Investigates how perceived justice impacts buyer trust and repeat purchase intentions in live streaming e-commerce, suggesting effective recovery strategies.
Live streaming e-commerce has emerged as a dominant force in electronic commerce. Although extensive research has examined service failures and recovery in conventional e-commerce environments, there is limited understanding of how buyers interpret and respond to service recovery information provided by streamers in live streaming contexts, where streamers fulfill dual roles as both idols and sellers. This study, grounded in signaling theory, investigates the relationships among buyers’ observation, interpretation, and feedback of service recovery information. Specifically, it aims to assess how buyers’ perceived justice regarding service recovery information affects their repeat purchase intentions following live streaming e-commerce failures. Meanwhile, this study elucidates the mediating role of trust in the streamer (idol role and seller role) and verifies whether responsibility attribution and product involvement have moderating effects on the effect of perceived justice. Employing PLS-SEM analysis, the study analyzes data from 401 buyers who have experienced service failures in live streaming e-commerce. The findings reveal that perceived justice positively influences repeat purchase intentions to a certain extent. Trust in the streamer mediates the link between perceived justice and repeat purchase intentions. The inhibiting moderation effect of responsibility attribution and product involvement is generally significant. This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of signaling theory by expanding the signaling model to encompass service recovery information in live streaming e-commerce. Furthermore, it provides practical guidance for live streaming e-commerce practitioners on managing service recovery information, including recommendations for the sequence of sending such information, enhancing its transmission, and improving its overall effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: