Factors affecting Customerâ€™s Trust in Online Shopping

When accomplishing transaction on the internet, visitors are usually required to provide some personal data, such as e-mail adBY
Information Systems Management Option
An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the School of Business in Partial Fulfillment
of the Graduation Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours)
Hong Kong Baptist University Hong Kong
April 2005
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to my
supervisor Dr. Ludwig Chang for his support throughout the research process. He
devoted his valuable time and efforts in giving me guidance throughout the project. I
am sure this project would not be completed without his kind help.
Besides, I would like to express my special thanks to those who had helped me
to distribute my questionnaires. Also, I would like to thanks all respondents, who
spent their valuable time in filling out the questionnaire.
- 1 -
Abstracts
An increasing number of consumers are shopping online and the numbers are
likely to increase rapidly in the near future. However, lack of trust will impede the
growth of the online vendor. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the factors that
affect trust in online shopping among the consumers. The effects of these factors
affecting trust in online shopping are different among consumers with different
levels of experience. Thus, this research also focuses on how experience moderate
the factors in affecting trust.
This research focuses on those who have visited an online shopping website
and those who have conducted online shopping. Both paper-based and
Internet-based questionnaires were distributed and 140 usable questionnaires were
collected.
The results showed that experience has a moderating effect on Reputation,
Comprehensive Information, Transaction Security, Interface Design and Privacy in
affecting trust in online shopping. These factors have different effect in affecting
trust for each experience group. With no experience, transaction security is the most
important determinant of trust. And privacy is the most important determinant when
consumer has satisfied experience. All these factors found to be insignificant when
consumer has dissatisfied experience.
Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………. -1- Abstracts…………………………………………………………………………. -2-
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 1 1.1 Objectives of Study…………………………………………………….. 2 2. Literature Review and Research Model……………………………………... 2 2.1 Definition of Trust……………………………………………………… 2 2.2 Factors affecting Trust in Online Shopping…………………………... 4 2.3 Research Model and Hypothesis………………………………………. 5 2.3.1 Experience……………………………………………………..... 6 2.3.2 Reputation……………………………………………………..... 6 2.3.3 Comprehensive Information…………………………………… 7 2.3.4 Transaction Security…………………………………………..... 8 2.3.5 Interface Design………………………………………………..... 9 2.3.6 Privacy……………………………………………….................... 11 3. Research Methodology………………………………………………............... 12 3.1 Subjects………………………………………………............................. 12 3.2 Questionnaire Design…………………………………………………... 13 3.3 Measurements…………………………………………………………... 14 4. Findings and Results……………………………………………….................. 15 4.1 Reliability of the Instrument…………………………………………... 16 4.2 Multiple Regressions………………………………………………........ 17 5. Discussions and Implications………………………………………………… 27 6. Limitations and Future Research…………………………………………..... 34 7. Conclusion………………………………………………................................... 35 8. Reference………………………………………………..................................... 37
9. Appendix………………………………………………………………………. 41 9.1 Appendix A Questionnaire Sample………………………………...... 42 9.2 Appendix B Demographic Statistics………………………………… 50 9.3 Appendix C Measurements……………………………….................. 52 9.4 Appendix D Reliability Test Result………………………………...... 56 9.5 Appendix E Regression Analysis Result…………………………...... 64
1. Introduction
When accomplishing transaction on the internet, customers are usually required
to provide some personal data such as e-mail address, telephone number and credit
card information. However, the customer may hesitate due to the lack of familiarity
with the Websites and they may feel lack of control over what online vendor could
do with their data afterwards. This problem may be more serious when it is an
Internet-only business. Therefore it is essential to make customers trust the online
vendor, and the new virtual channel of commerce with which they may have little
previous experience.
Customers’ Trust is critical for Electronic Commerce. It will affect the purchase
decision of the customers; whether the customer is willing to buy through the
internet depends heavily on their trust on the Web sites. Attracting new customers
and retaining them also contribute heavily to the success of Electronic Commerce,
customer beliefs that an online vendor can be trusted play a vital role in both
attracting new customers and later retaining existing ones (Gefen, Karahanna &
Straub, 2003).
However, potential and repeat customers are likely to differ in their trust in the
online vendor (Gefen, Karahanna & Straub, 2003), in which the effects of the factors
in affecting trust are different among the two groups of customers.
1
Although online business is a great opportunity, only a few online vendors were
proved to be successful. Therefore, it is essential for the online vendors to understand
the importance in gaining trust from customers, and how the effects of factors
affecting trust are different between the potential and repeat customers. The result
from this research would be useful for those online vendors who recognize the
importance of Electronic Commerce.
1.1 Objectives of Study
The main objective of this study is to examine how each factor suggested in the
model in this research related to trust in online vendor, and how experience
moderates the effect of these factors towards trust. Also to identify the key
determinant to trust for different experience groups. The results of this research will
be useful for online vendors to find out how the effects of factors are different in
affecting trust among the experience groups and suggest them what they should focus
on in gaining trust from the potential and repeat customers.
2. Literature Review and Research Model
2.1 Definition of Trust
Trust may encompass several aspects. In a general sense, trust defined as
confidence in or reliance on quality, attribute, ability, strength and truth of a person or
thing (Oxford, 1989, Merriam-Webster, 2002). Trust also indicates a positive belief
2
about the perceived reliability of, dependability of, and confidence in a person, object,
or process. It may help to reduce complexity when there is incomplete information
about other parties and in situations of uncertainty (Fogg & Tsang, 2000, Florian,
2001). Trust may be considered as the expectancy held by an individual or a group
that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can
be relied upon (Rotter, 1967). In the management theory, trust is defined as “one’s
belief and expectation about the likelihood of having a desirable action performed by
the trustee” (Sitkin & Roth, 1993).
An extracted common themes on the different conceptual definitions of trust
suggested that trust is a “psychological state comprising the intention to accept
vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intention or behavior of another
under conditions of risk and interdependence” (Rousseau, 1998). For this definition,
there are several issues needed to be emphasized. Firstly, trust is a psychological state
that researchers in different disciplines interpret in terms of beliefs, confidence,
positive expectations, or perceived probabilities. Secondly, trust is not a behavior or a
choice, but an underlying psychological condition. Thirdly, trust has positive outcome.
Fourthly, trust is developed under specific conditions, they are risk and
interdependence, that is trust would not be needed if actions could be undertaken with
complete certainty and no risk, and the one who trusts is not in a vulnerable position.
3
And the definition of trust suggested by Rousseau will be employed in this project.
2.2 Factors affecting Trust in online shopping
There are many factors identified by the past studies which will affect
customer’s trust in online vendors. They are reputation, comprehensive information,
site quality, transaction security, shared value and commitment.
Reputation and comprehensive information increase customers’ trust (Zucker,
1986, Ganesan, 1994, Lane, 1998, Jarvenpaa, 1999, Lee, Kim & Jae, 2000, Kim,
Ferrin & Rao, 2003, Chang & Cheung, 2005). Transaction security, shared value and
commitment will also lead to higher levels of customer trust in online vendors (Lee,
Kim & Jae, 2000, Gefen, 2002, Chang, Cheung, & Lai, 2003, Chang & Cheung,
2005).
Good site quality will have positive influence on the level of trust. On the other
hand, websites with broken links, grammatical errors and interface inconsistencies
will negatively affect the level of trust (Araujo, 2003).
As mentioned above, experience in online shopping would affect customer’s
trust in purchase. If the customers have a satisfactory experience with the seller, they
form higher levels of trust on the basis of their experience. And they will be likely to
continue to shop online in that particular Web site. Satisfaction may be defined as
customer form expectations and compare these to the actual performance, and it
4
would be a post-consumption evaluation (Oliver, 1997). It would also be the
customer’s positive emotions, such as pleasure and delighted, resulting from the
service performances, as customers compare their expectations to what they actually
experience during the service encounter (Srijumpa, Speece & Paul, 2002).
However if a customer does not have any previous experience in purchasing
through internet or experience in purchasing in that particular Web site, the initial
trust would mainly be affected by other factors like reputation, information quality of
the seller’s website and so on.
2.3 Research Model and Hypothesis
In this project, the effects of reputation, comprehensive information, interface
design, transaction security and privacy on trust were investigated. The intensity of
the effect of these factors in affecting trust was compared between people who have
experience in online shopping with those who do not have.
The following figure presents the factors that affect trust examined in this study,
and experience as a moderator.
5
Trust
2.3.1 Experience
People with experience in this study are defined as people who have conducted
online shopping at least once. While for those who do not have experience, are defined
as people who did not conduct any online shopping before but have ever visit those
online shopping websites.
2.3.2 Reputation
Reputation is the symbolic representations of the past exchange history (Lane,
1998, Zucker, 1986, Chang & Cheung, 2005). It may also be defined as the general
opinion about the character of the online vendor. Reputation will positively affect
customer’s trust in online shopping (Kim, Ferrin & Rao, 2003, Chang & Cheung,
2005). However, the intensity of reputation in affecting trust varies between people
who have experience and people who do not have.
For those who did not experience online shopping, they may depend more on the
6
reputation of the online vendor. For example, they may try to gather more opinion
and comments from friends on that Web site. And familiar brands may also enhance
trust of customer. Thus, reputation may have a stronger positive effect on trust for
those who do not have experience in online shopping when compare with those who
have experience.
H1b: Experience moderates the relationship between reputation and trust. High
reputation has stronger positive effects on trust for customers who do not have
experience
2.3.3 Comprehensive Information
Comprehensive information is defined as the extent to which a customer has
gathered adequate information to make a purchase decision. Information includes the
background of the Web site, testimonials of existing consumers, the information of
the product, also the clear statement of procedure in purchase and so on. With
comprehensive information, the customer can predict the consequences of the
purchase decision and use the information provided to predict the behavior of the
internet store (Lee, Kim & Moon, 2000).
Comprehensive information will increase customer’s trust (Lee, Kim & Jae,
2000). And the degree of comprehensive information in affecting trust varies between
7
two groups of people, people who have experience and people who do not have.
People who have experienced online shopping through the Web site would
already have knowledge towards the background of the Web site and the purchase
procedure. However, for those who did not experience online shopping before, they
may rely on the information provided in the Web site so as to understand more about
the online vendor and the purchase procedure. Therefore comprehensive information
may have relatively stronger influence in trust for those who do not have experience
in online shopping.
trust. Comprehensive information has stronger positive effects on trust for customers
who do not have experience
2.3.4 Transaction Security
Transaction security is the online vendor’s institutional status on its payment
system and consumer’s perceived extent risk involved, also statement promising the
return policy (Yoon, 2002). A high level of security in the online shopping has a
positive effect on consumer trust, owing to the lowered risk involved with exchanging
information (Yoon, 2002, Monsuwe, Dellaert & Ruyter, 2004). The intensity of
transaction security in affecting consumer’s trust between people who have experience
8
and people who do not have is undetermined.
Newcomers worry more about online credit card theft than experienced users of
the websites (George, 2002). For people who have satisfactory experience in online
shopping, they may be more confidence in the level of security of the Web site, as they
did not face trouble in previous purchasing. The more satisfactory the past experience is,
the less the consumer’s perceived risk levels associated with online shopping
(Monsuwe, Dellaert & Ruyter, 2004). However, people who did not have satisfactory
experience, they may be still focus on the perceived security level, similar to those who
do not have any experience in online shopping. And return policy and third party
certification can act as a risk reliever. Therefore level of transaction security’s positive
impact on trust for two groups of people is undetermined.
H3a: High level transaction security has positive effects on customers’ trust
H3b: Experience moderates the relationship between transaction security and trust.
High level transaction security has stronger positive effects on trust for customers
who do not have experience
2.3.5 Interface Design
Pleasant navigation experience can persuade users to conduct business with the
online vendors. Web site with broken links, grammatical errors, and interface
inconsistencies would affect the customers’ trust. For features that allow consumers
9
to get easily acquainted with the Web site, offer consistency and transparency during
transactions, build a coherent interface, or direct customer through the shopping
process are recognized as sign of understanding and respect towards visitors. The
interface design should have a professional appearance and ease customer’s
interaction with the Web site (Araujo, 2003).
Well designed interface will positively affect the consumer’s trust in online
shopping (Araujo, 2003), and the intensity of the effect varies between people who
have experience and people who do not.
People who have experience in online shopping through the Web site may
already familiar with the Web site, for example, they know where they can obtain the
information they desired. For those who do not have experience, an user friendly
interface design allow them to browse the site easily, also professional appearance of
the Web site would increase the customer’s trustworthiness toward the vendor. The
factor interface design would have greater influence in trust for those who do not
have experience.
H4a: Well designed interface has positive effects on customers’ trust
H4b: Experience moderates the relationship between interface design and trust. Well
designed interface has stronger positive effects on trust for customers who do not
have experience
2.3.6 Privacy
Consumers are usually required to provide addresses, age, gender, and even
sometimes income levels and general inclinations when purchasing online.
Sometimes websites may also keep records of the history of goods and services
demanded by specific customers. These types of customer data may be easily
manipulated when supplied to websites and the information may be used for
illegitimate data mining or provided to unauthorized third parties (Araujo, 2003).
Nowadays, consumers have understood the greater potential for organizations
engaging in electronic commerce to misuse, disclose or improperly handle personal
information or sensitive information gathered about consumer through their use of
the websites (Brendon, 2002). And privacy concerns have often been cited as one of
the key reasons consumers do not make on-line purchase over the internet (George,
2002).
Privacy is directly related to trust, which is a vital competitive advantage in the
online environment (Spar & Bussgang, 1996, Yang, Ahmed, Ghingold, Boon, Mei &
Hwa, 2003). And website contains statement promising a discretionary use of private
information would positively affect consumer’s trust (Yoon, 2002). For people who
have satisfactory experience in online shopping, they may be more confidence in the
level of privacy of the Web site, as they did not face problem in previous purchasing.
11
However, people who did not have satisfactory experience, they may be still focus on
the perceived privacy level, similar to those who do not have any experience in
online shopping. Therefore level of privacy’s positive impact on trust for two groups
of people is undetermined.
H5a: High level privacy has positive effects on customers’ trust
H5b: Experience moderates the relationship between privacy and trust. High level
privacy has stronger positive effects on trust for customers who do not have
experience
3.1 Subjects
This study focuses on the factors affecting the consumer’s trust in online shopping
and how experience moderates the intensity of these factors toward trust.
The target respondents are the individual who has visited the online shopping
website and who has purchased something through the website for at least one time.
Therefore the respondents should have at least some knowledge in online shopping
website. The target respondents include both students and the working population.
Both paper-based questionnaire and Internet-based questionnaire were distributed
to the Internet users in Hong Kong. Two versions of questionnaires, English and
12
Chinese (refer to Appendix A), were prepared. A total of 140 usable questionnaires
were returned where 90 of them were paper-based and 50 of them were Internet-based.
The respondents were asked to answer the questionnaires based on their experience in a
specific online store. Some examples of the online shopping websites stated by the
respondents were cinema.com, amazon.com, nike.com, ebay.com and cityline.com.
Table 1 (refer to Appendix B) summarizes the demographic characteristics of the
respondents. As shown in the table, 55% of the respondents were males. Over 60% of
the respondents were 17-25 years old, and 18.6% of the respondents were 26-35 years
old. The result shows that 65% of the respondents’ education level attained university
or above. Around 59% of the respondents were student and 55.7% of the respondents
had average monthly income below $4,000. Most of respondents (71.4%) had
purchased something through the online shopping website while other respondents just
had experience in visiting an online shopping website. 29.3% of respondents reported
that they had purchased 1-3 times during the past six months while 28.6% reported they
had no purchase experience during the past six months.
3.2 Questionnaire Design
At the beginning of the questionnaire, the respondents have been asked to indicate
whether they have visited an online shopping website. The purpose was for screening
out those who have never visited an online shopping website.
13
The questionnaire was divided into seven parts. They were the satisfaction,
reputation, comprehensive information, transaction security, interface design, privacy
and trust. Generally speaking, the scales of this questionnaire were adapted or modified
from prior studies with appropriate adjustment of wording to fit the specific needs of
this research. Five-point Likert scale is used for the questions in this part, ranging from
strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). As one question in privacy was negatively
statements, thus recode for the respondents’ response was done. That was changing
strongly agree with the statement into strongly disagree.
The last part of the questionnaire was the demographic information including the
gender, age, occupation, education level and average monthly income.
