Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Boosting customers’ impulsive buying tendency in live-streaming

commerce: The role of customer engagement and deal proneness
Xi Luo a, Jun-Hwa Cheah b, *, Linda D. Hollebeek c, d, e, f, g, h, Xin-Jean Lim i
a
Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom
c
Sunway University, Malaysia
d
Vilnius University, Lithuania
e
Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia
f
Umea University, Sweden
g
Lund University, Sweden
h
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
i
Centre of Value Creation and Human Well-being, Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: With the ever-growing popularity of live-streaming commerce, it is crucial for marketers to understand how live-
Live-streaming streaming contributes to sales. While prior studies mainly focused on customer motivations for using live-
Elaboration likelihood model streaming commerce, few studies, to date, elucidate consumers’ decision-making process in this context.
Customer engagement
Addressing this gap, we adopt the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion to examine how live-
Deal proneness
Impulse buying
streaming influences customers’ engagement and impulse buying behavior, as moderated by their deal prone­
PLS-SEM ness. To explore these issues, we analyzed data collected from 735 Millennials in China using partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The findings show that factors characterizing the ELM-informed central
(i.e., product information quality, streamer interaction quality, and streamer credibility) and peripheral (i.e.,
review consistency) routes exert positive effects on customer engagement and impulse buying. Moreover, deal
proneness was found to moderate the relationship between engagement and impulse buying. The findings offer
valuable insight for e-tailers seeking to encourage impulsive buying among millennial shoppers. Specifically,
they highlight the role of central- and peripheral route factors in promoting customer engagement and impulsive
buying, with the effect of customer engagement on impulsive buying being contingent on deal proneness-based
differences among millennial shoppers.

1. Introduction
Given ongoing technological advances, the e-commerce sector is
witnessing a rapid influx of innovative developments (Cai and Wohn,
2019). These innovations range from conventional textual or graphical
product descriptions to the integration of real-time videos and
live-streaming experiences. By providing customers with live videos
(Wongkitrungrueng and Assarut, 2020), live-streaming places a strong
emphasis on experiential consumption (Sun et al., 2019). Consequently,
live-streaming commerce (LSC) has been identified to offer a more
engaging, user-centric experience (Ming et al., 2021).
In recent years, LSC has risen in popularity globally. According to
Statista (2022), the U.S. LSC market is forecast to generate $35 billion in
revenue by 2024. In China, 526 million customers use LSC, as of June
2023, accounting for 48.8% of Internet users (Statista, 2023a). Notably,
almost 80% of LSC users are Millennials (McKinsey, 2023). The rapid
growth of the LSC market is exemplified by its gross merchandise value,
which, while accounting for 10.6% of total online shopping gross
merchandise value in 2020, grew to 25.3% in 2022 (Statista, 2023b).
Given this exponential growth, LSC represents a promising blue ocean
marketing opportunity, leading many e-tailers to adopt live-streaming to
grow their sales and to boost their competitive advantage (Wongki­
trungrueng and Assarut, 2020). However, despite these benefits, not all
streamers generate LSC-based profits, or even sales. For example,
approximately 1.23 million streamers, reportedly, struggle with poor
traffic and low sales conversion rates (National Institution of Metrology

