THE IMPACT OF CHANNEL INTEGRATION

ON CONSUMER RESPONSES IN OMNI-CHANNEL RETAILING:

THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT

Min Zhang (corresponding author)

Tianjin University
[email protected]
Chengshang Ren
Tianjin University
[email protected]
G. Alan Wang
Virginia Tech
[email protected]
Zhen He
Tianjin University
[email protected]

Last revised: February 7, 2018

__________________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
In order to meet consumer expectations for consistent, uniform, integrated services and experiences
across multiple retailing channels, many retailers have tried to create an omni-channel retailing
environment through channel integration. This study investigates consumer responses in this new
environment. We focus on consumer empowerment, which not only affects consumers' perceived trust
and satisfaction about their shopping experiences, but also influences their intention to purchase.
Following the stimulus-organism-response (SOR) framework, we propose that channel integration
promotes consumer empowerment, resulting in increased trust and satisfaction and improved
consumer patronage intention. We empirically test the research framework using data collected from a
major omni-channel retailer in China. Our results confirm the significant mediating effect of
consumer empowerment and demonstrate consumers' positive responses to channel integration. Our
findings are also valuable for retailers to implement and evaluate their channel integration strategy.

Keywords: Channel integration; consumer empowerment; consumer responses; SOR framework;

omni-channel retailing
__________________________________________________________________________________

© 2018. This manuscript version is made available under the Elsevier user license
http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
 1

1. INTRODUCTION
Driven by the rapid development of e-commerce and new digital channels, more and more
channels are being used now to accomplish transactions between retailer and consumers, involving
websites, physical stores, catalogs, Internet kiosks, mobile apps and call centers. This reflect a recent
shift to omni-channel retailing, the retailing model of operating in all of the available channels and
eliminating the distinctions among them. For omni-channel retailers, all of the channels can be
leveraged to serve all of their customers, no matter what, when and where they want to make a
purchase. All of the channels should support the same goal of retaining the firm’s consumers by
making them satisfied. Consumers should be able to obtain services from any channel and still use
their primary unique customer identity. And they should not need to do the same account set-up and
search tasks that they have done in other channels previously.
For example, if they have experienced the product and consulted the price in a physical store,
they should be able to go straight to making an order online without considering the quality and price
again. Similarly, for consumers who buy online, they can also go to an offline store and directly deal
with problems about delivery or after-sales service. They will be consistently served well for all of
their touch points. In practice, in order to provide consumers with consistent, uniform, integrated
services and experiences, many retailers such as Macy’s, Wal-Mart and Best Buy in the U.S., as well
as Suning and Guomei in China, have implemented omni-channel retailing strategies by integrating
all of the channels they make available to consumers.
Although omni-channel retailing has developed from multichannel retailing, there are many
differences on various aspects, including: implementation objective, operation mode and consumer
experience. Multichannel retailing usually aims to reach different customer segments with different
preferences and needs by using the specific advantages of different channels (Ailawadi and Farris,
2017). Multichannel retailers need to balance their increased reach and service capabilities with
conflicts between the channels. For example, it is difficult to evaluate physical store performance
when it is mixed with showrooming for the online channel. At the same time, multichannel retailing
generally operates in various channels, and the different channels have their own logistics systems.
As a result, the environment requires consumers to act as self-motivated integrators of
information and services (Saghiri et al., 2017). For example, a consumer may go to online and offline
stores to compare products and prices. The same consumer may have multiple accounts, which store
their purchase information for the different channels. Compared with multichannel retailing, the
omni-channel approach performs differently from the retailer’s and the consumer’s perspectives. Each
of the channels is no longer concerned with customer retention in by itself, but instead leverages the
use of its advantages to serve every customer, no matter which channel is selected, to support a final
order anywhere at any time. The objective is to create a seamless and complete shopping process for
consumers (Verhoef et al., 2015). A related goal is to establish unified systems in operations,
including for logistics and after-sales service support (Ailawadi and Farris, 2017). Consumers will
 2

then be able to shop in all of the available channels with a same account, and all of the information
and services that are needed will be consistent across the channels.
Many researchers have made an effort to learn more about how firms can create integrated
retailing environments, such as for information access (Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999; Bendoly et
al., 2005), prices (Neslin and Shankar, 2009; Vogel and Paul, 2015), product assortment (Emrich et al.,
2015), and order fulfillment (Ofek et al., 2011; Gallino and Moreno, 2014). However, they want to
know whether omni-channel integration increases consumer satisfaction and trust. Our study aims to
provide answers to retailers regarding whether investment in channel integration will achieve a payoff
in consumer trust, satisfaction and retention. They also wish to understand the mechanism through
which channel integration is most effective in influencing consumer retention
To answer these questions, we establish the relationship between consumer perceptions of
channel integration and their attitudes and behavior using the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R)
framework. In this study, we focus on consumer perceptions about their shopping experience in an
omni-channel retailing environment. We consider consumer empowerment as a mediating factor its
influences on their judgments and behavior. We also explore the relationship between consumer
perceptions of channel integration and empowerment, as the impact of empowerment on consumer
trust, satisfaction and behavior.
This study offers new contributions to the retailing and e-commerce literatures. First, it
provides empirical evidence about the impact of omni-channel retailing on consumer perceptions and
responses. Consumers evaluate retailers that implement omni-channel retailing more positively and
have more trust, satisfaction and stronger purchase intentions toward them too. Second, we explore
the influence mechanism that is at work in omni-channel retailing for consumer responses related to
their shopping experience. Using consumer empowerment as a mediating construct, we explain how
omni-channel retailing can lead to more consumers trust, higher satisfaction and a greater level of
willingness to make a purchase. Third, this study is the first to apply the SOR framework to
omni-channel retailing research. We use channel integration as the environment stimulus in this work.
Consistent with Jiang et al.’s (2010) argument that experience can be used as an organism, we also
define consumer empowerment as playing this role in the framework.

2. LITERATURE AND THEORY

With the increase in the number of channels that retailers are operating, it has become an
important to study how to operate multiple channels simultaneously and provide a competitive service
to consumers. Retailers have recognized the value of channel integration in response by providing
consumers with a seamless shopping experience (McGoldrick and Collins, 2007).
There are two types of channel integration: (1) integrating online access or knowledge in
offline stores (online-offline channel integration); and (2) integrating offline access or knowledge in
the online store (offline-online channel integration). Some researchers have investigated the effect of
 3

online-offline integration on consumers. Bendoly et al. (2005) showed that, when consumers search
for product information through a self-service online terminal provided in a physical store, they
perceive less risk for product non-availability. Patrício et al. (2008) used a bank to study the effects of
online banking terminals in the branch environment. They reported that consumers enjoy a better
service experience as a result. In addition, when physical employees have access to online terminals,
they can provide customers with better services (Glushko and Tabas, 2009). Different from
online-offline channel integration, however, some retailers provide offline store information in their
Internet stores. For example, IKEA and John Lewis publish the locations, open hours, and product
categories of their physical stores on their websites. The information is intended to decrease
consumers' perceived risk regarding the online store (Herhausen et al. 2015). The authors also found
that consumers who shopped with retailers who provided physical store information on their Internet
store websites achieved better perceived service quality and less risk from consumers about their
e-stores.
Some studies focus on a particular aspect of channel integration, such as price integration,
assortment integration, inventory integration, order-fulfillment integration, and service integration.
Pricing strategy for retailers is considered to be a key issue that influences consumer shopping
decisions (Wolk and Ebling, 2010). With effective price differentiation strategy across channels,
retailers may be able to influence consumer shopping behavior (Breugelmans and Campo, 2016),
achieve improved profitability (Phlips, 1983; Tang and Xing, 2001), and attract consumers to their
new channels. However, others have shown this has negative effects and support price consistency
instead (Neslin and Shankar, 2009). For example, Vogel and Paul (2015) argued that a channel-based
price differentiation strategy could increase consumers' perception of value, but increase their
perception of limited self-determination and lack of price-setting fairness. As for product assortment
integration, Emrich et al. (2015) studied how integration between channel structure and the assortment
structure influenced the shopping benefits of consumers. They found that different assortment
integration strategies tend to influence consumer perceptions of variety, risk and convenience.
Inventory management also has an important impact on consumer purchase decisions. By
integrating inventory information, retailers can reduce customer perceptions of product
non-availability (Bendoly et al., 2005). Huang and Van Mieghem (2014) reported that physical stores
can make better inventory decisions based on clickstream data collected from their websites. Given
consumers' multichannel shopping behavior, an integrated order fulfillment system is also necessary.
Gallino and Moreno (2014) analyzed the impact of the implementation of a “buy-online,
pick-up-in-store” project. They found that this project increased offline sales but decreased online
sales. In terms of return management, Ofek et al. (2011) indicated that, by integrating the return
processes in online and offline stores, firms engendered better customer perceptions of convenience
and increased profits.
Our review of the literature provided us with a better understanding of channel integration
 4

with respect to price, assortment, delivery, fulfillment, and service integration strategies. However,
there may be synergy among different kinds of integration (Bendoly et al., 2005). Consumer shopping
behavior includes a series of activities at the pre-purchase, purchase and after-purchase stages,
involving perspectives on all of the channels. Therefore, customers often evaluate retailers based on
their experience with the entire shopping process. And so it is necessary to investigate different
aspects of consumer responses to channel integration. On the other hand, omni-channel retailing is
committed to providing consumers with a seamless shopping experience, to experience products and
services across all of the available channels.
There have been few studies that investigated the impact of channel integration on customer
perception of satisfaction, service quality, and trust by considering the overall shopping experience in
omni-channel retailing though (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). Some studies investigated the effect of
channel integration on consumer perceived risk (Bendoly et al., 2005) and trust (Schramm-Klein et al.,
2011; Jiang et al., 2015). But they either considered multi-channel or cross-channel retailing that is
less integrated than omni-channel retailing, or they failed to explain the mechanism through which
channel integration affects customer perceptions. We introduce the concept of consumer
empowerment. We believe that it can explain the internal influence mechanism between channel
integration in omni-channel retailing and consumer perceptions.

3. RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

3.1. SOR Framework
The stimulus-organism-response (SOR) framework has been extensively used to study the
relationship between the retailing environment and consumer shopping behavior (Eroglu et al., 2001;
Morin et al., 2007; Hsieh et al., 2012; Pantano and Viassone, 2015). It describes the relationship
among the stimulus (S), consumers' internal states (O) and subsequent behavior (R). The stimulus
influences consumers' internal states followed by their changed behavior. With the SOR framework,
the stimulus can be marketing-related factors as well as environmental characteristics, such as store
atmosphere and website features (Robert and John, 1982; Bagozzi, 1986). For example, to investigate
the effect of new stores (the stores in multi-channel retail environment), Pantano and Viassone (2015)
used channel availability, which is one of the service characteristics in multi-channel settings, as the
environment stimulus. In this study, we consider channel integration, a new and special characteristic
in the omni-channel retailing environment, as the stimulus.
The organism in the SOR framework represents the internal states of consumers. The
organism includes not only internal activities such as perception, feeling and thinking (Bagozzi, 1986),
but also affective, emotional and cognitive states such as pleasure and satisfaction (Jiang et al., 2010).
We consider consumer empowerment as the organism in our research because it focuses on consumer
perceptions of control over their shopping processes. Besides, satisfaction and trust are also regarded
as the organism in our model. Compared with the perception and evaluation of consumers, their
 5

shopping behaviors, such as their intentions to use, browse, buy (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974; Bitner,
1992) or retain (Van Baal and Dach, 2005), are generally thought of as responses in the SOR
framework. Following Hsu et al. (2012), we use consumer purchase intention as the response in our
research model.
3.2. Channel Integration
Channel integration is recognized as a way to coordinate use of multiple forms of interaction,
such as the retail channel, the media, the fulfillment mode, the website, and the physical stores. Its
goal is to leverage the advantages of every channel, eliminate cannibalization, create synergy, and
subsequently increase firm performance (Neslin et al., 2006). In the retailing context, channel
integration is regarded as a promising way to ensure that consumers will enjoy a seamless shopping
experience (Goersch, 2002; King et al., 2004). In line with Cao and Li’s (2015) comprehensive
definition, we consider channel integration to be the degree to which a retailer coordinates its
multiple channels to create synergy for the firm and offer a seamless shopping experience to its
customers.
The implementation of channel integration is a process that is intended to improve the
interaction and cooperation between different channels. A well-integrated retailer will make an effort
to coordinate channels in terms of operations and management. Although channel integration
practices are not discussed specifically for the omni-channel retailing environment, some efforts have
been made to examine integration practices. Based on previous research, we summarize the main
content of omni-channel integration, including integrated promotion, product and price, transaction
information, information access, order fulfillment and customer service (Bendoly et al., 2005; Oh et
al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2015).
 Integrated promotion means consumers should be able to find one channel’s
advertisements or publicity information in another channel. These practices not only help
consumer to better understand other channels, but also enhance their awareness of the
associations among channels.
 Integrated product and price means that there is consistent product and price information
across the various channels. Consumers should be able to enjoy the same preferential in
any channel, . and they will avoid confusion and develop consistent evaluations.
 Integrated transaction information means using the same account to track and maintain all of
the purchase records in the various channels. This ensures that every consumer is viewed as
the same customer across all of the channels. They can manage all their purchase records
more conveniently this way.
 Integrated information access means that consumer can find the access to information
available in other channels, and they can easily switch to other channels.
 Integrated order fulfillment means that consumers can complete the whole transaction process
(include order, payment, delivery and return) using any one or more channels.
 6

 Integrated customer service, finally, emphasizes providing standard and consistent service
across all of the channels, and they all provide after-sales service for each other.
These dimensions cover the entire shopping process. We will measure a retailer's channel
integration efforts based on these six dimensions of integration.
3.3. The Impact of Channel Integration on Consumer Empowerment
The concept of consumer empowerment has been studied extensively in previous literature. In
general, there are two different meanings in the literature. First, it means authorizing someone to have
asymmetric abilities to control or manage other people (Clegg, 1989; Sadan, 1997; Cattaneo and
Chapman, 2010). Second, it refers to allowing someone to do things on their own terms. This meaning
fits better in our context because retailers usually provide consumers with options to increase the
likelihood that they will make a purchase decision. A fundamental element of consumer
empowerment in retailing lies in consumers' ability to control their choices (Wathieu et al., 2002). We
define consumer empowerment as the extent to which consumers have control over their shopping
processes.
Channel integration in retailing can provide consumers with increased empowerment and a
seamless shopping experience. First, it provides consumers with more choices in their shopping
processes. For example, consumers can choose appropriate channels based on their own needs. Given
convenience in online channels and tangibility in offline channels, consumers can first search for and
compare product information on the website before they make a trip to an offline store to physically
examine the desired product. Consumers can also complete their transactions at their preferred times
and locations using their chosen payment and delivery methods.
Second, channel integration provides consumers with more information and an integrated
communication mechanism, which help them to reduce their perceived uncertainty and confusion.
Different channels provide different types of information. For example, many online stores now
provide user reviews, in which customers share their experiences with the purchased products or
services, as well as their shopping experiences (Zhang et al., 2014). An integrated communication
mechanism allows consumers to acquire consistent and complementary information from various
channels. The increased amount of information and integrated communication help reduce the
uncertainty in consumer shopping processes and help them make better decisions.
Thus, when interacting with a well-integrated retailer, consumers gain more choices and
expanded information, the two key factors influencing their empowerment (Broniarczyk and Griffin,
2014), which suggests:
 Hypothesis 1 (Channel Integration and Empowerment). Consumer perceptions of
channel integration are positively related to consumer empowerment.
3.4. Consumer Empowerment and Trust
According to self-determination theory, humans always try to pursue autonomy. In the
context of retailing, consumers consider a retailer to be more reliable when they perceive a higher
 7

degree of autonomy in their interactions with the retailer (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Ryan and Deci,
2000). Consumer perceptions of autonomy have been found to have a positive and direct relationship
with their perception of control (Deci and Ryan, 1985, 2000). In other words, consumers are more
likely to trust retailers that empower them with more control (Vogel and Paul, 2015). Based on the
above discussion, empowered consumers who have more control over their choices in a shopping
process, should have more trust in retailers, as follows:
 Hypothesis 2 (Customer Empowerment and Perceived Trust). Consumer
empowerment will have a positive effect on their perceived trust toward the retailer.
3.5. Consumer Empowerment and Satisfaction
Consumer satisfaction has been extensively discussed in previous literature and practices.
According to the expectancy-disconfirmation model, satisfaction is a cognitive construct determined
by the psychological distance between expectation and confirmation (Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988). For
example, consumers will feel satisfied when their shopping outcomes confirm their initial expectation.
In addition, satisfaction has also been defined as an emotional response to shopping experience
(Howard and Jagdish, 1969; Oliver, 1981; Fornell, 1992). We concentrate on consumer evaluation of
their shopping experience. So we view satisfaction as a positive psychological state derived from the
perceived value of the received product or service as well as the shopping experience.
Empowered consumers have more control over their shopping processes. And more consumer
control is known to lead to a closer match of individual needs and market offerings (Kreps, 1979).
Empowered consumers are free to choose what they want and when they want it on their own terms
(Kreps, 1979; Wathieu et al., 2002). Thus, empowered consumers are more likely to have a positive
experience (Langer, 1983; Wathieu et al., 2002) and generate positive emotions related to the retailer.
Both positive experiences and emotions will influence consumers' affective judgments like perceived
satisfaction (Richins, 1997; Bagozzi et al., 1999; Mattila and Enz, 2002; Fang et al., 2016). We offer:
 Hypothesis 3 (Consumer Empowerment and Satisfaction). Consumer empowerment
will have a positive effect on consumer satisfaction.
3.6. Trust, Satisfaction, and Patronage Intention
Trust is defined as “the belief by one party about another party that the latter will behave in a
predictable manner” (Midha, 2012). When consumers trusst a retailer, they usually tend to make more
purchases and have a higher level of satisfaction and loyalty (Chiu et al., 2009, Lee et al., 2009). Thus,
we hypothesize that:
 Hypothesis 4 (Consumer Trust and Satisfaction). Consumer trust is positively
associated with satisfaction.
Many studies have shown that trust is an important antecedent of a consumer’s behavioral
intention (Ba and Pavlou, 2002; Lim et al., 2006). Trust can help consumers reduce social complexity
when they interact with an organization or a retailer (Gefen et al., 2003). For example, when
 8

consumers trust a retailer, they will subjectively ignore its undesirable yet possible behavior, such as
using their purchase information for promotions without permission. Trust also will encourage
consumers to spend more time and money with a retailer (McKnight et al., 1998; Bhattacherjee, 2002;
Gefen, 2002; Kim et al., 2010). Numerous studies have found a positive relationship between
perceived trust and patronage intention (Gefen, 2000; Gefen et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2008; Kim et al.,
2009). Thus, we posit:
 Hypothesis 5 (Consumer Trust and Patronage Intention). Consumer trust is positively
associated with patronage intention.
Another important antecedent of consumer purchase intention is satisfaction (Kuo et al.,
2009). Many studies have concluded that satisfaction has a positive relationship with consumer
patronage intention (Cronin et al., 2000; Bhattacherjee, 2001; Lin et al., 2005; Udo et al., 2010). If
consumers have a higher level of satisfaction with their shopping experiences, they will have stronger
intention to purchase (Zeithaml et al., 1996). In a multichannel environment, researchers also have
achieved similar findings. Consumers who are satisfied with one channel will continue to shop in this
channel. In addition, consumers also show a positive attitude and strong intention to purchase in other
channels that belong to the same retailer (Yang et al., 2013). So we assert:
 Hypothesis 6 (Customer Satisfaction and Patronage Intention). Consumer satisfaction
is positively associated with patronage intention.
Our proposed research framework is presented in Figure 1.
INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

4. METHODOLOGY
4.1. Data Collection
To test our proposed research model, we collected data from a large omni-channel retailer in
China, which has been operating an online shopping website since 2005. We chose this retailer for
several reasons. First, the retailer successfully operated physical stores for about 25 years and
cultivated a large number of consumers. It had a good reputation and word of mouth in China. Second,
the retailer was one of the earliest companies to have introduced an online retailing platform. Its
online shopping platform has become the third-largest B2C business platform in China over time. Last,
the retailer had been developing an omni-channel integration strategy for several years. It operates in
previously independent channels to coordinating across different channels. Now, one unified team
conducts the different channel operations. This helps the physical store employees operate their online
stores, which ensures employees are aware of both the online and offline products, services and
information, and these practices enhance communication integration. This set of changes is on par
with the most integrated retailers in China and the U.S. Due to their successful omni-channel retailing
strategy and practices, the firm has won awards in China, such as the Best Omni-Channel Innovative
Case Award in the Retailing Industry in 2016.
 9

The retailer had about 4,000 physical stores in China at the time of our study. However, the
performance of these stores varied considerably by city, location and scale. For example, compared
with small-scale stores in small cities, the large-scale stores located in Beijing performed better in
product categories, logistics and Internet service. In our study, we selected consumers from 12 stores
located in Beijing and Tianjin as our sample. Consumers were randomly chosen when they went
shopping in a store.
We used a survey methodology to collect data. To ensure that the participants had a good
understanding of omni-channel retailing, and offered us real, accurate, and valid data, we first asked
them some questions before they started the main survey. For example, we asked them: “Are you
familiar with other channels or do you often buy products through multiple channels of the retailer?”
Only those who gave a positive answer were invited to fill out the survey form. And when they
encountered many unknown items in the questionnaire, they were asked to stop the survey. Thus, only
those participants who had a good understanding of the omni-channel retailing model finished the
questionnaire.
Every respondent was given a small gift after completing the questionnaire. We collected 173
responses in total. Then we examined the responses and excluded the invalid ones, such as those who
gave the same answers for most of the questions in the questionnaire. Due to the strict pre-survey
control, there were invalid forms. We finally obtained 155 valid surveys though. The validity rate was
89.6%: consumers who did not start or finish the questionnaire were not included in computation.
Demographic information for the participants is shown in Table 1.
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
4.2. Measurement
As we discussed, channel integration has six dimensions. Following the construct of
IT-enabled retail channel integration capability (Oh et al., 2012), we conceptualize consumer
perception of channel integration as a second-order formative construct, while using the six
dimensions as the first-order constructs. The items measuring the six first-order constructs were
developed based on the measures proposed by Bendoly et al. (2005), Oh et al. (2012) and Jiang et al.
(2015). To ensure the validity of these items, we asked for comments from 15 participants who had
omni-channel shopping experience, and three experts who had conducted research in multichannel
retailing and channel integration. Prior to conducting the formal questionnaire, we modified
inappropriate descriptions and expressions in the items based on the pre-test outcome.
Other constructs were measured using the items adapted from the existing literature. We
adopted five items on consumer empowerment based on Hunter and Garnefeld (2008) and Prentice et
al. (2016). We measured trust using the items adapted from Doney and Cannon (1997), Jarvenpaa et
al. (1999) and McKnight et al. (2002). We also adopted five items for measuring perceived
satisfaction based on Gustafsson et al. (2005). The items used to measure patronage intention were
adopted from Kim et al. (2008). Appendix A includes all items that we used in the questionnaire.
 10

Considering that the questionnaire participants were Chinese speakers, we adopted the
back-to-back translation procedure used by Yang et al. (2013). The questionnaire uses 7-point Likert
scales with response choices ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree).

5. RESULTS
We used the partial least squares (PLS) method implemented in Smart PLS 3.0 to test our
research model. The reasons why we selected PLS instead of linear structural relations (LISREL) or
analysis of moment structures (AMOS) are as follows. First, PLS uses a component-based approach
(Lohmoller, 1988) and can handle both reflective and formative constructs (Gefen et al., 2000; Rai et
al., 2006). In this study, consumer perception of channel integration is measured as a formative
construct, while the other variables are measured as reflective constructs. Moreover, PLS does not
require a large sample size and places less restrictions on measurement scales and the distribution of
the residuals (Chin et al., 2003).
For this study, we adopted a two-step approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988).
Before we estimated the structural model, we first analyzed the reliability and validity of our
measurement model.
5.1. The Measurement Model
First, we assessed the reliability of our instrument. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability
were used to estimate internal consistency. Table 2 shows the related estimation values. For the
reflective constructs, the Cronbach’s alphas were all higher than 0.7, which is recommended as an
acceptable level (Numally, 1978; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). All the composite reliabilities also
exceeded the suggested benchmark of 0.7. Thus, the internal consistency of our constructs is adequate.
Moreover, all the average variance extracted (AVE) values of reflective constructs are higher than
0.50.
Consumer perception of channel integration is defined as a second-order formative construct.
So we created linear composites from the items used to measure each sub-construct and applied them
as formative indicators for the higher-order construct in the structural model (Rai et al., 2006). We
computed linear composite scores using a multivariate mean, computed based on the summed mean
values of the items. Hair et al. (1995) suggested that the multivariate mean is an appropriate approach
for computing linear composites. In addition, when the items are internally consistent, different
weighting schemes may be highly correlated (Rozeboom, 1979), and do not change the observed
pattern of relationships in a structural model (Rai et al., 2006). The results of the internal consistency
test for the sub-order constructs are shown in Table 3. The Cronbach’s alphas and composite
reliabilities are all greater than 0.7, suggesting internal consistency is acceptable. We also tested the
existence of multicollinearity among the six sub-constructs of the high-order construct. We calculated
the variance inflation factors (VIF). All of the VIF values were lower than the critical value of 3.33,
indicating that multicollinearity is not a threat in this study.
 11