3.3 Measurements
By reviewing other’s studies, scales were developed for measuring each of the
variables. Table 2 (refer to Appendix C) summarizes all the items and the sources of
those items. The following discussion describes the items used to measure each of the
variables.
Satisfaction. The respondents’ satisfaction towards the online shopping website
was measured using two items, which were adapted from Ribbink, Riel, Liljander
and Streukens (2004).
Reputation. Reputation was measured using two items where one item was
14
adapted from Park and Kim (2003) and one was self-constructed.
Comprehensive Information. Comprehensiveness of information provided by the
website was measured using six items where four items were adapted from Kim and
Eom (2002) and two items were self-constructed.
Transaction Security. Transaction security was measured using two items where
one was from Liu, Marchewka and Ku (2004) and the other item was from Udo
(2001).
Interface design. Interface design of the website was measured using seven
items where three items were adapted from Park and Kim (2003), three items were
adapted from Roy, Dewit and Aubert (2001) and one item was self-constructed.
Privacy. Privacy was measured using four items where two items were adapted
from Park and Kim (2003) and two items were adapted from Liu, Marchewka and Ku
(2004).
Trust. Trust towards online shopping website was measured using nine items
where four items were adapted from Ribbink, Riel, Liljander and Strukens (2004) and
five items were adapted from McKnight, Choudhury and Kacmar (2002).
4. Findings and Results
The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 12.0 for Windows was used to
analyze the data. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test the internal reliability of the
15
scales. Cronbach’s Alpha is an internal-consistency reliability estimation method. It
should only be computed on a homogeneous set of items (or questions). If the
Cronbach’s Alpha for the model constructs are at or above the recommended
threshold of 0.7, the construct are said to be reliable.
Multiple regression analysis is the study of how a dependent variable is related
to two or more independent variable.
4.1 Reliability of the Instrument
Table 3 summarizes the Cronbach’s Alphas for all scales. With alphas greater
than 0.7, the tests demonstrated that the measures of Satisfaction, Reputation,
Comprehensive Information, Interface Design, Transaction Security and Privacy are
reasonably internally consistent.
16
Table 3 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Analysis (Significant Level: Alpha >= 0.7)
Variables Items Alphas Satisfaction SAT1, SAT2 0.848 Reputation REPUTATION1,
REPUTATION2 0.898
Comprehensive Information
CI1, CI2, CI3, CI4, CI5, CI6 0.821
Transaction Security TS1, TS2 0.822 Interface Design ID1, ID2, ID3, ID4, ID5, ID6,
ID7 0.892
0.811
Trust TRUST1, TRUST2, TRUST3, TRUST4, TRUST5, TRUST6, TRUST7, TRUST 8, TRUST9
0.928
Information, Transaction Security, Interface Design and Privacy as independent
variables and Trust as dependent variable.
Experience was a moderator variable which moderates the effect of Reputation,
Comprehensive Information, Transaction Security, Interface Design and Privacy
toward Trust. Satisfaction was used to classify Experience into “Satisfied
Experience” and “Dissatisfied Experience”. Satisfaction higher than 3.36 (mean of
Satisfaction) was classified as satisfied, while 3.36 and below was classified as
dissatisfied.
In order to calculate the significant level of each factor in affecting trust in the
17
three experience groups, three separate regression runs in which each experience
group in turn serves as the comparison group were conducted. When no experience
was the comparison group, “No Experience” was coded as X1 = 0, X2 = 0;
“Dissatisfied Experience” was coded as X1 = 1, X2 = 0 and “Satisfied Experience”
was coded as X1 = 0, X2 = 1 (refer to Table 4). Next, when dissatisfied experience was
used as the comparison group, “Dissatisfied Experience” will be coded as X1 = 0, X2
= 0; “No Experience” here would be coded as X1 = 1, X2 = 0; “Satisfied Experience”
will be coded as X1 = 0, X2 = 1. When satisfied experience was used as the
comparison group, “Satisfied Experience” would be coded as X1 = 0, X2 = 0; “No
Experience” was coded as X1 = 0, X2 = 1; “Dissatisfied Experience” was coded as X1
= 1, X2 = 0. Use table 4 as an example, the first dummy variable (X1) compared
dissatisfied experience with no experience comparison group which was assigned a
value of 0. The second dummy variable (X2) compared satisfied experience with the
no experience comparison group.
Table 4 Coding for dummy variables for different level of experience (No
experience as comparison group)
X1 X2
No Experience 0 0 Dissatisfied Experience 1 0 Satisfied Experience 0 1
Table 5 summarizes the results of coefficients. The R2 value of the model is
18
0.834 which indicate that 83.4% of the variance can be explained by all related
independent variables. The sig. F change = 0.025 was statistically significant, and
shows that experience has moderating effect on the independent variables (reputation,
comprehensive information, transaction security, interface design and privacy)
towards trust. The table shows the regression coefficient (β) and p-value of the
independent variable (e.g. reputation) for the no experience group and interaction
term (e.g. reputation * experience). To calculate the regression coefficient (β) and
p-value for the other two groups (dissatisfied and satisfied experience), each group
will in turn serve as the comparison group.
In the analysis below, unstandardized regression coefficients were used as
recommended (Allison, 1977, Southwood, 1978, McKeen, Guimaraes, Wetherbe,
1994). The regression coefficient (β) indicated the differential effect of the
independent variables on trust at different levels of experience; they were “No
experience”, “Satisfied experience” and “Dissatisfied Experience”.
19
Table 5 Trust in online vendor affect by Reputation, Comprehensive
Information, Transaction Security, Interface Design and Privacy (No experience
as comparison group)
Variables β P-value
Reputation 0.199 0.000* CI -0.240 0.028* TS 0.495 0.000* ID 0.391 0.003* Privacy 0.224 0.038* X1 0.861 0.039* X2 0.954 0.027* X1 * Reputation -0.139 0.059 X2 * Reputation -0.143 0.043* X1 * CI 0.514 0.008* X2 * CI 0.279 0.040* X1 * TS -0.309 0.034* X2 * TS -0.350 0.003* X1 * ID -0.317 0.035* X2 * ID -0.244 0.086 X1 * Privacy 0.005 0.488 X2 * Privacy 0.268 0.040* R2 = 0.834, adjusted R2 = 0.811, Sig. F change = 0.025 * p < 0.05 CI : Comprehensive Information, TS : Transaction Security, ID : Interface Design
The effect of Reputation on Trust with Experience as moderator
Trust in the online vendor was regressed on reputation and experience as the
moderator. Hypothesis H1a was tested in the three experience groups, which stated
that high reputation has positive effects on customer’s trust. And Hypothesis H1b
stated that experience moderates the relationship between reputation and trust. High
20
reputation has stronger positive effects on trust for customers who do not have
experience. Table 6 summarizes the result of the hypothesis test in reputation.
Referring to table 5, it shows that the interacting effect of experience on
reputation toward trust for the satisfied experience group is significant (p = 0.043).
And the interacting effect of experience for the dissatisfied experience group is
insignificant (p = 0.0585) as the p-value is greater than 0.05. As one group has
significant interacting effect, it is said that experience has moderating effect on
reputation towards trust.
With no experience, the effect of reputation on trust in vendors is significant as
the p-value is smaller than 0.05 (β = 0.199, p = 0.000). The effect of reputation on
trust in online vendor is insignificant when there is dissatisfied experience (β = 0.060,
p = 0.199) or satisfied experience (β = 0.056, p = 0.190) as shown in Table 11 (p.27).
As the effect of reputation on trust in online vendor is only significant for the no
experience group, therefore it is said to have the greatest effect among the three
groups. Thus, Hypothesis H1b is supported.
Table 6 Hypothesis Tests (Reputation) Hypothesis Test Result Hypothesis H1a (No experience) Supported Hypothesis H1a (Dissatisfied experience) Rejected Hypothesis H1a (Satisfied experience) Rejected Hypothesis H1b Supported
21
The effect of Comprehensive Information on Trust with Experience as
moderator
Trust in the online vendor was regressed on comprehensive information with
experience as the moderator. Hypothesis H2a was tested in the three experience
groups, which stated that comprehensive information has positive effects on
customer’s trust. And Hypothesis H2b stated that experience moderates the
relationship between comprehensive information and trust. Comprehensive
information has stronger positive effects on trust for customers who do not have
experience. Table 7 summarizes the result of the hypothesis test in comprehensive
information.
Referring to table 5, is shows that the interacting effect of experience on
comprehensive information toward trust is significant for the satisfied experience
group (p = 0.040) and the dissatisfied experience group (p = 0.008) as p-value are
smaller then 0.05 in both groups. Therefore it is said that experience has moderating
effect on comprehensive information towards trust.
Referring to table 11 (p.27), it shows that with no experience, the effect of
comprehensive information on trust in online vendors is significant but with a
negative regression coefficient (β = -0.240, p = 0.028). Therefore, even the effect is
significant; Hypothesis H2a is not supported in the no experience group as result
shows that comprehensive information has a negative effect on trust.
22
The effect of comprehensive information is insignificant when there is
dissatisfied experience (β = 0.274, p = 0.056) as p-value is greater than 0.05. Even
with satisfied experience (β = 0.039, p = 0.343), the effect of comprehensive
information is also not significant. The result shows that experience has moderating
effect on comprehensive information towards trust; however, Hypothesis H2b is not
supported as comprehensive information has negative effect on trust for customers
who do not have experience.
Table 7 Hypothesis Tests (Comprehensive Information) Hypothesis Test Result Hypothesis H2a (No experience) Rejected Hypothesis H2a (Dissatisfied experience) Rejected Hypothesis H2a (Satisfied experience) Rejected Hypothesis H2b Rejected
The effect of Transaction Security on Trust with Experience as moderator
Trust in the online vendor was regressed on transaction security with experience
as moderator. Hypothesis H3a was tested in the three experience groups, which stated
that high level transaction security has positive effects on customer’s trust. And
Hypothesis H3b stated that experience moderates the relationship between
transaction security and trust. High level transaction security has stronger positive
effects on trust for customers who do not have experience. Table 8 summarizes the
result of the hypothesis test in transaction security.
Referring to table 5, it is said that the interacting effect of experience on
23
transaction security toward trust is significant for the satisfied experience group (p =
0.003) and the dissatisfied experience group (p = 0.034) as p-value are smaller then
0.05 in both groups. Therefore it is said that experience has moderating effect on
transaction security towards trust.
For no experience, the effect of transaction security on trust is significant and
the regression coefficient equal to 0.495 (β = 0.495, p =0.000). However, the effect of
transaction security on trust is not significant when there is dissatisfied experience (β
= 0.186, p = 0.086). When there is satisfied experience, the effect of transaction
security on trust is significant (β = 0.145, p = 0.0255) as shown in table 11 (p.27).
The effect of transaction security on trust in online vendors is the greatest when
customer has no experience. Thus, Hypothesis H3b is supported.
Table 8 Hypothesis Tests (Transaction Security) Hypothesis Test Result Hypothesis H3a (No experience) Supported Hypothesis H3a (Dissatisfied experience) Rejected Hypothesis H3a (Satisfied experience) Supported Hypothesis H3b Supported
The effect of Interface Design on Trust with Experience as moderator
Trust in the online vendor was regressed on interface design with experience as
moderator. Hypothesis H4a was tested in the three experience groups, which stated
that well designed interface has positive effects on customer’s trust. And Hypothesis
H4b stated that experience moderates the relationship between interface design and
24
trust. Well designed interface has stronger positive effects on trust for customers who
do not have experience. Table 9 summarizes the result of the hypothesis test in
interface design.
Referring to table 5, it shows that the interacting effect of experience on
interface design toward trust is significant for the dissatisfied experience group (p =
0.035). However, the interacting effect is not significant for the satisfied experience
group (p = 0.086). As one group has significant interacting effect, it is said that
experience has moderating effect on interface design toward trust.
The effect of interface design on trust is significant when there is no experience
(β = 0.391, p = 0.003). The effect of interface design on trust is insignificant when
there is dissatisfied experience (β = 0.074, p = 0.237) or satisfied experience (β =
0.147, p = 0.095) as shown in table 11 (p.27). As satisfied and dissatisfied experience
groups are insignificant, the effect of interface design was greater when customer has
no experience. Thus, Hypothesis H4b is supported.
Table 9 Hypothesis Tests (Interface Design) Hypothesis Test Result Hypothesis H4a (No experience) Supported Hypothesis H4a (Dissatisfied experience) Rejected Hypothesis H4a (Satisfied experience) Rejected Hypothesis H4b Supported
The effect of Privacy on Trust with Experience as moderator
Trust in online vendor was regressed on privacy with experience as moderator.
25
Hypothesis H5a was tested in the three experience groups, which stated that high
level privacy has positive effects on customer’s trust. And Hypothesis H5b stated that
experience moderates the relationship between privacy and trust. High level privacy
has stronger positive effects on trust for customers who do not have experience. Table
10 shows the result of the hypothesis test in privacy.
By referring to table 5, it shows that the interacting effect of experience on
privacy toward trust is significant for the satisfied experience group (p = 0.04).
However, the interacting effect is insignificant for the dissatisfied experience group
(p = 0.488). As one experience group has significant interacting effect, it is said that
experience has moderating effect on privacy toward trust.
Table 11 (p.27) shows that with no experience, the effect of privacy on trust is
significant and there is a positive regression coefficient (β = 0.224, p = 0.038). For
the dissatisfied experience group (β = 0.219, p = 0.051), the effect of privacy on trust
is insignificant. When customer has satisfied experience (β = 0.492, p = 0.000), the
effect of privacy on trust are significant. The result shows that experience has
moderating effect on privacy towards trust, however, the effect of privacy on trust in
online vendors was the greatest when customer has satisfied experience. Thus,
Hypothesis H5b is not supported.
26
Table 10 Hypothesis Tests (Privacy) Hypothesis Test Result Hypothesis H5a (No experience) Supported Hypothesis H5a (Dissatisfied experience) Rejected Hypothesis H5a (Satisfied experience) Supported Hypothesis H5b Rejected
To summarize the result, table 11 shows the regression equation on how Trust in
Online Vendor is affected by Reputation, Comprehensive Information, Transaction
Security, Interface Design and Privacy, using experience as the moderator. The
numbers in the parentheses represent the significant level.
Table 11 Regression Analysis Results for different levels of experience
Level of Experience
Regression Equation
No experience Trust = -0.257 + 0.199 Rep – 0.24 CI + 0.495 TS + 0.391 ID + 0.224 Pri
(0.000)* (0.028)* (0.000)* (0.003)* (0.038)*
Dissatisfied experience
Trust = 0.604 – 0.060 Rep + 0.274 CI + 0.186 TS + 0.074 ID + 0.219 Pri (0.199) (0.056) (0.086) (0.237) (0.51)
Satisfied Experience * p < 0.05
Trust = 0.698 + 0.056 Rep - 0.039 CI + 0.145 TS + 0.147 ID + 0.492 Pri (0.190) (0.343) (0.026)* (0.095) (0.000)*
Rep : Reputation, CI : Comprehensive Information, TS : Transaction Security, ID : Interface Design, Pri : Privacy
5. Discussions and Implications
The principle objective of this research is to investigate the effect of reputation,
comprehensive information, interface design, transaction security and privacy on
trust and measure whether experience has a moderating effect on these factors in
27
affecting trust towards the online vendors. In this section, the influence of each factor
on trust for no experience, dissatisfied experience and satisfied experience groups
would be discussed.
Effect of Reputation on trust with experience as moderator effect
According to the finding in this study, experience has moderating effect on
reputation towards trust in online vendor. For no experience group, reputation is
positively related to trust toward the online vendor. The result is quite consistent with
the previous studies (Kim, Ferrin & Rao, 2003, Chang & Cheung, 2005). For the first
time buyer, even he or she doesn’t have previous direct experience with the seller, the
initial trust is formed by indirect experience such as reputation, recommendation
(Kim, Ferrin & Rao, 2003). Also in an interpersonal business setting, an individual
may feel they can trust others who they have not yet based on social cues, such as
their appearance, their known reputation. Such cues are generally missing in the
Internet environment, focusing potential customers to base their trust on the online
vendor’s reputation (Gefen, Karahanna & Straub, 2003).
Reputation is found to be insignificant for the dissatisfied and satisfied
experience groups. For the experience groups, as they had interacted with the online
vendor before, trust is more influenced by the nature of previous interactions with the
online vendor instead of some superficial acquaintance of the online vendor, such as
28
reputation. Especially for those who had dissatisfied experience, it is easy to
understand that they would change their opinion on the reputation of the online
vendor. Due to these reasons, reputation has less effect in trust for the experience
groups.
As reputation is positively related to trust for the no experience groups, in order
to attract this group of potential customers, the online vendors should improve their
reputation by doing some advertising which will also lead to high level of confidence.
Effect of Comprehensive Information on trust with experience as moderator
effect
In this study, experience has moderating effect on comprehensive information
toward online vendor. For the no experience group, negative relationship between
comprehensive information and trust was measured. And the result is quite different
from the previous studies which stated that comprehensive information will increase
customer’s trust (Lee, Kim & Jae, 2000). However, according to Park & Stoel (2005),
the amount of information available on a website may not be an important
determinant for online apparel decisions. This is because the customer cannot handle
large quantity of information. Excessive information may not be processed and / or
may be dropped. And it is possible that information quality may be more important
for the customer than the information quantity. Due to this reason, there is a negative
29
For the experience groups, comprehensive information is found to be
insignificant in this study. The reason for it may also because of the excessive
information that customers are not able to handle. And the experience customers have
prior experience with the online vendor, besides information they obtain from the
website, they will also use the prior information already available in their memories.
Thus, this study finds that comprehensive information is not significant for the
experience group.
The result shows that comprehensive information has negative effect on trust,
therefore the online vendor should focus on the amount of information provided in
the website. They should provide right amount of information that are sufficient for
customer to make the purchase decision. In addition, online vendor should stress on
the information quality rather than on the information richness.
Effect of Transaction Security on trust with experience as moderator effect
In this study, experience has moderating effect on transaction security toward
trust in online vendor. For the no experience group, transaction security is positively
related to trust. This result is quite consistent with the previous studies (Yoon, 2002,
Monsuwe, Dellaert & Ruyterm 2004). A high level of security has a positive effect in
consumer trust, owning to the lowered risk involved. Besides, this study indicated
30
that transaction security is the most important determinant among the five variables
for the no experience group.
For the satisfied experience group, the result of this study shows that transaction
security has positive effect on trust. This study also indicated that the effect of
transaction security on trust is smaller for the satisfied experience group when
compared with the no experience group, the result is consistent with Miyazaki and
Fernandex’s (2001) finding. The security concern has less prevalent for user with
high experience.
Transaction security is found to be insignificant for the dissatisfied experience
group in this study. It is believed that the dissatisfied experience group loss
confidence on the online vendor due to the past experience, and the transaction
security no longer has effect on trust for this group. Therefore there is no relation
between transaction security and trust.
The result shows that transaction security has stronger positive effect in trust
when customers do not have experience. Therefore online vendors should improve
the potential customers’ understanding of the control system used in their website.
Online vendors can try to explain what sort of security control they utilize in the
website. In addition, to retain experience customers, online vendors should keep on
improving and upgrading the security control.
31
Effect of Interface design on trust with experience as moderator effect
In this study, experience has moderating effect on interface design toward trust
in the online vendor. According to the finding in this study, interface design is
positively related to trust for the no experience group. This result is consistent with
previous studies (Araujo, 2003). The result also indicated the interface design is an
important determinant on trust in this group, which is consistent with the study of
Roy, Dewit & Aubert (2001). The user interface of the website is a determinant of the
initial established of trust when customer first interacts with the online vendor.
Interface design is found to be insignificant in this study for both experience
groups. The reason for the insignificant may be that the experience groups will be
less depend on the superficial acquaintance of the website. Also repeated use of the
website increased customer understands of the interface, and they are already familiar
of it. The impact of interface design on trust has a lesser impact once customers gain
experience with the specific vendor.
As the result shows that interface design has positive effect on trust for the no
experience group, online vendors should keep on reviewing and improving the
interface design. For the experience group, as they are already familiar with the
interface design, it is important to ensure that change in the interface design do not
alter the fundamental nature of user interaction with the website (Gefen, Karahanna
32
Effect of Privacy on trust with experience as moderator effect
In the study, experience has moderating effect on privacy towards trust in online
vendor. Also privacy is found to have positive relationship with trust. And the result
is consistent with previous studies (Spar & Bussgang, 1996, Yang, Ahmed, Ghingold,
Boon, Mei & Hwa 2003). As high level of privacy in the online shopping has positive
effect on customer trust due to the lower risk involved.
Privacy is also found to be positively related to trust in online vendor for the
satisfied experience group. And it has the greatest positive effect on trust among
those determinants for the satisfied experience group. The effect is of privacy on trust
is also greater for the satisfied experience when compared with the no experience
group. The result is consistent with previous studies (Miyazaki and Fernandex’s,
2001). Privacy is actually a greater concern for consumers with longer periods of
experience, suggesting that the accumulation of such experience may lead to higher
concerns regarding privacy issues. Experience consumers are more concerned about
issues related to the control of their information than with less experience. This may
because they had already provided their information to the online vendor during the
transaction, and they may feel lack of control over what the online vendor could do
with their data, therefore they have higher privacy concern than no experience group
33
who did not provide any information before. The increased experience alone does not
appear to diminish privacy concerns, it is evident that safe and responsible handling
of consumer information will be a strategic tool for the promotion of online retailing.
According to the finding of this study, privacy is shown to be insignificant for
the dissatisfied experience group. It is believed that customers with dissatisfied
experience have loss confidence on the online vendor due to the past experience, and
the privacy no longer has effect on trust for this group. Therefore there is no relation
between privacy and trust.
Besides safe and responsible handling of consumer information, the online
vendors should provide and explain comprehensive privacy policy on the website to
potential and repeating customers in order to let them know how their privacy are being
protected. The online vendors should also adhere to the policy and conduct annual
audits for compliance. Endorsements from trusted entities like TRUSTe should be
sought to legitimize privacy promises (Yang, Ahmed, Ghingold, Boon, Mei & Hwa,
2003).
6. Limitations and Future Research
The research consists of a number of limitations. Firstly, the sample size was not
large enough to represent for the whole population. Future researches may need to
use a larger sample size. Secondly, other than the discussed factors that influence the
34
trust towards online vendor, there maybe more factors; therefore it would be
appropriate to extend this study by developing a more extensive model. Lastly, large
portion of our sample was composed of respondent age under 25, it is possible that
their perceptions of trustworthiness are different from other population because they
are younger and have less experience as consumers.
In the future research, other antecedent factors that affect trust should be
identified and analyzed, such as shared value, word of mouth so to increase the
explained variance of the model. Also, it is needed to examine why comprehensive
information has a negative effect on trust for the no experience group and do not
seem to affect trust in the other two experience groups. The reasons for reputation,
interface design do not have effect on the satisfied experience group are needed to
examine also.
Future research is needed to explore deeper in the aspect of demography. 65% of
the respondents of this research are highly educated and their education level attained
university or above. As the demographic of the respondent will surely affect the result
of the research, the questionnaire distribution channel should be wider when doing
the research in the future, in order to gather data from different educational levels.
7. Conclusion
The research model aimed to study the moderating effect of experience on the
35
factors that affect trust towards the online vendor. In this study, Reputation,
Comprehensive Information, Transaction Security, Interface Design and Privacy were
examined for investigate their relationships with trust towards online vendor at three
level of experience. They are the No Experience group, Satisfied Experience and
Dissatisfied Experience group. And the research shows that experience has moderating
effect in the all five factors.
Those factors that affect trust toward online vendor have different effect for each
experience group. This indicated that different experience groups have different
concern on trust towards online vendor. The online vendor should notice the difference
in concern for different group and act accordingly in order to attract potential customer
and retain repeat customer.
For the dissatisfied experience group, the factors measured in this study have no
effect on trust. This may because of their loss of confidence in the online vendor and
results in those factors no longer have effect on them. This shows that if there is
positive purchase experience, it will surely generate confidence for the consumers. Also
it is easy to imagine that if consumers are dissatisfied with their experience, they are
highly unlikely to return to the site for future purchase.
