依恋风格分化电商用户行为:平台治理的三维响应策略
Attachment Styles Differentiate E-Commerce Behaviors: Tripartite Governance Responses for Digital Platforms
摘要: 依恋理论作为解释人际关系质量的重要理论框架,近年来已被引入数字经济情境,探讨用户与电商平台之间形成的“数字依恋关系”。本文在系统回顾国内外核心文献基础上,构建“依恋风格–平台属性–用户行为”综合分析模型,从理论框架、实证发现和实践启示三个层面展开论述。研究发现:安全型用户依托较强的信息加工能力表现为理性消费与跨平台比价;焦虑型用户则在情感激活下易出现冲动购买和非理性留存;回避型用户因隐私敏感和高效追求,呈现低参与与高跳出特征。同时,平台个性化推荐与算法透明度对用户行为具有显著调节效应,直接影响用户的功能性和情感性价值感知。基于此,本文提出了相应的运营策略和分层治理措施,为电商平台在提升用户体验、保障数据安全和实现可持续治理方面提供理论支持和实践指导。
Abstract: As a core framework for explaining interpersonal relationship quality, attachment theory has been extended to the digital environment to examine the “digital attachment” between users and ecommerce platforms. Based on a systematic review of both domestic and international literature, this paper constructs an integrated model of “attachment style-platform attributes-user behavior.” It reveals that secure users exhibit rational consumption and crossplatform comparison due to strong information processing capabilities; anxious users tend to make impulsive purchases and exhibit irrational retention driven by emotional needs; and avoidant users display low engagement and high bounce rates because of privacy concerns and efficiency pursuit. Moreover, personalized recommendation systems and algorithm transparency significantly moderate users’ functional and emotional value perceptions. Based on these findings, the paper proposes operational strategies and hierarchical governance measures, providing both theoretical support and practical insights for enhancing user experience and improving platform governance.
文章引用:洪芳, 付旻炀. 依恋风格分化电商用户行为:平台治理的三维响应策略[J]. 电子商务评论, 2025, 14(5): 2164-2170. https://doi.org/10.12677/ecl.2025.1451506

参考文献

[1] Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and Loss. Basic Books.
[2] Mikulincer, M. and Shaver, P.R. (2016) Attachment in Adulthood. Guilford Press.
[3] Zhang, Y., et al. (2022) Functional Attachment in Digital Platforms. Journal of Retailing, 98, 345-360.
[4] Belk, R.W. (2013) Extended Self in a Digital World: Table 1. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 477-500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[5] Kim, J., et al. (2020) Privacy Concerns in Social Commerce. Journal of Consumer Research, 47, 523-553.
[6] Li, Y., et al. (2021) AI Recommendation in Ecommerce. Journal of Marketing, 85, 24-41.
[7] Wang, P., et al. (2023) Community Attachment in Social Commerce. Internet Research, 33, 1234-1256.
[8] Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003) Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Quarterly, 27, 51-90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] Haubitz, C.B., et al. (2021) Algorithm Transparency Risks. Management Science, 67, 3456-3472.
[10] 刘伟. 直播电商用户冲动性研究[J]. 营销科学学报, 2023, 19(3): 78-92.
[11] Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997) An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 35-51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] 闫慧丽. 电商用户嵌入性梯度效应[J]. 商业研究, 2020, 62(4): 112.
[13] Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2022) Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision‐Making. Public Administration Review, 83, 241-262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[14] Su, J. and Lyu, H. (2023) Data Governance under Heterogeneity. Journal of Management, 50, 45-67.
[15] Davis, F.D. (1989) Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef