” (Hoffman and Novak,
1996, p. 57). Flow results in prolonging internet and website
usage, blog posting and purchase intention (Liu and Shiue,
2014). Flow plays a moderating role in the relationship
between behavioral interactivity features and their effects in the
context of e-commerce, instant messaging and websites (Van
Noort et al., 2012). We argue that the PI of a mobile app has a
positive influence on its user’s flow levels. Hence, we
hypothesize as follows:
H6. PI is positively related to flow.
Such an increase in the user’s flow positively impacts the user’s
feelings and emotions indicated in the user’s quality of
engagement with the mobile app. Hence, we hypothesize as
follows:
H7. Flow is positively related to hedonic value.
An increase in the user’s hedonic value with the mobile app
positively influences the user’s behavioral intentions to return
and reuse the app. Accordingly, we hypothesize as follows:
H8. Flow is positively related to MASS.
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
2.4 Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is “concerned with judgments of how well one can
execute courses of action required to deal with prospective
situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). Individuals with higher
self-efficacy tend to accept and use computer technologies
more frequently (Hong et al., 2002), creating a positive
perception about information technologies for improving their
task-related outcomes (Saleem et al., 2011). Similarly, internet-
related self-efficacy is related to significant and positive internet
uses (Eastin and LaRose, 2000). In virtual communities, self-
efficacy motivates information sharing (Chiang and Hsiao,
2015) and explains the user’s ease of using different internet-
related activities such as mobile banking, gaming and others
(Luarn and Lin, 2005). Hence, we argue that self-efficacy
positively influences the user’s intent to stick to the mobile app.
Accordingly, we frame the following hypothesis:
H9. Self-efficacy is positively related to MASS.
Figure 1 shows the theoretical model with the hypothesized
relationships, as discussed above.
3. Research methodology
We used a quantitative cross-sectional survey methodology to
test the research model instead of an experimental
methodology to avoid the constraints in capturing real-life app-
user experiences (Bose and Ye, 2019). However, we
corroborated the survey findings with qualitative interviews.
The unit size of our study is mobile app users. Sample data was
collected using an online survey with items measuring each
study-construct at a time and their interrelationships. The
items were derived from relevant prior literature used in other
technological contexts, especially in website contexts. These
items, therefore, were rephrased to suit the context of MASS.
Figure 1 Research model and hypotheses
Control
Responsiveness
Non-verbal
Perceived
Interactivity
H4
Connectedness
Reciprocity
Self-Efficacy
725
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
The final survey items were reviewed by a mobile app
developer, a university professor and two mobile app users. The
items were adjusted based on their feedback. The final
questionnaire consisted of 36 items measuring the 10
constructs used for the study, as presented in Appendix 2. We
pretested the final questionnaire with the reviewers to assess the
questionnaire flow and to estimate the time to complete the
survey (20–25 min).
3.2 Survey data collection
With an intent to create one larger sample, the online survey
was conducted in two cycles–one in the academic year 2017–
2018 and another in 2020–2021 at two universities in India.
Both universities are regionally diverse, and hence, our sample
data represent all regions in India. Further, the age range of
survey participants (20–45 years) matches the predominant age
range (78%) of India’s mobile internet users (Statistica,
2019a). Before sending the survey link, we conducted short
interactive sessions with students in groups to discuss the
purpose of our study and the expected duration to complete the
survey. We sent out an email to volunteering participants
explaining its purpose and the link. A total of 269 responses
were received in the first phase, of which 19 responses were
eliminated from the sample due to incompleteness. In the
second phase of data collected, we received a total of 344
responses. Of which, seven responses were removed upon
detection of invalid responses to several questions. The final
pooled sample data for analysis included a total of 587
complete responses. The pooling of the two samples into one
larger sample supported our study because as follows:
 The data cycles were non-overlapping and the samples
were statistically independent of each other;
Flow
H7
H8
H6
Hedonic
Value H3
H2
H1 Mobile app
Stickiness
Utilitarian H5
Value
H9
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
 The target populations of both cycles were conceptually
the same, as the mobile app space has remained somewhat
unchanged in the past five years;
 The concepts measured in both samples were the same;
 The order and structure of questions asked to the samples
in both cycles were identical; and
 The estimated means and variances of the pooled sample
and individual samples of all variables were in the same
“ballpark” range (Wendt, 2007).
The demographic details of the final pooled sample data are
presented in Table 1.
We apply partial least square structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM) to analyze the latent constructs of the second-
order formative PI constructs in our research model (Amaro
and Duarte, 2016). PLS-SEM suited our study because it
aligned with our intent to establish the relevance of the study
constructs and their interrelationships in the mobile app
context. The sample size of the study adequately met the
criteria prescribed for PLS-SEM analysis, which is more than
10 times the largest number of predictors for any dependent
latent construct in the model (Bettiga and Lamberti, 2018). In
our study, the dependent latent construct “MASS” has the
largest number of predictors, which is 5. We used SmartPLS 3
software for data analysis (Ringle et al., 2015).
3.3 Qualitative interviews
Next, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews to augment
the quantitative findings of our hypothesized model with
qualitative insights. “The qualitative method as the quantitative
follow-up” as a form of sequential-explanatory design provides
a better explanation, contextual understanding and credibility
of the quantitative results (Harrison and Reilly, 2011). In
marketing literature, this sort of approach is common
(Steenkamp and Geyskens, 2006).
Following guidelines in Miles et al. (2019), we interviewed
each respondent through a set of loosely structured, open-
ended questions. These open-end questions were drafted based
on the initial survey questionnaires. We interviewed 24
respondents (15 men and 9 women) in the age range of 20–
45 years who did not participate in the initial online survey. The
24 respondents have had used at least two mobile devices with
different operating systems, such as iOS, Android and
Table 1 Demographic details
Sample profile Frequency
Gender
Male 361
Female 226
Age
20–25 167
25–35 394
35–45 20
45–55 6 1.0
Mobile operating system
Android 488
IOS 69
Windows 30
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
Windows, in the past 3–5 years. Each interview lasted from 30
to 40 min that were audio-recorded and transcribed
subsequently. We analyzed the transcribed data by comparing
and explaining the qualitative findings in the background of the
quantitative results in the discussion section.
4. Data analysis
4.1 Measurement model
Before proceeding to hypotheses testing, we assessed construct
reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the
first-order reflective constructs (Table 2). The composite
reliability (CR) scores for all constructs were above the
recommended coefficient of 0.7. The lowest was 0.776 for
control and the highest being 0.922 for hedonic value, thus
confirming construct reliability (Luqman et al., 2017). The
average variance explained (AVE) scores for all constructs were
above the recommended coefficient of 0.5, with the lowest
being 0.539 for control and the highest being 0.774 for flow, thus
confirming convergent validity (Luqman et al., 2017). All items
for the model loaded greater than the recommended Fornell-
Larcker criterion coefficient of 0.7 on their respective
constructs, thus establishing discriminant validity of the model
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). We noted that two inter-
constructs correlations, namely, self-efficacy–connectedness
( 0.117) and stickiness–connectedness ( 0.096), showed
negative coefficients, thus suggesting their opposing
associations. Also, the square root of AVE per construct is
greater than its correlation with other constructs, thus satisfying
Fornell-Larcker’s discriminant validity criterion (Chin, 2010).
Next, we applied a two-stage approach to validate the
measurement model of PI (i.e. the second-order formative
construct) (Duarte and Amaro, 2018). In the first stage, the
latent variable scores for the dimensions (i.e. reciprocity,
responsiveness, control, NVF and connectedness) were
estimated by assigning the indictors of all dimensions to PI (the
second-order construct). In the second stage, the latent variable
scores obtained from the first stage were used as indicators for
the second-order construct. The number of indicators for each
of the five dimensions of PI ranged between 3 to 5, thus
removing all biases in relationships due to an unequal number
of indicators (Hair et al., 2014). Using the indicator weights
and the t-statistics, the validity of the indicators of perceived
interaction was established (as greater than the suggested
threshold value of 0.1; Table 3) (Hair et al., 2014). Also,
(%) significant t-statistics (greater than the threshold of p = 0.01)
for reciprocity, responsiveness, control, NVF and connectedness
61.5 indicated that these dimensions contribute significantly to the
38.5 PI conceptualization of our model. The t-statistic value of
2.550 for control was the lowest among the five dimensions of
PI. Despite its lowest ranking, we retained control because as
28.8
follows:
67.1
 It showed a significant (p = 0.01) outer loading of 0.608,
3.4
which is slightly less than the threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al.,
2014) and
 Extant literature (Section 2.1.1) treats control as an
83.1 important dimension of PI.
11.8
5.1 Finally, the variance inflation factor scores for all the
dimensions were greater than 0.1 and less than the threshold
726
 Emerging economy perspective Journal of Consumer Marketing
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737

Table 2 Measurement model assessment for first-order constructs – CR, AVE, inter-construct correlation and Fornell-Larcker’s criterion for study’s constructs
Construct CR AVE RES REC CONN CONT NVF MSE HVAL FLO UVAL MAS
RES 0.858 0.669 0.818
REC 0.840 0.724 0.192 0.851
CONN 0.920 0.742 0.025 0.259 0.862
CONT 0.776 0.539 0.457 0.302 0.139 0.734
NVF 0.833 0.557 0.563 0.276 0.107 0.483 0.746
MSE 0.802 0.578 0.436 0.143 0.117 0.335 0.374 0.760
HVAL 0.922 0.747 0.214 0.297 0.511 0.248 0.292 0.042 0.865
FLO 0.873 0.774 0.326 0.292 0.258 0.295 0.369 0.158 0.400 0.880
UVAL 0.873 0.634 0.398 0.267 0.259 0.353 0.415 0.241 0.446 0.205 0.796
MAS 0.807 0.584 0.245 0.050 0.096 0.194 0.274 0.288 0.050 0.175 0.194 0.764
Note: MSE = (Mobile) self-efficacy

Table 3 Measurement model assessment for second-order construct – indicator weights, significance and VIF scores
Construct Dimension Indicator weight t-value p-value VIF
PI Reciprocity (REC) 0.209 4.130 0.000 1.188
Responsiveness (RES) 0.306 4.952 0.000 1.576
Control (CONT) 0.147 2.550 0.000 1.458
Non-verbal features/information (NVF) 0.376 6.163 0.000 1.653
Connectedness (CONN) 0.513 9.367 0.000 1.082
Note: VIF = Variance inflation factor

value of 5, suggesting that the model showed no
multicollinearity among the dimensions (Kutner et al., 2005).
To verify the presence of common method bias, we
performed Harman’s one-factor test using exploratory factor
analysis in IBM-SPSS software. Results indicated that while
eight factors accounted for 64.5% of the variance, the first
factor accounted for 26.7% of the variance in the data, which
was far below the advocated threshold of 50% of total variance
explained (Li et al., 2018). Therefore, common method bias is
not a possible threat in our model.
4.2 Structural model
We conducted significance tests of the hypothesized relations
by assessing the standardized path coefficients and their
significance levels of the second stage coefficients of the two-
stage approach (earlier explained in Section 4.1). The
standardized path coefficients and significance levels for all the
hypothesized relations are presented in Table 4.
To begin with, PI showed an insignificant direct influence on
MASS (H1) with a path coefficient of 0.001. However, it showed
a significant positive influence on flow (H6) with a path
coefficient of 0.476, perceived hedonic value (H2) with a path
coefficient of 0.447 and perceived utilitarian value (H4) with a
path coefficient of 0.519, which is consistent with the earlier
studies in website context (Ozturk et al., 2016). Self-efficacy had
a significant positive relationship with MASS (H9) with a path
coefficient of 0.234. In regard to flow, its relationship with
hedonic value (H7) was significantly positive with a path
coefficient of 0.188. Flow also showed a significant positive
relationship with MASS (H8) with a path coefficient of 0.140,
which aligns with the earlier research findings in the website
context (Liu and Shiue, 2014). Surprisingly, the hedonic value
had a somewhat significant but negative relationship with MASS
(H3) with a path coefficient of 0.080. Conversely, utilitarian
value showed a significant positive relationship with MASS (H5)
with a path coefficient of 0.144. Figure 2 shows the research
model with path coefficients of each hypothesized relationship.

Table 4 Results of hypothesis testing with path coefficient and significance value (p-value)
Hypothesis Findings Path coefficient p-value Conclusion
H1: PI fi app stickiness Yes: (beta = 0.001, not significant) 0.001 0.988 Not supported

H2: PI fi hedonic value Yes: (beta = 0.447, p < 0.01) 0.447 0.000 Supported
H3: Hedonic value fi app stickiness No: (beta = 0.080, p < 0.1) 0.0801 0.090 Refuted

H4: PI fi utilitarian value Yes: (beta = 0.519, p < 0.01) 0.519 0.000 Supported

H5: Utilitarian value fi app stickiness Yes: (beta = 0.144, p < 0.05) 0.144 0.002 Supported

H6: PI fi flow Yes: (beta = 0.476, p < 0.01) 0.476 0.000 Supported

H7: Flow fi hedonic value Yes: (beta = 0.188, p < 0.01) 0.188 0.000 Supported

H8: Flow fi app stickiness Yes: (beta = 0.140, p < 0.05) 0.140 0.002 Supported

H9: Self-efficacy fi app stickiness Yes: (beta = 0.234, p < 0.01) 0.234 0.000 Supported
 
Notes: p  0.01, p  0.05; 1p  0.10

727
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
Figure 2 Structural model with results
Control
0.147**
Responsiveness
s 0.140*
0.306**
Non-verbal
0.376** Perceived
Interactivity
0.513**
Connectedness
0.209**
Reciprocity
Self-Efficacy
5. Discussion of results
First, we presented a research model for MASS that is
theoretically grounded in the interactivity, value, flow, self-
efficacy and stickiness literature. Our empirically derived and
qualitatively validated findings suggest that the relationship
between PI and MASS is more complex than anticipated.
Overall, we examined nine hypotheses, of which seven were
supported, one was not supported and one was refuted. While
there is a direct positive relationship between PI and MASS, it
lacked statistical significance (beta = 0.001, insignificant p-
value; H1). There was no significant evidence to believe that
users are likely to stick to an app based on its “mere”
interactivity feature. Instead, perceived hedonic and utilitarian
values and flow play important roles in the interactivity-
stickiness relationship. Nonetheless, the role of self-efficacy on
MASS cannot be ignored. These findings concur with prior
studies, thus suggesting PI’s importance in technology-
mediated contexts (Hsiao and Chen, 2016). Much of our study
suggests that consumers in emerging nations are “by-passing”
older technologies to adopt evolutionary technologies
(Sherugar and Budiu, 2016).
5.1 Perceived interactivity and mobile app stickiness
In this study, we defined PI in a mobile app as a second-order
formatively-measured construct whose essence is captured
through five nomological dimensions, namely, reciprocity,
responsiveness, control, NVF and connectedness. Results
showed that all five dimensions are positively attributed, but in
different degrees, to the notion of PI.
5.1.1 Connectedness, non-verbal information and responsiveness
Among the five dimensions, connectedness (beta = 0.513 )
contributed most toward PI. In other words, when app-users
share their experiences and expressions with others, they feel a
connection (Wang et al., 2012). The significant positive
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
Flow
(R2 = 0.226)
0.188**
0.476**
Hedonic
Value
-0.080+
(R2 = 0.315)
0.447**
Mobile app
0.001
Stickiness
(R2 = 0.116)
0.519** Utilitarian
Value 0.144*
(R2 = 0.269)
0.234**
strength of connectedness explains why social communication
apps, such as “WhatsApp” with 340 million active users and
“Instagram” with 100 million active users, are the two of the
most common apps in India (Statistica, 2019b). To gain
further insights, we turned to our qualitative interviews and
found this empirical result consistent with interview responses.
As illustrations, Respondent 9 said, “Even older adults (aged
greater than 50 or 60) [in India] are using smartphones to
decrease the distance virtually with their loved ones [. . ..]
Applications like [App X], social media apps and chatting apps
decrease the distance and increase the [connectedness]. It
matters.”; and Respondent 12 said, “I just use [App Y]. So,
from using [App Y – a social app], I feel close to our
community.” This observation reflects that people in emerging
countries tend to use mobile apps to share their experiences and
expressions and thus stay connected with friends/families, co-
workers and the external environment.
NVF (beta = 0.376 ) ranked second and responsiveness
(beta = 0.306 ) ranked third in our data analysis. Non-verbal
features (e.g. arrow) enable users to visually understand and
react to app instructions without much reading or listening
effort. For this reason, social mobile apps pay utmost attention
to developing (and updating) intuitive interfaces. In our
qualitative interviews, we found more insights about it. As
illustrations, Respondent 12 said, “[. . ..] when we use online
payment apps, we do the payment, if you have an emoticon or
animation saying that it is done, it feels good.” Simply put,
apart from the aesthetical appeal, non-verbal features help users
overcome the smartphone’s screen-size limitation. This
additionally explains why mobile app users in emerging
countries install apps whose graphical user interfaces are
aesthetically appealing given their tendency to buy cost-
effective smartphones with smaller-than-regular screens.
Further, responsiveness reflects the app’s ability to allow
users to fully interact (and/or react) to the information that
users receive on their apps (Rafaeli, 1988). Responses from our
728
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
qualitative interviews provided interesting insights about it. For
example, Respondent 14 said, “[. . ..] if you are not able to find
the search to be relevant or swift in the transition from one page
to another, you will probably stop using the app.”; Respondent
17 said, “Fastness and swiftness. . . makes an app interactive.
And Respondent 21 said, “[. . ..] if I wanted to do something
fast or if I wanted to text very fast then if the app is slow that
matters.” Commonly, these insights explain that a user finds an
app responsive if it swiftly responds to the user’s requests (e.g.
showing the next screen, web content and loading graphics,
audio or video).
5.1.2 Reciprocity and control
Reciprocity (beta = 0.209 ) ranked fourth and control (beta =
0.147 ) stood last among the five PI dimensions. Surprisingly,
reciprocity, such as allowing users with feedback/talk-back
options, appears to be a less important factor in the mobile app
context in emerging nations. When asked about reciprocity
considerations in mobile apps, it matters for some respondents,
but not for most. For instance, Respondent 13 said, “What if I
have some problem with the app”; whereas Respondent 15
suggested, “If the app is functioning well, there will be no
feedback that will go from my side.” App users seem less
interested to engage in talking back when they find the topic or
the context unimportant or non-urgent. This sort of user
behavior reflects the fast-paced lifestyle of users in emerging
nations.
Control is yet another feature that ranked surprisingly low
(beta = 0.147 ). Qualitative interviews revealed that when an
app allows users to perform necessary actions with ease, they
feel empowered. For instance, Respondent 5 commented, I
want the app to ask my permission first whether I want to be added to
that group or not. Present-day app users in emerging nations
have good knowledge of mobile apps. Thus, reciprocity and
control seem less important factors to make an app interactive.
To qualitatively validate the direct influence of PI on MASS
(i.e. H1, not supported), we asked our interview respondents
how the five interactivity features collectively would form their
perception to use the app for a longer period. Respondents
suggested that they anticipate different combinations of
interactivity dimensions based on the purpose of the app. For
example, Respondent 5 suggested, “For work-related
communication, I mostly prefer apps to be fast
[Responsiveness] [. . ..] My judgment of the app is not affected
by [Reciprocity] of the app. For a productivity-related app, I
would not care about animations or emoticons, i.e. [Non-
verbal information]. But if it is a communication or social
media-related app, [Control] would matter. [Connectedness]
is needed to stay connected with other people. If I am looking at
productivity-related apps, then it does not matter.”; and
Respondent 1 suggested that “If an app is below a minimum
threshold of being fast [Responsiveness], I would rather not use
the app [. . ..] I am not worried about [Reciprocity] of all apps, I
am more worried about their usability [. . ..] I am indifferent to
[Non-verbal information] features, especially in utility apps.
[Control] is important, but it depends on what the app is about
[.. . .] [Connectedness] does not make all apps interactive. It
may be important for social apps.” Collectively, our survey
findings and qualitative insights indicate that an app’s “mere”
interactivity feature is insufficient for its user to stick to an app.
729
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
Rather, it is the app’s purpose that must be kept in mind in
describing its interactivity features.
5.2 The role of perceived value and flow in the
relationship between perceived interactivity and mobile
app stickiness
5.2.1 Flow and hedonic value
As noted in Section 5.1 while the app’s interactivity is
important, merely having higher interactivity does not
guarantee user stickiness. When flow and hedonic value are
introduced into the PI-MASS relationship, they seem to play
differently. First, findings showed that PI has a strong positive
influence on flow (beta = 0.476 ; H6) and also on hedonic
value (beta = 0.447 ; H2). Our qualitative interviews
corroborated the same. As illustrations of flow’s (i.e. H6) role,
Respondent 1 commented, “[. . .] if it is an entertainment and it
is easy to learn and absorbing and entertaining, I would feel
good, feel happy or have positive emotions. And that would
lead to me spending more time.”; and Respondent 3 stated, “It
happens especially in [App X] and [App Y]. I do not know what
I am searching for but I am engaged.” Similarly, as an example
of hedonic value (i.e. H2), Respondent 4 commented, “[. . .] if I
come across some not so good or not so happy things while
using [App Y], I will have some emotional baggage throughout
the day.”; and Respondent 9 expressed, “the easier
(interactive) the app is to use, the happier I am.”
Intriguingly, the direct influence of flow on hedonic value
(beta = 0.188 ; H7) and stickiness (beta = 0.140 ; H8) are
both positive and significant. However, when flow relates to
stickiness through hedonic value, the influence of hedonic value
on stickiness is significantly negative (beta = 0.080 ; H3).
Thus, we refute our hypothesized relationship that hedonic
value leads to stickiness (i.e. H3). To gain more insights about
this unexpectedly contrasting relationship (i.e. flow to hedonic
value as positive and hedonic value to stickiness as negative),
we turned to our qualitative interviews. Respondents expressed
positive experiences when asked about how their sense of
feeling immersed (i.e. flow) impacts their perceived hedonic
value (i.e. H7), such as feeling emotionally happy or depressed.
As exemplars, Respondent 2 commented, “During the use of
[App X – an online gaming app], it felt good. But after stopping
the use of the app, there was a feeling of regret. I could have
done something better.”; and Respondent 9 expressed, “I spent
a lot of time doing these searches on these apps. After 2 hours I
recognize that time had just passed and I could do some
productive work.”
On the contrary, when we asked respondents to explain the
influence of perceived hedonic benefits on app usage (i.e. H3),
respondents expressed negative reasons. They suggested, “the
more I am immersed in an app, the more time I am wasting
[. . ..] Then, I consciously reduce app usage (Respondent 1)”;
“If I think I am wasting a lot of time then I think I should refrain
from using that app (Respondent 5)”; and “if I find that I am
unconsciously spending too much time, I remove that app
(Respondent 7)”. To explore further, we referred to the
literature on recent cognition-affect behavioral (Steelman and
Soror, 2017) in the context of information technology usage.
Due to their excessive use and addiction (i.e. positive flow) fear
for an app, users might be biased about their continued usage
intents (i.e. negative stickiness) because they continually adjust
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
their contentment levels to align with their prior anticipations
from the app. A close example of this continued usage response
behavior could be related to the present-day users’ love and
loathe for Instagram (www.instagram.com)–one of the top
social network apps (Smith, 2019).
Further, our qualitative interviews revealed that when users
feel immersed in an app they are likely to use it for long (i.e.
H8). In our in-depth interviews, respondents expressed their
“sense of immersion” as the defense for longer usage, such as
“Emotional connect is what makes you use an app more or stick
to it (Respondent 2)”; “When it comes to [App X] or [App Y],
based on my emotions, I am going to use it for a longer time
compare to any other app (Respondent 4)” and “If that app is
consistently giving you something that you don’t like, I will
slowly start reducing the usage of that app. The flip side is also
true (Respondent 8).”
One plausible explanation for the strikingly contrasted
influences of flow and hedonic value constructs on stickiness is
that users show loyalty to a particular app when it evokes
feelings and emotions. However, they are likely to detach
themselves as soon as they realize its counterproductivity
hedonic engagements. For instance, a user may find a game app
or a social media app immersive and engaging, based on their
PI features, but it does not assure that the user is likely to stick
to the app for a longer period. This is an interesting finding that
is unique to emerging economies and thus calls for further
research.
5.2.2 Utilitarian value
As expected about the role of utilitarian value in the PI-MASS
relationship, PI has a significantly positive influence on
utilitarian value (beta = 0.519 ; H4), which, in turn, leads to
stickiness (beta = 0.144 ; H5). Our in-depth interview
respondents demonstrated why/how various apps’ interactivity
features help them perceive an app differently in meeting their
productivity and/or convenience requirements (i.e. H4). As
samples, respondent 7 commented, “[App X] makes my life a
lot easier. You can do things through [App X] [. . .] sharing
location feature on a tap versus explaining directions on voice
[. . ..] and sometimes it is integrated with the cab calling
platform as well [. . .. . .] So, that way the interactiveness of [App
X] helps in terms of utility.”; and Respondent 8 suggested,
“The interactiveness of [App Y] allows me to pay credit card
bills all in one user interface. I have [n] credit cards and all the
bills I can pay in one go if I want to.” Next, we analyzed the
responses about how the perceived convenience value of an app
impacts user’s stickiness (i.e. H5). Respondents articulated that
they intend to continue using an app for a longer period based
on its ability to meet their work-, transactions- or convenience-
related needs. As illustrations, Respondent 2 indicated, “In the
case of the productivity-related or utilitarian app, if there is a
better alternative, I will switch. I will not be fixed to one app.”
In other words, despite an app’s interactiveness, users may not
settle with it when it provides less utilitarian value, given an
alternate app is already available. This may be an emerging
economy occurrence, at least in the case of the productivity-
related app, such as payment-related or notes-taking apps.
In the past five years, private telecommunication players in
India have significantly contributed to improving mobile
internet access (Purnell, 2018). As a result, app providers have
730
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
achieved significant transactional reliability. As evidence,
mobile banking has grown rapidly in the recent past (ET
Online, 2018). To gain leverage on India’s large population,
established app providers have recently started partnering with
internet service providers to increase their value-based offerings
to cater to users’ various service needs, such as utility,
entertainment and productivity apps. For instance, Facebook
has bought ownership in India’s largest telecommunication and
internet service firm–Reliance Jio–to ensure its service interests
with about 350 million Indian users (Phartiyal and
Bhattacharjee, 2020). On the other hand, the utilitarianism-
focused consumer behavior in emerging nations is culturally
tuned to seek psychological satisfaction in terms of time value
and other forms of materialism (Lysonski and Durvasula,
2013). Users in emerging economies qualify apps based on
their perception of utilitarian value rather than hedonic value
and to the extent that they might discard an app if it affects the
utilitarian purpose. This sort of consumer behavior in emerging
nations implies that app developers must prioritize utilitarian
value aspects over hedonic value aspects to win customer
loyalty.
5.3 The role of self-efficacy on mobile app stickiness
We found a strong positive influence of self-efficacy on MASS
(beta = 0.234 ; H9). Our in-depth interviews revealed similar
insights. For instance, Respondent 14 shared a personal
experience wherein “If the self-efficacy is low, the intention to
use will be less as well. It happens with my parents, [. . ..] my
dad is very good at installing – uninstalling apps, figuring out
which app works for what. On the other hand, my mother does
not bother about installing and uninstalling the apps. If the app
is not intuitive enough, then she will probably stop using it after
a while.” Users’ self-efficacy is critical for them to stick to apps,
as it inherently reflects their positive attitude toward
technology-mediated applications (Saleem et al., 2011). As
such, users’ ease of using apps habituates them to perform
mobile app-based activities, such as mobile banking, gaming
and others, using mobile devices over other traditional methods
(Luarn and Lin, 2005).
To conclude, we observed that PI, flow, utilitarian value and
self-efficacy are the main predictors for MASS. However, the
role of hedonic value cannot be ignored while developing apps
due to its balancing role in the overall relationship in the
research model. We anticipate that flow and hedonic value in
togetherness might show a non-linear (U-shaped curve)
conditionality in the PI-stickiness relationship–an area for
future investigation in an isolated setting. On the other hand,
utilitarian value and self-efficacy elevate an interactive app’s
likelihood of achieving user stickiness. There is a caveat though
that each app presents unique interactivity and usage
challenges for developers depending on different user-usage
specificities of an emerging nation.
6. Study implications and future scope
The exponential growth of mobile commerce in emerging
markets provides opportunities to gain insights into marketing
research and applications. Using an Indian data sample, our
study reveals several theoretical human-technology aspects of
the mobile app user-usage relationship. Our study
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
demonstrates that mobile app users in emerging markets apply
a multifaceted rationale for usage intent primarily due to their
cross-cultural conditioning toward utilitarian consumption
(Lim and Ang, 2008). For example, unlike developed
economies, users in India subscribe to branded product
advertisements for utility reasons, such as discounts, rather
than hedonic reasons, such as new product features and
updates.
6.1 Theoretical implication
Our study validates the PI-stickiness framework in the mobile
app user-usage context, which was earlier proposed by Furner
et al. (2014). The extant research on mobile technology
adoption largely concerns experimenting with these dimensions
in isolation. We found evidence to explain the complementary
role of four underlying dimensions – flow, perceived hedonic
value, perceived utilitarian value and self-efficacy – to their
earlier conceptualization. Our study shows research relevance
to focus on the subtle differences that these constructs bring
