.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
When assurance fits the risk: Platform and third-party assurance in circular retail
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1016/j.jretconser.2026.104993.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Circular retailers use platform-backed protections and independent third-party assurance to reduce uncertainty about refurbished products, yet these sources are often treated as interchangeable trust cues. We develop an assurance-risk fit account, arguing that assurance is more persuasive when the provider's role matches the focal risk that constrains purchase. A pretest of the experimental materials and four online experiments with adult consumers in China tested this account in refurbished-smartphone settings. Across Studies 1–3, platform and third-party assurance produced a consistent crossover: third-party assurance elicited stronger responses when consumers evaluated product-performance risk, whereas platform assurance elicited stronger responses when consumers evaluated transaction risk. This pattern emerged across purchase intention, hypothetical product choice, choice confidence, and stated willingness to pay. Study 1 further found corresponding shifts in perceived diagnosticity, assurance-source trust, and perceived risk, yielding conditional statistical indirect-effect patterns consistent with the account. Study 4 directly measured perceived provider-role relevance and added no-additional-assurance and dual-assurance benchmarks. Matched single-source assurance improved responses relative to no additional assurance, whereas dual assurance did not consistently improve responses beyond the matched source. These findings qualify the view of assurance as a generic trust signal and show that assurance design in circular retailing depends on matching the assurance provider to the risk consumers are evaluating.
Journal
IF:
13.1
Papers:
3.6K
Citations:
3.1W