Edited by: Bao-Jie He, Chongqing University, China
Reviewed by: Xiaowei Li, Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, China; Jian Ding, University of Malaya, Malaysia
This article was submitted to Environmental health and Exposome, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
This study aimed to explore the factors influencing people's utilization of ride-hailing services, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A two-stage survey was conducted among the same group of passengers pre and post COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a total of 670 valid samples. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied to the data, followed by the ordered probit and ordered logit models to identify the motivational factors behind passengers' frequency of using ride-hailing.
The findings indicated that trust and loyalty were the most influential factors in determining passengers' frequency of using ride-hailing services. However, passengers' perception of the COVID-19 pandemic did not have a significant effect on the frequency of using ride-hailing.
This research provides empirical evidence and policy implications for understanding people's usage of the ride-hailing services in the context of public-health emergency.
香京julia种子在线播放
The utilization of mobile technology has had a considerable impact on the form of transportation services and the way passengers travel (
Studies found numerous factors influence passengers' ride-hailing frequency, for example: psychological factors. Septiani et al. (
Nguyen-Phuoc et al. (
The female passengers are 28.51% higher than that of male passengers who use ride-hailing services (
There is a close relationship between different building environments and passengers' ride-hailing frequency. For example, building density has a significant inhibitory effect on ride-hailing trips (
However, so far, there have been limited studies on the factors affecting the usage frequency of ride-hailing services in developing countries, especially the quantitative analysis of the potential impact of these factors. In addition, the continuous success of ride-hailing services is accompanied by various challenges, such as passengers' trust and loyalty, which are essential for these companies in terms of market share and profits. The concept of customer loyalty was first proposed by Guest (
Additionally, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, another new challenge arises for ride-hailing: the social environment changed dramatically. After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) encourages people to maintain physical distance to avoid the epidemic spreading. In December 2019, after the outbreak of COVID-19, the Chinese government encouraged residents to minimize travel, for security reasons. The transportation services market has shrunk significantly, and ride-hailing is inevitably affected (
Overall, this study attempts to addresses the following questions:
(1) Do the passengers' trust and loyalty significantly affect the usage frequency of ride-hailing?
(2) What is the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on passengers' usage of ride-hailing?
(3) What other factors will affect how often people use ride-hailing?
In order to answer these questions, this research proposes a theoretical model (as shown in
Typical factors selected in this research.
The questionnaire survey was conducted through Sojump, a popular online survey platform in China, following a pre-test with 30 respondents to ensure its applicability. The survey was divided into two phases: the pre-epidemic phase (from December 2019 to January 2020, Phase-1), where COVID-19 was not yet widespread in China, and the post-epidemic phase (from August 2020 to September 2020, Phase-2), where the number of new cases per day was less than 20 and mostly imported from abroad, indicating the effective control of the epidemic.
The new confirmed cases of COVID-19.
This two-stage survey was conducted among the same group of participants. Initially, 800 questionnaires were collected in the Phase-1 survey. When the epidemic was under control, the Phase-2 survey was conducted, resulting in 694 questionnaires. After eliminating 24 ineffective questionnaires, 670 valid samples were recruited. The participants were asked to answer questions related to the usage of ride-hailing, including whether they had used ride-hailing, followed by social factors, psychological factors, personal factors and perception of the epidemic. The psychological factors and perception of the epidemic were measured using a five-level Likert scale, with “1” indicating “strongly disagree,” “3” indicating “neutral,” and “5” indicating “strongly agree”.
The descriptive statistics about the sample are presented in
Demographics and socioeconomics of the sample.
Gender | Male | 414 | 61.79 |
Female | 256 | 38.21 | |
Age | Under 18 | 12 | 1.79 |
18–24 | 338 | 50.45 | |
25–34 | 278 | 41.49 | |
35–41 | 33 | 4.93 | |
42 and above | 9 | 1.34 | |
State of life | Student | 264 | 39.40 |
Worker | 391 | 58.36 | |
Else | 15 | 2.24 | |
Income per month (Yuan) | < 3,000 | 208 | 31.04 |
3,000–6,000 | 176 | 26.27 | |
6,000–10,000 | 208 | 31.04 | |
10,000–20,000 | 61 | 9.10 | |
>20,000 | 17 | 2.54 | |
Education | Junior High school and below | 18 | 2.69 |
High School | 147 | 21.94 | |
Bachelor's degree and junior college | 335 | 50.00 | |
Post-graduate and above | 170 | 25.37 | |
Number of private cars | 0 | 165 | 24.63 |
1 | 435 | 64.93 | |
2 and above | 70 | 10.45 | |
Have Children (under 14 years old) | Yes | 342 | 51.04 |
No | 328 | 48.96 |
The use of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was employed to reduce the dimensions of the collected data. Studies have demonstrated that when multiple measurement variables are used to represent a common factor, EFA can provide more accurate results (
In regression models, the dependent variable is usually measured by a ratio scale. However, when the dependent variable is binary, sequence, or identifier, the ordinary least square method is no longer the best-unbiased estimator. Therefore, the ordered logit and ordered probit models in the discrete choice model are used to estimate the regression model of multiple ordered variables. These models are based on maximum likelihood estimation and assume that the random disturbance follows either a logistic or a multivariate normal distribution. Although the ordered probit model is more attractive in theory, it is difficult to prove that the dependent variable follows a normal logit distribution function or a standardized normal distribution function strictly. Thus, two regression methods are applied to the collected data to obtain a more reliable conclusion by comparing their results.
The basic principle of the ordered logit and ordered probit models is that there is an unobserved continuous variable
where
In order to reduce the influence of individual choice differences on the results, subjects whose current city and urban residential location remained constant between the two phases of the study were chosen. It was also determined that the time gap between the two questionnaires was too short for personal preferences to change significantly. Additionally, Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the questionnaires was calculated to be 0.953 and 0.954 for the first and second phases respectively, indicating a high reliability. Furthermore, the KMO values of the first and second phases were 0.949 and 0.950 respectively, both of which were larger than 0.7, thus demonstrating the suitability of the questionnaires for further analysis using EFA.
Subsequently, EFA was employed to identify independent regression variables and calculate factor scores. After data cleaning and preprocessing, the number of factors influencing personal attitudes before the epidemic was reduced from 49 to 23, which were organized into three groups: Attitudes to Environmental Protection and Commuting (ATT), Social Life and Technology Use (SOC), and Passenger Trust and Loyalty (TRU). The latter refers to the passengers' loyalty to the ride-hailing service, not the third-party platforms providing the service. Similarly, the number of factors influencing personal attitudes after the epidemic was reduced from 53 to 29, which were organized into four groups: Attitudes to Environmental Protection and Commuting (ATT), Social Life and Technology Use (SOC), Passenger Trust and Loyalty (TRU), and Epidemic Impact (EPI). The results of the rotated component matrix before and after the epidemic are presented in
The ordered probit regression and an ordered logit regression were conducted on all the factors in the above analysis that affected the usage frequency of ride-hailing services in the pre-epidemic and post-epidemic stages. The regression results showed that in the pre-epidemic and post-epidemic stages, seven factors had significant effects on the frequency of use of the dependent variable. It is worth noting that in the post-epidemic stage, the EPI factor did not have a significant effect on the dependent variable. The comparison results of regression models before and after the epidemic are presented in
The regression model can be explained based on the results of the ordered logit and ordered probit regression, which are shown in
Comparison of the regression model coefficients before and after the epidemic.
