4.7 Article

Revisiting food delivery apps during COVID-19 pandemic? Investigating the role of emotions

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102595

关键词

Arousal; Continued usage intentions; COVID-19 pandemic; Dominance; Food delivery apps; Pleasure

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the role of app aesthetics in evoking emotions which predict continued usage intentions for food delivery apps (FDAs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings suggest that app aesthetics generate pleasure, arousal, and dominance emotions among consumers, with pleasure being the most significant predictor of continued usage intentions. The study also confirms the mediating effect of arousal on pleasure and pleasure on continued usage intentions.
Food delivery apps (FDAs) have transformed the way consumers order and consume food, especially during the mobility limitations of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hospitality industry, especially restaurants are heavily reliant on mobile technology during the pandemic to strengthen essential online to offline food delivery, helping large number of consumers. This study investigates the role of app aesthetics in evoking emotions which predict continued usage intentions for FDAs using the theoretical lens of the pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) framework. Data was collected from 341 consumers during the pandemic. Findings indicate that app aesthetics generate pleasure, arousal, and dominance emotions among consumers during pandemic where pleasure is the most significant predictor of continued usage intentions followed by dominance. Findings also confirm the mediating effect of arousal on pleasure and pleasure on continued usage intentions. The study has implications for academicians, food delivery companies, app designers and other app-based businesses as it proves the significance of an aesthetic app design in evoking positive PAD emotions in consumers during a crisis and strengthens the explanation of continued usage intentions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据