into the mobile-commerce space compared to its equivalent in
the web-commerce realm.
In this study, we applied a formative scale approach (instead
of a reflective scale approach) to nomologically measure the
sub-constructs (i.e. control, responsiveness, non-verbal,
connectedness and reciprocity) of PI. We demonstrate how to
ask higher-order questions using the logic of “why” and “how”
(Duarte and Amaro, 2018), thus contributing to the surveying
techniques to ensure greater reliability and validity of survey
responses. Our study also demonstrates that app user-usage
intent in emerging economies differs from that in developed
economies. We noted that users in emerging nations look for
both utilitarian and hedonic value from an interactive app, but
that does not necessarily guarantee their intent to stick. Prior
studies that explored the cognitive, affect and behavioral intents
of the web (Hsu and Lu, 2004) and mobile users (Liu and
Shiue, 2014) have suggested inversely. We established that
while users look for hedonic value from an app, it is the app’s
utilitarian value that makes them use the app for a longer
period–a phenomenon that is unique to emerging nations.
Besides, we extend prior research on PI by establishing the
direct and indirect roles of flow for app stickiness. Our findings
corroborate with earlier human-computer interaction studies
on flow dimension (Van Noort et al., 2012).
An unanticipated and conflicting with earlier findings is
about the negative effect of hedonic value on stickiness. This
made us refute our theoretically-hypothesized positive
relationship between hedonic value and stickiness. Our
interviews corroborate this finding. For example, Respondent 2
commented, “If I think I am wasting a lot of time then I think I
maybe will refrain from using that app.”; and Respondent 7
suggested, “App X is no more in my mobile because I felt after a
while it is not a value add for me in the long run.” As discussed
earlier, we believe that cognitive dissonance theory could
explain more about this continuance intent of app users
(Steelman and Soror, 2017). Another possible answer to
reconcile this unexpected finding exists in the utilitarianism-
oriented mindset of people in emerging economies. Recently,
Indian consumers have turned materialistic with the growing
availability of products and services (Lysonski and Durvasula,
2013). Therefore, despite their hedonic urges, they opt for
731
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
utilitarian value due to their socio-cultural conditioning (Lim
and Ang, 2008).
As for self-efficacy, we demonstrated that mobile apps are
just like any other human-computer interaction medium. For
instance, Respondent 4 commented, “If a person understands
an app a lot then that person can explore more about the app.”
An app’s success depends largely on the user’s inquisitiveness
to learn new internet and mobile technologies (Eastin and
LaRose, 2000) and their self-reliance to do day-to-day
activities, such as banking, interacting and shopping, virtually
and ubiquitously (Luarn and Lin, 2005). As Respondent 7
said, “If I have spent some time teaching my mom how to use
[App X], she sticks to it.”, we additionally demonstrated that
when a self-efficient person shares app usage knowledge with
others, it favors app stickiness (Chiang and Hsiao, 2015).
6.2 Practical implication
Our study provides insights for app managers and developers
on how to improve app user experiences. Considering the
growing utilitarianism-focused user generations (Lim and Ang,
2008), developers in emerging economies must not ignore the
identified interactivity dimensions (i.e. reciprocity,
responsiveness, use of NVF, control over the flow of
information and connectedness) in building apps with superior
ubiquitous, connectedness, location- and motion-awareness,
high-definition touch/displaying and high processing and
memory capabilities (Nandi and Nandi, 2015). Further, our
study reveals the importance of control for certain apps. As
Respondent 1 suggested, “In [App X], I like the privacy feature.
If I want to show my profile picture or my status, I have control
over it.”
Our study provides managers both empirical and qualitative
evidence explaining why and how users form app loyalties
based on their flow and value notions (Van Noort et al., 2012).
Our findings show how to strike a balance between utilitarian
and hedonic value propositions in satisfying customer needs.
For example, Respondent 5 commented, “When [App X –
finance app] tells me that my account is debited/credited, it
affects my emotions. It gives me a feeling of security when
money is in (utilitarian value). Sometimes it thrills me (i.e.
hedonic value).”
Our study indicates that app developers must keep pace with
the fast-paced lifestyle of mobile technology users in emerging
economies. For instance, Respondent 3 stated, “I consider
myself a phone addict. It is always with me. Even when I am
sleeping.” Our study exposes to app developers the importance
of flow and self-efficacy in developing technology-mediated
applications (Chiang and Hsiao, 2015). Managers can apply
our research model as an app development guiding framework.
6.3 Limitations and future research directions
Our study has certain limitations. First, the samples used in our
study are students from two universities in India. Although
students represent a significant portion of mobile app users, our
study does not capture all possible Indian demographic and
geographic considerations. Our study must be replicated with
other demographic and geographic locations to increase its
generalizability to other emerging economies. Second, we used
the “Google Online Survey Form” for the survey, which is
arguably limited in its survey design capabilities. To preserve
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
the anonymity of participants, we did not restrict our
participants from filling out multiple forms. Third, our survey
sample might include response biases, as we asked respondents
to anchor their responses to an app of their choice. We call for
replication studies with samples of other anchored apps or
types of apps, such as social apps, gaming apps and others.
Fourth, we did not consider controlling for variables, such as
age, education, language, sex, race and others, to establish their
effect on the study constructs.
Future research could improve the research model by
exploring additional PI dimensions. Currently, we explored the
intermediary roles of only three concepts, namely, value, flow
and self-efficacy, in the PI-stickiness relationship. Future
research could include additional user-behavioral attributes in
this interactivity-stickiness phenomenon, such as phone
fatigue, multi-tasking efficacy, social media attributes.
Stickiness can have both positive (such as customer loyalty
benefits) and negative (such as identity theft, stress and health
issues) consequences. Future research should address this
double-edged phenomenon of stickiness resulting from the PI
of apps. As a concluding note, the mobile app-related issues
investigated in our study provides better directionality to
researchers and practitioners who are currently engaged in
exploring this complex, ever-evolving mobile commerce space.
Note
1 A mobile app is a software application developed
specifically for use on small, wireless computing devices,
such as smartphones and tablets, rather than desktop or
laptop computers.
References
Ajzen, I. (2002), “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy,
locus of control, and the theory of planned behaviour”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 665-683, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x.
Alalwan, A.A., Algharabat, R.S., Baabdullah, A.M., Rana,
N.P., Qasem, Z. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2020), “Examining the
impact of mobile interactivity on customer engagement in
the context of mobile shopping”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 627-653.
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer,
A. and Wood, S. (1997), “Interactive home shopping:
consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to
participate in electronic marketplaces”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 38-53.
Amaro, S. and Duarte, P. (2016), “Modelling formative
second order constructs in PLS”, European Conference on
Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies,
Academic Conferences International Limited, pp. 19-27.
Bagozzi, R.P. (2007), “On the meaning of formative
measurement and how it differs from reflective
measurement”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 229-237, doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.229.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human
agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 122-147.
732
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
Bettiga, D. and Lamberti, L. (2018), “Exploring the role of
anticipated emotions in product adoption and usage”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 300-316.
Bezjian-Avery, A., Calder, B. and Iacobucci, D. (1998), “New
media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 23-32.
Bose, M. and Ye, L. (2019), “Cross-cultural perspective of
situated learning and coping: understanding psychological
closeness as mediator”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 10-20.
Chang, H.H., Wang, Y.H. and Yang, W.Y. (2009), “The
impact of e-service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty
on e-marketing: Moderating effect of perceived value”, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 423-443, doi:
10.1080/14783360902781923.
Chiang, H.S. and Hsiao, K.L. (2015), “YouTube stickiness:
the needs, personal, and environmental perspective”, Internet
Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 85-106.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS
analyses”, Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 655-690.
Chiu, H.C., Hsieh, Y.C. and Kao, C.Y. (2005), “Website
quality and customer’s behavioural intention: an exploratory
study of the role of information asymmetry”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 185-198.
Coursaris, C.K. and Sung, J. (2012), “Antecedents and
consequents of a mobile website’s interactivity”, New Media
& Society, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 1128-1146.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975), Flow and the Psychology of
Discovery and Invention, Harper Perennial, New York, NY.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997), “Flow and education”, NAMTA
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 2-35.
Dholakia, R.R. and Dholakia, N. (2004), “Mobility and
markets: emerging outlines of m-commerce”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 12, pp. 1391-1396.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P. and Roth, K.P. (2008),
“Advancing formative measurement models”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 12, pp. 1203-1218.
Dovaliene, A., Masiulyte, A. and Piligrimiene, Z. (2015), “The
relations between customer engagement, perceived value
and satisfaction: the case of mobile applications”, Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 213, pp. 659-664.
Duarte, P. and Amaro, S. (2018), “Methods for modelling
reflective-formative second order constructs in pls: an
application to online travel shopping”, Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Technology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 295-313.
Eastin, M.S. and LaRose, R. (2000), “Internet self-efficacy and
the psychology of the digital divide”, Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. JCMC611.
ET Online (2018), “Mobile banking catching on fast” here’s
the proof”, The Economics Times, available at: https://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/
mobile-banking-catching-on-fast-heres-the-proof/printarticle/
65593432.cms (accessed 27 July 2021).
Evans, P.B. and Wurster, T.S. (1997), “Strategy and the new
economics of information”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75
No. 5, pp. 70-82.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error:
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 382-388.
Fortin, D.R. and Dholakia, R.R. (2005), “Interactivity and
vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a
web-based advertisement”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 387-396.
Furner, C.P., Racherla, P. and Babb, J.S. (2014), “Mobile app
stickiness (MASS) and mobile interactivity: a conceptual
model”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 163-188.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M.
(2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications.
Harrison, R.L. and Reilly, T.M. (2011), “Mixed methods
designs in marketing research”, Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996), “Marketing in
hypermedia computer-mediated environments: conceptual
foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3,
pp. 50-68.
Hong, W., Thong, J.Y., Wong, W.M. and Tam, K.Y. (2002),
“Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: an
empirical examination of individual differences and system
characteristics”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 97-124, doi: 10.1080/07421222.
2002.11045692.
Holbrook, M.B. (1994), “The nature of customer value: an
axiology of services in the consumption experience”, in Rust, R.
T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in
Theory and Practice, Vol. 21, SAGE Publications, pp. 21-71.
Hsiao, K.L. and Chen, C.C. (2016), “What drives in-app
purchase intention for mobile games? An examination of
perceived values and loyalty”, Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, Vol. 16, pp. 18-29.
Hsu, C.L. and Lin, J.C.C. (2015), “What drives purchase
intention for paid mobile apps? - An expectation confirmation
model with perceived value”, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 46-57.
Hsu, C.L. and Lu, H.P. (2004), “Why do people play on-line
games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow
experience”, Information & Management, Vol. 14 No. 7,
pp. 853-868.
Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., Sanchez-Fernandez, R. and Cervera-
Taulet, A. (2012), “Online value creation in small service
businesses: the importance of experience valence and
personal values”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32
No. 15, pp. 2445-2462.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A
critical review of construct indicators and measurement model
misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Jeon, H., Jang, J. and Barrett, E.B. (2017), “Linking website
interactivity to consumer behavioral intention in an online
travel community: the mediating role of utilitarian value and
online trust”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 125-148, doi: 10.1080/
1528008X.2016.1169473.
Johnson, G.J., Bruner, G.C., II. and Kumar, A. (2006),
“Interactivity and its facets revisited: theory and empirical
test”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 35-52.
733
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
Kim, S.J. (2011), “Web-interactivity dimensions and shopping
experiential value”, Journal of Internet Business, Vol. 2011
No. 9, pp. 1-25.
Kim, B. and Han, I. (2011), “The role of utilitarian and
hedonic values and their antecedents in a mobile data service
environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 2311-2318.
Kourouthanassis, P.E. and Giaglis, G.M. (2012),
“Introduction to the special issue mobile commerce: the
past, present, and future of mobile commerce research”,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 5-18.
Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., Neter, J. and Li, W. (2005),
Applied Linear Statistical Models, Vol. 5, McGraw-Hill Irwin,
Boston.
Lee, D., Moon, J., Kim, Y.J. and Mun, Y.Y. (2015),
“Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone usability:
linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust, and
Brand loyalty”, Information & Management, Vol. 52 No. 3,
pp. 295-304.
Lee, T. (2005), “The impact of perceptions of interactivity on
customer trust and transaction intentions in mobile
commerce”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 6
No. 3, p. 165.
Li, H., Li, L., Gan, C., Liu, Y., Tan, C.W. and Deng, Z.
(2018), “Disentangling the factors driving users’
continuance intention towards social media: a
configurational perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 85, pp. 175-182.
Li, Y., Wang, H., Zeng, X., Yang, S. and Wei, J. (2020),
“Effects of interactivity on continuance intention of
government microblogging services: an implication on
mobile social media”, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 420-442.
Lim, E.A.C. and Ang, S.H. (2008), “Hedonic vs. utilitarian
consumption: a cross-cultural perspective based on cultural
conditioning”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 3,
pp. 225-232.
Liu, H.J. and Shiue, Y.C. (2014), “Influence of Facebook
game players’ behavior on flow and purchase intention”,
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 125-133.
Liu, Y. (2003), “Developing a scale to measure the interactivity
of websites”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 207-216.
Liu, Y., Liu, D., Yuan, Y. and Archer, N. (2018), “Examining
situational continuous mobile game play behavior from the
perspectives of diversion and flow experience”, Information
Technology & People, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 948-965.
Lu, C.C., Wu, L. and Hsiao, W.H. (2019), “Developing
customer product loyalty through mobile advertising:
affective and cognitive perspectives”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 47, pp. 101-111.
Luarn, P. and Lin, H.H. (2005), “Toward an understanding of
the behavioral intention to use mobile banking”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 873-891.
Luqman, A., Cao, X., Ali, A., Masood, A. and Yu, L. (2017),
“Empirical investigation of Facebook discontinues usage
intentions based on SOR paradigm”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 544-555.
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
Lysonski, S. and Durvasula, S. (2013), “Consumer decision
making styles in retailing: evolution of mindsets and
psychological impacts”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
McMillan, S.J. and Hwang, J.S. (2002), “Measures of
perceived interactivity: an exploration of the role of direction
of communication, user control, and time in shaping
perceptions of interactivity”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31
No. 3, pp. 29-42.
Madan, K. and Yadav, R. (2018), “Understanding and
predicting antecedents of mobile shopping adoption”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 139-162.
Marakas, G., Johnson, R. and Clay, P.F. (2007), “The evolving
nature of the computer self-efficacy construct: an empirical
investigation of measurement construction, validity,
reliability and stability over time”, Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 2.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldana, J. (2019),
Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 4th ed.,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Naimark, M. (1990), “Realness and interactivity”, in Laurel,
B. (Ed.), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Brenda Laurel MA
pp. 455-459.
Nandi, S. and Nandi, M.L. (2015), “Introducing an M-
Commerce course into the business management
curriculum: experiences and recommendations”, Journal