36
Allison, P.D. 1977. Testing for Interaction in Multiple Regression. American Journal of Sociology, pages 144-153
Araujo, I., Araujo, I. 2003. Developing Trust in Internet Commerce. IBM Centre for Advanced Studies Conference
Brendon, C.F. 2002. In Ecommerce, Customer trust is no longer an option: It is the requirement for success. Quality Congress, Annual Quality Congress Proceeding, pages 355
Chang, M.K., Cheung, W., Lai, S. 2003. Literature Derived Reference Models for the Adoption of Online Shopping. Publication in Information and Management.
Chang, M.K., Cheung, W. 2005. Online Trust Production: Interactions among Trust Building Mechanisms. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 38
Egger, F.N. 2001. Affective Design of E-commerce User Interfaces: How to Maximize Perceived Trustworthiness. In Martin G. Helander, Halimahtun M. Khalid, and Ming Po Tham, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Human Factors Design, pages 317-324
Ganesan, S. 1994. Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol.58, No.2, pages 1-19
Gefen, D. 2002. Nurturing Clients’ Trust to Encourage Engagement Success during the Customization of ERP systems. Omega-Internation Journal of Management Science, 30(4), pages 725-737
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. & Straub, D.W. 2003. Inexperience and Experience with online stores: the important of TAM and Trust. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.50, No.3
George, J.F. 2002. Influences on the intent to make Internet purchases. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 12, no. 2, pages 165-180
37
Jarvenpaa, S. 1999. Consumer Trust in an Internet Store: A Cross-Cultural Validation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol.5, No. 2
Kim, E.B., Eom, S.B. 2002. Designing effective cyber store user interface. Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.102, pages 241-251
Kim, D.J, Ferrin, D.L. & Rao, H.R. 2003 A study of the Effect of Consumer Expectations and Satisfaction: the Korean Experience, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series
Lane, C. 1998. “Introduction: Theories and Issues in the Study of Trust,” In: Trust Within and Between Organizations: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications, eds. C. Lane and R. Bachmann. New York: Oxford University Press, pages 1-30
Lee, J.W., Kim, J.W & Moon, J.Y. 2000. What makes Internet Users visit Cyber Stores again? Key Design Factors for Customer Loyalty
Liu, C., Marchewka, J.T. & Ku, C. 2004. American and Taiwanese perception concerning Privacy, Trust and Behavioral Intention in Electronic Commerce. Journal of Global Information Management. Vol. 12(1), pages 18
McKeen, J.D., Guimaraes, T. & Wetherbe, J.C. 1994. The Relationship between User Participation and User Satisfaction: An Investigation of four contingency factors. MIS quarterly
McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. & Kacmar, C. 2002. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative topology. Information Systems Research, Vol. 13, no. 3, pages 334-359
Merriam-Webster. 2002. Merriam-Webster-Online. Merriam-Webster, Inc., Retrieved 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.m-w.com.
Miyazaki, A.D., Fernandez, A. 2001. Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks for online shopping. Journal of consumer affair. ABI/INFORM GLOBAL, pages 27
Monsuwe, T.P., Dellaert, B.G.C. & Ruyter, K.d. 2004. What drives consumers to shop online? A Literature Review. International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15, pages 102-121
38
Oxford. 1989. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2nd edition.
Park, C.H., Kim, Y.G. 2003. Identifying key factors affecting consumer purchase behavior in an online shopping context. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31, no. 1, pages 16-29
Park, J., Stoel, L. 2005. Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online appeal purchase. International journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 33, No. 2, Pages 148-160
Rotter, J.B. 1967. A new scale for measurement of personal trust, Journal of Personality 33, 651-665
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23(3), pages 393-404
Roy, M.C., Dewit, O. & Aubert, B.A. 2001. The impact of interface usability on trust in web retailers. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications & Policy. Vol. 11, no. 5, pages 388-398
Shneiderman, B. 2000. Designing Trust into Online Experiences. Communications of the ACM, 43(12):57-59
Sitkin, S., Roth, N. 1993. Examining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “Remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization Science 4, 367-392
Southwoor, K.E. 1978. Substantive Theory and Statistical Interaction: Five models. American Journal of Sociology, pages 1154-1203
Spar, D., Bussgang, J.J. 1996. Ruling the Net, Harvard Business Review, pages 125-33
Srijumpa, R., Speece, M., Paul, H. 2002. Satisfaction drivers for internet service technology among Stock Brokerage Customers in Thailand. Journal of Financial Service Marketing
Teltzrow, M., Gunther, O. & Pohle, C. 2003. Analyzing Consumer Behavior at Retailers with Hybrid Distribution Channels – A Trust Perspective. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Electronic commerce, pages 422-428
39
Udo, G.J. 2001. Privacy and security concerns as major barriers for e-commerce: a survey study. Information Management & Computer Security, Vol.9, pages 165-174
Yang,X., Ahmed, Z.U., Ghingold, M., Boon, G.S., Mei, T.S. & Hwa, L.L. 2003. Consumer preferences for commercial Web site design: an Asia-Pacific perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, no.1, pages 10-27
Yoon, S.J. 2002. The Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in Online-Purchase Decisions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), pages 47-63
Zucker, L.G. 1986. “Prediction of Trust: Institution Sources of Economic Structure, 1840-1920,” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, pages 53-111
40
42

2. ? _____ ( 3) _____ ( 7)
3. , : _____ _____ 7-9 _____ 1-3 _____ 10 _____ 4-6
4.

5. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 2 3 4 5
() 7. ,
_______________________ () 8. 1 2 3 4 5 9. 1 2 3 4 5
10. 1 2 3 4 5 11.
1 2 3 4 5
43
1 2 3 4 5
13. 1 2 3 4 5 14. 1 2 3 4 5 15.
1 2 3 4 5
16.
1 2 3 4 5
17.
1 2 3 4 5
18. 1 2 3 4 5 19. 1 2 3 4 5 20. 1 2 3 4 5 21. 1 2 3 4 5 22. 1 2 3 4 5 23. 1 2 3 4 5 24. 1 2 3 4 5
25.
26.
27. 1 2 3 4 5 28.
1 2 3 4 5
29. 1 2 3 4 5 30. 1 2 3 4 5 31. 1 2 3 4 5 32. 1 2 3 4 5 33. 1 2 3 4 5
44

34. 1 2 3 4 5 35. 1 2 3 4 5 36.
1 2 3 4 5
37.
39. : _____ 16 _____ 36-45 _____ 17-25 _____ 46 _____ 26- 35
40. _____ _____ / _____ _____ 41. : _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 42. : _____ 4,000 _____ 14,000 – 18,999 _____ 4,000 – 8,999 _____ 19,000 – 23,999 _____ 9,000 – 13,999 _____ 24,000
***! ***
Questionnaire on Factors affecting Trust in Online Shopping
I am a Year 3 student studying Information Systems Management in HKBU. I am now conducting a survey concerning your opinion towards trust in online shopping. Please kindly spare a few minutes to answer the following questions. The information you provide will be used for academic purpose only. Thanks for your cooperation.
Part I: Screening
1. Have you ever visited an online shopping Website? (If you answer “No”, this is the last question) _____ Yes (Continue with Question 2) _____ No (End of Questionnaire)
2. Have you ever purchased anything through the online shopping website? _____ Yes (Continue with Question 3) _____ No (Continue with Question 7)
3. During the past six months, your frequency of online purchase is: _____ none _____ 7-9 times _____ 1-3 times _____ 10 times or more _____ 4-6 times
4. Can you name an online store which you have a satisfied purchase experience and
answer the following question based on this website? _______________________ (Continue with Questions in Part II)
Part II: Satisfaction
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
5. I am generally pleased with this website 1 2 3 4 5 6. I am satisfied with this website 1 2 3 4 5
(Continue with Questions in Part III) 7. Can you name an online store which you have visited and answer the following question
based on this website? _______________________ (Continue with Questions in Part III)
Part III: Reputation 8. The website is very famous and well known 1 2 3 4 5 9. The website has a good reputation 1 2 3 4 5
46
1 2 3 4 5
11. The website provided detailed information in shipping and handling cost and other cost information
1 2 3 4 5
12. The website provided contact information, such as e-mail address or phone number
1 2 3 4 5
13. The website provided detailed description of a company such as history and mission statements
1 2 3 4 5
14. The website included other customers’ opinion or testimonials on the website
1 2 3 4 5
15. The website provided sufficient information for me to make purchase decision
1 2 3 4 5
Part V: Transaction Security 16. The website’s level of encryption, password and other security measures are sufficient to provide security and safety when on the internet
1 2 3 4 5
17. I feel safe when credit card information is released to that website
1 2 3 4 5
Part VI: Interface Design 18. The website is easy to navigate to the wanted pages
1 2 3 4 5
19. The website is convenient to order the product 1 2 3 4 5 20. The website contains no broken links 1 2 3 4 5 21. I always know where I am relatively to the site structure
1 2 3 4 5
22. The search engine is always accessible 1 2 3 4 5 23. The display format is consistent 1 2 3 4 5 24. The website is user friendly 1 2 3 4 5
Part VII: Privacy 25. The website explained how they would use the information collected about me
1 2 3 4 5
47
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
26. I feel that the website is making an effort to keep my personal information and credit card information out of the hands of unauthorized individuals
1 2 3 4 5
27. My private information is managed securely on this website
1 2 3 4 5
28. I am afraid that my private information will be used in an unwanted manner
1 2 3 4 5
Part VIII: Trust 29. I am prepared to give private information to this website
1 2 3 4 5
30. I am willing to give my credit card number to this website
1 2 3 4 5
31. It is not a problem to pay in advance for purchased products for this website
1 2 3 4 5
32. The website intend to fulfill their promises 1 2 3 4 5 33. I believe that the website would act in my best interest
1 2 3 4 5
34. I believe that the website is trustful in its dealings with me
1 2 3 4 5
35. I believe the website would keep its commitments 1 2 3 4 5 36. I believe the website perform its business role very well
1 2 3 4 5
37. I believe the website is capable and proficient in its business
1 2 3 4 5
Part IX: Personal Information 38. Gender _____ Male _____ Female
39. Age _____ 16 or below _____ 36-45 _____ 17-25 _____ 46 or above _____ 26- 35
48
40. Education Level _____ Primary School _____ Diploma/ High Diploma _____ Secondary School _____ University or above 41. Occupation _____ Student _____ Professional _____ Clerical Worker _____ Self employed _____ Managerial Level _____ others 42. Your average income per month is _____ Below $4,000 _____ $14,000 – $18,999 _____ $4,000 – $8,999 _____ $19,000 – $23,999 _____ $9,000 – $13,999 _____ $24,000 or above
***End of question, Thank you! ***
49
Table 1 Demographic Statistics of Respondents
Measure Value Frequency Percent Gender Male 77 55 Female 63 45 Age 16 or below 6 4.3 17 – 25 87 62.1 26 – 35 26 18.6 36 – 45 6 4.3 46 or above 15 10.7 Education Level Primary School 0 0 Secondary School 30 21.4 Diploma/ High Diploma 19 13.6 University or above 91 65 Occupation Student 83 59.3 Clerical Work 19 13.6 Managerial Level 16 11.4 Professional 15 10.7 Self-employed 2 1.4 Others 5 3.6 Monthly Income Below $4,000 78 55.7 $4,000 - $8,999 10 7.1 $9,000 - $13,999 22 15.7 $14,000 - $18,999 16 11.4 $19,000 - $ 23,999 3 2.1 $24,000 or above 11 7.9
51
Measurements
52
Table 2 Measure Items of Research Model Factors Item No. Item in Questionnaire Source Satisfaction
SAT 1
Ribbink, Riel, Liljander & Streukens, 2004
SAT 2 2. I am satisfied with this website Ribbink, Riel, Liljander & Streukens, 2004
Reputation REPUTATION 1 1. The website is very famous and
well known Park & Kim, 2003
REPUTATION 2 2. The website has a good reputation
Teltzrow, Gunther & Pohle, 2003
Comprehensive Information
CI 1 1. The website provided detailed information about the product
Self-constructed
CI 2 2. The website provided detailed information in shipping and handling cost and other cost information
Kim & Eom, 2002
CI 3 3. The website provided contact information, such as e-mail address or phone number
Kim & Eom, 2002
CI 4 4. The website provided detailed description of a company such as history and mission statements
Kim & Eom, 2002
CI 5 5. The website included other customers’ opinion or testimonials on the website
Kim & Eom, 2002
CI 6 6. The website provided sufficient information for me to make purchase decision
Self-constructed
53
Factors Item No. Item in Questionnaire Source Transaction Security
TS 1 1. The website’s level of encryption, password and other security measures are sufficient to provide security and safety when on the internet
Liu, Marchewka & Ku, 2004
TS 2 2. I feel safe when credit card information is released to that website
Udo, 2001
Interface Design ID 1 1. The website is easy to navigate
to the wanted pages Park & Kim, 2003
ID 2 2. The website is convenient to order the product
Park & Kim, 2003
Self-constructed
ID 4 4. I always know where I am relatively to the site structure
Roy, Dewit & Aubert, 2001
Roy, Dewit & Aubert, 2001
ID 6 6. The display format is consistent Roy, Dewit & Aubert, 2001
ID 7 7. The website is user friendly Park & Kim, 2003 Privacy PRIVACY 1 1. The website explained how
they would use the information collected about me
PRIVACY 2 2. I feel that the website is making an effort to keep my personal information and credit card information out of the hands of unauthorized individuals
PRIVACY 3 3. My private information is managed securely on this website
Park & Kim, 2003
PRIVACY 4 4. I am afraid that my private information will be used in an unwanted manner
Park & Kim, 2003
54
Factors Item No. Item in Questionnaire Source Trust TRUST 1 1. I am prepared to give private
information to this website Ribbink, Riel, Liljander & Streukens, 2004
TRUST 2 2. I am willing to give my credit card number to this website
TRUST 3 3. It is not a problem to pay in advance for purchased products over the internet
TRUST 4 4. The website intend to fulfill their promises
TRUST 5 5. I believe that the website would act in my best interest
McKnight, Choudhury & Kacmar, 2002
TRUST 6 6. I believe that the website is trustful in its dealings with me
TRUST 7 7. I believe the website would keep its commitments
TRUST 8 8. I believe the website perform its business role very well
TRUST 9 9. I believe the website is capable and proficient in its business
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Item-Total Statistics
Satisfaction 1 3.42 1.256 .737 .(a)
Satisfaction 2 3.30 1.141 .737 .(a)
a The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability model assumptions.
You may want to check item codings.
57
Reputation 1 3.79 1.090 .817 .(a)
Reputation 2 3.78 1.210 .817 .(a)
58
Comprehensive Information 2 3.39 .987 140
Comprehensive Information 3 3.48 1.115 140
Comprehensive Information 2 17.02 11.805 .715 .764
59
Transaction Security 1 3.14 1.059 .707 .(a)
Transaction Security 2 3.24 .761 .707 .(a)
60
61
62
63
1
b Dependent Variable: Mean of trust
Model Summary
Change Statistics
Sig. F
1 .890(a) .793 .785 .34472 .793 102.430 5 134 .000
2 .897(b) .805 .795 .33676 .012 4.203 2 132 .017
3 .913(c) .834 .811 .32296 .029 2.152 10 122 .025
a Predictors: (Constant), Mean of privacy, Mean of reputation, Mean of comprehensive information, Mean of interface
design, Mean of transaction security
b Predictors: (Constant), Mean of privacy, Mean of reputation, Mean of comprehensive information, Mean of interface
design, Mean of transaction security, X2, XI
c Predictors: (Constant), Mean of privacy, Mean of reputation, Mean of comprehensive information, Mean of interface
design, Mean of transaction security, X2, XI, X1*transaction security, X1*reputation, X2*reputation, X1*privacy,
65
X2*transaction security, X1*interface design, X2*comprehensive information, X2*privacy, X1*comprehensive
information, X2*interface design
1 Regression 60.859 5 12.172 102.430 .000(a)
Residual 15.923 134 .119
Residual 14.970 132 .113
Residual 12.725 122 .104
Total 76.783 139
a Predictors: (Constant), Mean of privacy, Mean of reputation, Mean of comprehensive information, Mean of interface
design, Mean of transaction security
b Predictors: (Constant), Mean of privacy, Mean of reputation, Mean of comprehensive information, Mean of interface
design, Mean of transaction security, X2, XI
c Predictors: (Constant), Mean of privacy, Mean of reputation, Mean of comprehensive information, Mean of interface
design, Mean of transaction security, X2, XI, X1*transaction security, X1*reputation, X2*reputation, X1*privacy,
X2*transaction security, X1*interface design, X2*comprehensive information, X2*privacy, X1*comprehensive
information, X2*interface design
66
Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Mean of reputation .122 .035 .168 3.478 .001
Mean of comprehensive information -.035 .068 -.033 -.518 .605
Mean of transaction security .277 .054 .328 5.117 .000
Mean of interface design .149 .067 .139 2.208 .029
Mean of privacy .435 .060 .443 7.250 .000
2 (Constant) .348 .206 1.695 .092
Mean of privacy .398 .062 .406 6.471 .000
XI .078 .085 .047 .911 .364
X2 .209 .072 .140 2.897 .004
3 (Constant) -.257 .361 -.710 .479
Mean of comprehensive information -.240 .125 -.226 -1.927 .056
Mean of privacy .224 .125 .229 1.789 .076
XI .861 .483 .521 1.782 .077
X2 .954 .489 .639 1.950 .053
X1*reputation -.139 .088 -.264 -1.578 .117
X2*reputation -.143 .083 -.416 -1.729 .086
X1*comprehensive information .514 .211 .961 2.433 .016
X1*transaction security -.309 .168 -.516 -1.847 .067
X2*transaction security -.350 .123 -.871 -2.839 .005
X1*interface design -.317 .173 -.593 -1.832 .069
X2*interface design -.244 .178 -.633 -1.373 .172
X1*privacy -.005 .183 -.009 -.030 .976
X2*privacy .268 .151 .662 1.773 .079
a Dependent Variable: Mean of trust
67
X2 .125(a) 2.754 .007 .232 .722
X1*reputation -.030(a) -.668 .505 -.058 .747
X2*reputation .120(a) 2.506 .013 .212 .646
X1*comprehensive information -.004(a) -.088 .930 -.008 .709
X2*comprehensive information .122(a) 2.617 .010 .221 .684
X1*transaction security -.017(a) -.370 .712 -.032 .752
X2*transaction security .108(a) 2.241 .027 .191 .643
X1*interface design -.018(a) -.386 .700 -.033 .736
X2*interface design .123(a) 2.617 .010 .221 .673
X1*privacy -.024(a) -.526 .600 -.046 .745
X2*privacy .136(a) 2.787 .006 .235 .623
2 X1*reputation -.241(b) -1.642 .103 -.142 .068
X2*reputation -.179(b) -.892 .374 -.078 .037
X1*comprehensive information .053(b) .279 .781 .024 .041
X2*comprehensive information -.112(b) -.506 .614 -.044 .030
X1*transaction security -.077(b) -.556 .579 -.049 .077
X2*transaction security -.320(b) -1.730 .086 -.149 .043
X1*interface design -.162(b) -.864 .389 -.075 .042
X1*privacy -.211(b) -1.245 .215 -.108 .051
X2*privacy .046(b) .196 .845 .017 .027
a Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Mean of privacy, Mean of reputation, Mean of comprehensive information, Mean
of interface design, Mean of transaction security
b Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Mean of privacy, Mean of reputation, Mean of comprehensive information, Mean
of interface design, Mean of transaction security, X2, XI
c Dependent Variable: Mean of trust
68
Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Mean of privacy .435 .060 .443 7.250 .000
2 (Constant) .426 .171 2.497 .014
Mean of privacy .398 .062 .406 6.471 .000
XI -.078 .085 -.047 -.911 .364
X2 .131 .090 .088 1.454 .148
3 (Constant) .604 .321 1.884 .062
Mean of reputation .060 .071 .083 .848 .398
Mean of comprehensive information .274 .171 .258 1.606 .111
Mean of interface design .074 .103 .069 .718 .474
Mean of privacy .219 .133 .223 1.650 .101
XI -.861 .483 -.525 -1.782 .077
X2 .094 .460 .063 .204 .839
X1*reputation .139 .088 .348 1.578 .117
X2*reputation -.004 .095 -.011 -.040 .968
X1*comprehensive information -.514 .211 -1.126 -2.433 .016
X2*comprehensive information -.235 .196 -.582 -1.197 .234
X1*transaction security .309 .168 .630 1.847 .067
X2*transaction security -.041 .154 -.102 -.266 .790
X1*interface design .317 .173 .708 1.832 .069
X2*interface design .073 .152 .188 .478 .634
X1*privacy .005 .183 .011 .030 .976
X2*privacy .273 .157 .676 1.739 .085
69
X2 .125(a) 2.754 .007 .232 .722
X1*reputation -.080(a) -1.965 .052 -.168 .910
X2*reputation .120(a) 2.506 .013 .212 .646
X1*comprehensive information -.098(a) -2.451 .016 -.208 .940
X2*comprehensive information .122(a) 2.617 .010 .221 .684
X1*transaction security -.077(a) -1.945 .054 -.166 .972
X2*transaction security .108(a) 2.241 .027 .191 .643
X1*interface design -.089(a) -2.241 .027 -.191 .954
X2*interface design .123(a) 2.617 .010 .221 .673
X1*privacy -.092(a) -2.356 .020 -.200 .976
X2*privacy .136(a) 2.787 .006 .235 .623
2 X1*reputation .374(b) 2.287 .024 .196 .054
X2*reputation -.179(b) -.892 .374 -.078 .037
X2*comprehensive information -.112(b) -.506 .614 -.044 .030
X1*transaction security .434(b) 2.567 .011 .219 .050
X2*transaction security -.320(b) -1.730 .086 -.149 .043
X1*interface design .439(b) 1.768 .079 .153 .024
X1*privacy .199(b) .980 .329 .085 .036
X2*privacy .046(b) .196 .845 .017 .027
of interface design, Mean of transaction security
b Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Mean of privacy, Mean of reputation, Mean of comprehensive information, Mean
of interface design, Mean of transaction security, XI, X2
c Dependent Variable: Mean of trust
70
Coefficients(a)
Mean of privacy .435 .060 .443 7.250 .000
2 (Constant) .557 .218 2.560 .012
Mean of privacy .398 .062 .406 6.471 .000
XI -.131 .090 -.080 -1.454 .148
X2 -.209 .072 -.127 -2.897 .004
3 (Constant) .698 .330 2.114 .037
Mean of reputation .056 .064 .077 .881 .380
Mean of comprehensive information .039 .097 .037 .405 .686
Mean of privacy .492 .084 .501 5.856 .000
XI -.094 .460 -.057 -.204 .839
X2 -.954 .489 -.582 -1.950 .053
X1*reputation .004 .095 .007 .040 .968
X2*reputation .143 .083 .358 1.729 .086
X2*comprehensive information -.279 .158 -.612 -1.770 .079
X1*transaction security .041 .154 .068 .266 .790
X2*transaction security .350 .123 .713 2.839 .005
X1*interface design -.073 .152 -.136 -.478 .634
X2*interface design .244 .178 .546 1.373 .172
X1*privacy -.273 .157 -.439 -1.739 .085
X2*privacy -.268 .151 -.535 -1.773 .079
71
X2 -.097(a) -2.498 .014 -.212 .978
X1*reputation -.030(a) -.668 .505 -.058 .747
X2*reputation -.080(a) -1.965 .052 -.168 .910
X1*comprehensive information -.004(a) -.088 .930 -.008 .709
X2*comprehensive information -.098(a) -2.451 .016 -.208 .940
X1*transaction security -.017(a) -.370 .712 -.032 .752
X2*transaction security -.077(a) -1.945 .054 -.166 .972
X1*interface design -.018(a) -.386 .700 -.033 .736
X2*interface design -.089(a) -2.241 .027 -.191 .954
X1*privacy -.024(a) -.526 .600 -.046 .745
X2*privacy -.092(a) -2.356 .020 -.200 .976
2 X1*reputation -.241(b) -1.642 .103 -.142 .068
X2*reputation .374(b) 2.287 .024 .196 .054
X1*transaction security -.077(b) -.556 .579 -.049 .077
X2*transaction security .434(b) 2.567 .011 .219 .050
X2*interface design .439(b) 1.768 .079 .153 .024
X1*privacy -.211(b) -1.245 .215 -.108 .051
X2*privacy .199(b) .980 .329 .085 .036
of interface design, Mean of transaction s

Factors affecting Customerâ€™s Trust in Online Shopping

Documents

Transcript of Factors affecting Customerâ€™s Trust in Online Shopping