Next, we assessed the convergent validity in our construct measurement. Convergent validity
reflects the degree to which different measures of a construct are correlated (Petter et al., 2007). For
reflective constructs, their convergent validity is considered as acceptable if their indicator loadings
are higher than 0.5 (Wixom and Watson, 2001). As shown in Table 2, all of the indicator loadings of
our reflective constructs were above 0.5, suggesting that convergent validity in our construct
measurement was acceptable.
INSERT TABLES 2 AND 3 ABOUT HERE
For the formative construct of consumer perceptions of channel integration, two of indicators’
weights shown in Table 2 are not significant. Similar conditions have occurred in some previous
studies of service quality (Cenfetelli and Bassellier, 2009), online channel service quality, and offline
channel service quality (Yang et al., 2013). Although all indicator weights are expected to be
significant, Cenfetelli and Bassellier (2009) argued that the number of formative construct indicators
can influence the statistical significance and magnitude of its indicators' weights. They stated that a
“greater number of indicators will result in a greater likelihood that many of the indicator weights will
be low in magnitudes as well as statistically nonsignificant” [Cenfetelli and Bassellier, 2009, p. 694].
Hence, we further estimated the relative and absolute importance of each formative construct
indicator using an alternative procedure suggested by their work. A construct's indicator loading
represents its importance to the construct. As shown in Table 2, the formative indicators’ loadings
were all significant in our study. Thus, all of the formative indicators in our study had contributions to
their assigned constructs in our research model.
We also examined the discriminant validity of our constructs using the cross loadings and the
AVE values. The cross loadings of the items are presented in Table 4. The loadings of each item on
the assigned factor are greater than the cross loadings on other factors. Moreover, discriminant
validity can be evaluated by comparing the correlation coefficients between variables to the square
root of the AVE of each reflective construct. Table 5 shows that the square root of each AVE is
greater than the corresponding correlation coefficients. Thus, we can conclude that discriminant
validity is satisfactory in our study.
INSERT TABLES 4 AND 5 ABOUT HERE
A common method bias may exist with self-reported data (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and cause
erroneous conclusions (Campbell and Fiske, 1959). So we used two common approaches to examine
common method bias in this study. First, we conducted Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff and
Organ, 1986) on the five conceptually crucial variables in our research model. They included:
including consumer perception of channel integration, consumer empowerment, trust, satisfaction and
patronage intention. According to Podsakoff et al. (2003), when there is only one factor or one factor
accounts for the majority of the covariance, the common method bias is likely a problem in the data.
An unrotated factor analysis for the 24 items was conducted. The results show that 76% of the
variance is explained by five factors. The most covariance explained by one factor is less than 50% of
 12

the total variance. Therefore, common method bias is unlikely a threat in our data.
We then used the common method factor suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003) to further
examine the common method bias in our data. Following the procedure proposed by Liang et al.
(2007), we calculated each item’s variance explained by the theoretical construct and the common
method factor. The results in Table 6 show that the variance of each item is mainly explained by the
theoretical construct, not the method factor. Moreover, all items had significant substantive loadings
on the corresponding theoretical constructs. Most of their method factor loadings were not statistically
significant though. Thus, we can conclude that the common method bias is not a serious issue for us.
INSERT TABLE 6 HERE
5.2. The Analysis of the Structural Model
After examining the validity and reliability of our measurements, we analyzed our structural
model based on the estimation of path coefficients and R2, which are indicators of model fit (Hulland,
1999; Chin, 2003). Figure 2 shows the results of the bootstrapping procedure in PLS. These results
demonstrate that all of the proposed hypotheses in our study are supported.
First, the hypothesized path from consumer perception of channel integration to consumer
empowerment is significant at the level of 0.001, supporting the Channel Integration and
Empowerment Hypothesis (H1). We conclude that consumer perceptions of channel integration have
a positive relationship with consumer empowerment. In other words, in omni-channel retailing,
consumers are empowered with more self-control to shop. Next, the paths from consumer
empowerment to trust and satisfaction are both significant at the level of 0.001, supporting the
Customer Empowerment and Perceived Trust Hypothesis (H2) and the Consumer Empowerment and
Satisfaction Hypothesis (H3). These allow us to infer that consumer satisfaction and trust are
influenced by consumer empowerment. When consumers who are empowered, they express more
satisfaction and trust with the retailer. And the hypothesized path from trust to satisfaction is also
significant, supporting the Consumer Trust and Satisfaction Hypothesis (H4). Thus, both trust and
satisfaction have a strong positive effect on patronage intention.
Further, the path coefficients are both significant at the level of 0.001, supporting the
Consumer Trust and Patronage Intention Hypothesis (H5) and the Customer Satisfaction and
Patronage Intention Hypothesis (H6). It is easy to tell that, if consumers who are satisfied or trust with
a retailer, they are more likely to purchase from it. At the same time, the R2 values for consumer
empowerment, trust, satisfaction and patronage intention are 0.543, 0.239, 0.373 and 0.449,
respectively. This further suggests the model explains the variance of consumer empowerment, trust,
satisfaction and patronage intention, and the overall validity of our research model is acceptable.
INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE
In addition, we used the approach proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2004) to test the
mediating effect of consumer empowerment, trust and satisfaction. The results of the Preacher-Hayes
mediating effect test are presented in Table 7. Zhao et al. (2010) show that when zero is not included
 13

in the bootstrap confidence interval and the indirect total effects is significant, there is a mediating
effect. From the results, we can conclude that consumer empowerment, trust and satisfaction have a
mediating effect in our model.
INSERT TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE

6. DISCUSSION
Guided by the SOR framework, our study examined consumer responses to channel
integration in an omni-channel retailing environment. Our empirical results suggested that consumer
perceptions of channel integration had an influence over consumer perceived trust and satisfaction as
well as their shopping intention. In a well-integrated retailing environment, consumers perceive more
empowerment and have more trust and satisfaction, and stronger shopping intention to the benefit of
retailers. Consistent with previous studies on the relationship between channel integration and
consumer shopping intention, our study has shown that, in an omni-channel retailing environment,
there was a positive relationship between perceived channel integration and consumer patronage
intention. This relationship was mediated by consumer empowerment. In addition, we found that
consumer empowerment, the perception of control during the purchase process, was positively related
to perceived trust and satisfaction.
Our study also has shown that consumer empowerment was positively related to consumer
perceptions of channel integration. Our findings are consistent with those in Cao and Li (2015).
Integrated retailers pay close attention to consumers’ needs and try to empower them more than ever
before. Through channel integration, retailers eliminate the constraints and barriers in single-channel
retailing, and no longer can control consumers for their own benefits. For example, when there are
integrated prices between the online and offline channels, consumers are no longer constrained to
shop in whichever channel that has the lowest price. Also, when the natural borders between channels
disappear, consumers have more freedom and choices in their shopping processes.
Consistent with the results in Hunter and Garnefeld (2008), our findings also show that
consumer empowerment had a positive effect on consumer satisfaction. Although some researchers
have argued that more consumer empowerment may lead to decision difficulty (Broniarczyk and
Griffin, 2014), choice paralysis (Mick et al., 2004) and confusion (Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999;
Wathieu et al., 2002), our empirical results show that empowered consumers still had positive
satisfaction and trust toward integrated retailers. This explains the phenomenon in which many
successful retailers try their best to enhance consumer empowerment in order to meet consumer
demands and improve their satisfaction (Tiu Wright et al., 2006). In general, consumers benefit from
increased perception of control (Kreps, 1979; Wathieu et al., 2002). By integrating retailing channels,
retailers empower consumers with more channel choices and enriched product and service
information. When consumers feel more empowered, they are more likely to enjoy their shopping
processes (Prentice et al., 2016). It is a common belief that shopping is not only about obtaining a
 14