of Information Systems Education, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 235-243.
Ozturk, A.B., Nusair, K., Okumus, F. and Hua, N. (2016),
“The role of utilitarian and hedonic values on users’
continued usage intention in a mobile hotel booking
environment”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 57, pp. 106-115.
Park, M. and Yoo, J. (2020), “Effects of perceived interactivity
of augmented reality on consumer responses: a mental
imagery perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 52, pp. 101912.
Phartiyal, S. and Bhattacharjee, N. (2020), “Facebook bets on
India with $5.7 billion reliance deal”, Reuters, available at:
www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-reliance-jio/facebook-
bets-on-india-with-5-7-billion-reliance-deal-idUSKCN22404I
(accessed 27 Jul 2021).
Pihlström, M. (2007), “Committed to content provider or
mobile channel? Determinants of continuous mobile
multimedia service use”, Journal of Information Technology
Theory and Application, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Pihlström, M. and Brush, G.J. (2008), “Comparing the
perceived value of information and entertainment mobile
services”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 732-755.
Pura, M. (2005), “Linking perceived value and loyalty in
location-based mobile services”, Managing Service Quality:
An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 509-538.
Purnell, N. (2018), “wo years ago, India lacked fast, cheap
internet—one billionaire changed all that”, The Wall Street
Journal, available at: www.wsj.com/articles/two-years-ago-
india-lacked-fast-cheap-internetone-billionaire-changed-all-
that-1536159916 (accessed 27 Jul 2021).
734
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
Rafaeli, S. (1988), “Interaction and communication research”,
Interactivity: From New Media to Communication, Sage
Annual Review of Communication Research: ‘Advancing
Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal
Processes’, pp. 110-134.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2015), “SmartPLS
3. Bönningstedt: smartPLS”, available at: www.smartpls.
com (accessed 27 Jul 2021).
Rogers, E.M. (1986), Communication Technology: The New
Media in Society, Free Press: New York, NY.
Roy, S.K., Lassar, W.M. and Butaney, G.T. (2014), “The
mediating impact of stickiness and loyalty on word-of-mouth
promotion of retail websites: a consumer perspective”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1828-1849.
Ryu, K., Han, H. and Jang, S.S. (2010), “Relationships among
hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral
intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 416-432.
Saleem, H., Beaudry, A. and Croteau, A.M. (2011),
“Antecedents of computer self-efficacy: a study of the role of
personality traits and gender”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1922-1936.
Sherugar, S. and Budiu, R. (2016), “Mobile user behavior in
India”, Nielson Norman Group, available at: www.nngroup.
com/articles/mobile-behavior-india/ (accessed 27 July 2021).
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we
buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Silver, L., Smith, A., Johnson, C., Jiang, J., Anderson, M. and
Rainie, L. (2019), “Mobile connectivity in emerging
economies”, Pew Research Center Internet & Technology,
available at: https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/26/whatsapp-
india-users-400-million/ (accessed 27 July 2021).
Smith, R. (2019), “Instagram: i both love and loathe it for my
mental health”, Mental Health Foundation, available at:
www.mentalhealth.org.uk/blog/instagram-i-both-love-and-
loathe-it-my-mental-health (accessed 27 July 2021).
Song, J.H. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2008), “Determinants of
perceived web site interactivity”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Statistica (2019a), “Apps: India”, Statistica, available at: www.
statista.com/topics/5600/mobile-app-usage-in-india/ (accessed
27 July 2021).
Statistica (2019b), “Social media & User-Generated content”,
Statistica, available at: www.statista.com/markets/424/topic/
540/social-media-user-generated-content/ (accessed 27 Jul
2021).
Steelman, Z.R. and Soror, A.A. (2017), “Why do you keep
doing that? The biasing effects of mental states on IT
continued usage intentions”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 73, pp. 209-223.
Steenkamp, J.B.E. and Burgess, S.M. (2002), “Optimum
stimulation level and exploratory consumer behavior in an
emerging consumer market”, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 131-150.
Steenkamp, J.B.E. and Geyskens, I. (2006), “How country
characteristics affect the perceived value of web sites”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 136-150.
 Emerging economy perspective
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker
Steuer, J. (1992), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions
determining telepresence”, Journal of Communication,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 73-93.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived
value: the development of a multiple item scale”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Thakur, R. and Srivastava, M. (2014), “Adoption readiness,
personal innovativeness, perceived risk and usage intention
across customer groups for mobile payment services in
India”, Internet Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 369-392.
Thorson, K.S. and Rodgers, S. (2006), “Relationships between
blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity,
and parasocial interaction”, Journal of Interactive Advertising,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 5-44.
Van Noort, G., Voorveld, H.A. and van Reijmersdal, E.A.
(2012), “Interactivity in brand web sites: cognitive, affective,
and behavioral responses explained by consumers’ online
flow experience”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 223-234.
Wang, D., Park, S. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2012), “The role of
smartphones in mediating the touristic experience”, Journal
of Travel Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 371-387.
Washington, V. (2021), “India the fastest growing app market
in 2020”, Gadgets360, available at: https://gadgets.ndtv.
com/apps/news/india-fastest-growing-app-market-2020-
highest-education-vertical-adjust-report-argentina-gaming-
2409128 (accessed 27 July 2021).
Wendt, M. (2007), “Considerations before pooling data from two
different cycles of the General Social Survey”, Statistics
Canada, pp. 1-17 available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.607.1003&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Wetzler, T. (2021), “The growth of India’s app market”,
Adjust, available at: https://www.adjust.com/blog/the-
growth-of-india-s-app-market/ (accessed 27 July 2021).
Wong, C.H., Tan, G.W.H., Ooi, K.B. and Lin, B. (2015),
“Mobile shopping: the next frontier of the shopping
industry? An emerging market perspective”, International
Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 92-112.
Wu, G. and Wu, G. (2006), “Conceptualizing and measuring
the perceived interactivity of websites”, Journal of Current
Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 87-104.
Wu, G., Hu, X. and Wu, Y. (2010), “Effects of perceived
interactivity, perceived web assurance and disposition to
trust on initial online trust”, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
735
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737
Wu, J.J. and Chang, Y.S. (2005), “Towards understanding
members’ interactivity, trust, and flow in online travel
community”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 105 No. 7, pp. 937-954.
Yoo, C.W., Sanders, G.L. and Moon, J. (2013), “Exploring
the effect of e-WOM participation on e-Loyalty in e-
commerce”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 669-678.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price,
quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of
evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zhao, L. and Lu, Y. (2012), “Enhancing perceived
interactivity through network externalities: an empirical
study on micro-blogging service satisfaction and
continuance intention”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 53
No. 4, pp. 825-834.
Further reading
Bagozzi, R.P. (1980), Causal Models in Marketing, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Hong, W., Thong, J.Y., Wong, W.M. and Tam, K.Y. (2002),
“Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: an
empirical examination of individual differences and system
characteristics”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 97-124.
Stewart, D.W. and Pavlou, P.A. (2002), “From consumer
response to active consumer: measuring the effectiveness of
interactive media”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 376-396.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research,
Sage publications.
Sundar, S.S., Hesser, K.M., Kalyanaraman, S. and Brown, J.
(1998), “The effect of website interactivity on political
persuasion”, 21st General Assembly and Scientific Conference of
the International Association for Media and Communication
Research, Glasgow, UK, July.
Techseen Buearu (2017), “160 Mins: time India smartphone
users spend on average 11 apps a day”, Techseen, available
at: https://techseen.com/2017/05/04/app-annie-indians-
spend-160mins-apps/ (accessed 27 July 2021).
Teo, H.H., Oh, L.B., Liu, C. and Wei, K.K. (2003), “An
empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user
attitude”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 281-305.
 Emerging economy perspective Journal of Consumer Marketing
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737

Appendix

Table A1 Dimensions of interactivity

Article Applied context Interactivity dimensions Key contributions
McMillan and Web-based Two-way communication, Develops scales to operationalize the concept of PI in a
Hwang (2002) advertising control, time web-based advertisement context
Fortin and Dholakia Web-based Control, mutual discourse, Finds the effects and extents of interactivity and
(2005) advertising exchange of roles vividness on users’ attitudes and behaviors toward the
web-based advertisement
Johnson et al. Web-based Reciprocity, responsiveness, Modeled interactivity as a second-order formative
(2006) advertising speed of response, NVF construct useful for developing web advertising
strategies
Song and Zinkhan Web store Responsiveness, control, two- Provides evidence to support that personalization of
(2008) way communication, message increases website interactivity and its
personalization effectiveness when consumers are complaining that they
are inquiring about services
Wu and Wu (2006) Website Control, responsiveness and Established reliable, parsimonious and generalizable
personalization scales of PI
Wu et al. (2010) Web store Control, responsiveness and Finds that users’ perception of interactivity and web
personalization stores assurance creates users’ initial online trust to buy.
Recommends e-vendors to enhance users’ interactivity
and trust concerns by adopting third-party web
assurance certification
Van Noort et al. Social networking Two-way communication and Establishes that the strength of the social connection
(2012) website control between the sender and the receiver of a viral social
media campaign is a strong indicator of the persuasion
intent of the receiver of the message in the case of viral
(social) marketing communications
Zhao and Lu (2012) Micro-blogging Control, playfulness, Finds that network externalities impact PI. Also,
connectedness, perceived control, playfulness and connectedness leads
responsiveness to micro-blogging service users’ satisfaction
Lee (2005) Mobile phone Control, responsiveness, Identifies interactivity dimensions and validates the role
personalization, of interactivity features on customer trust and
connectedness, ubiquitous transaction intentions in mobile commerce scenarios
connectivity, contextual offer
Furner et al. (2014) Mobile app Control, communication, Proposes a conceptual framework of how mobile
responsiveness interactivity affects MASS
Lee et al. (2015) Mobile phone Control, responsiveness, NVF, Establishes that simplicity and interactivity of a mobile
personalization device define its usability, which, in turn, leads to loyalty,
but more so when both satisfaction and trust are present
(as mediators)
Lu et al. (2019) Mobile advertising Bi-directional communication, Establishes the importance of facilitating personalization
synchronicity, user control features from affective and cognitive perspectives in
mobile marketing efforts
Alalwan et al. Mobile shopping Control, personalization, Establishes the key interactivity dimensions that engage
(2020) playfulness, ubiquitous mobile shoppers and make them stay loyal
connectivity, connectedness,
responsiveness, playfulness,
synchronicity
Li et al. (2020) Mobile social media Control, playfulness, In government microblogging services, users’ perception
connectedness of control, playfulness and connectedness impacts users’
satisfaction and trust, which further leads to their
continuance intention
Park and Yoo Augmented reality- Control, responsiveness, Establishes the role of user control and playfulness in
(2020) based mobile communication developing impactful augmented reality-based mobile
shopping app shopping apps

736
 Emerging economy perspective Journal of Consumer Marketing
Santosh Nandi, Madhavi Latha Nandi and Varsha Khandker Volume 38 · Number 6 · 2021 · 721–737

Table A2 Questionnaire items

Construct
MASS (Furner et al., 2014)
Responsiveness (Lee et al., 2015)
Reciprocity (Liu, 2003)
Connectedness (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001)
Control (Lee et al., 2015)
NVF (Lee et al., 2015)
Hedonic value (Pihlström, 2007)
Utilitarian value (Pihlström, 2007)
Flow (Van Noort et al., 2012)
Self-efficacy (Marakas et al., 2007)
Scale items
1. Intention to use the mobile app whenever the relevant need arises
2. Frequency of usage of the mobile app
3. Average time spent on the mobile app per visit
4. The average number of screens visited per app session
5. Intention to keep the mobile app loaded on the smartphone
1. The mobile app quickly responds to the input
2. The mobile app gives relevant information for the request
3. The content in the mobile app loads quickly
1. The mobile app is effective in gathering visitors’ feedback
2. The mobile app facilitates communication among the visitors and the site (through chats, discussion
forums)
3. The mobile app makes a visitor feel as if it is listening to him/her
4. The mobile app allows visitors to talk back
1. The mobile app helps me to feel accepted by others
2. The mobile app makes a good impression about me on other people
3. The mobile app gives me social approval
4. The mobile app makes me feel close to the community
1. My mobile app has easy to understand the menu
2. I have learned quickly how to operate my mobile app
3. I can manage information presented in my mobile app
1. The mobile app has an interactive interface comprising icons, images and animation
2. The mobile app provides appropriate auditory and tactile input and feedback (e.g. sounds, vibration,
voice recognition, touch screen)
3. The information provided by the mobile app contains a relevant graphic interface
4. The animation and graphical content of the mobile app are very useful
1. Using the mobile app gives me pleasure
2. Using the mobile app makes me feel good
3. Using the mobile app makes me feel relaxed
4. It is fun to use the mobile app
1. The mobile app helps me save time and money
2. The mobile app is valued for its ease of use
3. I value the option of using this service instantly via the mobile app
1. I find it entertaining to explore my mobile app
2. I get absorbed when I explore my mobile app
3. I get anxious if my mobile app does not work for some reason
1. I can use my smartphone to display or present information in the desired manner
2. I can install new mobile apps on my smartphone
3. I can remove mobile apps from my smartphone that I no longer need

Corresponding author
Santosh Nandi can be contacted at: nandis1@appstate.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

737