A retentive consumer behavior assessment model of the online purchase decision-making process
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Petcharat T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8556610 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This article aims to explore the key factors on e-commerce adoption from elements of social psychology, such as attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, ease of use and perceived usefulness, introducing the study of non-traditional elements like buying impulse, compatibility, and self-efficacy in online stores, contrasting relationships in a cross-cultural environment. The proposed model is tested from quantitative research with a sample of 584 online consumers in Colombia and Spain. The following statistical analyses were conducted: CFA, structural equations, measurement instrument invariance, and multi-group analysis with EQS 6.3 software. The study reveals that self-efficacy in online stores is a key factor in adopting electronic commerce above the cultures studied. Also, there is significant evidence that proves the moderating effect of national culture on several relationships of the model proposed. Results highlight the importance of national culture to understand impulsive buying behavior. The article presents several considerations toward the main elements to generate online purchase intention among consumers in an emerging country and finds substantial differences with consumers in a developed country. Practical implications are made for companies to adopt online channels and expand internationally.
| S-EPMC7322128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study is to survey a sample of adults who have recently made a decision about treatment of high cholesterol or high blood pressure or a decision about screening for colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer. The main goal is to gather evidence of the validity and reliability of the Shared Decision Making Process scale. Secondary goal is to gather evidence on the quality of decisions for these common medical situations.
| 2333805 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:This study will recruit subjects online and randomly assigned them to one of four arms. The arms vary by clinical decision (colorectal cancer screening or treatment of high cholesterol) by video order (poor shared decision making followed by good or good shared decision making followed by poor). Participants will view two videos and complete the Shared Decision Making process survey along with a few other measures after each video. Our main hypothesis is that respondents watching the good shared decision making videos will score higher on the Shared Decision Making Process survey compared to those watching the poor videos.
| 2333773 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement.Design Multistage consultation process.Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties.Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties.Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on "team talk," "option talk," and "decision talk," to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals.Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences.
| S-EPMC5683042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Not having enough of what one needs has long been shown to have detrimental consequences for decision making. Recent work suggests that the experience of insufficient resources can create a "scarcity" mindset; increasing attention toward the scarce resource itself, but at the cost of attention for unrelated aspects. To investigate the effects of a scarcity mindset on consumer choice behavior, as well as its underlying neural mechanisms, we used an experimental manipulation to induce both a scarcity and an abundance mindset within participants and examined the effects of both mindsets on participants' willingness to pay for familiar food items while being scanned using fMRI. Results demonstrated that a scarcity mindset affects neural mechanisms related to consumer decision making. When in a scarcity mindset compared with an abundance mindset, participants had increased activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, a region often implicated in valuation processes. Moreover, again compared with abundance, a scarcity mindset decreased activity in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, an area well known for its role in goal-directed choice. This effect was predominant in the group of participants who experienced scarcity following abundance, suggesting that the effects of scarcity are largest when they are compared with previous situations when resources were plentiful. More broadly, these data suggest a potential neural locus for a scarcity mindset and demonstrate how these changes in brain activity might underlie goal-directed decision making.
| S-EPMC6575633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) is an adaptive process balancing urgency and caution when making decisions. Computational cognitive theories, known as "evidence accumulation models", have explained SATs via a manipulation of the amount of evidence necessary to trigger response selection. New light has been shed on these processes by single-cell recordings from monkeys who were adjusting their SAT settings. Those data have been interpreted as inconsistent with existing evidence accumulation theories, prompting the addition of new mechanisms to the models. We show that this interpretation was wrong, by demonstrating that the neural spiking data, and the behavioural data are consistent with existing evidence accumulation theories, without positing additional mechanisms. Our approach succeeds by using the neural data to provide constraints on the cognitive model. Open questions remain about the locus of the link between certain elements of the cognitive models and the neurophysiology, and about the relationship between activity in cortical neurons identified with decision-making vs. activity in downstream areas more closely linked with motor effectors.