product but also about enjoying the shopping process (Martineau, 1958; Tiu Wright et al., 2006).
Therefore, a positive perception of consumer empowerment makes consumers satisfied in their
shopping experiences.
This study also has found that consumer empowerment had a strong direct effect on consumer
trust. This results are similar to the findings in Van Dyke et al. (2007), which show that perceived
privacy empowerment has a strong positive effect on trust in e-commerce. Empowered consumers
have more control during the shopping process where they can conveniently gather information (Cao
and Li, 2015), reduce information asymmetry and uncertainty, and enhance their trust
(Schramm-Klein and Morschett, 2005). In addition, a positive relationship between trust and
satisfaction, which has been reported in previous studies, was also found in this study. Our empirical
results show a positive effect of trust and satisfaction on consumer patronage intention. Trust and
satisfaction have been regarded as predictors for consumer shopping behavior (Ba and Pavlou, 2002;
Lim et al., 2006; Kuo et al., 2009). Consumers are more likely to make a transaction with the retailer
who is reliable.
In summary, these results confirm that retailers which invest in channel integration receive a
payoff in consumer empowerment and shopping intention. By fully integrating their retailing channels
for an omni-channel retailing environment, retailers also empower consumers more than ever before
and increase their satisfaction and trust, as well as their shopping intention.
6.1. Theoretical Implications
This study also has theoretical implications. First, we offer new insights on consumer
responses in an omni-channel retailing environment. As a measure of firm competitive advantage,
consumer responses are often used to evaluate the effectiveness of their strategic moves. Although
many retailers have undertaken an omni-channel retailing strategy, it is still not clear whether the
strategy will yield positive customer responses (Verhoef et al., 2015). Based on the SOR framework,
this study has presented empirical evidence about the positive relationship between channel
integration and customer satisfaction, trust, and intention to purchase. The literature has shown that
channel attributes affect consumer behavior (Verhoef et al., 2015). As an extension, our research
demonstrates the critical role of channel integration in eliciting positive consumer responses and
consumer patronage intention.
Second, our study used consumer empowerment to explain why channel integration in
omni-channel retailing affects consumer responses. According to self-determination theory,
empowerment influences human judgment and behavior (Schwartz et al., 2012). For example,
employee empowerment has a positive effect on customer satisfaction, job satisfaction and
organizational performance (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer,
1995; Ugboro and Obeng, 2000). Similar to employee empowerment, consumer empowerment has
also been recognized as an important factor for improved customer satisfaction and patronage
intention (Pitt et al., 2002; Henry, 2005; Hunter and Garnefeld, 2008). Our empirical study confirms
 15

the mediating effect of consumer empowerment in the relationship between consumer perceptions of
channel integration and consumer responses, enriching the literature on omni-channel retailing and
consumer empowerment.
Third, this study extends the application of the SOR framework from marketing to
omni-channel retailing. In general, environment attributes are often considered as stimuli in the SOR
framework, including atmospheric cues (Robert and John, 1982), website characteristics
(Mummalaneni, 2005), and social factors (Liu et al., 2016). In our study, we used perceived channel
integration, a unique characteristic in omni-channel retailing, as a stimulus. To the best of our
knowledge, we are the first to propose consumer empowerment as an organism to analyze the
relationship between environment and consumer behavior. It reflects consumer perceptions of control
in their shopping processes. This is consistent with Jiang et al.’s (2010) argument that experience can
be used as an organism. Furthermore, according to Berry et al. (2006), consumer experiences may
influence their emotional perceptions and evaluation. Thus, we considered the affective and emotional
states of consumer (perceived trust and satisfaction) simultaneously in the SOR framework. The good
model fits in our empirical study also verify the appropriateness of the application of the framework.
6.2. Practical Implications
This study also provides implications for practitioners. First, this study enriches managers’
understanding of the effects of omni-channel retailing. Although many retailers have tried to
accomplish omni-channel retailing, many operate their multiple channels separately (Zhang et al.,
2010; Oh et al., 2012). Their major concern is whether channel integration pays off in terms of
consumer satisfaction and behavior (Herhausen et al., 2015). Our findings provide important
empirical evidence about consumers’ positive responses in response to channel integration and
provide practitioners with more confidence in implementing channel integration.
Second, our results suggest that retailers should embrace consumer empowerment. Consumer
empowerment has a strong positive effect on trust and satisfaction, which is known to have a strong
relationship with retailer effectiveness and profitability (Fornell, 1996; Olsen, 2002; Yang and
Peterson, 2004), reputation, and firm performance (Anderson et al., 1997). To improve consumer
empowerment, retailers should offer consumers more control during their shopping processes.
Third, this study helps retailers to better evaluate the effect of channel integration by focusing
on consumer experience and responses. Previous studies mainly focused on firm performance, such as
market share, cost efficiencies and sales growth (Bendoly, 2005; Oh et al., 2012; Cao and Li, 2015),
when evaluating the effect of channel integration. Our study suggests that retailers should also pay
attention to consumers' psychological responses such as empowerment, perceived trust, and
satisfaction.
6.3. Limitations and Future Research
Our study has the following limitations. First, in our research model, we use consumer
perceptions of channel integration to measure the retailer’s practical actions for how their products are
 16

evaluated. Thus, whether consumer evaluations about retailer omni-channel practices are influenced
by other factors is not clear. For example, it may be that consumer empowerment will influence
consumer perceptions of channel integration. This should be further assessed by collecting more data
and conducting advanced analysis though. Second, our data were collected related to a large retailer in
China, so the findings may have limited generalizability. The retailer mainly sells consumer
electronics products, but we did not consider the influence of product type in our research findings.
Researchers have reported that product type may influence multichannel consumer behavior (Verhoef
et al., 2005). So, for some tangible products, consumers may be more likely to adopt multichannel
behavior in response to channel integration. Thus, it may be appropriate going forward to consider
examining the effect of product type on the relationship between channel integration and consumer
responses.
In addition, cultural differences may also influence the generalizability of our research
findings. Many cross-cultural studies have indicated that consumer channel behavior is culture related.
For example, Chinese consumers show more uncertainty avoidance behavior than western consumers
(Pan and Zhang, 2004). Future research should look into how cultural differences influence the
relationship between channel integration and trust. Finally, given the fact that channel integration is a
gradual and continuing process (Neslin et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2010), longitudinal data may be
more appropriate in order to analyze the effect of channel integration on consumer responses. Thus,
future studies should examine consumer responses during the process of channel integration.
 17

Appendix A. Measurement Items in the Questionnaire

Consumer perceptions of channel integration (CI):
Integrated promotion (IP):
IP1: I can find consistent brand name, slogan and logo in the retailer’s physical store and Website.
IP2: I can find the promotions that are taking place in the physical store on the retailer’s Website.
IP3: I can find the address and contact information of the physical store on the retailer’s Website.
IP4: I can find advertisements of the retailer’s Website on the pamphlets, receipts, and carrying bags in its physical store.
Integrated product and price (IPP):
IPP1: I can find consistent product descriptions in the retailer’s physical store and Website.
IPP2: I can find consistent product category classifications in the retailer’s physical store and Website.
IPP3: I can find consistent product price in the retailer’s physical store and Website.
IPP4: I can find consistent discounts in the retailer’s physical store and Website.
Integrated transaction information (ITI):
ITI1: I can access both my online and offline purchase history with the retailer.
ITI2: I can access my prior purchase history with the retailer.
ITI3: I can receive future purchase recommendations from the retailer.
ITI4: I can receive a customized Web page.
Integrated information access (IIA):
IIA1: I can search for products in the retailer’s physical store through its Website.
IIA2: I can check of the retailer’s inventory status at the physical store through its Website.
IIA3: I can access the information and functionalities on the retailer’s Website through the Internet kiosks in its physical
store.
IIA4: I can find answers through the Internet kiosks in the retailer’s physical store without making enquiries from in-store
service assistants.
Integrated order fulfillment (IOF):
IOF1: I can redeem the retailer’s gift coupons or vouchers in its physical store or Website.
IOF2: I can self-collect my online purchases in the retailer’s physical store.
IOF3: I can pick up my online purchases in any physical store of the retailer.
IOF4: I can make payment for my online purchases in the retailer’s physical store.
IOF5: I can place orders for out-of-stock items in the retailer’s physical store through its Internet kiosks.
Integrated customer service (ICS):
ICS1: I can return, repair or exchange of products purchased online in the retailer’s physical store.
ICS2: I can get post-purchase services support for the products purchased at the retailer’s physical stores from its Website.
ICS3: I can access to the service assistant through a real-time chat program through the retailer’s Website.
Consumer empowerment (CE):
CE1. In my dealings with this retailer, I feel I am in control
CE2. The ability to influence the goods and services of this retailer is beneficial to me
CE3. I feel good because of my ability to influence the choice set offered to me by this retailer
CE4. During the shopping process, I can select product and service freely
CE5. My influence over this retailer has increased relative to the past
Trust (T):
T1: This retailer is reliable
T2: This retailer is trustworthy
T3: This retailer’s products and service are dependable
T4: This retailer offers secure Web transactions
T5: It is unnecessary to be cautious with this retailer
Satisfaction (S):
S1. Altogether, I’m satisfied with the goods and services of this retailer
S2. I’m totally convinced of this retailer
S3. This retailer totally meets my expectations
S4. I’ve made especially good experiences with this retailer
S5. This retailer offers me exactly what I need
Patronage intention (PI):
PI1. I am likely to purchase the products(s) from this retailer
PI2. I am likely to recommend this retailer to my friends
PI3. I am likely to make another purchase from this retailer if I need the products that I will buy
 18

REFERENCES
Ailawadi, K.L., Farris, P.W. (2017) Managing multi-and omni-channel distribution: Metrics and
research directions. Journal of Retailing, 93(1), 120-135.
Anderson E.W., Fornell, C., Rust, R.T. (1997) Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability:
Differences between goods and services. Marketing Science, 16(2), 129-145.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Ba, S., Pavlou, P.A. (2002) Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets:
Price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243-268.
Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M., Nyer, P.U. (1999) The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184-206.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1986) Principles of Marketing Management. Science Research Associates, Chicago,
IL.
Bakos, J.Y. (1991), A strategic analysis of electronic marketplaces. MIS Quarterly, 15(3), 295-310.
Bendoly, E., Blocher, J.D., (2005) Bretthauer K M, et al. Online/in-store integration and customer
retention. Journal of Service Research, 7(4), 313-327.
Berry, L.L, Wall, E.A., Carbone, L. P. (2006) Service clues and customer assessment of the service
experience: Lessons from marketing. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 43-57.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001) An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service
continuance. Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 201-214.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2002) Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 211-241.
Bitner, M. J. (1992) Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57-71.
Breugelmans, E., Campo, K. (2016), Cross-channel effects of price promotions: An empirical
analysis of the multi-channel grocery retail sector. Journal of Retailing, 92(3), 333-351.
Broniarczyk, S.M., Griffin, J. (2014) Decision difficulty in the age of consumer empowerment.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 608-625.
Campbell, D. T., Fiske, D.W. (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
Cao, L., Li, L. (2015) The impact of cross-channel integration on retailers’ sales growth. Journal of
Retailing, 91(2), 198-216.
Carpenter, J.M. (2008) Consumer shopping value, satisfaction and loyalty in discount retailing.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(5), 358-363.
Cattaneo L.B., (2010) Chapman A R. The process of empowerment: A model for use in research and
practice. American Psychologist, 65(7), 646.
Cenfetelli, R.T., Bassellier G. (2009) Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems
research. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 689-707.
Chaney, D. (1983) The department store as a cultural form. Theory, Culture and Society, 1(3), 22-31.
Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K. (2006) Understanding consumer trust in Internet shopping: A
multidisciplinary approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 57(4), 479-492.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P. R. (2003) A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an
electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217.
Chin, W.W. (2003) Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1),
7-16. .
Chiu, C.M., Lin, H.Y., Sun, S.Y., Hsu, M.X. (2009) Understanding customers' loyalty intentions
towards online shopping: An integration of technology acceptance model and fairness theory.
 19

Behavior and Information Technology, 28(4), 347-360.

Clegg, S. R. (1989) Frameworks of Power. Sage, London, UK.
Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. (1988) The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
Cronin J.J., Brady, M.K., Hult, G.T.M. (2000) Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing,
76(2), 193-218.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior,
Plenum, New York, NY.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (2000) The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P. (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35-51.
Emrich, O., Paul, M., Rudolph, T. (2015) Shopping benefits of multichannel assortment integration
and the moderating role of retailer type. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 326-342.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A., Davis, L. M. (2001) Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: A
conceptual model and implications. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 177-184.
Fang, J, George, B., Shao, Y., Wen, C. (2016) Affective and cognitive factors influencing repeat
buying in e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 19, 44-55.
Fernandez, S., Moldogaziev, T. (2010) Empowering public sector employees to improve performance:
does it work? American Review of Public Administration, 41, 23-47.
Fernandez, S., Moldogaziev, T. (2013) Using employee empowerment to encourage innovative
behavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1),
155-187.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Bryant, B.E. (1996), The American customer
satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 7-18.
Fornell, C., (1992), A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of
Marketing, 56(1), 6-21.
Gallino, S., Moreno A. (2014) Integration of online and offline channels in retail: The impact of
sharing reliable inventory availability information. Management Science, 60(6), 1434-1451.
Gefen, D., Karahanna E and Straub, D.W. (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated
model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., Boudreau, M.C. (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression:
guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
4(1)7, 1-78.
Gefen, D. (2000) E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725-737.
Gefen, D. (2002) Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers.
Database, 33(3), 38-53.
Glushko, R.J., Tabas, L. (2009) Designing service systems by bridging the front stage and back stage.
Information Systems and E-Business Management, 7(4), 407-427.
Goersch, D. (2002) Multi-channel integration and its implications for retail web sites. In Proceedings
of the 2002 European Conference on Information Sysems, Gdańsk, Poland, pp. 11.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D., Roos, I. (2005), The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship
commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. Journal of Marketing, 69(4),
210-218.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C. (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis, 4th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ.
Henry, P.C. (2005) Social class, market situation, and consumers' metaphors of (dis)empowerment.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 766-778.
 20

Herhausen, D., Binder, J., Schoegel, M., Hermann, A. (2015) Integrating bricks with clicks:
retailer-level and channel-level outcomes of online–offline channel integration. Journal of
Retailing, 91(2), 309-325.
Howard, J.A.S., Jagdish, N. (1969) The theory of Buyer Behavior. John Wiley, New York, NY.
Hsieh, Y.C., Roan, J., Pant, A., Hsieh, K,W., Chen, W.Y., Lee, M., Chiu, H.C. (2012) All for one but
does one strategy work for all? Building consumer loyalty in multi-channel distribution.
Managing Service Quality, 22(3), 310-335.
Hsu, C.L., Chang, K.C., Chen, M.C. (2012) The impact of website quality on customer satisfaction
and purchase intention: Perceived playfulness and perceived flow as mediators. Information
Systems and e-Business Management, 10(4), 549-570.
Huang, T., Van Mieghem, J.A. (2014) Clickstream data and inventory management: Model and
empirical analysis. Production and Operations Management, 23(3), 333-347.
Hulland, J. (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of
four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204.
Hunter, G.L., Garnefeld, I. (2008) When does consumer empowerment lead to satisfied customers?
Some mediating and moderating effects of the empowerment-satisfaction link. Journal of
Research for Consumers, 15, 1-14.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., Saarinen, L. (1999) Consumer trust in an internet store: A
cross-cultural validation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2), 1-35.
Jiang, K., Xu, L., Bao, X. (2015) The impact of channel integration on channel reciprocity in the
multi-channel retailing context. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEE Computer Society Press,Washington,
DC, pp. 1840-1844.
Jiang, Z., Chan, J., Tan, B.C.Y, Chua, W.S. (2010) Effects of interactivity on website involvement
and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 34-51.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., Anderson, C. (2003) Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological
Review, 110(2), 265.
Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L., Rao, H.R. (2008) A trust-based consumer decision-making model in
electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision Support
Systems, 44(2), 544-564.
Kim, H., Kim, T.T., Shin S.W. (2009) Modeling roles of subjective norms and e-trust in customers'
acceptance of airline B2C e-commerce websites. Tourism Management, 30(2), 266-277.
Kim, J.U., Kim, W.J., Park, S.C. (2010) Consumer perceptions on web advertisements and
motivation factors to purchase in the online shopping. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5),
1208-1222.
King, R.C., Sen, R., Xia, M. (2004) Impact of web-based e-commerce on channel strategy in
retailing. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 103-130.
Kreps, D. M. (1979) A representation theorem for preference for flexibility. Econometrica, 47(3),
565-577.
Kuo, Y.F., Wu, C.M., Den., W/J. (2009) The relationships among service quality, perceived value,
customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computers in
Human Behavior, 25(4), 887-896.
Labrecque, L.I., vor dem Esche, J., Mathwick, C., Novak, T.P., Hofacker, C.F.. (2013) Consumer
power: Evolution in the digital age. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 257-269.
Langer, E. (1983) The Psychology of Control. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Lee, Y., Kim, S., Seock, Y.K., Cho, Y. (2009) Tourists' attitudes towards textiles and apparel-related
cultural products: A cross-cultural marketing study. Tourism Management, 30(5), 724-732.
Lemon K.N., Verhoef P.C. (2016) Understanding customer experience throughout the customer
journey. Journal of Marketing, 80 (6), 69-96.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., Xue, Y. (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of
 21

institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59-87.
Lim, K.H., Sia, C.L., Lee, M.K.O, Benbasat, I. (2006) Do I trust you online, and if so, will I buy? An
empirical study of two trust-building strategies. Journal of Management Information Systems,
23(2)2, 233-266.
Lin, C.S., Wu, S., Tsai, R.J. (2005) Integrating perceived playfulness into expectation-confirmation
model for web portal context. Information and Management, 42(5), 683-693.
Liu, H., Chu, H., Huang, Q., Chen, X. (2016) Enhancing the flow experience of consumers in China
through interpersonal interaction in social commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 58,
306-314.
Lohmoller, J.B. (1988) The PLS program system: Latent variables path analysis with partial least
squares estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(1), 125-127.
Martineau P. (1958) The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review, 36(1), 47-55.
Mattila, A.S., Enz, C.A. (2002) The role of emotions in service encounters. Journal of Service
Research, 4(4), 268-277.
McGoldrick, P. J., Collins, N. (2007) Multichannel retailing: Profiling the multichannel shopper.
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 17, 2, 139–58.
McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C. (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for
e-commerce: an integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359.
McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L., Chervany, N.L. (1998) Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473-490.
McPartlin, S., Dugal, L.F., Jenson, M., Kahn, I.W. (2013) Understanding how U.S. online shoppers
are reshaping the retail experience. PricewaterhouseCoopers, London, UK.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A. (1974) An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Mick, D.G., Broniarczyk, S.M., Haidt. J. (2004) Choose, choose, choose, choose, choose, choose,
choose: Emerging and prospective research on the deleterious effects of living in consumer
hyperchoice. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(2), 207-211.
Midha, V. (2012) Impact of consumer empowerment on online trust: an examination across genders.
Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 198-205.
Mitchell, V.W., Papavassiliou, V. (1999) Marketing causes and implications of consumer confusion.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(4), 319-342.
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D. (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Morin, S., Dubé, L., Chebat, J.C. (2007) The role of pleasant music in servicescapes: A test of the
dual model of environmental perception. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 115-130.
Mummalaneni V. (2005) An empirical investigation of web site characteristics, consumer emotional
states and on-line shopping behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 526-532.
Neslin, S.A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M.L., Thomas, J.S., Verhoef, P.S.
(2006) Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management. Journal of Service
Research, 9(2), 95-112.
Neslin, S.A., Shankar, V. (2009) Key issues in multichannel customer management: Current
knowledge and future directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 70-81.
Numally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nunnally, J.C. Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ofek, E., Katona, Z., Sarvary, M. (2011) Bricks and clicks: The impact of product returns on the
strategies of multichannel retailers. Marketing Science, 30(1), 42-60.
Oh, L.B., Teo, H.H., Sambamurthy V. (2012) The effects of retail channel integration through the use
of information technologies on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 30(5),
368-381.
 22

Oliver, R.L. (1981) Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of
Retailing, 57(3), 25-48.
Oliver R.L., DeSarbo W. S. (1988) Response determinants in satisfaction judgments. Journal of
Consumer Research, 14(4), 495-507.
Olsen, S.O. (2002) Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction, and
repurchase loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 240-249.
Pan, F., Zhang, Z., Cross-cultural challenges when doing business in China. Singapore Management
Review, 26 (1), 81.
Pantano, E., Viassone, M. (2015) Engaging consumers on new integrated multichannel retail settings,
challenges for retailers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 25, 106-114.
Park, S.M., Rainey, H.G. (2007) Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of affective, normative,
and continuance commitment empirical tests of commitment effects in federal agencies. Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3), 197-226.
Patrício, L., Fisk, R.P., Falcao e Cunha J. (2008) Designing multi-interface service experiences: The
service experience blueprint. Journal of Service Research, 10(4), 318-334.
Pavlou, P.A. (2003),Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the
technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101-134.
Petter, S., Straub, D., Rai, A. (2007) Specifying formative constructs in information systems research.
MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623-656.
Phlips, L. (1983), The Economics of Price Discrimination. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Pitt, L.F., Berthon, P.R., Watson, R.T., Zinkham, G.M. (2002) The Internet and the birth of real
consumer power. Business Horizons, 45(4), 7-14.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B, Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P. (2003) Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W. (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F. (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Prentice, C., Han, X.Y., Li, Y.Q. (2016) Customer empowerment to co-create service designs and
delivery: Scale development and validation. Services Marketing Quarterly, 37(1), 36-51.
Pu, X., Gong, L., Han, X. (2017) Consumer free riding: Coordinating sales effort in a dual-channel
supply chain. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 22, 1-52.
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., Seth, N. (2006) Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain
integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 225-246.
Richins, M.L. (1997) Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer
Research, 24(2), 127-146.
Rigby, D. (2011) The future of shopping. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 65-76.
Robert, D., John, R. (1982) Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of
Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
Rouibah, K., Lowry, P.B., Hwang, Y. (2016) The effects of perceived enjoyment and perceived risks
on trust formation and intentions to use online payment systems: New perspectives from an Arab
country. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 19, 33-43.
Rozeboom, W.W. (1979) Sensitivity of a linear composite of predictor items to differential item
weighting. Psychometrika, 44(3), 289-296.
Rucker, D.D., Dubois, D., Galinsky, A. D. (2011) Generous paupers and stingy princes: Power drives
consumer spending on self versus others. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1015-1029.
Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.W. (1994), Video dial tone: The new world of services marketing. Journal of
 23

Services Marketing, 8(3), 5-16.

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E.L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Sadan, E. (1997), Empowerment and Community Planning: Theory and Practice of People-Focused
Social Solutions. Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Saghiri, S., Wilding R, Mena, C., Bourlakis, M. (2017) Toward a three-dimensional framework for
omni-channel. Journal of Business Research, 77, 53-67.
Schramm-Klein, H., Morschett, D. (2005) Retail channel portfolios: Channel-attributes or
integration-benefit-what counts more? E-European Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 377-384.
Schramm-Klein, H., Wagner, G., Steinmann, S., Morschett, D. (2011), Cross-channel integration: Is it
valued by customers? International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 21
(5), 501-511.
Schwartz, S.H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A.,
Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., Konty, M. (2012) Refining the
theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663-688.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Tang, F.F., Xing X. (2001) Will the growth of multi-channel retailing diminish the pricing efficiency
of the web? Journal of Retailing, 77(3), 319-333.
Thomas, K.W., Velthouse, B.A. (1990) Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model
of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.
Tiu Wright, L., Newman, A., Dennis, C. (2006), Enhancing consumer empowerment. European
Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), 925-935.
Udo, G.J., Bagchi, K.K., Kirs, P.J. (2010) An assessment of customers’e-service quality perception,
satisfaction and intention. International Journal of Information Management, 30(6), 481-492.
Ugboro, I.O., Obeng, K. (2000) Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job
satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: An empirical study. Journal of
Quality Management, 5(2), 247-272.
Van Baal, S., Dach, C. (2005) Free riding and customer retention across retailers' channels. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 19(2), 75-85.
Van Dyke, T.P., Midha, V., Nemati, H. (2007) The effect of consumer privacy empowerment on trust
and privacy concerns in e-commerce. Electronic Markets, 17(1), 68-81.
Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K., Inman, J.J. (2015) From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel
retailing: Introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing. Journal of Retailing, 91(2),
174-181.
Verhoef, P.C., Neslin, S.A.,Vroomen, B. (2005) Browsing versus buying: determinants of customer
search and buy decisions in a multichannel environment. Working paper, University of
Groningen, Netherlands.
Verhoef, P.C., Neslin, S.A., Vroomen, B. (2007) Multichannel customer management: Understanding
the research-shopper phenomenon. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(2),
129-148.
Vogel, J., Paul, M. (2015) One firm, one product, two prices: channel-based price differentiation and
customer retention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 27, 126-139.
Wathieu, L., Brenner, L., Carmon, Z., Chattopadhyay, A., Wertenbroch, K., Drolet, A., Gourville,
J., Muthukrishnan, A.V., Novemsky, N., Ratner, R.K., Wu, G. (2002), Consumer control and
empowerment: A primer. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 297-305.
Wixom, B.H., Watson, H.J. (2001) An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data
warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 17-41.
Wolk, A., Ebling, C. (2010) Multi-channel price differentiation: An empirical investigation of
existence and causes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2), 142-150.
 24

Yang, S., Lu, Y., Chau, P. Y. K. (2013) Why do consumers adopt online channel? An empirical
investigation of two channel extension mechanisms. Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 858-869.
Yang Z, Peterson R T. (2004) Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of
switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 21(10), 799-822.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. (1996) The behavioral consequences of service quality.
Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
Zhang, J., Farris P.W., Irvin, J.W., Kushwaha, T., Steenburgh, T.J., Weitz, B.A. (2010) Crafting
integrated multichannel retailing strategies. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24(2), 168-180.
Zhang, K.Z., Zhao, S.J., Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K. (2014) Examining the influence of online reviews
on consumers' decision-making: A heuristic–systematic model. Decision Support Systems, 67,
78-89.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Chen Q. (2010), Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206.
 25

Figure 1. The proposed research framework

Trust

H2 H5
Consumer
perception of Consumer Patronage
H1 H4
channel empowerment intention
integration
H3 H6

Satisfaction

Figure 2. Test results for our research

Note: N = 155; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Table 1. Demographic information of the participants.

Characteristic Item Frequency Percent

Gender Female 69 44.5%

Male 86 55.5%

Level of education High School or below 17 11.0%

Junior college 26 16.8%
Bachelor degree 78 50.3%
Master degree or above 34 21.9%

Occupation Student 30 19.4%

Enterprise employee 83 53.5%
Institution staff 22 14.2%
Else 20 12.9%

Personal income in RMB (monthly) Below 2,500 42 27.1%

2,500-4,499 28 18.1%
4,500-6,499 56 36.1%
6,500-8,499 18 11.6%
Above 8,500 11 7.1%

Note: N = 155
 26

Table 2. Psychometric features of the measurement model.

Construct Item Weight Std. error t-value Loading Std. error t-value
Consumer perception of channel integration (formative)
VIF=1.621 IP 0.112 0.113 0.933 0.642 0.081 8.037
VIF=1.619 IPP 0.285 0.104 2.826 0.744 0.072 10.630
VIF=1.574 ITI 0.069 0.107 0.695 0.586 0.080 7.444
VIF=1.451 IIA 0.221 0.097 2.406 0.689 0.070 10.106
VIF=1.538 IOF 0.317 0.105 3.033 0.785 0.055 14.417
VIF=1.680 ICS 0.306 0.099 3.026 0.794 0.052 15.675

Consumer empowerment (reflective)

CR=0.907 CE1 0.768 0.045 17.258
AVE=0.662 CE2 0.827 0.028 29.485
Cronbach’s CE3 0.887 0.018 49.501
α=0.870 CE4 0.730 0.044 16.685
CE5 0.838 0.030 27.996

Trust (reflective)
CR=0.966 T1 0.914 0.019 47.771
AVE=0.852 T2 0.947 0.010 94.772
Cronbach’s T3 0.910 0.024 37.868
α=0.956 T4 0.946 0.011 82.645
T5 0.893 0.042 21.445

Satisfaction (reflective)
CR=0.971 S1 0.907 0.023 39.269
AVE=0.869 S2 0.940 0.011 83.763
Cronbach’s S3 0.957 0.007 145.918
α=0.962 S4 0.913 0.017 53.601
S5 0.941 0.012 76.062

Patronage intention (reflective)

CR=0.943 PI1 0.933 0.011 81.368
AVE=0.848 PI2 0.926 0.013 69.079
Cronbach’s PI3 0.897 0.020 43.989
α=0.910
 27

Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability of sub-order constructs for consumer
perceptions of channel integration

Items IP IPP ITI IIA IOF ICS

IP1 .694
IP2 .693
IP3 .636
IP4 .709
IPP1 .882
IPP2 .827
IPP3 .803
IPP4 .830
ITI1 .776
ITI2 .785
ITI3 .807
ITI4 .826
IIA1 .689
IIA2 .568
IIA3 .679
IIA4 .633
IOF1 .800
IOF2 .786
IOF3 .821
IOF4 .825
IOF5 .819
ICS1 .734
ICS2 .781
ICS3 .681
Alpha .743 .873 .841 .708 .843 .804
CR .837 .913 .893 .820 .887 .885

Table 4. Loadings and cross loadings.

Factor CE T S PI
CE1 0.772 0.319 0.463 0.382
CE2 0.829 0.436 0.458 0.485
CE3 0.887 0.421 0.512 0.598
CE4 0.730 0.386 0.453 0.524
CE5 0.839 0.420 0.426 0.547
T1 0.478 0.914 0.471 0.555
T2 0.428 0.947 0.470 0.591
T3 0.404 0.912 0.408 0.515
T4 0.469 0.946 0.451 0.604
T5 0.477 0.895 0.368 0.526
S1 0.444 0.475 0.909 0.503
S2 0.601 0.470 0.940 0.560
S3 0.567 0.467 0.957 0.538
S4 0.504 0.354 0.912 0.399
S5 0.524 0.418 0.942 0.481
PI1 0.614 0.583 0.525 0.935
PI2 0.554 0.581 0.496 0.928
PI3 0.565 0.505 0.459 0.899
 28

Table 5. The correlation coefficients of latent variables

PCI CE T S PI
PCI NA
CE 0.737 0.813
T 0.441 0.489 0.923
S 0.482 0.570 0.471 0.932
PI 0.502 0.628 0.606 0.537 0.921
Note: Diagonal elements are the square root of average variance extracted.

Table 6. Common method bias analysis.

Construct Indicator Substantive loading R12 Method factor R22
(R1) loading (R2)
Consumer perception IP 0.838*** 0.702 -0.124 0.015
of channel integration IPP 0.610*** 0.372 0.169 0.029
ITI 0.783*** 0.613 -0.104 0.011
IIA 0.657*** 0.432 0.020 0.000
IOF 0.803*** 0.645 -0.031 0.001
ICS 0.716*** 0.513 0.061 0.004

Consumer CE1 0.873*** 0.762 -0.117 0.014

empowerment CE2 0.873*** 0.762 -0.048 0.002
CE3 0.887*** 0.787 0.003 0.000
CE4 0.519* 0.269 0.230 0.053
CE5 0.887*** 0.787 -0.053 0.003

Trust T1 0.875*** 0.766 0.047 0.002

T2 0.949*** 0.901 -0.004 0.000
T3 0.971*** 0.943 -0.075 0.006
T4 0.920*** 0.846 0.033 0.001
T5 0.900*** 0.810 -0.007 0.000

Satisfaction S1 0.920*** 0.846 -0.013 0.000

S2 0.828*** 0.686 0.137** 0.019
S3 0.907*** 0.823 0.062 0.004
S4 1.024*** 1.049 -0.133** 0.018
S5 0.992*** 0.984 -0.062 0.004

Patronage intention PI1 0.882*** 0.778 0.061 0.004

PI2 0.920*** 0.846 0.006 0.000
PI3 0.959*** 0.920 -0.071 0.005
Average 0.854 0.743 -0.001 0.008
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
 29

Table 7. Preacher-Hayes mediating effect test results of consumer empowerment, trust and satisfaction.

Relationship 95% confidence interval Indirect total effect (t-value) p -Value

Lower Upper
PCI=>T 0.257 0.484 0.366(6.26)*** p < 0.001
PCI=>S 0.315 0.538 0.426(7.12)*** p < 0.001
CE=>PI 0.282 0.525 0.405(6.59)*** p < 0.001
PCI=>PI 0.201 0.412 0.304(5.46)*** p < 0.001