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: J.Cheah@uea.ac.uk (J.-H. Cheah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103644
Received 15 September 2023; Received in revised form 21 October 2023; Accepted 14 November 2023
Available online 25 November 2023
0969-6989/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Luo et al.
of China, 2022). Moreover, streamers’ content is likely to impact con­
sumers’ impulsive purchase behavior. Specifically, over 60% of shop­
pers engage in impulsive buying after listening to streamers’ product
recommendations (Chen, 2020). Consequently, streamers face a formi­
dable challenge: understanding the ways in which persuasive LSC im­
pacts customers’ impulse purchase decision-making.
Despite LSC-based technological advances, empirical research
addressing how individuals are persuaded to make impulse buying de­
cisions on live-streaming platforms remains scant to date (Lo et al.,
2022). We argue that, given the experiential, engaging nature of LSC,
this is expected to be particularly conducive to customers’ impulse
purchasing. Using the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persua­
sion, this study, therefore, investigates customers’ processing of specific
live-streaming-based informational cues to make unplanned purchase
decisions. While prior research has addressed how customers’
live-streaming usage is affected by motivation-based variables, like
intrinsic motivation (Guo et al., 2021; Ma, 2021) or perceived value
(Wongkitrungrueng and Assarut, 2020; Chen et al., 2021), or
platform-related factors, like IT affordance (Sun et al., 2019; Ming et al.,
2021) or technical characteristics (Li et al., 2021b), little remains known
regarding the role of informational tenets characterizing live-streaming
content (e.g., argument quality; heuristic cues) and their respective ef­
fects on customer attitudes and (e.g., decision-making) behavior,
revealing a pertinent literature-based gap.
Addressing this gap, we explore how individuals process different
informational, or persuasive, cues when they engage in live-streaming-
based shopping, which we argue are conducive to their unplanned (vs.
planned) purchase behavior. To frame our analyses, we deploy the ELM,
which proposes a dual-route process of customer information processing
to persuade individuals (Petty et al., 1983; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986).
While the ELM is traditionally used to predict customers’ involvement,
authors including Hollebeek and Srivastava (2022), Levy and Gvili
(2020), and Jessen et al. (2020) point to its additional applicability to
customers’ engagement-based dynamics. Specifically, while a customer’s
processing of informational brand-related (e.g., live-streaming) content
is contingent on their level of brand-related involvement (i.e., interest),
it will also transcend to impact their resource investment in their
brand-related interactions (i.e., engagement; Hollebeek et al., 2019),
revealing the ELM’s parallel applicability to also explore engagement
dynamics (Levy and Gvili, 2020), as conducted in this study. Overall, we
use the ELM to consider possible persuasive communication cues and
their respective effects on customers’ information processing, engage­
ment, and impulse purchase-based decision-making in the LSC context
(Zhou et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2022).
This research makes the following contributions to the live-
streaming and engagement literature. First, we apply the ELM to
explore different informational cues in persuading, and shaping, cus­
tomers’ impulsive buying tendency under differing informational con­
ditions (Petty et al., 1999), exposing novel insight into the
live-streaming/engagement interface. In the LSC context, streamers and
customers take different informational roles (Ming et al., 2021). Spe­
cifically, streamers deliver issue-relevant arguments to customers (Lee
and Koo, 2016; EI Hedhli et al., 2021), emphasizing the importance of
their recommendations, interactions, and credibility in central route
persuasion (Guo et al., 2022; Xue et al., 2020). Moreover, customers’
information co-creation and arousal may provide rich heuristic cues (Li
et al., 2021a; Geng et al., 2021). Addressing these issues, we explore the
effects of LSC-based product information quality, streamer interaction
quality, streamer credibility (i.e., central factors), and consistency and
resonant contagion (i.e., peripheral factors), thus linking LSC’s hall­
marks to the ELM to understand consumers’ engagement and impulse
buying in this context. Second, we assess customer engagement’s effect
on individuals’ impulse buying behavior. Engagement has been shown
to exert a significant effect on customers’ processing of informational
cues and their ensuing online purchase decision-making (Hollebeek
et al., 2014; Hollebeek and Macky, 2019; Jessen et al., 2020), in turn
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644
potentially affecting their impulse buying tendencies, as applied to the
LSC in this article. Relatedly, we explore the moderating role of
customer deal proneness in the association of their engagement and
their ensuing impulse buying tendency. The development of enhanced
acumen of LSC-based deal proneness matters, given the proliferation of
deals in this context (e.g., through coupons/flash sales; Huang and Suo,
2021), which are commonly targeted at Millennials (Palazon and
Delgado-Ballester, 2011).
The article unfolds as follows. We next review the key literature in
Section 2, followed by the development of the conceptual model and an
associated set of hypotheses in Section 3. Next, the methodology and
results are presented in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. We conclude by
discussing the main findings and their implications in Section 6.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Overview: the elaboration likelihood model (ELM)
The ELM is a dual-route theoretical perspective that explains or
predicts individuals’ reception and processing of content disseminated
through communication media, in turn influencing their attitude (Petty
and Cacioppo, 1986). The ELM suggests the existence of two routes (i.e.,
the central vs. peripheral route) to persuasion. The central route to
persuasion reflects individuals’ tendency to process issue-relevant in­
formation through extensive cognitive processing and elaboration,
which is primarily observed in high-involvement decision-making, in
which individuals display elevated levels of interest (e.g., by extensively
assessing content credibility). Conversely, the peripheral route to
persuasion implies individuals’ relatively shallow cognitive processing
and elaboration, as typically observed in low-involvement (e.g., more
emotive) decision-making, in which individuals are not prepared to
invest extensive time or resources. Here, people rely on mental shortcuts
(i.e., heuristics) to make decisions (Shahab et al., 2021; Zhou et al.,
2023). While attitudinal changes fostered by the central route are often
enduring, consistent, and predictive of behavior, those fashioned
through the peripheral route tend to be more momentary, inconsistent,
and unpredictable of future behavior (Srivastava and Saini, 2022).
Given its theoretical versatility (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), the ELM has
been applied to a range of contexts, including health communication
(Cao et al., 2017), information technology (Bhattacherjee and Sanford,
2006), marketing (Srivastava and Sivaramakrishnan, 2020), and
advertising (Lee and Koo, 2016), to name a few. Overall, it represents
one of the most popular customer behavior and decision-making the­
ories (e.g., Zhou et al., 2023), leading us to adopt the ELM in our
LSC-based analyses.
2.2. The ELM’s central route
The central route is adopted when individuals are motivated and able
to process and analyze a message (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). This route
is taken when informational recipients spend significant cognitive effort
evaluating content (e.g., by determining its reliability) before making a
decision (Bhattacherjee and Sanford, 2006). Here, an argument’s
persuasive power depends on the perceived quality of information
offered (Kang and Namkung, 2019). We, therefore, we employ product
information quality as a central route factor in facilitating customers’
LSC-based decision-making. Given LSC’s unique hallmarks (e.g.,
real-time interaction), users are required to proactively recognize their
purchase needs and identify product information accordingly. Streamer
interaction quality, likewise, plays an important role in communications
activating the central route to persuasion (Cao et al., 2017; Chen et al.,
2018), given highly (vs. low)-involved consumers’ motivation to eval­
uate streamer characteristics. Moreover, through their content,
streamers may influence consumption patterns based on their credibility
over time (Park and Lin, 2020; Gong and Li, 2017). Correspondingly,
streamer credibility has been argued to serve as an issue-relevant issue
X. Luo et al.
that is predominantly activated under high-elaboration conditions
(Kapitan and Silvera, 2016; EI Hedhli et al., 2021). Pairing product in­
formation with a streamer’s image may yield customers’ more effortful
information processing, motivating them to carefully examine the con­
tent, and in turn, fostering more enduring attitudinal and behavioral
changes (Kang and Namkung, 2019; Ma, 2021). We, thus, adopt product
information quality, streamer interaction quality, and streamer credi­
bility as key ELM-based central route elements.
2.3. The ELM’s peripheral route
The peripheral route to persuasion transpires when people are un­
motivated or lack the ability to thoroughly process a message, yielding
their low-elaboration processing. When processing information through
the peripheral route, people follow cue-based judgements (e.g.,
emotional appeals), rather than actively considering issue-related ar­
guments, yielding more impulsive decision-making driven by heuristic
cues (vs. careful consideration of product information; Geng et al., 2021;
Zhou et al., 2023).
In LSC, customers are indispensable in providing rich heuristic cues
(Zhou et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2021) and in creating enthusiasm (Chen
and Lin, 2018). Specifically, customers are able to influence, and be
influenced by, others’ experiences, yielding their typically converging
opinions (e.g., through customer-to-customer-based bullet-screen com­
ments; Hu et al., 2017; Zeng et al., 2022). These fast-paced, potentially
emotionally charged bullet-screen comments contribute to inducing
consumers’ emotional engagement and impulsive (e.g., impulse buying)
behavior (Zeng et al., 2022). We, thus, explore the peripheral cues
offered by bullet-screen comments, including repetitive reviews (Zhou
et al., 2019) and resonant contagion created by co-viewers (Hu et al.,
2017), which serve as heuristic cues arousing consumer emotions and
seeing them rely on these signals as informational substitutes. Based on
this rationale, we adopt review consistency and resonant contagion as
key ELM-based peripheral cues.
Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework. Notes: Dashed-line boxes represent lower-order constructs/dimensions; USE (Usefulness); BEL (Believability); VIV (Vividness); RTI
(Real-Time Interaction); RES (Responsiveness); EMP (Empathy); TRU (Trustworthiness); EXP (Expertise); AFE (Affective Engagement); BEE (Behavioral Engage­
ment); COE (Cognitive Engagement); SOE (Social Engagement).
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644
2.4. Customer engagement
Customer engagement is commonly viewed as a three-dimensional
concept comprising cognitive, emotional, and behavioral facets (Bro­
die et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2018). LSC offers a social-relationship-based
online community, supporting multilateral relationships between cus­
tomers and streamers (Dessart et al., 2016; Ming et al., 2021), raising the
potential additional importance of a social customer engagement
dimension (Hollebeek et al., 2019; Vivek et al., 2014; Brodie et al., 2013;
Behnam et al., 2021).
While cognitive engagement denotes a customer’s cognitive processing
and mental elaboration of brand-related information (e.g., through LSC-
based product-related learning), emotional engagement reflects the extent
of a customer’s affect invested in their brand-related interactions (e.g.,
through positive LSC-based sentiment). Behavioral engagement repre­
sents the customer’s level of time, effort and energy invested in their
brand interactions (e.g., through LSC-based liking/sharing information;
Hollebeek et al., 2014), and social engagement highlights the extent of a
customer’s investment in social LSC-related dynamics (e.g., by sharing
product-related experiences; Vivek et al., 2014; Hollebeek et al., 2019).
3. Conceptual model and hypothesis development
Deploying the ELM, we examine the factors affecting LSC users’
adoption of central (vs. peripheral) routes to persuasion and the ensuing
effect on their engagement and behavior. We also examine the poten­
tially moderating role of deal proneness in the association of customers’
engagement and their impulse buying tendency (see Fig. 1).
3.1. Central route factors and customer engagement
Product information quality, one of the central route factors, may
manifest as argument reliability and/or persuasiveness (Bhattacherjee
and Sanford, 2006). It is considered a multidimensional construct
comprising information completeness, timeliness, accuracy, relevance,
understandability, and value addition (Rajaguru et al., 2023). Product
X. Luo et al.
information quality typically pertains to users’ perception of online (e.
g., textual) information quality (McKinney et al., 2002). However, as
LSC mainly presents video-based (vs. textual) information, we empha­
size content usefulness, vividness, and believability as key product in­
formation quality dimensions in our selected context (Zhang et al.,
2020).
Prior studies identify product information quality as an important
predictor of customer engagement (Kang and Namkung, 2019; Srivas­
tava and Sivaramakrishnan, 2020). In LSC, high-quality information
tends to enhance the shopping experience (e.g., by boosting brand
attitudes/engagement; Yusuf et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020). Moreover,
streamers tend to efficiently provide customers with relevant informa­
tion to raise their engagement (Wongkitrungrueng and Assarut, 2020).
For example, streamers’ product-related attention and examination may
substitute physically viewing or touching the product, raising the
perceived reliability of product information (Cai and Wohn, 2019; Lo
et al., 2022). High-fidelity, vivid presentations may also serve to
immerse customers in the product (Sun et al., 2019), attracting them to
live content and emotionally engaging them with streamers (Hollebeek
and Macky, 2019; Devino and Engriani, 2023). Furthermore, streamers’
provision of perceived helpful, or relevant, product-related information
is likely to stimulate customer learning (Lo et al., 2022; Dessart et al.,
2016). We propose.
H1. Product information quality positively affects customer
engagement.
Second, streamer interaction quality, likewise, represents an
important central route factor (Cao et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018).
Streamer interaction quality refers to customers’ perceived quality of
their interaction with streamers during service delivery on LSC plat­
forms (Kang et al., 2021). It includes three dimensions: real-time
interaction, responsiveness, and empathy (Zhang et al., 2020).
Streamer interaction quality acts as an essential ambient cue that in­
fluences customers’ cognitive and emotional states (Gulfraz et al.,
2022). In LSC, customers commonly ask questions via
bullet-screen-based interactions to obtain information that meets their
needs (Zhou et al., 2019). Thus, streamers’ responsiveness is likely to
yield customers’ more positive comments, likes, and subscriptions (Xue
et al., 2020; Chen and Lin, 2018). Moreover, empathy, the ability to feel
or sense others’ emotional experience, serves as informational and
emotional support, providing customers with caring, personalized con­
tent (Zhang et al., 2020). When individuals feel valued or cared for, they
will tend to exhibit higher emotional engagement (Chebat et al., 2003).
Streamers’ individualized attention also offers customers more relevant
information, typically enhancing the depth of their information pro­
cessing (Kang et al., 2021). Customers, in turn, will be more likely to
offer positive reactions (e.g., by giving thumbs-up, sending gifts, or
leaving bullet-screen comments). We propose:
H2. Streamer interaction quality positively affects customer
engagement.
We adopt Kelman’s (1961) internalization dimensions to conceptu­
alize streamer credibility, which requires relatively deep processing of
message content. Internalized persuasive content implies that informa­
tion recipients evaluate streamer credibility based on their expertise and
trustworthiness (Kapitan and Silvera, 2016). First, in LSC, customers
tend to perceive streamers’ expertise based on their live-streaming
experience (e.g., in providing shopping recommendations; Guo et al.,
2022). Second, trustworthiness reflects the streamer’s perceived
honesty, reliability, and integrity (Ohanian, 1990). Prior research shows
that when customers process a message endorsed by a perceived credible
source, they are more likely to accept the message (Wang and Schein­
baum, 2018). In advertising/celebrity endorsement research, scholars
have found that an endorser’s credibility acts as a central cue, in turn
positively influencing individuals’ responses (Lee and Koo, 2016; EI
Hedhli et al., 2021). For example, expert (vs. non-expert) arguments are
typically perceived as being more persuasive (Park and Lin, 2020).
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644
When customers perceive endorsers to be credible, they will have more
confidence in the message, raising their likelihood of being persuaded by
it and deepening their message processing (Lee and Koo, 2016; Ma,
2021). Similarly, perceived credible streamers are often considered to be
“experienced” in making shopping recommendations, raising cus­
tomers’ willingness to engage with them (Qiu et al., 2021). We
postulate:
H3. Streamer credibility positively affects customer engagement.
3.2. Peripheral route factors and customer engagement
Unlike individuals’ high motivation in central route information
processing, they may rely on mental shortcuts (heuristics) to simplify or
guide their peripheral route decision-making (Castañeda et al., 2020).
Prior research suggests that social interaction, typically, involves
different sources (e.g., brand communities, reviews, and recommenda­
tions) that may boost customers’ engagement (Behnam et al., 2021;
Cabeza-Ramírez et al., 2022). Social bullet-screen-based interactions
allow consumers to communicate and interact with other LSC users
(Zeng et al., 2022). Prior research shows that consistent (vs. inconsis­
tent) bullet-screen reviews tend to be perceived as more reliable and
persuasive (Zhou et al., 2019), because informational repetition lowers
their need-for-cognition (Wu et al., 2019), in turn yielding improved
decision-making and social integration (Molinillo et al., 2020).
Bullet-screen interactions also allow viewers to process co-viewers’
comments, facilitating comment-based assessments (Gao et al., 2021). If
customers perceive the existence of bullet-screen comment-based
consensus (e.g., by their thoughts/feelings aligning across most
bullet-screen reviews), their bullet-screen-based confidence tends to
rise, in turn boosting their engagement (Guo et al., 2021; Zhang et al.,
2020). We propose:
H4. Review consistency positively affects customer engagement.
Resonant contagion, which occurs when customers’ perception and
behavior are influenced by others, is particularly prevalent under high
compatibility of values (Hu et al., 2017). That is, resonant contagion
suggests that individuals’ harmonious motivations and norms will see
them be more influenceable by others (Bründl et al., 2017; Hollebeek
et al., 2022a), in turn boosting their group identification (Hu et al.,
2017; Guo et al., 2021) and engagement (Dholakia et al., 2004; Alge­
sheimer et al., 2005).
LSC-based resonant contagion occurs when viewers perceive a strong
connection to the content, the streamer, or co-viewers, and perceive
these elements to align with their personality and values. When such
alignment occurs, viewers are more inclined to engage in live-streaming
shopping (e.g., by helping fellow members/creating content; Molinillo
et al., 2020). That is, customers are likely to co-create value in this
context, boosting their engagement (Nadeem et al., 2021). As viewers
resonate with the content and the community, their sense of
community-based belonging and identification grows (Dholakia et al.,
2004), cultivating higher LSC-based emotional engagement (Hu et al.,
2017; Guo et al., 2021). We propose:
H5. Resonant contagion positively affects customer engagement.
3.3. Customer engagement and impulsive buying tendency
Customer engagement, a customer’s resource investment in their
brand interactions (Hollebeek et al., 2019), can foster impulsive buying
(e.g., as driven by emotions/social dynamics; Ou et al., 2020; Zuo and
Xiao, 2021). Engagement may transpire at differing intentionality levels
(i.e., ranging from conscious/purposeful engagement to more subcon­
scious/unintentional engagement; Hollebeek et al., 2022b), implying
that customers may engage with content either subconsciously or
unintentionally.
In LSC, streamers’ exaggerated tone can stimulate customers’
X. Luo et al.
excitement, raising their (e.g., emotional) engagement and impulsive
buying tendency (Luo et al., 2021). Under rising customer engagement,
individuals are likely to make rising cognitive (e.g., by processing con­
tent), emotional (e.g., by arousing affect), behavioral (e.g., liking/­
sharing), and/or social (e.g., by collaboratively creating content)
resource investments (Hollebeek et al., 2014, 2019), in turn raising their
immersion and sense of community and exerting a likely effect on their
impulsive buying behavior (Gulfraz et al., 2022; Yi et al., 2023). In­
dividuals’ emotional engagement with streamers and co-viewers may
also trigger a flow state, in which they forget everything else around
them and are completely absorbed by the content (Hollebeek et al.,
2020). That is, engaged customers are more likely to experience im­
mersion, facilitating their unplanned purchases (Zuo and Xiao, 2021; Lin
et al., 2022). We propose:
H6. Customer engagement positively affects the individual’s impulse
buying tendency.
3.4. Customer engagement’s mediating role
Engagement has been shown to mediate a range of theoretical re­
lationships in online settings (Hollebeek et al., 2014). For example, prior
research reveals a positive relationship between online environmental
cues, engagement, and purchase decisions (Lim et al., 2023; McClure
and Seock, 2020; Ou et al., 2020).
When customers interact with streamers and view co-viewers’ re­
views, the attained information will tend to stimulate their perceived
sense of community and involvement, in turn raising their impulse
buying tendency (Gulfraz et al., 2022). Relatedly, given their heightened
resource investment in their LSC-based interactions, engaged (vs. less
engaged) customers are likely to reciprocate to streamers with positive
emotions and behaviors when they obtain valuable product information
(Hollebeek and Chen, 2014; Devino and Engriani, 2023).
As live-streaming shopping is designed to engage customers and
facilitate the immediacy of making real-time purchases, more engaged
users are expected to make higher levels of unplanned (impulse) buying
decisions (Lin et al., 2022), given their greater processing of streamers’
product-related information (Mathews and Lhamo, 2022) and greater
social live-streaming interactions (Li et al., 2021b). We hypothesize.
H7a. Customer engagement mediates the relationship between prod­
uct information quality and impulse buying tendency.
H7b. Customer engagement mediates the relationship between
streamer interaction quality and impulse buying tendency.
H7c. Customer engagement mediates the relationship between
streamer credibility and impulse buying tendency.
H7d. Customer engagement mediates the relationship between review
consistency and impulse buying tendency.
H7e. Customer engagement mediates the relationship between reso­
nant contagion and impulse buying tendency.
3.5. Moderating role of deal proneness
Deal proneness refers to a customer’s inclination to pursue special
offers and promotions (Lichtenstein et al., 1997; Flacandji and Vlad,
2022). Customers, who display different deal proneness levels are likely
to see differences in their purchase behavior (Martínez and Montaner,
2006). In LSC, product prices can change rapidly (e.g., due to
limited-time offers; Huang and Suo, 2021). Millennials, in particular, are
known to be deal-prone, therefore, they may be motivated by the
prospect of a good deal (e.g., discounts/flash sales; Antunes et al., 2022).
Here, deal proneness represents an important element in triggering and
converting customers’ excitement and engagement into impulsive
buying (Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2011).
Studies show that deal proneness may moderate the association of
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644
the customer’s purchase experience and its consequences (Flacandji and
Vlad, 2022; Bandyopadhyay et al., 2021). In online shopping, customer
engagement often involves emotional arousal (e.g., excitement/enthu­
siasm; Devino and Engriani, 2023). For deal-prone individuals, this
emotional arousal may reinforce their predisposition to seek out deals,
intensifying their impulsive buying tendency (Pradhan, 2016; Bandyo­
padhyay et al., 2021). Likewise, deal-prone shoppers’ high engagement
may create immediate fulfilment and instant gratification, thus stimu­
lating impulse buying behavior (Iranmanesh et al., 2017). Deal-prone
customers are also likely to invest time/effort in seeking deals and
derive satisfaction from bargains and savings. In LSC, behavioral
engagement (e.g., by liking streamers/subscribing to channels) is a
means to access deals (Huang and Suo, 2021). Consequently, deal-prone
individuals are more likely to engage with and process deal-related in­
formation to secure the best LSC deals. This heightened engagement can
create a sense of urgency, further fueling customers’ impulse buying
tendency (Pradhan, 2016). We propose.
H8. When customers are more receptive to deal proneness, the rela­
tionship between customer engagement and impulsive buying tendency
is stronger.
4. Methodology
4.1. Data collection
We collected the data from China using an online survey developed
via Wenjuanxing (https://www.wjx.cn/), a Chinese platform similar to
Qualtrics, offering survey creation and data collection services (Gao
et al., 2023). The survey link was distributed to potential participants via
leading Chinese social media channels, including WeChat and Weibo,
from May to July 2023. Millennials, comprising almost 80% of
live-stream shoppers (McKinsey, 2023), tend to be highly engaged in
digital platforms and exhibit unique consumer behavior patterns (Lim
et al., 2021), revealing their applicability in the LSC-based engage­
ment/impulse buying context. Correspondingly, purposive sampling
was employed to examine Millennial shoppers (i.e., those born between
1981 and 2000) engaging in live-streaming shopping in the last two
months. Participants, who failed to meet the eligibility criteria were
excluded from further analysis. The remaining respondents were
requested for their consent to participate and were also provided with
information regarding the survey.
A total of 1000 questionnaires was distributed, from which we
attained 960 completed responses (response rate of 96%). We achieved
this elevated response rate through a concerted effort to ensure the re­
spondents’ participation (e.g., by the survey company’s offering of
financial incentives to the respondents). However, 225 incomplete
questionnaires were removed, yielding a sample of 735 valid question­
naires for further analysis. It is recommended to have 10–15 participants
for each variable and its items (Hair et al., 2019a). Based on this ratio­
nale, our model (60 items across 8 constructs) requires a minimum
sample size of 600 (60*10). In addition, Tabachnick et al. (2013) offer a
different formula for determining sample size (N ≥ 50 + 8 m, where N =
minimum sample size required, and m = number of items included).
Considering this formula, the minimum needed sample size for this
study must be bigger than 530 (N ≥ 50 + 8*60 = 530). Furthermore, the
criteria of the G*Power Analysis (Green, 1991) reveals that the recom­
mended sample size for data collection is around 271 (99% power; effect
size of 0.15; 1% margin of error), thereby indicating that our sample size
of 735 respondents meets the ideal benchmark of the required sample
size. Therefore, our sample of 735 participants suffices to test the pro­
posed model.
The majority of respondents were female (54.15%), married
(86.80%), held a Bachelor’s degree (40.82%), were employed in the
private sector (45.03%), earned a monthly income of RMB5,001 to
RMB8,000 (39.46%), and had made three purchases on LSC platforms in
X. Luo et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644

the past two months (32.79%). Most stated using LSC platforms to buy is honest (TRU2).” Review consistency items were sourced from Luo
apparel (57.82%). Their preferred live-streaming shopping platform was et al.’s (2015) 3-item scale, with a sample item reading: “The comments
Taobao (26.12%), while they described their preferred streamer type as match other reviews on the bullet-screen (RCN3).” Resonant contagion
a professional streamer (28.16%) (see Table 1). was gauged by drawing on Lim et al.’s (2012) 3-item scale. A sample
item includes: “My behavior influenced other viewers in the broad­
casting room (RCT2).” We measured second-order customer engagement
4.2. Measures and instrument development
by utilizing Dessart et al.’s (2016) scale (i.e., affective, cognitive,
behavioral) and Vivek et al.’s (2014) scale (i.e., social). A sample item
The deployed items were adapted from prior research (see Appendix
includes: “I find live-streaming shopping is interesting (AFE1).” Finally,
A). In particular, the scales gauging information- and streamer interaction
deal proneness was measured by adopting Flacandji and Vlad’s (2022)
quality were adapted from Zhang et al. (2020). A sample item for
4-item scale, while impulse buying tendency was measured with Beatty
product information quality reads: “The information on the
and Ferrell (1998)’ 3-item instrument.
live-streaming platform is valuable (USE1).” A sample item for streamer
We also took steps to minimize common method variance (CMV), or
interaction quality includes: “Streamers are always happy to talk with
common method bias, in the data. Specifically, the survey used clear,
me (RES1).” Streamer credibility was measured by deploying Ohanian’s
unambiguous instructions and language, an introductory message to
(1990) measurement instrument. A sample item includes: “The streamer
respondents, and detailed explanations (e.g., of focal constructs used) to
ensure the participants’ accurate understanding of the questionnaire
Table 1 (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Moreover, respondents were guaranteed ano­
Demographic profile. nymity and confidentiality (MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012). To ensure
Variable Characteristics N= % survey quality, a panel comprising three marketing Professors and five
735 experienced Millennial shoppers were recruited to pretest the survey
Gender Male 337 45.85 instrument. As the survey data was collected in China, we prepared two
Female 398 54.15 versions of the questionnaire (i.e., Chinese and English). To ensure
Marital status Single 31 4.22
translation accuracy, a back-translation was also employed by Chine­
Married 638 86.80
Divorced 66 8.98 se–English bilingual assistants (Brislin, 1970). We next conducted a pilot
Highest Level of Education Below secondary 58 7.89 test to further assess the questionnaire’s applicability (50 responses),
Secondary 122 16.60 primarily to examine construct reliability. Specifically, the items’ com­
Diploma or Associate Degree 125 17.01 posite reliability exceeded the value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2022), sug­
Bachelor’s Degree 300 40.82
gesting their internal consistency.
Master’s degree 110 14.97
PhD or higher 20 2.72
Monthly Income Less than RMB5,000 156 21.22 4.3. Control variables
RMB5,001-RMB8,000 290 39.46
RMB8,001-RMB11,000 121 16.46
Prior research suggests that customers’ behavioral intentions may
RMB11,001-RMB14,000 121 16.46
RMB14,001 and above 47 6.39 vary based on their demographic (e.g., gender, education, income,
Occupation Student 19 2.59 occupation, or marital status) profile (Guo et al., 2016). Relatedly,
Privately-owned enterprise 331 45.03 research shows that customers’ online shopping behavior is significantly
employees influenced by their past shopping frequency (Park and Jun 2003). We,
SOE/Government officers 208 28.30
Self-employed 153 20.82
therefore, control for demographic profile (e.g., gender, education level,
Freelance 24 3.27 monthly income, occupation, and marital status) and purchase
Purchase Frequency Once in past 2 months 137 18.64 frequency.
Twice in past 2 months 210 28.57
3 times in past 2 months 241 32.79
5. Results
4 times and above in past 2 147 20.00
months
Frequently Purchased Apparel 425 57.82 5.1. Data estimation technique
Product* Food 402 54.69
Jewelry 327 44.49 The data was first analyzed by using SPSS (version 29) to assess the
Beauty 278 37.82
Kids and Baby 237 32.24
respondents’ demographic data and to test for potential common
Digital Products 124 16.87 method variance. We next conducted partial least squares structural
Sport and Travel 75 10.20 equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS version 4 to test the hy­
Bag and Accessories 48 6.53 pothesized relationships (Ringle et al., 2022). PLS-SEM is an authori­
Electrical Appliances 39 5.31
tative, widely-used approach to handle complex research models (e.g.,
Home Textile 35 4.76
Others 3 0.41 those containing both formative/reflective constructs, higher-order
Preferred Platform Taobao 192 26.12 constructs, mediators, and/or moderators; Becker et al., 2023; Cheah
JD.com 178 24.22 et al., 2018; Hair et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023). Another rationale for
Mogujie 4 0.54 opting for PLS-SEM is its character as an explorative-predictive
Douyin 149 20.27
approach (Cheah et al., 2023; Chin et al., 2020), aligning with the na­
Kuaishou 40 5.44
Pinduoduo 97 13.20 ture of our research. While our hypotheses and resulting path model are
Little Red Book 44 5.99 rooted in causal explanations, we expect our model to demonstrate
Weibo 31 4.22 strong predictive capabilities while also offering practical insight.
Preferred Streamer Celebrity 136 18.50
Professional streamer 207 28.16
Self-media KOL 138 18.78 5.2. Common method variance assessment
Entrepreneur/CEO 155 21.09
Government officer 46 6.26 Given this study’s cross-sectional design, two statistical remedies for
Online/offline retailers 53 7.21 evaluating common method variance (CMV) were employed. First,
Note(s): *Respondents were allowed to respond to more than one option from Harman’s single-factor test revealed that the variance accounted for by
the list of characteristics. the first factor amounted to 25.598% (<50%), indicating that CMV is

6
X. Luo et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644

not a significant issue in our data (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Second, the
full collinearity testing results (see Table 2) demonstrate that the vari­
ance inflation factor (VIF) values ranged from 1.035 to 1.392 (<3.33;
Kock, 2015), corroborating that CMV is not a concern in our data.
5.3. Measurement model analysis
To evaluate the measurement model, the reflective measures were
examined for their reliability and convergent validity. All internal con­
sistency measures (CA, rho A, and CR; see Table 2) exceeded the
required 0.70 threshold, confirming their reliability (Hair et al., 2022).
The construct loadings were also above the 0.708 threshold, and were
significant at p < 0.01 (Hair et al., 2022). Moreover, the average vari­
ance extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeded the value of 0.5 (Hair
et al., 2019b), suggesting convergent validity. Discriminant validity was
evaluated by using the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations
(HTMT). As shown in Table 3, none of the HTMT values exceeded the
conservative 0.85 threshold (Henseler et al., 2015), establishing the
constructs’ discriminant validity.
We next deployed a disjoint two-stage approach to examine the four

Table 2
Assessment of measurement model on reliability, convergent validity, and full collinearity.
Construct Item Loadings T-values Full Collinearity Cronbach’s alpha rho_A Composite reliability Average variance extracted

Affective engagement AFE1 0.898 105.759** 1.048 0.882 0.882 0.927 0.809
AFE2 0.901 107.455**
AFE3 0.899 112.283**
Behavioral engagement BEE1 0.854 68.318** 1.366 0.915 0.916 0.937 0.747
BEE2 0.864 79.225**
BEE3 0.868 77.197**
BEE4 0.875 85.184**
BEE5 0.861 70.508**
Believability BEL1 0.885 97.134** 1.325 0.894 0.899 0.926 0.758
BEL2 0.853 67.562**
BEL3 0.866 70.308**
BEL4 0.878 84.611**
Cognitive engagement COE1 0.911 83.464** 1.116 0.833 0.854 0.922 0.856
COE2 0.939 125.61**
Deal proneness DP1 0.908 5.676** 1.035 0.920 0.950 0.943 0.804
DP2 0.892 5.663**
DP3 0.873 5.525**
DP4 0.913 5.932**
Empathy EMP1 0.869 77.377** 1.303 0.891 0.895 0.924 0.754
EMP2 0.875 83.411**
EMP3 0.851 61.133**
EMP4 0.878 79.891**
Expertise EXP1 0.837 60.254** 1.074 0.906 0.911 0.930 0.728
EXP2 0.895 95.474**
EXP3 0.849 68.166**
EXP4 0.840 58.651**
EXP5 0.844 61.446**
Impulsive buying tendency IBT1 0.870 65.423** 1.307 0.837 0.838 0.902 0.754
IBT2 0.859 66.982**
IBT3 0.876 72.688**
Resonant contagion RCT1 0.908 110.747** 1.369 0.847 0.859 0.907 0.765
RCT2 0.885 85.242**
RCT3 0.883 82.317**
Review consistency RCN1 0.875 66.918** 1.370 0.872 0.872 0.921 0.796
RCN2 0.901 90.932**
RCN3 0.848 49.922**
Responsiveness RES1 0.858 78.261** 1.244 0.879 0.880 0.917 0.734
RES2 0.877 80.922**
RES3 0.840 61.199**
RES4 0.852 65.253**
Real time interaction RTI1 0.883 80.133** 1.350 0.855 0.856 0.912 0.775
RTI2 0.880 76.417**
RTI3 0.878 72.302**
Social engagement SOE1 0.844 52.479** 1.279 0.810 0.814 0.887 0.724
SOE2 0.865 65.321**
SOE3 0.843 52.845**
Trustworthiness TRU1 0.850 64.603** 1.392 0.905 0.906 0.929 0.725
TRU2 0.861 65.203**
TRU3 0.836 61.082**
TRU4 0.855 69.111**
TRU5 0.854 69.129**
Usefulness USE1 0.861 70.154** 1.280 0.888 0.891 0.923 0.749
USE2 0.864 66.831**
USE3 0.856 64.679**
USE4 0.880 84.586**
Vividness VIV1 0.871 82.369** 1.343 0.911 0.912 0.934 0.738
VIV2 0.874 78.709**
VIV3 0.849 66.500**
VIV4 0.849 67.431**
VIV5 0.851 67.070**

Note(s): CI means 95% confidence interval bias corrected; **p < 0.01.

7
X. Luo et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644

Table 3
Assessment of the Discriminant Validity using HTMT.
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1) Affective Engagement
2) Behavioral Engagement 0.296
3) Believability 0.374 0.289
4) Cognitive Engagement 0.175 0.134 0.157
5) Deal proneness 0.125 0.031 0.079 0.110
6) Empathy 0.241 0.308 0.338 0.212 0.064
7) Expertise 0.284 0.295 0.326 0.193 0.115 0.359
8) Impulsive buying 0.457 0.496 0.419 0.224 0.053 0.343 0.426
tendency
9) Responsiveness 0.437 0.449 0.333 0.245 0.096 0.291 0.347 0.380
10) Real-Time Interaction 0.297 0.327 0.406 0.224 0.068 0.268 0.272 0.332 0.376
11) Resonant contagion 0.269 0.253 0.259 0.258 0.088 0.420 0.393 0.308 0.295 0.325
12) Review consistency 0.462 0.420 0.334 0.265 0.064 0.341 0.262 0.460 0.334 0.419 0.259
13) Social Engagement 0.302 0.285 0.310 0.288 0.487 0.311 0.294 0.425 0.329 0.326 0.225 0.273
14) Trustworthiness 0.349 0.340 0.397 0.144 0.169 0.343 0.268 0.320 0.392 0.322 0.342 0.395 0.312
15) Usefulness 0.336 0.285 0.298 0.138 0.069 0.303 0.316 0.408 0.281 0.328 0.275 0.270 0.308 0.335
16) Vividness 0.359 0.350 0.276 0.189 0.052 0.393 0.414 0.362 0.336 0.271 0.309 0.371 0.297 0.263 0.421

Note(s): HTMT<0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015).

higher-order constructs (HOCs) of product information quality, streamer
interaction quality, streamer credibility, and customer engagement
(Becker et al., 2023; Sarstedt et al., 2019). Using redundancy analysis
(Cheah et al., 2018), the global single-item measure of the four HOCs
reported path coefficients of 0.704, 0.768, 0.738, and 0.886, respec­
tively, suggesting that the lower-order constructs (LOCs) comprising
those HOCs explained over 50% of the criterion construct’s variance (see
Table 4). Moreover, the VIF values of the LOCs were between 1.063 and
1.215 (<3.33; Becker et al., 2023). Thus, collinearity was not a signifi­
cant issue in the data. Finally, the LOCs were statistically significant,
with weight values ranging from 0.180 to 0.692.
5.4. Structural model assessment
We assessed the structural model by evaluating potential collinearity
among the predictors. The VIF values for all combination paths ranged
from 1.096 to 1.749 (<3.33; see Table 5; Hair et al., 2022). Therefore,
collinearity was not an issue in the data. Next, to assess the significance
of the inter-construct relationships, we used bootstrapping with 10,000
resamples (Becker et al., 2023; Hair et al., 2019b). As shown in Table 5,
the association of product information quality (β = 0.222; p < 0.01),
streamer interaction quality (β = 0.312; p < 0.01), and streamer cred­
ibility (β = 0.120; p < 0.01) and customer engagement was positive and
significant, supporting H1, H2, and H3. For the peripheral elements, the
results showed that review consistency (β = 0.231; p < 0.01) positively
affected engagement, supporting H4. Conversely, the relationship of
resonant contagion and engagement was non-significant (β = 0.031; p =
0.170 > 0.05), leading us to reject H5. Finally, H6 was supported, as
customer engagement (β = 0.579; p < 0.01) positively affected impulse
buying tendency, after controlling for education, gender, marital status,
income, occupation, and live-stream shopping purchase frequency (see
Table 5). The R2 for H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 was approximately 49.7%.
For H6, it was approximately 31.6%.
To evaluate each path’s significance, we examined the effect sizes (f2;
see Table 5). Based on the results, only the hypothesized path of H5 (f2
= 0.449) had a large effect size. The paths hypothesized in H1 (f2 =
0.059), H2 (f2 = 0.112) and H4 (f2 = 0.082) revealed small, but
meaningful effect sizes (Hair et al., 2022). Finally, the PLSpredict pro­
cedure was used to assess the model’s predictive relevance (Chin et al.,
2020). The Q2predict values for the endogenous constructs in Table 5
exceeded zero, demonstrating the model’s predictive relevance. Based
on this result, we extended our prediction technique by estimating the
endogenous items for impulse buying tendency (Shmueli et al., 2019),
which exposed strong predictive relevance (see Table 6). Therefore, the
proposed model has predictive validity to represent a prognosis obser­
vation of the target population based on the key target construct, which
the impulse buying tendency in live-streaming shopping would likely
occur when predicted with new observations.
5.5. Mediating and moderating effects
To analyze the mediating effects, we applied Hair et al.’s (2022)
approach. Table 5 summarizes the results of the mediating effects
assessment. Customer engagement was, indeed, found to significantly
mediate the effect of product information quality (β = 0.129, p < 0.01),
streamer interaction quality (β = 0.181, p < 0.01), streamer credibility
(β = 0.069, p < 0.01), and review consistency (β = 0.134, p < 0.01) on
impulsive buying tendency, but not for resonant contagion (β = 0.018, p
= 0.171). Thus, H7a to H7d were supported but not for H7e. That is,
higher live-streaming-based product information quality, streamer

Table 4
Assessment of higher-order construct.
Higher-order construct (HOCs) Lower-order construct (LOCs) VIF CI Weights T-values Convergent validity

Customer engagement Affective 1.131 [0.401; 0.561] 0.480 11.901** 0.886

Behavioral 1.119 [0.450; 0.607] 0.528 13.138**
Cognitive 1.072 [0.099; 0.258] 0.180 4.461**
Social 1.157 [0.227; 0.380] 0.306 7.861**
Information quality Believability 1.110 [0.387; 0.605] 0.500 9.039** 0.704
Usefulness 1.215 [0.240; 0.464] 0.353 6.293**
Vividness 1.204 [0.406; 0.623] 0.513 9.196**
Interaction quality Empathy 1.101 [0.246; 0.443] 0.351 6.968** 0.768
Real time interaction 1.150 [0.242; 0.464] 0.355 6.228**
Responsiveness 1.165 [0.544; 0.749] 0.651 12.457**
Streamer credibility Expertise 1.063 [0.467; 0.674] 0.572 10.809** 0.738
Trustworthiness 1.063 [0.593; 0.783] 0.692 14.280**

Note(s): *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001; VIF (Variance Inflation Factor); CI means 95% confidence interval bias corrected.

8
X. Luo et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644

Table 5
Assessment of structural model.
Hypothesis and relationship Std beta Std error t-value 95% BCa CI VIF f2 R2 Q2predict

H1: IFQ → CE 0.222 0.039 5.740** [0.159; 0.286] 1.679 0.059 0.497 0.487
H2: ITQ → CE 0.312 0.042 7.517** [0.244; 0.380] 1.749 0.112
H3: SC → CE 0.120 0.038 3.174** [0.047; 0.193] 1.688 0.017
H4: RCN → CE 0.231 0.036 6.428** [0.171; 0.289] 1.306 0.082
H5: RCT → CE 0.031 0.032 0.956 [− 0.032; 0.084] 1.273 0.001
H6: CE → IBT 0.579 0.043 13.383** [0.504; 0.646] 1.096 0.449 0.316 0.253
H7a: IFQ → CE → IBT 0.129 0.026 4.981** [0.087; 0.172]
H7b: ITQ → CE → IBT 0.181 0.026 6.912** [0.137; 0.223]
H7c: SC → CE → IBT 0.069 0.023 2.993** [0.032; 0.108]
H7d: RCN → CE → IBT 0.134 0.024 5.697** [0.095; 0.172]
H7e: RCT → CE → IBT 0.018 0.019 0.955 [− 0.013; 0.049]
H8: CE*DP → IBT 0.107 0.049 2.184** [0.024; 0.215] 0.021
Control variable
i) Education level → IBT − 0.003 0.029 0.091 [− 0.052; 0.045]
ii) Gender → IBT 0.005 0.062 0.087 [− 0.098; 0.107]
iv) Marital status → IBT − 0.033 0.029 1.114 [− 0.080; 0.017]
iii) Monthly income → IBT 0.013 0.031 0.413 [− 0.038; 0.064]
v) Occupation → IBT − 0.031 0.034 0.912 [− 0.086; 0.024]
vi) Purchase frequency → IBT 0.003 0.029 0.086 [− 0.045; 0.050]

Note(s): NA means not applicable for the situation when a single exogenous construct is used to predict an endogenous construct (Hair et al., 2019b); *p < 0.05; **p <
0.01; VIF = Variance Inflation Factor; IFQ (Product Information Quality); ITQ (Streamer Interaction Quality); SC (Streamer Credibility); CE (Customer Engagement);
RCN (Review Consistency); RCT (Resonant Contagion); IBT (Impulse Buying Tendency); DP (Deal Proneness).

customers displaying high (vs. low) deal proneness (DP) see a steeper
Table 6
gradient of their respective line, indicating that for more deal-prone
Assessment of PLSpredict.
customers, customer engagement’s positive effect on impulse buying
Item Q2predict PLS- LM_RMSE PLS- Decision tendency is stronger. Therefore, H8 was supported.
SEM_RMSE SEM_RMSE -
LM_RMSE
6. Discussion, implications, and limitations
IBT1 0.186 1.347 1.358 − 0.011 Strong
IBT2 0.191 1.340 1.357 − 0.017 Predictive
IBT3 0.194 1.324 1.339 − 0.015 Power
6.1. Discussion

Note(s): RMSE means Root Mean Square Error; LM means linear model.
interaction quality, streamer credibility, and review consistency will
tend to see customers’ elevated streamer engagement, in turn boosting
their purchase behavior. Meanwhile, higher resonant contagion is un­
likely to enhance customer engagement and impulsive buying tendency
(see Table 5).
A two-stage approach was employed to conduct the moderation
analysis (Becker et al., 2023). Deal proneness was found to successfully
moderate the association of customer engagement and impulse buying
tendency (β = 0.107, p < 0.01; see Table 5), despite its relatively small
effect (f2 = 0.021). The interaction plot (Fig. 2) also suggests that those
Drawing on the ELM, this study examined the dual (i.e., central/
peripheral) route information processing and behavioral intentions of
Millennial shoppers in the LSC context. The results offer empirical
support for 10 of our 12 hypotheses, providing important implications
for LSC research and practice.
We first identified three central route factors that are key in influ­
encing customers’ LSC-based information processing. Specifically, we
found that product information quality, streamer interaction quality,
and streamer credibility impact customer engagement (H1-H3). These
results align with prior studies that highlight the role played by central
route factors in influencing customers’ purchase decision-making (Chen

Fig. 2. Interaction plot of Customer Engagement (CE) * Deal Proneness (DP) on Impulsive Buying Tendency (IBT).

9
X. Luo et al.
et al., 2018; Kapitan and Silvera, 2016; Bhattacherjee and Sanford,
2006). Specifically, of the modeled antecedents, streamer interaction
quality was found to have the strongest effect on customer engagement
in the LSC. Prior studies suggest that customers’ high perceived streamer
interaction quality (e.g., through timely, empathetic, and/or personal­
ized responses) is conducive to boosting customer-perceived informa­
tional and emotional value (Xue et al., 2020; Chebat et al., 2003; Kang
et al., 2021). This result implies that streamers’ provision of timely
product-related information and responses may not only be helpful to
customers through their purchase journey (Yusuf et al., 2018; Kang
et al., 2021), but can also raise customers’ processing, and liking, of the
streamers’ information. High-quality information offers customers a
wealth of knowledge that unlocks interactive learning and positive
engagement (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Kang and Namkung, 2019).
Moreover, streamer credibility has been found to boost an argument’s
persuasive power, fostering deeper information processing and more
positive customer engagement (EI Hedhli et al., 2021; Hollebeek and
Chen, 2014).
Regarding peripheral route factors, we found that review consistency
boosts customer engagement (H4). Consistent bullet-screen reviews not
only reduce cognitive effort (Wu et al., 2019), but also facilitate social
integration (Molinillo et al., 2020), raising customers’ positive attitudes
toward the endorsed products (Qiu et al., 2021). However, the periph­
eral route factor of resonant contagion was found to not significantly
drive customer engagement (H5), which can be explained as follows.
First, customers may not perceive resonant contagion from bullet-screen
communication. Due to the fast-moving nature of bullet-screen com­
ments (Zeng et al., 2022), customers may be unmotivated to support
others because their comments could either be ignored or overlap with
subsequent comments. Second, compared with direct streamer support
in the live-broadcasting room, customers may feel inadequate support is
given by co-viewers, leading them to fail to reciprocate with engage­
ment behavior. For example, some customers may not actively partici­
pate (e.g., lurkers) or distrust others’ comments. Consequently, they are
less likely to be influenced by co-viewers’ comments and may only
passively follow streamers’ instructions.
Furthermore, consistent with the assertion of engagement’s role in
shaping customer behavior (Hollebeek et al., 2019; Devino and
Engriani, 2023), our results identify engagement as a strong predictor of
customers’ impulse buying tendency (H6). Earlier studies provide
anecdotal evidence that engagement is particularly important in con­
necting customers, brands, and fellow customers, including in LSC
contexts (Yang et al., 2022; Yi et al., 2023). This finding implies that
retailers should shift away from traditional one-way communication,
toward collaborative, bilateral (or multilateral) interactions with their
target customers (e.g., through high responsiveness to their questions).
We, then, examined engagement’s mediating role in the relationship
of key ELM-based aspects (i.e., product information quality, streamer
interaction quality, streamer credibility, review consistency and reso­
nant contagion) and impulse buying tendency. The findings show that
engagement, indeed, mediates the majority of these associations except
H7e. Although resonant contagion fosters emotional connections and
shapes community behavior, it may not indirectly lead to impulsive
buying. The presence of other factors, such as individual characteristics
and situational factors, might intervene in the relationship between
resonant contagion and impulsive buying (Zeng et al., 2022). Engage­
ment, thus, plays a critical role in facilitating customers’
decision-making and purchase processes (e.g., Brodie et al., 2011;
Mathews and Lhamo, 2022; Ou et al., 2020). Therefore, this finding
implies that customers’ dual-route information process should be
nurtured to facilitate their engagement, thus offering novel LSC-based
insight. Engagement was, likewise, found to drive customers’ impul­
sive buying tendency.
Third, we also examined the potentially moderating effect of deal
proneness. Interaction analysis indicated that the association of
customer engagement and impulse buying tendency differs across highly
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644
(vs. low) deal-prone customers (H8), such that more deal-prone cus­
tomers see a stronger association of their engagement on their impulse
buying tendency and raising pertinent implications, as discussed in the
following sub-sections.
6.2. Theoretical implications
Our ELM-informed study confirms the majority of the proposed hy­
potheses, offering an important contribution and promising implications
for future LSC research.
First, we applied the ELM to identify the effect of central (vs.
peripheral)-route persuasive cues on LSC customers’ engagement and
impulse buying tendency. While prior research has assessed the role of
motivational or platform-related variables (e.g., Ming et al., 2021; Li
et al., 2021b), our findings highlight the importance of informational
LSC-based elements and their effect on customer attitudes and behavior.
This finding raises key implications for further theory development. For
example, empathetic, real-time streamer interactions are more likely to
trigger customer engagement and persuade customers to make imme­
diate purchases in the central route, while consistent bullet-screen
comments from co-viewers serve to simplify decision-making and
facilitate impulsive buying, predominantly through peripheral
processing.
Besides, we explore the potentially moderating role of deal prone­
ness in the relationship between customer engagement and the in­
dividual’s impulse buying tendency. The results corroborate the role of
deal-seeking behavior in this regard, with more (vs. less) deal-prone
individuals seeing a stronger effect of their engagement on their im­
pulse buying behavior. This finding also raises pertinent implications for
further exploration, including: Does the moderating role of deal prone­
ness hold to the same extent for non-Millennial (e.g., Baby Boomer)
customers? How do e-tailers best leverage customers’ deal proneness in
this regard, both in- and outside of the LSC context?
6.3. Practical implications
The results reveal the key role of three central route factors (product
information quality, streamer interaction quality, and streamer credi­
bility) and one peripheral route factor (review consistency) in boosting
LSC customers’ engagement and impulse buying tendency, thus offering
pertinent implications for streamers.
First, among the examined ELM factors, central route-based streamer
interaction quality exerted the greatest effect on customer engagement.
To enhance engagement, we recommend that streamers invest sub­
stantial effort in improving customer perceptions of streamers’ inter­
action quality. To this end, streamers are advised to be highly responsive
to customers’ product-related questions, thus enhancing the overall
streaming experience. Content and response personalization can further
boost customer engagement, and streamers may wish to build a fanbase
or invite users to join relevant interest groups (e.g., WeChat/Taobao
fanbases), thereby increasing the number of active fans and deepening
customer/streamer and customer-to-customer interactions (Hu and
Chaudhry, 2020). Product information quality and streamer credibility
also play key determinants of customer engagement. Customers often
link the streamer’s image to the quality of the information provided. We,
therefore, advise streamers to draw on their expertise to offer customers
helpful, accurate, and emotionally satisfying product-related informa­
tion. Moreover, streamers may consider evaluating product specifica­
tions or attributes and using the product before recommending it during
live-streaming sessions, thus raising their perceived credibility and
strengthening their customer relationships (Cheah et al., 2020). Besides,
peripheral route-based review consistency was found to play an
important role in driving customer engagement and impulse buying
tendency. Though streamers are unable to control bullet-screen com­
ments, they can develop experiential, entertaining activities (e.g., by
using gamified elements) to attract new followers and raise positive
X. Luo et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644

word-of-mouth. knowledge, platform credibility, or streamer attractiveness; EI Hedhli

Second, the mediation results show that the effectiveness of ELM-
based elements on impulse buying tendency primarily depend on the
streamer’s effectiveness in engaging with its audiences. Therefore, we
recommend streamers to monitor their emotions, which are predicted to
directly influence users’ purchase behavior. Moreover, streamers may
remind customers to collect limited coupons, or check out product links,
in turn boosting their engagement (e.g., by liking/sharing promotional
or product links). To further enhance customers’ social engagement,
streamers may wish to encourage live-stream users to express their
thoughts and feelings via the bullet-screen (e.g., by requesting users to
send emoji (e.g., thumbs up) or to express their approval), and by keeping
up with users’ bullet-screen posts.
Finally, the positive moderating effect of deal proneness indicates
that deal-prone LSC customers are more likely to display impulse pur­
chase intentions (Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Flacandji and Vlad, 2022).
Streamers, or sellers, may, thus, wish to offer exclusive promotions in
the broadcast room to attract these customers. Further, streamers may
wish to distribute gifts or use lucky draws to attract customers to sub­
scribe to their channel or join their fan group, in turn, building closer
customer relationships and increasing broadcast room-based sales.
6.4. Limitations and further research
Despite its contributions, this study also has limitations that provide
additional opportunities for research. First, the data was collected in
China, incurring limited potential (e.g., cross-cultural) generalizability.
Future research may, therefore, wish to deploy the proposed model in
other, or cross, cultural settings (Hollebeek, 2018). Given that our study
employed a purposive sampling method, it’s important to acknowledge
the potential limitation of generalizability in our findings. To address
this limitation, future research endeavors could consider the exploration
of alternative sampling methods. Replicating this study with different
sampling approaches allows for a comparative analysis of outcomes,
which, in turn, can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding
of the topic.
Second, we examined several LSC-based ELM elements, future
studies may explore the role of additional factors (e.g., customers’ brand
et al., 2021; Shahab et al., 2021) in impacting the modeled associations.
While this study has examined key central/peripheral route factors,
future research may address additional influential factors that impact
LSC customers’ impulse buying tendency. For example, different
streamer types may influence streamers’ perceived expertise, product
quality, and purchase decisions. Therefore, future studies could compare
the effects of different streamer types on customer behavior. Further­
more, scholars may explore how different product categories (e.g.,
search/experience goods, utilitarian/hedonic goods) affect consumer
behavior. The endorser/endorsed product fit may, likewise, affect the
modeled associations, which may be of interest to further researchers
(Park and Lin, 2020).
Moreover, streamer credibility (i.e., expertise/trustworthiness) plays
a pivotal role in the ELM, and may potentially exert effects on central
and peripheral routes to persuasion (Kang and Herr, 2006; EI Hedhli
et al., 2021). Prior research suggests that streamer attractiveness (Petty
and Wegener, 1998) can influence streamer credibility. Drawing on
McCracken’s (1989) meaning transfer model, streamer credibility may
mediate the connection between source attractiveness and persuasive
outcomes, which also merits further scrutiny. Thus, future research
could explore the factors influencing streamer credibility and its impact
on persuasive outcomes. Finally, the findings suggest that resonant
contagion does not have a statistically significant effect on customer
engagement. As Hu et al. (2017) note, resonant contagion can, however,
trigger group identification given the compatibility of an individual’s,
and the group’s, values. Therefore, future studies could further explore
LSC-based resonant contagion and its drivers and outcomes.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103644.

Appendix A

List of measurement items.

Product Information Quality (Zhang et al., 2020)

(i) Usefulness
USE1 The product information on the live-streaming platform is valuable.
USE2 The product information on the live-streaming platform is informative.
USE3 The product information on the live-streaming platform is helpful.
USE4 The product information on the live-streaming platform is useful.
(ii) Believability
BEL1 The product information on the live-streaming platform is reliable.
BEL2 The product information on the live-streaming platform is believable.
BEL3 The product information on the live-streaming platform is trustworthy.
BEL4 The product information on the live-streaming platform is sincere.
(iii) Vividness
VIV 1 The product information on the live-streaming platform has stimulated my senses.
VIV 2 The product information on the live-streaming platform is clear.
VIV 3 The product information on the live-streaming platform is concrete.
VIV 4 The product information on the live-streaming platform is realistic.
VIV 5 The product information on the live-streaming platform is colorful.
(continued on next page)

11
X. Luo et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644

(continued )
Product Information Quality (Zhang et al., 2020)

Streamer Interaction Quality (Zhang et al., 2020)

(i) Real-time Interaction
RTI1 The interaction with streamers and receiving information in real-time.
RTI2 The interaction with streamers meets my needs.
RTI3 The interaction with streamers is efficient.
(ii) Responsiveness
RES1 Streamers are always happy to talk with me.
RES2 Streamers always answer my question and requests in time.
RES3 Streamers’ response is closely related to my problem and requests.
RES4 Streamers can provide relevant information for my inquiry in time.
(iii) Empathy
EMP1 Streamers give me individual attention.
EMP2 Streamers understand my specific needs.
EMP3 Streamers have my best interests in mind.
EMP4 Streamers offer personalized service to me.
Streamer Credibility (Ohanian, 1990)
(i) Trustworthiness
TRU1 The streamer is dependable.
TRU2 The streamer is honest.
TRU3 The streamer is sincere.
TRU4 The streamer is reliable.
TRU5 The streamer is trustworthy.
(ii) Expertise
EXP1 The streamer is an expert.
EXP2 The streamer is experienced.
EXP3 The streamer is knowledgeable.
EXP4 The streamer is qualified.
EXP5 The streamer is skilled.
Review Consistency (Luo et al., 2015)
RCN1 The comments are consistent with other reviews on the bullet-screen.
RCN2 The comments are similar to other reviews on the bullet-screen.
RCN3 The comments match other reviews on the bullet-screen.
Resonant Contagion (Lim et al., 2012)
RCT1 My behavior was influenced by other viewers in the broadcasting room.
RCT2 My behavior influenced other viewers in the broadcasting room.
RCT3 Our group agreed upon similar opinions.
Customer Engagement (Vivek et al., 2014; Dessart et al., 2016)
(i) Affective engagement
AFE1 I find live-streaming shopping is interesting.
AFE2 I am interested in anything about live-streaming shopping.
AFE3 When interacting with people during live-streaming shopping, I feel happy.
(ii) Cognitive engagement
COE1 I spend more time on the live-streaming platform.
COE2 Time flies when I am interacting with people on the live-streaming platform.
(ii) Behavioral engagement
BEE1 I share my ideas with others in the live-streaming platform.
BEE2 I seek ideas or information from others in the live-streaming platform.
BEE3 I am likely to recommend sellers that use live-streaming to my friends.
BEE4 I am likely to become a fan and a follower of the streamer.
BEE5 I am likely to keep track of the activities of a seller that uses live-streaming.
(iv) Social engagement
SOE1 I like sharing my personal shopping experience with other viewers.
SOE2 I enjoy live-streaming shopping more when I am with other viewers.
SOE3 Live-streaming shopping is more fun when other people around me do it too.
Deal Proneness (Flacandji and Vlad, 2022)
DP1 Beyond the money I save, buying products on a deal makes me happy.
DP2 I feel the product is a good buy when it offers a special promotion.
DP3 I feel like a smart shopper when I purchase products that offer special promotions.
DP4 I love special promotional offers for products
Impulse Buying Tendency (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998)
IBT1 When I watch live-streaming, I buy things that I had not intended to purchase.
IBT2 I am a person who makes unplanned purchases.
IBT3 It is fun to buy spontaneously.

References Beatty, S.E., Ferrell, M.E., 1998. Impulse buying: modeling its precursors. J. Retailing 74
(2), 169–191.
Becker, J., Cheah, J., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2023. PLS-SEM’s most
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U., Herrmann, A., 2005. The social influence of brand
wanted guidance. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 35 (1), 321–346.
community: evidence from European car clubs. J. Market. 69 (3), 19–34.
Behnam, M., Hollebeek, L., Clark, M., Farabi, R., 2021. Exploring customer engagement
Antunes, I., Martinez, L.M., Martinez, L.F., 2022. A eficácia das técnicas de promoção de
in the product vs. service context. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 60, 102456.
vendas no comportamento de compra dos consumidores millennials. ReMark - Rev.
Bhattacherjee, A., Sanford, C., 2006. Influence processes for information technology
Bras. Market. 21 (3), 3.
acceptance: an elaboration likelihood model. MIS Q. 30 (4), 805–825.
Bandyopadhyay, N., Sivakumaran, B., Patro, S., Kumar, R., 2021. Immediate or delayed!
Brislin, R.W., 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 1
Whether various types of consumer sales promotions drive impulse buying?: an
(3), 185–216.
empirical investigation. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 61, 102532.

12
X. Luo et al.
Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Jurić, B., Ilić, A., 2011. Customer engagement: conceptual
domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J. Serv. Res. 14
(3), 252–271.
Brodie, R., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 (1), 105–114.
Bründl, S., Matt, C., Hess, T., 2017. Consumer use of social live streaming services: the
influence of co-experience and effectance on enjoyment. Retrieved from. In:
Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems,
pp. 1775–1791. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2017_rp/114.
Cabeza-Ramírez, L., Sánchez-Cañizares, S., Santos-Roldán, L., Fuentes-García, F., 2022.
Impact of the perceived risk in influencers’ product recommendations on their
followers’ purchase attitudes and intention. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 184,
121997.
Cai, J., Wohn, D., 2019. Live streaming commerce: uses and gratifications approach to
understanding consumers’ motivations. In: Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences 2019. https://aisel.aisnet.org/hicss-52/dsm/live_streaming
_services/3.
Cao, X., Liu, Y., Zhu, Z., Hu, J., Chen, X., 2017. Online selection of a physician by
patients: empirical study from elaboration likelihood perspective. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 73, 403–412.
Castañeda, J., Rodríguez-Molina, M., Frías-Jamilena, D., García-Retamero, R., 2020. The
role of numeracy and information load in the tourist decision-making process.
Psychol. Market. 37 (1), 27–40.
Cheah, J.H., Kersten, W., Ringle, C.M., Wallenburg, C., 2023. Guest editorial: predictive
modeling in logistics and supply chain management research using partial least
squares structural equation modeling. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 53 (7/8),
709–717.
Cheah, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., Ramayah, T., Ting, H., 2018. Convergent validity
assessment of formatively measured constructs in PLS-SEM: on using single-item
versus multi-item measures in redundancy analyses. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag.
30 (11), 3192–3210.
Cheah, J., Waller, D., Thaichon, P., Ting, H., Lim, X., 2020. Price image and the
sugrophobia effect on luxury retail purchase intention. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
57, 102188.
Chebat, J., Vercollier, S., Gélinas-Chebat, C., 2003. Drama advertisements: moderating
effects of self-relevance on the relations among empathy, information processing,
and attitudes. Psychol. Rep. 92 (3), 997–1014.
Chen, L., 2020. Livestreaming E-Commerce: Lasting Buzz or Will it Go Bust? Retrieved 12
March 2021 from: https://www.ceibs.edu/new-papers-columns/livestreaming-e-c
ommerce-lasting-buzz-or-will-it-go-bust.
Chen, C., Lin, Y., 2018. What drives live-stream usage intention? The perspectives of
flow, entertainment, social interaction, and endorsement. Telematics Inf. 35 (1),
293–303.
Chen, H., Zhang, S., Shao, B., Gao, W., Xu, Y., 2021. How do interpersonal interaction
factors affect buyers’ purchase intention in live stream shopping? The mediating
effects of swift guanxi. Internet Res. 32 (1), 335–361.
Chen, J., Ruangsri, S., Ha, Q., Widjaja, A., 2022. An experimental study of consumers’
impulse buying behaviour in augmented reality mobile shopping apps. Behav. Inf.
Technol. 41 (15), 3360–3381.
Chen, Y., Yang, L., Zhang, M., Yang, J., 2018. Central or peripheral? Cognition
elaboration cues’ effect on users’ continuance intention of mobile health
applications in the developing markets. Int. J. Med. Inf. 116, 33–45.
Chin, W., Cheah, J., Liu, Y., Ting, H., Lim, X., Cham, T., 2020. Demystifying the role of
causal-predictive modeling using partial least squares structural equation modeling
in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 120 (12), 2161–2209.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., Morgan-Thomas, A., 2016. Capturing consumer engagement:
duality, dimensionality and measurement. J. Market. Manag. 32 (5–6), 399–426.
Devino, H., Engriani, Y., 2023. The effect of sales promotion, shopping lifestyle, hedonic
shopping motivation, and customer engagement on impulse buying on online
marketplace consumers. Oper. Manag. Inf. Syst. Stud. 3 (1), 44–56.
Dholakia, U., Bagozzi, R., Pearo, L., 2004. A social influence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. Int. J. Res.
Market. 21 (3), 241–263.
EI Hedhli, K., Zourrig, H., Becheur, I., 2021. Celebrity endorsements: Investigating the
interactive effects of internalization, identification and product type on consumers’
attitudes and intentions. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 58, 102260.
Flacandji, M., Vlad, M., 2022. The relationship between retailer app use, perceived
shopping value and loyalty: the moderating role of deal proneness. Int. J. Retail
Distrib. Manag. 50 (8/9), 981–995.
Gao, Z., Cheah, J.H., Lim, X.J., Ng, S.I., Cham, T.H., Yee, C.L., 2023. Can travel apps
improve tourists’ intentions? Investigating the drivers of Chinese gen Y users’
experience. Advance online publication J. Vacat. Mark.. https://doi.org/10.1177/
13567667231152938.
Gao, X., Xu, X., Tayyab, S., Li, Q., 2021. How the live streaming commerce viewers
process the persuasive message: an ELM perspective and the moderating effect of
mindfulness. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 49, 101087.
Geng, S., Yang, P., Gao, Y., Tan, Y., Yang, C., 2021. The effects of ad social and personal
relevance on consumer ad engagement on social media: the moderating role of
platform trust. Comput. Hum. Behav. 122, 106834.
Gong, W., Li, X., 2017. Engaging fans on microblog: the synthetic influence of parasocial
interaction and source characteristics on celebrity endorsement. Psychol. Market. 34
(7), 720–732.
Green, S., 1991. How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate
Behav. Res. 26 (3), 499–510.
13
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644
Gulfraz, M., Sufyan, M., Mustak, M., Salminen, J., Srivastava, D., 2022. Understanding
the impact of online customers’ shopping experience on online impulsive buying: a
study on two leading E-commerce platforms. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 68, 103000.
Guo, J., Liu, Z., Liu, Y., 2016. Key success factors for the launch of government social
media platform: identifying the formation mechanism of continuance intention.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 750–763.
Guo, L., Hu, X., Lu, J., Ma, L., 2021. Effects of customer trust on engagement in live
streaming commerce: mediating role of swift guanxi. Internet Res. 31 (5),
1718–1744.
Guo, Y., Zhang, K., Wang, C., 2022. Way to success: understanding top streamer’s
popularity and influence from the perspective of source characteristics. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 64, 102786.
Hair, J., Risher, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., 2019b. When to use and how to report the
results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (1), 2–24.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2019a. Multivariate Data Analysis, eighth ed.
Cengage Learning, London.
Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2022. A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), third ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135.
Hollebeek, L., Srivastava, R., 2022. Consumer involvement and engagement: from
involvement’s elaboration likelihood to engagement’s investment propensity. In:
Kahle, L.R., Lowrey, T., Huber, J. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Consumer Psychology.
American Psychological Association.
Hollebeek, L., 2018. Individual-level cultural consumer engagement styles:
conceptualization, propositions and implications. Int. Market. Rev. 35 (1), 42–71.
Hollebeek, L., Chen, T., 2014. Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand
engagement: a conceptual model. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 23 (1), 62–74.
Hollebeek, L., Macky, K., 2019. Digital content marketing’s role in fostering consumer
engagement, trust, and value: framework, fundamental propositions, and
implications. J. Interact. Market. 45, 27–41.
Hollebeek, L., Clark, M., Andreassen, T., Sigurdsson, V., Smith, D., 2020. Virtual reality
through the customer journey: framework and propositions. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 55, 102056.
Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M., Brodie, R., 2014. Consumer brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation. J. Interact. Market. 28 (2),
149–165.
Hollebeek, L., Kumar, V., Srivastava, R.K., 2022b. From customer-, to actor-, to
stakeholder engagement: taking stock, conceptualization, and future directions.
J. Serv. Res. 25 (2), 328–343.
Hollebeek, L., Sprott, D., Sigurdsson, V., Clark, M., 2022a. Social influence and
stakeholder engagement behavior conformity, compliance, and reactance. Psychol.
Market. 39 (1), 90–100.
Hollebeek, L., Srivastava, R.K., Chen, T., 2019. S-D logic-informed customer engagement:
integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM.
J. Acad. Market. Sci. 47 (1), 161–185.
Hu, M., Chaudhry, S., 2020. Enhancing consumer engagement in e-commerce live
streaming via relational bonds. Internet Res. 30 (3), 1019–1041.
Hu, M., Zhang, M., Wang, Y., 2017. Why do audiences choose to keep watching on live
video streaming platforms? An explanation of dual identification framework.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 75, 594–606.
Huang, Y., Suo, L., 2021. Factors affecting Chinese consumers’ impulse buying decision
of live streaming E-commerce. Asian Soc. Sci. 17 (5), 16–32.
Iranmanesh, M., Jayaraman, K., Zailani, S., Ghadiri, S., 2017. The effects of consumer
perception of volume discount benefits on intention to purchase grocery products:
deal proneness as a moderator. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 29 (5), 1017–1035.
Jessen, A., Hilken, T., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D., Heller, J., Keeling, D., de Ruyter, K., 2020.
The playground effect: how augmented reality drives creative customer engagement.
J. Bus. Res. 116, 85–98.
Kang, J., Namkung, Y., 2019. The information quality and source credibility matter in
customers’ evaluation toward food O2O commerce. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 78,
189–198.
Kang, K., Lu, J., Guo, L., Li, W., 2021. The dynamic effect of interactivity on customer
engagement behavior through tie strength: evidence from live streaming commerce
platforms. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 56, 102251.
Kang, Y., Herr, P., 2006. Beauty and the beholder: toward an integrative model of
communication source effects. J. Consum. Res. 33 (1), 123–130.
Kapitan, S., Silvera, D., 2016. From digital media influencers to celebrity endorsers:
attributions drive endorser effectiveness. Market. Lett. 27 (3), 553–567.
Kelman, H., 1961. Process of opinion change. Publ. Opin. Q. 25 (1), 57–78.
Kock, N., 2015. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment
approach. Int. J. e-Collaboration 11 (4), 1–10.
Lee, Y., Koo, J., 2016. Can a celebrity serve as an issue-relevant argument in the
elaboration likelihood model? Psychol. Market. 33 (3), 195–208.
Levy, S., Gvili, Y., 2020. Online shopper engagement in price negotiation: the roles of
culture, involvement and eWOM. Int. J. Advert. 39 (2), 232–257.
Li, R., Lu, Y., Ma, J., Wang, W., 2021a. Examining gifting behavior on live streaming
platforms: an identity-based motivation model. Inf. Manag. 58 (6), 103406.
Li, Y., Li, X., Cai, J., 2021b. How attachment affects user stickiness on live streaming
platforms: a socio-technical approach perspective. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 60,
102478.
Lichtenstein, D., Burton, S., Netemeyer, R., 1997. An examination of deal proneness
across sales promotion types: a consumer segmentation perspective. J. Retailing 73
(2), 283–297.
X. Luo et al.
Lim, S., Cha, S.Y., Park, C., Lee, I., Kim, J., 2012. Getting closer and experiencing
together: Antecedents and consequences of psychological distance in social media-
enhanced real-time streaming video. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (4), 1365–1378.
Lim, X., Cheah, J.-H., Ng, S., Basha, N., Soutar, G., 2021. The effects of
anthropomorphism presence and the marketing mix have on retail app continuance
use intention. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 168, 120763.
Lim, X.J., Cheah, J.H., Ngo, L.V., Chan, K., Ting, H., 2023. How do crazy rich Asians
perceive sustainable luxury? Investigating the determinants of consumers’
willingness to pay a premium price. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 75, 103502.
Lin, S., Tseng, H., Shirazi, F., Hajli, N., Tsai, P., 2022. Exploring factors influencing
impulse buying in live streaming shopping: a stimulus-organism-response (SOR)
perspective. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 35 (6), 1383–1403.
Lo, P., Dwivedi, Y., Tan, G., Ooi, K., Aw, E., Metri, B., 2022. Why do consumers buy
impulsively during live streaming? A deep learning-based dual-stage SEM-ANN
analysis. J. Bus. Res. 147, 325–337.
Luo, C., Luo, X., Xu, Y., Warkentin, M., Sia, C.L., 2015. Examining the moderating role of
sense of membership in online review evaluations. Inf. Manag. 52 (3), 305–316.
Luo, H., Cheng, S., Zhou, W., Yu, S., Lin, X., 2021. A study on the impact of linguistic
persuasive styles on the sales volume of live streaming products in social e-
commerce environment. Mathematics 9 (13), 13.
Ma, Y., 2021. To shop or not: understanding Chinese consumers’ live-stream shopping
intentions from the perspectives of uses and gratifications, perceived network size,
perceptions of digital celebrities, and shopping orientations. Telematics Inf. 59,
101562.
MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., 2012. Common method bias in marketing: causes,
mechanisms, and procedural remedies. J. Retailing 88 (4), 542–555.
Martínez, E., Montaner, T., 2006. The effect of consumer’s psychographic variables upon
deal-proneness. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 13 (3), 157–168.
Mathews, J., Lhamo, T., 2022. Customer engagement: an experiential system view. Delhi
Business Rev. 23 (1), 9–22.
McClure, C., Seock, Y., 2020. The role of involvement: Investigating the effect of brand’s
social media pages on consumer purchase intention. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 53,
101975.
McCracken, G., 1989. Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the
endorsement process. J. Consum. Res. 16 (3), 310–321.
McKinney, V., Yoon, K., Zahedi, F., 2002. The measurement of web-customer
satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach. Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (3),
296–315.
McKinsey, 2023. The Innovative Social-Commerce Format Continues to Grow, but its
Potential Could Be Unlocked by Tailored Approaches Responding to Differences in
Consumer Characteristics and Needs. July. Retrieved 19 Oct 2023 from: https:
//www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/rea
dy-for-prime-time-the-state-of-live-commerce.
Ming, J., Zeng, J., Bilal, M., Akram, U., Fan, M., 2021. How social presence influences
impulse buying behavior in live streaming commerce? The role of SOR theory. Int. J.
Web Inf. Syst. 17 (4), 300–320.
Molinillo, S., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., 2020. Analyzing the effect of
social support and community factors on customer engagement and its impact on
loyalty behaviors toward social commerce websites. Comput. Hum. Behav. 108,
105980.
Nadeem, W., Tan, T., Tajvidi, M., Hajli, N., 2021. How do experiences enhance brand
relationship performance and value co-creation in social commerce? The role of
consumer engagement and self brand-connection. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
171, 120952.
National Institution of Metrology of China, 2022. High-quality Development Report of
Live Streaming Commerce Industry (2021-2022). Nov. Retrieved 3 June, 2023 from:
https://www.nim.ac.cn/taxonomy/term/158.
Ohanian, R., 1990. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’
perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. J. Advert. 19 (3), 39–52.
Ou, J., Wong, I.A., Prentice, C., Liu, M., 2020. Customer engagement and its outcomes:
the cross-level effect of service environment and brand equity. J. Hospit. Tourism
Res. 44 (2), 377–402.
Palazon, M., Delgado-Ballester, E., 2011. The expected benefit as determinant of deal-
prone consumers’ response to sales promotions. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 18 (6),
542–547.
Park, C., Jun, J., 2003. A cross-cultural comparison of Internet buying behavior: effects of
Internet usage, perceived risks, and innovativeness. Int. Market. Rev. 20 (5),
534–553.
Park, H., Lin, L., 2020. The effects of match-ups on the consumer attitudes toward
internet celebrities and their live streaming contents in the context of product
endorsement. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52, 101934.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In:
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. (Eds.), Communication and Persuasion: Central and
Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer, pp. 1–24.
Petty, R., Wegener, D., 1998. Matching versus mismatching attitude functions:
implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24 (3),
227–240.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., Schumann, D., 1983. Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J. Consum. Res. 10 (2), 135–146.
Petty, R., Wheeler, S., Bizer, G., 1999. Is there one persuasion process or more? Lumping
versus splitting in attitude change theories. Psychol. Inq. 10 (2), 156–163.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, N., 2012. Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63
(1), 539–569.
Pradhan, V., 2016. Study on impulsive buying behavior among consumers in
supermarket in kathmandu valley. J. Business Social Sci. Res. 1 (2). Article 2.
14
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644
Qiu, L., Chen, X., Lee, T., 2021. How can the celebrity endorsement effect help consumer
engagement? A case of promoting tourism products through live streaming.
Sustainability 13 (15), 15.
Rajaguru, R., Matanda, M., Verma, P., 2023. Information system integration, forecast
information quality and market responsiveness: role of socio-technical congruence.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 186, 122117.
Ringle, C., Wende, S., Becker, J., 2022. SmartPLS 4. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS. Retrieved
from https://www.smartpls.com.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J., Cheah, J., Becker, J., Ringle, C., 2019. How to specify, estimate,
and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australas. Market J. 27 (3),
197–211.
Shahab, M., Ghazali, E., Mohtar, M., 2021. The role of elaboration likelihood model in
consumer behaviour research and its extension to new technologies: a review and
future research agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 45 (4), 664–689.
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J., Cheah, J., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., Ringle, C., 2019.
Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur. J.
Market. 53 (11), 2322–2347.
Srivastava, M., Saini, G.K., 2022. A bibliometric analysis of the elaboration likelihood
model (ELM). J. Consum. Market. 39 (7), 726–743.
Srivastava, M., Sivaramakrishnan, S., 2020. The impact of eWOM on consumer brand
engagement. Market. Intell. Plann. 39 (3), 469–484.
Statista, 2022. Live Commerce Market Size in the U.S. 2020-2024. Retrieved 3 Oct, 2022
from. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1276120/livestream-e-commerce-sales-
united-states/.
Statista, 2023a. Number of Live Streaming E-Commerce Users in China 2020-2023.
Retrieved 19 October 2023 from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1301256/ch
ina-number-of-live-commerce-users/#:~:text=Number%20of%20live%20streaming
%20e%2Dcommerce%20users%20in%20China%202020%2D2023&text=E%
2Dcommerce%20was%20the%20most,of%20the%20country’s%20internet%20pop
ulation.
Statista, 2023b. Proportion of Livestreaming E-Commerce’s GMV in Online Shopping in
China from 2017 to 2022. Retrieved 19 Oct 2023 from: https://www.statista.co
m/statistics/1192066/china-share-of-livestreaming-ecommerce-in-online-shoppi
ng/.
Sun, Y., Shao, X., Li, X., Guo, Y., Nie, K., 2019. How live streaming influences purchase
intentions in social commerce: an IT affordance perspective. Electron. Commer. Res.
Appl. 37, 100886.
Tabachnick, B., Fidell, L.S., Ullman, J., 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics, sixth ed. MA:
Pearson, Boston.
Vivek, S., Beatty, S., Dalela, V., Morgan, R., 2014. A generalized multidimensional scale
for measuring customer engagement. J. Market. Theor. Pract. 22 (4), 401–420.
Wang, S., Cheah, J.H., Wong, C.Y., Ramayah, T., 2023. Progress in partial least squares
structural equation modeling use in logistics and supply chain management in the
last decade: a structured literature review. Advance online publication: Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2023-0200.
Wang, S., Scheinbaum, A., 2018. Enhancing brand credibility via celebrity endorsement:
trustworthiness trumps attractiveness and expertise. J. Advert. Res. 58 (1), 16–32.
Wongkitrungrueng, A., Assarut, N., 2020. The role of live streaming in building
consumer trust and engagement with social commerce sellers. J. Bus. Res. 117,
543–556.
Wu, H., Tipgomut, P., Chung, H., Chu, W., 2019. The mechanism of positive emotions
linking consumer review consistency to brand attitudes: a moderated mediation
analysis. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 32 (2), 575–588.
Xue, J., Liang, X., Xie, T., Wang, H., 2020. See now, act now: how to interact with
customers to enhance social commerce engagement? Inf. Manag. 57 (6), 103324.
Yang, J., Cao, C., Ye, C., Shi, Y., 2022. Effects of interface design and live atmosphere on
consumers’ impulse-buying behaviour from the perspective of human–computer
interaction. Sustainability 14 (12), 7110.
Yi, Q., Khan, J., Su, Y., Tong, J., Zhao, S., 2023. Impulse buying tendency in live-stream
commerce: the role of viewing frequency and anticipated emotions influencing
scarcity-induced purchase decision. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 75, 103534.
Yusuf, A., Che Hussin, A., Busalim, A., 2018. Influence of e-WOM engagement on
consumer purchase intention in social commerce. J. Serv. Market. 32 (4), 493–504.
Zeng, Q., Guo, Q., Zhuang, W., Zhang, Y., Fan, W., 2022. Do real-time reviews matter?
Examining how bullet screen influences consumers’ purchase intention in live
streaming commerce. Inf. Syst. Front 1–17.
Zhang, M., Sun, L., Qin, F., Wang, G., 2020. E-service quality on live streaming platforms:
swift guanxi perspective. J. Serv. Market. 35 (3), 312–324.
Zhou, J., Zhou, J., Ding, Y., Wang, H., 2019. The magic of danmaku: a social interaction
perspective of gift sending on live streaming platforms. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl.
34, 100815.
Zhou, Y., Li, Y., Ruan, W., Zhang, S., 2023. Owned media or earned media? The influence
of social media types on impulse buying intention in internet celebrity restaurants.
Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 111, 103487.
Zuo, R., Xiao, J., 2021. Exploring consumers’ impulse buying behavior in live streaming
shopping. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Management
Science and Engineering Management. Springer, pp. 610–622. Volume 1 15.
Luo Xi is a Ph.D. candidate in Marketing at the School of Business and Economics, Uni­
versity Putra Malaysia (UPM). Her research interests are focused on e-commerce, online
marketing, and consumer behavior. She also has research working experience in the areas
of social policy and environmental sustainability with the Academy for Global Develop­
ment, Beijing Normal University. Her publications appeared in Science, Journal of Mar­
keting Advances and Practices, and Social Governance Review.
X. Luo et al.
Jun-Hwa Cheah (Jacky) is an Associate Professor at Norwich Business School, the Uni­
versity of East Anglia. His areas of interest include consumer behavior, quantitative
research, and methodological issues. His publications appear in journals such as the
Journal of Business Research, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Asia Pacific Journal of Market­
ing and Logistics, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Total Quality Manage­
ment and Business Excellent, Management Decision, Internet Research, Information
Systems Management, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Journal of Travel
Research, Tourism Management, Tourism Economics, International Journal of Contem­
porary Hospitality Management, and etc. He has also received several research awards (i.
e., Emerald Young Researcher Award 2021).
Linda D. Hollebeek, Ph.D., is the Teng Yew Huat Endowed Chair of Marketing at Sunway
University, Professor of Marketing at Vilnius University and Tallinn University of Tech­
nology, Guest Professor at Umea University and Lund University, and Distinguished
15
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77 (2024) 103644
Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg. Her research on customer/stake­
holder engagement has published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Journal of Service Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, and Tourism
Management, among others. She has been named a Clarivate Highly Cited Researcher
(2020–2022), serves as Associate Editor of the Journal of Service Research, and is co-editor
of The Handbook of Research on Customer Engagement.
Xin-Jean Lim working as a senior lecturer in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). She
earned her doctorate degree from Universiti Putra Malaysia. Her research interests include
consumer behavior, social media marketing, online marketing, and customer relationship
management. Her papers have been published in Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Young Consumers and Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics, etc.