| S-EPMC4081035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectivesAs the elderly population and associated number of persons with dementia increase, so does the need for decision-making capacity assessments (DMCAs). Many healthcare professionals (HCPs), however, do not feel prepared to conduct DMCAs. We have provided 4-h DMCA workshops to HCPs since 2006 and offered physicians either a 3-h or 2-day DMCA workshop from 2013 to present. We evaluated the effectiveness of the workshops on self-reported key concepts of capacity.DesignPre-/post-test design.SettingDMCA workshops for physicians across Canada and HCPs within Alberta.ParticipantsTwo hundred and eighty-one physicians and 835 HCPs.MeasurementsPre-/post-workshop ratings on level of comfort with and understanding of 15 core DMCA concepts using 4-point Likert-type items.ResultsFor the DMCA workshops among physicians, ten 3-h workshops were held in 2014-2015 with 166 participants and seven 2-day workshops, between 2014 and 2018, with 115 participants. With respect to the self-report on core DMCA concepts, at least 62.7% (range: 62.7%-89.6%) of physician participants had higher post-workshop ratings (sign test; p < 0.001) than pre-workshop ratings for all core DMCA concepts. For the DMCA workshops among HCPs, 4-h workshops were delivered to 835 HCP participants from 2008 to 2012. At least 49.6% of participants (range: 49.6%-78.9%) had increased post-workshop ratings (sign test; p < 0.001) for all level of comfort items with and understanding of core DMCA concepts.ConclusionThere is a need for DMCA training for physicians and HCPs. The content and method of the workshops are effective at enhancing self-reported level of comfort with and understanding of core DMCA concepts.
| S-EPMC8247986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM.ResultsA total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge.ConclusionsThe Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention).Trial registrationANZCTR376477.HighlightsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.
| S-EPMC10422858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:According to a prominent view of sensorimotor processing in primates, selection and specification of possible actions are not sequential operations. Rather, a decision for an action emerges from competition between different movement plans, which are specified and selected in parallel. For action choices which are based on ambiguous sensory input, the frontoparietal sensorimotor areas are considered part of the common underlying neural substrate for selection and specification of action. These areas have been shown capable of encoding alternative spatial motor goals in parallel during movement planning, and show signatures of competitive value-based selection among these goals. Since the same network is also involved in learning sensorimotor associations, competitive action selection (decision making) should not only be driven by the sensory evidence and expected reward in favor of either action, but also by the subject's learning history of different sensorimotor associations. Previous computational models of competitive neural decision making used predefined associations between sensory input and corresponding motor output. Such hard-wiring does not allow modeling of how decisions are influenced by sensorimotor learning or by changing reward contingencies. We present a dynamic neural field model which learns arbitrary sensorimotor associations with a reward-driven Hebbian learning algorithm. We show that the model accurately simulates the dynamics of action selection with different reward contingencies, as observed in monkey cortical recordings, and that it correctly predicted the pattern of choice errors in a control experiment. With our adaptive model we demonstrate how network plasticity, which is required for association learning and adaptation to new reward contingencies, can influence choice behavior. The field model provides an integrated and dynamic account for the operations of sensorimotor integration, working memory and action selection required for decision making in ambiguous choice situations.
| S-EPMC3499253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to understand the key factors influencing guardians' decisions when purchasing spectacles for their children in semi-urban and urban areas of Cross River State, Nigeria, where a spectacle cross-subsidisation scheme will be implemented.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted among all consecutive guardians visiting the Calabar (urban), Ugep, Ikom and Ogoja (semi-urban) public eye clinics in Cross River State, southern Nigeria, from August 1 to October 31 2019, and whose children had significant refractive errors (myopia ≤-0.50D, hyperopia ≥1.50D, astigmatism >0.75D) and received spectacles. Guardians were interviewed using a questionnaire which included i) close-ended questions on reasons guardians choose to purchase spectacles for their children in eye clinics, ii) guardians' perceptions of the quality and design of children's current spectacle, iii) factors most heavily influencing their choice of spectacles for children, and iv) open-ended questions to seek guardians' suggestions on how to improve the current spectacle range.ResultsAll 137 eligible guardians (67.2% women [n = 92]) who visited the selected eye clinics participated in the study (response rate = 100%), with 109 (79.6%) from semi-urban and 28 (20.4%) attending urban clinics. Guardians from both urban and semi-urban clinics prioritised frame design, quality, and material as the main factors affecting their decision when purchasing spectacles for their children. Female guardians and those with higher incomes were both 1.5 times more likely to emphasise frame quality when describing selection criteria for purchasing spectacles for their children than male guardians (p = 0.01) or guardians earning less (p = 0.03).ConclusionDesign, material, and frame quality are key factors influencing guardians when purchasing spectacles for their children in these setting and female guardians or those with higher income prioritise frame quality. This study could guide the planning and implementation of a novel cross-subsidisation scheme in Cross River State.
| S-EPMC8274875 | biostudies-literature