ATT | 0.8884*** |
0.9427*** |
0.5041*** |
0.5337*** |
SOC | 0.2205*** |
0.1722** |
0.1174** |
0.0925** |
TRU | 0.5366*** |
0.5991*** |
0.3058*** |
0.3464*** |
EPI | 0.0616 |
0.0266 |
||
AGE | −0.2379** |
−0.2344** |
−0.1161* |
−0.1206* |
GEN | −0.2290 |
−0.1906 |
−0.1425 |
−0.1239 |
INC | 0.7955*** |
0.7672*** |
0.4332*** |
0.4187*** |
CAR | 0.2482** |
0.2440** |
0.1427* |
0.1386* |
LOC | −0.5005*** |
−0.5172*** |
−0.2818*** |
−0.2975*** |
k1 | −2.4205 |
−2.5024 |
−1.3433 |
−1.4213 |
k2 | −0.5853 |
−0.6179 |
−0.3187 |
−0.3713 |
k3 | 0.9922 |
0.9752 |
0.5915 |
0.5484 |
k4 | 2.5018 |
2.4795 |
1.4691 |
1.4258 |
Std.Err is in the brackets. *
The main reason why individuals' perception of the epidemic was not a significant affecting factor was that, in the second stage of the questionnaire, the epidemic situation in China had been effectively controlled, work and production had been resumed in an orderly manner in various regions, and travel restrictions had gradually weakened. In the long run, the authors believe that the usage frequency of ride-hailing services may no longer be affected by the epidemic in the future. However, the emergence of the epidemic has brought higher requirements for the safety of ride-hailing services, such as requiring daily disinfection and requiring passengers and drivers to wear masks. Therefore, in the second phase of the questionnaire, the influence of passengers' trust and loyalty on the usage frequency of ride-hailing increased significantly. Due to restrictions on travel during the epidemic, people's social and entertainment activities were reduced during the investigation phase, so the impact of social life and technology use on the usage frequency of ride-hailing in the post-epidemic phase was significantly weakened.
The goodness of fit of the model was tested. The test results of the two models before and after the epidemic are presented in
Model fit of research models.
Before | Ordered logit | 380.09*** | 0.1787 | −873.1602 | 670 |
Ordered probit | 392.15*** | 0.1844 | −867.1308 | 670 | |
After | Ordered logit | 370.34*** | 0.1742 | −878.0359 | 670 |
Ordered probit | 383.67*** | 0.1804 | −871.3674 | 670 |
***
The marginal effect of a previously fitted model was calculated by fixing the values of certain covariates and integrating over the remaining covariates. This effect demonstrated how the dependent variable would alter when a particular independent variable changed, with all other covariates held constant (
Average marginal effects at 95% confidence intervals before the epidemic.
Average marginal effects at 95% confidence intervals after the epidemic.
Marginal effects of different factors before the epidemic.
ATT | 1 | −0.0755*** | 0.0083 | −9.11 | 0.000 | −0.0917 | −0.0592 |
2 | −0.0559*** | 0.0062 | −8.96 | 0.000 | −0.0682 | −0.0437 | |
3 | −0.0128*** | 0.0034 | −3.75 | 0.000 | −0.0195 | −0.0061 | |
4 | 0.0417*** | 0.0052 | 8.06 | 0.000 | 0.0316 | 0.0518 | |
5 | 0.1025*** | 0.0109 | 9.42 | 0.000 | 0.0812 | 0.1238 | |
SOC | 1 | −0.0204*** | 0.0070 | −2.90 | 0.004 | −0.0341 | −0.0066 |
2 | −0.0151*** | 0.0051 | −2.95 | 0.003 | −0.0251 | −0.0051 | |
3 | −0.0035*** | 0.0011 | −3.04 | 0.002 | −0.0057 | −0.0012 | |
4 | 0.0113*** | 0.0039 | 2.90 | 0.004 | 0.0037 | 0.0189 | |
5 | 0.0277*** | 0.0091 | 3.04 | 0.002 | 0.0098 | 0.0455 | |
TRU | 1 | −0.0476*** | 0.0076 | −6.28 | 0.000 | −0.0625 | −0.0328 |
2 | −0.0353*** | 0.0059 | −5.95 | 0.000 | −0.0469 | −0.0237 | |
3 | −0.0081*** | 0.0024 | −3.32 | 0.001 | −0.0128 | −0.0033 | |
4 | 0.0263*** | 0.0046 | 5.78 | 0.000 | 0.0174 | 0.0352 | |
5 | 0.0647*** | 0.0105 | 6.17 | 0.000 | 0.0441 | 0.0852 | |
AGE | 1 | 0.0196* | 0.0101 | 1.95 | 0.052 | −0.0001 | 0.0394 |
2 | 0.0145* | 0.0075 | 1.94 | 0.053 | −0.0002 | 0.0293 | |
3 | 0.0033* | 0.0018 | 1.83 | 0.068 | −0.0002 | 0.0069 | |
4 | −0.0108* | 0.0057 | −1.92 | 0.055 | −0.0219 | 0.0003 | |
5 | −0.0267** | 0.0136 | −1.96 | 0.050 | −0.0533 | −0.0001 | |
INC | 1 | −0.0662*** | 0.0082 | −8.03 | 0.000 | −0.0824 | −0.0501 |
2 | −0.0491*** | 0.0060 | −8.17 | 0.000 | −0.0609 | −0.0373 | |
3 | −0.0112*** | 0.0031 | −3.67 | 0.000 | −0.0172 | −0.0052 | |
4 | 0.0366*** | 0.0056 | 6.59 | 0.000 | 0.0257 | 0.0475 | |
5 | 0.0899*** | 0.0101 | 8.94 | 0.000 | 0.0702 | 0.1096 | |
CAR | 1 | −0.0223** | 0.0106 | −2.10 | 0.036 | −0.0431 | −0.0014 |
2 | −0.0165** | 0.0080 | −2.07 | 0.039 | −0.0321 | −0.0009 | |
3 | −0.0038** | 0.0018 | −2.06 | 0.039 | −0.0074 | −0.0002 | |
4 | 0.0123** | 0.0059 | 2.07 | 0.038 | 0.0007 | 0.0239 | |
5 | 0.0302** | 0.0143 | 2.12 | 0.034 | 0.0022 | 0.0582 | |
LOC | 1 | 0.0405*** | 0.0140 | 2.88 | 0.004 | 0.0129 | 0.0680 |
2 | 0.0300*** | 0.0103 | 2.91 | 0.004 | 0.0098 | 0.0502 | |
3 | 0.0069** | 0.0029 | 2.38 | 0.017 | 0.0012 | 0.0125 | |
4 | −0.0224*** | 0.0079 | −2.84 | 0.004 | −0.0378 | −0.0069 | |
5 | −0.0550*** | 0.0189 | −2.91 | 0.004 | −0.0919 | −0.0180 |
*
Marginal effects of different factors after the epidemic.
ATT | 1 | −0.0778*** | 0.0082 | −9.53 | 0.000 | −0.0938 | −0.0618 |
2 | −0.0582*** | 0.0065 | −8.91 | 0.000 | −0.0710 | −0.0454 | |
3 | −0.0166*** | 0.0040 | −4.16 | 0.000 | −0.0244 | −0.0088 | |
4 | 0.0433*** | 0.0056 | 7.77 | 0.000 | 0.0324 | 0.0542 | |
5 | 0.1093*** | 0.0116 | 9.46 | 0.000 | 0.0867 | 0.1320 | |
SOC | 1 | −0.0145** | 0.0067 | −2.15 | 0.031 | −0.0277 | −0.0013 |
2 | −0.0108** | 0.0050 | −2.18 | 0.029 | −0.0206 | −0.0011 | |
3 | −0.0031** | 0.0013 | −2.29 | 0.022 | −0.0057 | −0.0004 | |
4 | 0.0081** | 0.0038 | 2.15 | 0.032 | 0.0007 | 0.0154 | |
5 | 0.0204** | 0.0092 | 2.22 | 0.026 | 0.0024 | 0.0383 | |
TRU | 1 | −0.0507*** | 0.0074 | −6.86 | 0.000 | −0.0651 | −0.0362 |
2 | −0.0379*** | 0.0060 | −6.30 | 0.000 | −0.0497 | −0.0261 | |
3 | −0.0108*** | 0.0029 | −3.75 | 0.000 | −0.0165 | −0.0052 | |
4 | 0.0282*** | 0.0047 | 5.99 | 0.000 | 0.0190 | 0.0374 | |
5 | 0.0712*** | 0.0107 | 6.63 | 0.000 | 0.0501 | 0.0922 | |
AGE | 1 | 0.0192* | 0.0099 | 1.94 | 0.052 | −0.0002 | 0.0385 |
2 | 0.0143* | 0.0074 | 1.93 | 0.053 | −0.0002 | 0.0289 | |
3 | 0.0041* | 0.0022 | 1.85 | 0.064 | −0.0002 | 0.0084 | |
4 | −0.0107* | 0.0056 | −1.91 | 0.057 | −0.0216 | 0.0003 | |
5 | −0.0269** | 0.0138 | −1.96 | 0.050 | −0.0539 | 0.0000 | |
INC | 1 | −0.0626*** | 0.0080 | −7.85 | 0.000 | −0.0782 | −0.0470 |
2 | −0.0468*** | 0.0058 | −8.06 | 0.000 | −0.0582 | −0.0354 | |
3 | −0.0134*** | 0.0032 | −4.17 | 0.000 | −0.0196 | −0.0071 | |
4 | 0.0348*** | 0.0054 | 6.42 | 0.000 | 0.0242 | 0.0455 | |
5 | 0.0879*** | 0.0102 | 8.66 | 0.000 | 0.0680 | 0.1078 | |
CAR | 1 | −0.0208** | 0.0104 | −2.00 | 0.045 | −0.0411 | −0.0005 |
2 | −0.0155** | 0.0078 | −1.98 | 0.047 | −0.0309 | −0.0002 | |
3 | −0.0044** | 0.0022 | −1.99 | 0.046 | −0.0088 | −0.0001 | |
4 | 0.0116** | 0.0058 | 1.98 | 0.048 | 0.0001 | 0.0230 | |
5 | 0.0292** | 0.0144 | 2.02 | 0.043 | 0.0009 | 0.0575 | |
LOC | 1 | 0.0418*** | 0.0138 | 3.02 | 0.002 | 0.0147 | 0.0689 |
2 | 0.0313*** | 0.0102 | 3.08 | 0.002 | 0.0114 | 0.0512 | |
3 | 0.0089*** | 0.0034 | 2.63 | 0.008 | 0.0023 | 0.0156 | |
4 | −0.0233*** | 0.0078 | −2.98 | 0.003 | −0.0385 | −0.0080 | |
5 | −0.0587*** | 0.0191 | −3.07 | 0.002 | −0.0962 | −0.0213 |
Std.Err is in the brackets.
*
The positive marginal effect indicates that as the value of a factor increases, the possibility of consumers choosing to use the ride-hailing will also increase, and the greater the value is, the greater the possibility will be. As shown in
Similarly, before and after the epidemic, the four factors, including the ATT, SOC, INC, and CAR, had a negative marginal effect on the frequency of use, i.e., less than once a month, 1–3 per month, and 1–2 times a week, and had a positive marginal effect on the usage frequency, i.e., 3–4 times a week and more than five times a week, and the factor “attitudes to environmental protection and commuting” after the epidemic had the largest marginal effect at 0.1093, indicating that when the other factors remained unchanged, for a one-unit increase in the attitudes to environmental protection and commuting, the possibility of consumers choosing to use the ride-hailing five times or more per week increased by 10.93%. The results also show that the more private cars people owned, the higher the usage frequency of ride-hailing would be. This may be due to the fact that people who own private cars are more inclined to travel by cars, and thus they have a higher acceptance of ride-hailing services. Also, when it is not possible to use a private car to travel, they are more willing to choose ride-hailing services rather than other traveling methods, such as public transportation.
Contrary to the above factors, both before and after the epidemic, the marginal effect of the age and residential location in the urban area on the frequency of use, i.e., less than once a month, 1–3 times a month, and 1–2 times a week, was positive, the marginal effect on the usage frequency, i.e., 3–4 times a week and more than five times a week, was negative. When the other factors remained unchanged, for a one-unit increase in the residential location in the urban area before the epidemic, the possibility of consumers choosing to use the ride-hailing five or more times a week decreased by 5.50%, and the possibility of choosing it less than once a month increased by 4.05%.
After the epidemic, when the other factors remained unchanged, for a one-unit increase in the location and convenience of car usage before the epidemic, the probability that consumers would choose to use the ride-hailing five or more times per week decreased by 5.87%, and the probability of choosing it once a month increased by 4.18%. This result shows that people who live outside the urban area and are farther away from the urban area use ride-hailing services less frequently.
The possible reason for this result can be that the farther away from the urban area people are, the less the supply of ride-hailing services may be. Also, compared to the urban areas, the convenience of obtaining the ride-hailing services in rural and suburban areas can be slightly worse, which can make people in that areas be more inclined not to use the ride-hailing or to use them less often. Furthermore, the older the person is, the lower the usage frequency of ride-hailing will be. Based on the descriptive statistics, users who had used ride-hailing services were mainly between the ages of 18 and 34, and the younger generation was the majority. This age group also accounted for the highest proportion of participants who had used the ride-hailing services. The authors believe that there are two possible reasons for this result: (1) people in this age group have higher travel needs, and (2) they are highly adaptable to technological changes and are more likely to accept new technologies.
In this study, the data obtained from the online questionnaires are used to investigate the factors affecting the usage frequency of ride-hailing services in China. Many studies have found the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on passengers' ride-hailing frequency. It has been established by Morshed et al. (
Specifically, the factor passenger trust and loyalty are positively related to the frequency of use of ride-hailing services. The marginal effect diagram in marginal effect analysis section shows that the more passengers trust the service, the higher the frequency of use of ride-hailing services will be, and vice versa. Similarly, consistent with our findings, Nguyen-Phuoc et al. (
It is imperative to increase the convenience, security, and popularity of ride-hailing services in order to build trust and loyalty among passengers and thus, increase the number of people using the service. To this end, it is necessary to promote complaints and feedback mechanisms for improvement; improve online payment methods; implement practical measures to ensure the safety of passengers; and provide transparent information to enhance corporate image and value, so that passengers can continue to choose ride-hailing services and recommend them to others.
Studies have shown a positive correlation between social life and technology usage and the frequency of use of ride-hailing services, which is in line with the findings of prior studies. Additionally, attitudes toward environmental protection and commuting are positively associated with the frequency of use of ride-hailing services. Urban residential location, however, is negatively correlated with the frequency of use of ride-hailing services, which may be due to the lower availability of ride-hailing services in these areas. Age and frequency of use of ride-hailing services are also negatively correlated, indicating that young people are the main demographic using ride-hailing. Finally, the number of private cars is positively correlated with the frequency of use of ride-hailing services, as those who own private cars are more likely to use ride-hailing services when they cannot use their own vehicles.
The survey results revealed that the majority of ride-hailing trips (about 60%) were for leisure and entertainment. This was followed by trips to/from train/passenger station/airport (about 50%) and commuting (about 45%). The figures in
Purpose of travel before the epidemic.
Purpose of travel after the epidemic.
Radar charts of the age group and frequency of use of ride-hailing services before the epidemic.
Radar charts of the age group and frequency of use of ride-hailing services after the epidemic.
This study conducted a two-stage survey among the same group of passengers to investigate the factors influencing people's usage of ride-hailing services in the pre-epidemic and post-epidemic phases. This research was distinct from existing literature in that it included discussions on two additional factors: the epidemics and the passenger trust, and their impacts on the frequency of use of ride-hailing services were quantitatively studied. The survey acquired information on participants, including their geographic area, lifestyle, technology use, personal attitudes, and social economy, which was then subjected to an Exploratory Factor Analysis to develop a usage frequency model of ride-hailing. Model estimation results revealed that the passenger trust and loyalty, social life and technology use, attitudes to environmental protection and commuting, age, personal income, number of private cars, and residential location in the urban area had a significant impact on the usage frequency of ride-hailing services. The results indicated that in the long run, the epidemic would have a slight impact on the usage frequency of ride-hailing.
This study provides beneficial information for firms and executives when analyzing ride-hailing models. To guarantee passenger security during the pandemic, enterprises and platforms should execute practical safeguards, such as mandating drivers to don face masks, measure and transmit body temperature data, frequently disinfect vehicles, and open windows for ventilation. The reliable statistical models used in this research are also beneficial for future research and provide useful advice for regulators, managers, and enterprises.
This initial study was limited by sample size, encompassing only 670 valid cases. Future research should aim to expand the scope of the study by increasing the sample size and collecting data from a more diverse geographical area, employing various techniques such as machine learning. Future research should extend this study by assessing different causal relationship structures, and contrasting the magnitude of each endogenous variable's effect on ride-hailing and other behaviors. Moreover, to address the limitations of the current analyses, preference heterogeneity should be incorporated in the model estimation, thereby allowing us to gain insight into the individual decision-making process.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/
SL: writing—original draft and supervision. YJ: software and writing—original draft. XY: data curation, validation, and methodology. HD: conceptualization. TZ: language polishing and data analysis. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 72271181 and 71701146).
TZ was employed by TOEC Technology Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: