## Empirical Analysis
### Hypothesis Test Results  
This study employed structural equation modeling to explore the hypothesized connections between perceived value dimensions and their impact on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty. The model's adequacy was confirmed by strong fit indices (\(\chi^{2}\) = 478.331; d.f. = 195; \(\chi^{2}\)/d.f. = 2.453; CFI = 0.943; TLI = 0.933; RMSEA = 0.066; RMR = 0.042; NFI = 0.908; GFI = 0.903), aligning with the established standards set by [PERSON] [66] and [PERSON] et al. [67]. The parameter estimates for the relationships are listed in Table 4.  
In examining the influence of the three perceived value dimensions on customer satisfaction, the standardized coefficients (\(\beta\)) revealed that utilitarian value (\(\beta\) = 0.203, \(p\) = 0.000) and hedonic value (\(\beta\) = 0.601, \(p\) = 0.000) significantly and positively affected customer satisfaction, providing support for H1-a and H1-b. Meanwhile, social value (\(\beta\) = \(-\)0.032, \(p\) = 0.532) did not exert a significant impact on customer satisfaction; thus, H1-c was not supported. In the case of trust, all three perceived value dimensions, namely, utilitarian value (\(\beta\) = 0.248, \(p\) = 0.000), hedonic value (\(\beta\) = 0.441, \(p\) = 0.000), and social value \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Relationship**} & \(\beta\) & **SE.** & **CR.** & \(p\) & **Result** \\ \hline
**H1.** & _Utilitarian value -\(>\) Customer satisfaction_ & 0.203 & 0.060 & 3.731 & 0.000 *** & supported \\ \hline
**H2.** & _Hedonic value -\(>\) Customer satisfaction_ & 0.601 & 0.108 & 8.362 & 0.000 *** & supported \\ \hline
**H3.** & _Social value -\(>\) Customer satisfaction_ & \(-\)0.032 & 0.036 & \(-\)0.625 & 0.532 & not supported \\ \hline
**H4.** & _Utilitarian value -\(>\) Trust_ & 0.248 & 0.064 & 4.028 & 0.000 *** & supported \\ \hline
**H5.** & _Hedonic value -\(>\) Trust_ & 0.441 & 0.098 & 6.262 & 0.000 *** & supported \\ \hline
**H6.** & _Social value -\(>\) Trust_ & 0.130 & 0.037 & 2.256 & 0.024 * & supported \\ \hline
**H7.** & _Utilitarian value -\(>\) Logulty_ & 0.216 & 0.059 & 3.745 & 0.000 *** & supported \\ \hline
**H8.** & _Hedonic value -\(>\) Logulty_ & 0.084 & 0.101 & 1.131 & 0.258 & not supported \\ \hline
**H9.** & _Social value -\(>\) Logulty_ & 0.057 & 0.032 & 1.128 & 0.259 & not supported \\ \hline
**H10.** & _Customer satisfaction -\(>\) Logulty_ & 0.431 & 0.065 & 6.098 & 0.000 *** & supported \\ \hline
**H11.** & _Trust -\(>\) Logulty_ & 0.126 & 0.061 & 2.023 & 0.043 * & supported \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: * \(p\) < 0.05, *** \(p\) < 0.001.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Parameter estimates for hypothesized relationships. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Construct**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Utilitarian Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hedonic Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Social Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Customer Satisfaction**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Trust**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Loyalty**} \\ \hline Utilitarian value & 0.801 & & & & & \\ \hline Hedonic value & 0.349 & 0.902 & & & \\ \hline Social value & 0.099 & 0.383 & 0.799 & & \\ \hline Customer satisfaction & 0.406 & 0.654 & 0.217 & 0.927 & \\ \hline Trust & 0.409 & 0.554 & 0.325 & 0.652 & 0.875 & \\ \hline Loyalty & 0.474 & 0.530 & 0.243 & 0.660 & 0.545 & 0.884 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: The diagonal value is the square root of the AVE.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Discriminant validity. (\(\beta=0.130\), \(p=0.024\)), demonstrated significant and positive effects, thereby supporting H2-a, H2-b, and H2-c, respectively. Regarding loyalty, utilitarian value (\(\beta=0.216\), \(p=0.000\)) had a significant and positive effect, thereby supporting H3-a. Meanwhile, hedonic value (\(\beta=0.084\), \(p=0.258\)) and social value (\(\beta=0.057\), \(p=0.259\)) did not exhibit a significant influence on loyalty; thus, H3-b and H3-c were not supported.