Ps34

Why do shoppers abandon shopping cart?Perceived waiting time, risk, and transaction

inconvenienceRajasree K. Rajamma

Department of Marketing, Charles F. Dolan School of Business, Fairfield University, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA

Audhesh K. PaswanDepartment of Marketing and Logistics, College of Business Administration, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA, and

Muhammad M. HossainDepartment of ITDS, College of Business Administration, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this study is to explore the factors leading to the consumer’s propensity to abandon the shopping cart at the transactioncompletion stage.Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using a self-administered survey distributed through the internet. The sample consisted ofconsumers who shopped online at least once during the preceding one-year period.Findings – The results indicate that perceived transaction inconvenience is the major predictor of shopping cart abandonment. The other predictors areperceived risk and perceived waiting time. Positive relationship was found between perceived transaction inconvenience, perceived risk and propensityto abandon the shopping cart. It was also found that propensity to abandon the shopping cart is negatively associated with the perception of waitingtime.Practical implications – The paper provides transaction completion stage specific guidance to the managers operating in an online environment toprevent shopping cart abandonment at the transaction completion stage. Specifically, the findings suggest that marketers must pay attention to theperception of risk and transaction inconvenience; otherwise they risk losing consumers during the final stage of transaction.Originality/value – The paper examines the unexplored area of consumer behavior at the final stages of transaction culmination and, hence, is aninitial step toward filling that gap.

Keywords Internet shopping, Electronic commerce, Consumer behaviour

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Marketers spend enormous amount of time, effort, energy,

and resources to market and sell their products and services to

their consumers. They engage in activities such as

segmentation, targeting, positioning, and use the four Ps to

ensure that the consumers select their product and service

from a shelf full of competing products. Once the consumer

selects a product and puts it in his/her shopping cart, he/she

takes it to the checkout point. However, in some cases, for

various reasons (e.g. long lines, cumbersome and tedious

checkout process, etc.) consumers may abandon the cart. All

the time, effort, energy, and resources spent till then goes to

waste. While marketing literature is replete with investigations

focusing on virtually every aspect of consumer and shopping

behavior, little academic research focus has been directed

toward understanding why consumers abandon a shopping

cart towards the end, after they have selected the product.

This is the impetus for our investigation and we hope that our

findings would help fill this crucial knowledge gap.This phenomenon is especially pertinent in the context of

e-commerce. Studies estimate that approximately 60-75

percent of the shopping carts are abandoned before

purchase is made (Goldwyn, 2002; Eisenberg, 2003; Oliver

and Shor, 2003; Gold, 2007). In addition, trade data suggests

that each incidence of shopping cart abandonment represents

approximately $175 in lost sales to the online retailer

(Mullins, 2000). The total online retailing industry loss,

thus, would amount to more than $6.5 billion per year

(McGlaughlin, 2001). Thus, online shopping behavior

provides an ideal context for this investigation. It is

important for managers (e.g. product, marketing, and

retailing) operating in an online environment as well as

researchers to understand the factors leading to shopping cart

abandonment by consumers, so that they can avoid future

financial losses as well as customer erosion.Shopping cart abandonment as examined in this paper

comes right after the consumer has decided to purchase the

products, but before the purchase is completed. A lack of

understanding regarding this stage in the existing literature

points to the need for this research. Several studies have

focused on the antecedents to the decision whether to shop

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

18/3 (2009) 188–197

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610420910957816]

188

online or not (Goldsmith, 2002; Koufaris et al., 2001; Shimet al., 2000; Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001), and the

demographic and psychographic profile of the internetshopper. A few studies with a focus on satisfaction with

online retail environment (Szymanski and Hise, 2000) have

either tried to examine satisfaction in general (i.e. with nospecific focus on any particular stage) or have tried to explain

consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction from the web developers’

point-of-view (Chen and Wells, 2001). Moreover, most of thestudies have focused on the initial stages of the buying

process, i.e. from problem recognition to the evaluation of

alternatives stages (“five stage model of consumer buyingprocess” – Kotler, 1999), or the factors influencing the

consumers’ propensity to shop online.Although these studies have made undeniable contributions

toward explaining consumer satisfaction with the retailing

environment, there is paucity of research aimed atunderstanding why a customer who may be otherwise

satisfied with all aspects of the shopping environment would

quit without completing the transaction. This paper isexpected to fill that lacuna, by focusing on three situational

factors such as perceived waiting time, perceived risk and

transaction inconvenience as potential determinants of thedecision to abandon shopping carts. Expectancy-

disconfirmation model is used as the overarching theory for

the current research aimed at examining the above-mentionedknowledge gap in the context of online shopping.The organization of the paper is as follows: a brief

discussion on expectancy-disconfirmation model is presented

followed by literature review, methodology for the study,

findings and analysis, and discussion on the major findingsand their implications. The paper ends with a section on

limitations of the study.

The expectancy disconfirmation model

According to the expectancy disconfirmation model,

satisfaction/dissatisfaction is a function of expectations and

disconfirmations of the consumer (Oliver, 1980; Oliver andDeSabro, 1988). That is, “consumer’s expectations serve as

the base line for satisfaction assessment” (Szymanski and

Henard, 2001). Thus, expectations are either positivelydisconfirmed when the experience exceeds expectations,

confirmed when experience equals expectations, or are

negatively disconfirmed when the experience falls belowexpectations (Swan and Trawick, 1981). One of the possible

outcomes of negative expectancy disconfirmation is

dissatisfaction and that of positive disconfirmation ofexpectations is satisfaction (Oliver, 1980).Previous studies in the expectancy disconfirmation area

have focused on the post-purchase satisfaction (LaBarbera

and Mazursky, 1983; Swan and Trawick, 1981; Bearden and

Teel, 1983; Woodruff et al., 1983; Oliver and DeSabro, 1988;Szymanski and Henard, 2001). However, researchers like

Simintiras et al. (1997) and Simonson (1992) have found pre-

purchase satisfaction as an important logical antecedent topurchase. In this study, we take the stance that the

expectation-disconfirmation model may operate in the

checkout process as well. We argue that consumers mayhave some pre-conceived expectations about the checkout

process based on their expectations of online retailing.Existing literature has identified several characteristics that

have become stereotypical expectations from an online retail

environment, e.g. quick and easy checkout, shorter or no

queue, convenient process, more control over the process, risk

associated with giving the credit card to someone else, and

more control over payment device such as credit card (e.g.

Prince, 2004; Photo Trade News, 2006; Schelmetic, 2006).

While convenience (e.g. Girard et al., 2003; Donthu and

Garcia, 1999; Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001) has been

suggested as one of the important factors associated with

the decision to shop online, once the consumer decides to

shop online other factors such as privacy and safety of

transactions and enjoyment may also come into the picture

(e.g. Wang et al., 2006). Moreover, the convenience concept

discussed in the extant literature (e.g. Girard et al., 2003;

Donthu and Garcia, 1999; Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001)

encompasses convenience of saving time, of not having to go

to the store and ability to shop at any time.Based on the expectancy disconfirmation literature, it is

reasonable to assume that if the consumers’ experiences in the

online store fall short of their expectations, they are likely to

experience dissatisfaction, and vice versa. This would in turn

affect their purchase intention (Cronin and Taylor, 1992;

Oliver, 1980), ultimately resulting in shopping cart

abandonment. It is important to note that satisfaction and

dissatisfaction are not necessarily bipolars of a continuum

with respect to online shopping (Chen and Wells, 2001).

Hence, consumers may be satisfied with some aspects of a

shopping environment and dissatisfied with others. Therefore,

it is not unreasonable to assume that despite the presence of

satisfiers pertaining to the e-commerce environment, e.g.

convenience of online shopping, merchandise, site design and

financial security (Szymanski and Hise, 2000), shopping cart

abandonment may still take place purely based on whether

the checkout process fulfills the consumer’s expectations

formed by their experiences up to that point. In fact, one

would argue that if a retailer (online or offline) does a good

job of making consumers extremely satisfied till they reach the

checkout point, they in fact build higher consumer

expectations. Now, if the checkout process does not meet

their expectations, then consumers are likely to be

disappointed, even if the infraction is minor. On the other

hand, one could argue that, because consumers have been

very satisfied up until they reach the checkout point, they may

be willing to overlook minor infractions. In this study, we

focus on three key factors:1 Perceived waiting time (Davis and Heineke, 1998).2 Perceived risk (Belanger et al., 2002).3 Transaction inconvenience (Childers et al., 2001; Donthu

and Garcia, 1999; Srinivasan et al., 2002).

We take the stand that if consumers have to wait longer in the

checkout line, the transaction suddenly starts to look risky, or

the final transaction process seems inconvenient, which may

lead to shopping cart abandonment, even if, the consumer

was satisfied with his/her experience with the e-commerce site

until then.

Perceived waiting time

Waiting time is the amount of time a customer has to wait for

service. According to Davis and Heineke (1998), “customers’

reaction to waiting in line can color his/her perception of the

service delivery process”. Other researchers have also alluded

to the inverse relationship between perceived waiting time and

Why do shoppers abandon shopping cart?

Rajasree K. Rajamma, Audhesh K. Paswan and Muhammad M. Hossain


Volume 18 · Number 3 · 2009 · 188–197

189

satisfaction (Maister, 1985; Davis and Vollmann, 1990; Davis

and Heineke, 1998). Davis and Vollmann (1990) argue that

when the amount of time available to customers is limited,they tend to be more and more impatient. Others (e.g. Katz

et al., 1991; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998) have found that

customers usually overestimate the amount of time they hadto wait for service, and this makes the perception of waiting

time to be much more than the actual wait.Perception of waiting time assumes more importance in the

case of online shoppers, profiled as convenience seekers who

wish to economize on time (Childers et al., 2001;Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001; Balabanis and Vassileiou,

1999). Thus, any delay and increase in actual waiting time, or

the perception of it, is likely to disconfirm the consumer’sexpectation of a quick shopping episode. This results in their

dissatisfaction leading to abandonment of the shopping cart.Some of the factors that contribute to the delay in

completing online transactions include slow page downloads

(waiting for pages to open up), uploads (waiting for page

submissions to be uploaded to the site), lengthy forms andunique formats of forms for clearances. Nielson (1996) found

that consumers are likely to lose interest in a website if theresponse time is greater than 10 seconds, a finding also

supported by Selvidge et al. (2002) and Kuhnmann (1989).

Further, Selvidge et al. (2002) noticed that a longer waitingtime (delay) leads to increased frustration, which eventually

results in the participant’s failing to complete tasks. A similar

conclusion was reached by Taylor (1994) in her research onfactors affecting service evaluations. Thus, we propose that a

longer perceived waiting time during the final stages of

transaction can lead to greater propensity to terminate thepurchase activity and thus abandonment of the shopping cart:

H1. Perceived waiting time to complete a transaction is

positively associated with the propensity to abandonthe shopping cart.

Perceived risk

Several researchers and practitioners have identified perceived

risk as a key factor deterring consumers from shopping online(Ranganathan and Ganapathy, 2002; Belanger et al., 2002;

Liao and Cheung, 2001; Landrock, 2002; Olivero and Lunt,

2003; Butler and Peppard, 1998; Wingfield, 2002; Odomet al., 2002; Harrison-Walker, 2002). To counter this

perceived risk associated with online shopping, e-commerce

firms are making use of web assurance seals (Odom et al.,2002; Belanger et al., 2002), privacy seals, privacy statements

(Belanger et al., 2002), consumer feedbacks and expert

reviews (Wingfield, 2002). However, the fact remains thateven after an online retailer succeeds in winning the trust of

its customers by employing all the trust evoking techniquesmentioned above, a large number of customers still leave

without completing their purchase. A possible explanation for

this anomaly could stem from the privacy and security risksthat consumers might perceive during the process of

checkout. Online shoppers often find that many websites

require them to reveal great deal of personal and financialinformation (like credit card number) before their orders are

accepted and the checkout process is completed. It is possible

that this might act as a red flag to shoppers in spite of theirinitial trust in the online retailer. Research has found that

“consumers are unwilling to reveal personal information over

the web, despite assurances given by the online retailer”

(Ranganathan and Ganapathy, 2002). A possible explanation

for this could come from the finding that there is a gap

between the assurances that consumers expect from the so

called trust enhancing tools (like web seals, privacy statements

etc.) used by e-tailers and their perception of what is currently

provided by these tools (Odom et al., 2002). Supporting this

argument is the finding by Pandya and Dholakia (2005) that

one of the reasons behind the dot.com bust was the mismatch

between consumer-seller perceptions and expectations.Based on the above, it is argued that when consumers’

expectations about the risk (e.g. security and privacy of the

information asked) during the checkout process are negatively

disconfirmed, they may get de-motivated from completing the

transaction, thus leading to shopping cart abandonment.Further, researchers have pointed out that contextual

factors affect an individual’s risk evaluation (see Dowling,

1986; Bromiley and Curley, 1992; Lopes, 1987; Conchar

et al., 2004). In the case of online shopping, this risk

evaluation can take place on all web pages that online

shoppers visit within a website, as each page presents them

with a different set of information and a different context. Of

particular importance is the entry page where consumers

decide whether to shop at that website, and the transaction

conclusion/checkout page where they input personal

information such as credit card information and address.

Since perception of loss (in terms of personal information,

credit card information, etc.) could be heightened at the

transaction conclusion/checkout stage, we argue that the

perception of risk is also at the highest level at this stage.

Based on the above arguments, it is hypothesized that:

H2. Perception of checkout process specific risk will be

positively associated with the propensity to abandon

the shopping cart.

Perceived transaction inconvenience

While convenience is a critical factor determining consumer

behavior in general, it is considered as one of the most

important predictors for the choice of online shopping

(Childers et al., 2001; Donthu and Garcia, 1999). Online

shoppers have been found to expect fast and efficient

processing of their transactions online (Srinivasan et al.,

2002). However, complex shopping procedures, long

registration forms to be filled up, shipping and handling

charges that are not revealed until late in the purchase

process, out of stock product information revealed at the

checkout, technical glitches that bounce back orders and non-

availability of alternative methods of payment (other than

credit cards) are all considered to be major transaction

inconveniences that make transactions complex and cause

disconfirmation of consumers’ expectations leading to

dissatisfaction (Seiders et al., 2000; Harrison-Walker, 2002;

Anon., 2002). This leads to the hypothesis that perceived

transaction inconvenience associated with the transaction

completion process would result in a higher propensity to

abandon the shopping cart:

H3. Perceived inconvenience associated with transaction

completion process will be positively associated with

the propensity to abandon the shopping cart.




Volume 18 · Number 3 · 2009 · 188–197

190

Method

The initial sample for the study was selected from among the

business undergraduate students at two universities; one in

the northeast and the other a major university in the

southwest. Convenient sampling techniques were used to

select the initial sampling units. Students who volunteered to

complete the survey were then requested to recruit at least

two other individuals who shop online. Through this snowball

sampling technique, we obtained a final sample of 720

respondents. After initial scrutiny of the data, 13 respondents

were eliminated as they were not online shoppers. Self-

administered electronic questionnaires were used to collect

the data for the study. The online methodology is appropriate

for this research as online customers provide the sampling

frame for this study.Owing to the non-availability of existing scales in the

context of shopping cart abandonment, scale items had to be

developed to measure all constructs. The scales were

developed using information collected from trade journals

and discussions with several online shoppers during the

exploratory stage. Perceived risk scale items were derived

from the interview summaries given by Szymanski and Hise

(2000). Responses to the scale items were measured on a five

point Likert scale anchored between “strongly disagree” (1)

and “strongly agree’ (5). The dependent variable, “shopping

cart abandonment”, was measured as a continuous variable

which asked the respondents how many times they had

abandoned the shopping cart in the last year. The responses

were then grouped (using cluster analysis) into two clusters of

respondents: those with a high incidence of shopping cart

abandonment, and those with low incidence of shopping cart

abandonment. To respond to the scale items measuring the

rest of the constructs in the questionnaire, the subjects were

asked to think of a particular episode when they abandoned

the shopping cart. In addition to the main constructs, several

demographic variables were also collected from the

respondents.

Analyses and results

The sample consisted of 42 percent male and 58 percent

female. A total of 64 percent of the respondents were between

the ages of 18 and 25. On an average the respondents had

abandoned the shopping cart 4.58 times in the past year. The

respondent groups from both the regions (northeast and

southwest) were comparable on their age distribution, gender

distribution as well as the number of times they had

abandoned the shopping cart.The data were first factor analyzed to identify the factors

influencing shopping cart abandonment. Three factors

pertaining to constructs such as perceived risk involved in

online shopping, transaction inconvenience and perceived

waiting time were extracted (Table I). After factor

purification, the scale for measuring perceived risk,

perceived transaction inconvenience and perceived waiting

time consisted of six, five and five items, respectively. The

factors were tested for internal consistency (Cronbach’s

alpha) revealing that all the constructs possess acceptable

levels of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha . 0.69)

(Table I; Nunnally, 1978; Robinson et al., 1991). Inter-itemcorrelations (within factor correlations were greater than

across factor correlations) indicate that the scales have

adequate levels of convergent as well as discriminant validity

(Table II). We also relied on Gaski and Nevin (1985) to check

the discriminant validity of the factors. As the inter-factorcorrelations (using composite factor scores) were less than the

reliability of each scale, the factors can be considered to have

acceptable levels of discriminant validity (Table III).Using split samples, the data was tested to ensure that the

results are not affected by non-response error. Analysis of thedemographic variables showed that there are no significant

differences between genders, income categories or age

categories with respect to their propensity to abandonshopping cart. For further analyses, composite score for

each factor was computed. Logistic regression was carried outwith the composite scores of factors as independent variables

and the two clusters (high vs low) based on shopping cart

abandonment score as the dependent variable. The results ofthis analysis are presented in Table IV. The regression output

showed that the model under consideration has a good fit(Hosmer and Lemeshow test: p-value ¼ 0.650). As can be

seen from Table IV, all three factors: perceived waiting time

(p-value ¼ 0.044), perceived risk (p-value ¼ 0.010), andperceived transaction inconvenience (p-value ¼ 0.010) were

found to significantly influence the shopping cart

abandonment. As hypothesized, perceived risk andperceived transaction inconvenience were positively related

to the dependent variable (shopping cart abandonment), thusoffering support for H2 and H3. In comparison, the

relationship between perceived waiting time and the

propensity to abandon shopping cart was significant, butinverse (H1 was not supported). The results were found to

have reasonable predictive validity as indicated by a hit ratio

of 58.6 percent.

Discussion and implications

The results of this study provide interesting insights into the

factors influencing shopping cart abandonment in an online

environment. Some of the findings challenge the commonlyheld perceptions about the reasons for shopping cart

abandonment. However, we urge the readers to keep inmind that this study is focusing on just one stage of online

shopping namely, the transaction completion stage, and not

the entire shopping process. The premise of this study is thateven after being very satisfied with their experience leading up

to the transaction completion stage, there may be somefactors that are specific to the transaction completion stage

that could make a consumer abandon his/her shopping cart.In our study, perceived transaction inconvenience was seen

to have the greatest influence on shopping cart abandonment

by consumers. During online shopping, perception oftransaction inconveniences are created mainly by lengthy

order forms to be filled up, lack of flexibility of the website in

accepting commonly required information, and the technicalglitches which delay transaction at the time of checkout.

Online retailers should be more empathetic to the consumers’

needs by requiring them to fill only the bare minimuminformation needed for fulfilling the order; offering ability to

store commonly requested information in secure servers andoffering real-time storage of information. The real-time

storage of information will enable consumers (especially the

ones with dial-up connection which get disconnectedfrequently) to continue from where they left off even in the

event of technical glitches kicking them off the website.




Volume 18 · Number 3 · 2009 · 188–197

191

Another potential area for improvement is with respect to the

format in which information is accepted. E-tailers should offer

consumers the flexibility of entering information in commonly

used formats (for example mm-dd-yy instead of mm-dd-

yyyy). Simple, modifications to the website will go a long way

in enhancing consumer’s satisfaction with the shopping

process. In a brick and mortar context, transaction

inconvenience could translate into making the checkout

Table I Scale items: perceived risk, waiting time and transaction inconvenience

PR PWT PTINC

Perceived risk (PR)PR3: I was afraid that someone might steal my personal information 0.873

PR1: I was worried that someone might steal my credit card number 0.809

PR6: I was worried that the company might misuse my information 0.799

PR2: I was worried about dealing with a company unknown to me 0.798

PR4: I suddenly got suspicious of the site 0.752

PR5: The online shop did not promise secure transaction 0.732

Perceived waiting time (PWT)PWT3: The graphics on the web site delayed my order processing 0.780

PWT1: I had to wait for some time (e.g. for more than 10 sec) for a page to upload 0.779

PWT4: It took a while to get online confirmation for my purchases 0.749

PWT2: It took more than ten seconds for the site to process my order 0.725

Perceived transaction inconvenience (PTINC)TINC4: The online shop required me to register before making a purchase 0.793

TINC3: The order forms were very lengthy 0.401 0.679

TINC6: I got logged off in the middle (for some reason) and had to go through the entire process of

completing information again 0.616

TINC1: Technical glitches in the site made the transaction difficult 0.529

Percentage of variance (total 5 63.34%) 28.780 19.890 14.669

Mean 3.035 2.615 3.285

Std deviation 1.006 0.874 0.822

Skewness 20.164 0.091 20.582

Kurtosis 20.655 20.414 0.206

Cronbach’s alpha 0.905 0.813 0.692

Note: Scale anchor: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 2 strongly agree

Table II Inter-item correlations

PR3 PR1 PR6 PR2 PR4 PR5 PWT3 PWT1 PWT4 PWT2 TINC4 TINC3 TINC6 TINC1 Mean SD

PR3 1.00 1.34 0.93 1.16 0.87 0.81 0.38 0.36 0.41 0.34 0.27 0.28 0.31 0.44 3.06 1.27

PR1 0.82 1.00 0.84 0.99 0.79 0.75 0.41 0.39 0.46 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.44 2.94 1.29

PR6 0.64 0.57 1.00 0.85 0.89 0.96 0.36 0.42 0.35 0.38 0.32 0.35 0.30 0.48 3.05 1.14

PR2 0.73 0.62 0.60 1.00 0.84 0.80 0.35 0.38 0.34 0.36 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.42 3.12 1.25

PR4 0.58 0.52 0.67 0.58 1.00 0.88 0.38 0.36 0.39 0.32 0.36 0.37 0.30 0.47 2.92 1.17

PR5 0.53 0.48 0.69 0.53 0.62 1.00 0.32 0.30 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.33 0.31 0.50 3.11 1.21

PWT3 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.27 0.32 0.26 1.00 0.64 0.67 0.51 0.19 0.41 0.30 0.42 2.50 1.02

PWT1 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.52 1.00 0.62 0.73 0.22 0.50 0.32 0.46 2.78 1.22

PWT4 0.30 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.30 0.28 0.61 0.47 1.00 0.54 0.22 0.48 0.33 0.42 2.53 1.08

PWT2 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.48 0.58 0.48 1.00 0.28 0.56 0.28 0.53 2.65 1.04

TINC4 0.19 0.17 0.25 0.23 0.27 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.24 1.00 0.58 0.39 0.42 3.60 1.14TINC3 0.19 0.17 0.27 0.24 0.28 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.48 0.44 1.00 0.46 0.53 3.02 1.14TINC6 0.21 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.27 0.23 0.30 0.35 1.00 0.44 3.38 1.15TINC1 0.31 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.34 0.46 0.33 0.41 0.34 1.00 3.14 1.12

Note: Numbers below the italicized diagonal are correlations and those above the diagonal are covariance estimates




Volume 18 · Number 3 · 2009 · 188–197

192

process more complex, especially the self-checkout process.

The results of this study clearly indicate that marketers should

try to make the checkout process as convenient as possible in

order to reduce shopping cart abandonment incidents.Perceived risk was another important factor that was seen

to influence shopping cart abandonment. Thus, although it is

most important to create positive perceptions about a website

at the stage when a consumer starts information search about

the safety of the site, detailed unambiguous information

regarding the security and privacy offered by the site should

be displayed in the page where the customer starts his/her

shopping conclusion activities. It would be advantageous to

the retailers if they can provide consumer education (vignettes

such as “look for an s after http” or providing links to trusted

third party sites such as BBB online which authenticates

claims of security of the site). It might also be worthwhile for

the e-tailers to reassure their consumers about the key aspects

of risk captured in our study (e.g. security of the credit card

information, personal information and the company misusing

the information provided on the checkout pages) to alley their

concerns about risk, especially during the transaction

completion stage of shopping.Finally, we hypothesized that if consumers are made to wait

for the completion of the transaction process they may

abandon the shopping cart. However, the result does not

provide support for this line of thinking. In fact, the finding

suggests that as perceived waiting time increases, incidence of

shopping cart abandonment reduces (a negative relationship).

We believe that this negative relationship could probably be

due to the retrospective evaluation of the time and effort that

has already gone into the shopping episode similar to thepsychology of refusal to renege from a queue proposed byZhou and Soman (2003). So, if the website can hold on to theconsumer till the last stages of shopping, minor delays maynot influence the completion of transactions. However,merely holding on the consumers and hoping for the bestmay not be good enough. Marketers in an online environmentshould actively try to reduce the perceived waiting timebecause it may increase the perception of inconvenience andthus affect shopping cart abandonment indirectly. Onlineshoppers are found to be time conscious consumers. Duringonline shopping, perception of long waiting times are createdmainly by delays in page uploading due to graphics,inordinate amount of text or by the amount of informationasked for at the time of checkout. These delays not onlynegatively disconfirm the consumer’s expectation of quickshopping, but also increase their frustration with the processand leads to subsequent abandonment of shopping cart(Selvidge et al., 2002). Online retailers can manage thesedelays by designing their web pages (especially the checkoutpages) with the least amount of graphics and limited amountof text. Since, consumers from all over the world access onlineshops, web designers should keep in mind the vastly varyingdata transfer speeds available in different parts of the world.Thus, what is ideal for consumers in the US may be far fromoptimal for consumer in another part of the world. Hence,online retailers should strive to make transactions as quick aspossible to prevent customer erosion.

Managerial implications

Further to the contributions made to the hitherto unexploredarea of shopping cart abandonment by consumers in anonline shopping context, the results hold several implicationsfor managers operating in online environment as well as brickand mortar environment. The findings suggest that not payingattention to consumers’ expectations during the checkoutphase might be as detrimental as ignoring consumer needs inthe earlier stages of consumer purchasing process. Thecharacteristics of the checkout process must match theexperiences delivered during the pre-checkout stage.Convenience, time savings, and risks are some of the crucialcharacteristics of an online shopping environment, and these

Table IV Logistic regression: determinants of shopping cart abandonment

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Perceived risk (PR) 0.225 0.088 6.582 1 0.010 1.252

Perceived waiting time (PWT) 20.215 0.107 4.059 1 0.044 0.807

Perceived transaction inconvenience (PTINC) 0.296 0.115 6.648 1 0.010 1.344

Constant 21.363 0.354 14.836 1 0.000 0.256

22 Log likelihood 949.791

Cox and Snell R square 0.025

Nagelkerke R square 0.034

Hit ratio (%) 58.56

Hosmer and Lemeshow test:

Chi-square 5.977

df 8

Sig. 0.650

Note: Shopping cart abandonment: low abandonment ¼ 1 and high abandonment ¼ 2

Table III Discriminant validity: inter-factor correlations usingcomposite scores

PR PWT PTINC Mean SD

PR 0.905 0.37 0.35 3.03 1.01

PWT 0.42 0.813 0.37 2.62 0.87

PTINC 0.42 0.52 0.692 3.28 0.82

Note: Diagonal elements are alpha scores; lower diagonal elements arecorrelations; and upper diagonal elements are covariance estimates




Volume 18 · Number 3 · 2009 · 188–197

193

become part of a consumer’s expectation from an online retail

store, including the checkout stage. If the checkout stage does

not fulfill these expectations, marketers risk shopping cartabandonment and the loss of a customer. Managers of online

stores must ensure that these characteristics are embedded

into the checkout process as well.While the research context for this study is online shopping

environment, and hence the findings have direct implicationsfor the managers of online retail shops, the findings could also

be relevant to brick and mortar stores. The topics of

convenience and waiting time may be equally critical to theshoppers at brick and mortar stores and online stores. The

notion of risk may remain same in the two shopping contexts,but the manifestation may be different and managers must

understand the contextual nature of risk to reduce the

negative perceptions. The findings could also be useful for themanagers of non-retailing firms. Most firms, whether retailing

or manufacturing, in today’s day and age have an onlinepresence and allow their consumers to access their goods and

services either through online medium or through traditional

off-line medium. In order to provide a consistent message andmaintain a uniform image, marketing managers of these firms

must be cognizant of the phenomenon invested in this study.

Marketing and brand managers cannot focus exclusively onbrand building and leave the transaction completion to the

retailers. Incorporating the transaction completion stage andthe factors relevant to this stage (e.g. transaction stage specific

convenience, risk, and the process) into the marketing plan

will not only ensure reduced shopping cart abandonment, butalso enhance the effectiveness of the resources spent in getting

consumers to the transaction point.

Limitations and future directions

Since our goal was to investigate the effect of keydeterminants of success during the checkout process, we did

not include constructs that may have had an influence on

consumer’s shopping behavior prior to reaching the checkoutpoint. Although this narrow focus, i.e. including only three

constructs in this study, was based on an exploratory researchof the extant trade and academic publications as well as

qualitative research of online shoppers, we acknowledge that

online shopping is a complex process (probably not unlikeshopping process at a brick and mortar store) and future

studies should look at more related constructs to form a morecomprehensive picture of shopping cart abandonment

behavior. Another limitation of this paper could be related

to the sampling procedure and sampling frame used.However, given the fact that the abandonment behavior

does not differ across gender, age and income indicates that it

probably has no influence on the generalizability of thefindings.This paper opens up several avenues for future researchers.

Future research should investigate the shopping cart

abandonment phenomenon by incorporating more

determining factors. Another possible avenue for futureresearch could be to investigate some of the mediating factors

such as consumer anxiety associated with the perception ofrisk involved in the checkout process. Further, researchers

could use an experimental design to compare websites with

different levels of checkout specific convenience; risk and,waiting time, and examine their effect on shopping cart

abandonment. Finally, since, online shops open themselves to

consumers from all over the world with vastly varying data

transfer speeds, and very different notions about time, future

research should try to investigate the notion of perceived

waiting time and its effect on shopping cart abandonment

from a cross cultural perspective. We hope that the present

research provides an impetus for further investigation in this

area.

References

Anon. (2002), “Reasons for abandonment”, available at:

www.globalmilleniamarketing.com (accessed 23 August

2007).Balabanis, G. and Vassileiou, S. (1999), “Some attitudinal

predictors of home shopping through the internet”, Journalof Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 361-85.

Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1983), “Selected determinants

of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 20, February, pp. 21-8.

Belanger, F., Hiller, J.S. and Smith, W.J. (2002),“Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of

privacy, security and site attributes”, Journal of StrategicInformation Systems, Vol. 11, pp. 245-70.

Bromiley, P. and Curley, S.P. (1992), “Individual differences

in risk taking”, in Yates, J.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking Behavior,Wiley, Chichester, pp. 87-132.

Butler, P. and Peppard, J. (1998), “Consumer purchasing on

the internet: processes and prospects”, EuropeanManagement journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 600-10.

Chen, Q. and Wells, W.D. (2001), “Com satisfaction and.com

dissatisfaction: one or two constructs?”, Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 28, pp. 34-9.

Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001),

“Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online shopping

behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 511-35.Conchar, M.P., Zinkhan, G.M., Peters, C. and Olavarrieta, S.(2004), “An integrated framework for the conceptualization

of consumers’ perceived-risk processing”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 418-36.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service

quality: a reexamination and extension”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.

Davis, M.M. and Heineke, J. (1998), “How disconfirmation,

perception and actual waiting times impact customer

satisfaction”, International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-73.

Davis, M.M. and Vollmann, T.E. (1990), “A framework for

relating waiting time and customer satisfaction in a service

operation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1,

pp. 61-9.Donthu, N. and Garcia, A. (1999), “The internet shopper”,

Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 52-8.Dowling, G.R. (1986), “Perceived risk: the concept and its

measurement”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3,

pp. 193-210.Eisenberg, B. (2003), “20 tips to minimize shopping cartabandonment, Part 1”, available at: www.clickz.com/sales/

traffic/article.php/2245891I (accessed 8 August 2008).Gaski, J.F. and Nevin, J.R. (1985), “The differential effects of

exercised and unexercised power sources in a marketing

channel”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, pp. 130-42.Girard, T., Korgaonkar, P. and Silverblatt, R. (2003),

“Relationship of type of product, shopping orientations,




Volume 18 · Number 3 · 2009 · 188–197

194

and demographics with preference for shopping on the

internet”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1,

pp. 101-20.Gold, K. (2007), “Tackling the shopping cart abandonment

rate”, available at: www.searchmarketingstandards.com

(accessed 7 October 2008).Goldsmith, R.E. (2002), “Explaining and predicting

consumer intention to purchase over the internet:

an exploratory study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2,

pp. 22-8.Goldwyn, C. (2002), “The art of the cart; survey results from

a study by Vividence Corporation”, available at: http://

visibility.tv/tips/shopping_cart_abandonment (accessed

27 September 2008).Harrison-Walker, J.L. (2002), “If you build it, will they come?

Barriers to international e-marketing”, Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 12-21.Katz, K., Larson, B. and Larson, R. (1991), “Prescription for

the waiting in line blues: entertain, enlighten and engage”,

Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, pp. 44-53.Kotler, P. (1999), Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall of

India Private Limited, New Delhi.Koufaris, M., Kambil, A. and LaBarbera, P.A. (2001),

“Consumer behavior in web-based commerce: an empirical

study”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6

No. 2, pp. 115-38.Kuhnmann, W. (1989), “Experimental investigation of stress-

inducing properties of system response times”, Ergonomics,

Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 271-80.LaBarbera, P.A. and Mazursky, D. (1983), “A longitudinal

assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction:

the dynamic aspect of the cognitive process”, Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 20, pp. 393-404.Landrock, P. (2002), “Security: the building block for

e-commerce growth”, Computer Fraud and Security, Vol. 9,

pp. 7-8.Liao, Z. and Cheung, M.T. (2001), “Internet-based

e-shopping and consumer attitudes: an empirical study”,

Information and Management, Vol. 38, pp. 299-306.Lopes, L.L. (1987), “Between hopes and fear: the psychology

of risk”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20,

pp. 255-95.McGlaughlin, F. (2001), “The order process: how you can

increase your sales by improving your completed sales

ration”, The Marketing Experiments Journal, available at:

http://retailindustry.about.com (accessed 27 September,

2007).Maister, D. (1985), “The psychology of waiting lines”,

in Czepiel, J., Solomon, M. and Surprenant, C. (Eds),

The Service Encounter, Lexington Books, DC Heath and

Co., Lexington, MA.Mullins, R. (2000), “Do or die for e-tail”, Silicon Valley/San

Jose Business Journal, 24 November.Nielson, J. (1996), “Response times: the three important

limits”, available at: www.useit.com (accessed 29 September

2007).Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.Odom, M.D., Kumar, A. and Saunders, L. (2002), “Web

assurance seals: how and why they influence consumers’

decisions”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 2,

pp. 231-50.

Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents

and consequences of satisfaction decisions”, Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-9.Oliver, R.L. and DeSabro, W. (1988), “Response

determinants in satisfaction judgments”, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 495-507.Oliver, R.L. and Shor, M. (2003), “Digital redemption of

coupons: satisfying and dissatisfying effects of promotion

codes”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12

Nos 2/3, pp. 121-34.Olivero, N. and Lunt, P. (2003), “Privacy versus willingness

to disclose in e-commerce exchanges: the effect of risk

awareness on the relative role of trust and control”, Journal

of Economic Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 1-20.Pandya, A.M. and Dholakia, N. (2005), “B2C failures:

toward an innovation theory framework”, Journal of

Electronic Commerce in Organizations, Vol. 3 No. 2,

pp. 68-82.Photo Trade News (2006), “Google checkout opens”, Photo

Trade News, Vol. 70 No. 7, p. 19.Prince, M. (2004), “Online retailers try to streamline

checkout process”, The Wall Street Journal, p. D2,

November 11.Pruyn, A. and Smidts, A. (1998), “Effects of waiting on the

satisfaction with the service: beyond objective time

measures”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,

Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 321-34.Ranganathan, C. and Ganapathy, S. (2002), “Key dimensions

of business-to-business web sites”, Information and

Management, Vol. 39, pp. 457-65.Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (1991),

“Criteria for scale selection and evaluation”,

in Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S.

(Eds), Measure of Personality and Social Psychological

Attitudes, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Schelmetic, T.E. (2006), “Your mother was a hamster and

your father smelt of elderberries”, Customer Inter@ction

Solutions, Vol. 24 No. 8, p. 72.Seiders, K., Berry, L.L. and Gresham, L.G. (2000),

“Attention, retailers! How convenient is your convenience

strategy?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3,

pp. 79-89.Selvidge, P.R., Chaparro, B.S. and Bender, G.T. (2002),

“The world-wide wait: effects of delays on user

performance”, International Journal of Industrial

Ergonomics, Vol. 29, pp. 15-20.Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A. and Lotz, S. (2000), “Assessing the

impact of internet shopping among mall shoppers and

internet users”, Journal of Shopping Center Research, Vol. 7

No. 2, pp. 7-43.Simintiras, A., Diamantopoulos, A. and Ferriday, J. (1997),

“Pre-purchase satisfaction and first time buyer behavior:

some preliminary evidence”, European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 31 Nos 11/12, pp. 857-72.Simonson, I. (1992), “The influence of anticipating regret

and responsibility on purchase decisions”, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 19, pp. 105-18.Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R. and Ponnavolu, K. (2002),

“Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an exploration of its

antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Retailing,

Vol. 78, pp. 41-50.




Volume 18 · Number 3 · 2009 · 188–197

195

Swan, J.E. and Trawick, F.I. (1981), “Disconfirmation of

expectations and satisfaction with a retail service”, Journalof Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 49-67.

Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001), “Customer

satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1,

pp. 16-35.Szymanski, D.M. and Hise, R.T. (2000), “E-satisfaction:

an initial examination”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 3,pp. 309-22.

Taylor, S. (1994), “Waiting for service: the relationshipbetween delays and evaluations of service”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 58, pp. 56-69.

Wang, E.T.G., Yeh, H. and Jiang, J.J. (2006), “The relative

weights of internet shopping fundamental objectives”,Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 353-7.

Wingfield, N. (2002), “A question of trust”, The Wall StreetJournal, 16 September, p. R6.

Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M.C. (2001), “Shopping onlinefor freedom, control and fun”, California ManagementReview, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 34-55.

Woodruff, R.B., Cadotte, E.R. and Jenkins, R.L. (1983),

“Modeling consumer satisfaction processes usingexperience-based norms”, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 20, pp. 296-304.

Zhou, R. and Soman, D. (2003), “Looking back: exploring

the psychology of queuing and the effect of number ofpeople behind”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4,

pp. 517-30.

Corresponding author

Audhesh K. Paswan can be contacted at: [email protected]

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executivesa rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with aparticular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in

toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of theresearch undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of thematerial present.

Customers abandoning their shopping cart before purchase

completion are a huge source of frustration for retail outletsand marketers. Cumbersome checkout processes and lengthy

queues are assumed to be among the main reasons for thisbehavior.Online retailers in particular are affected by the problem. It

is estimated that up to 75 percent of shopping carts are

abandoned before the transaction is complete. This can costthe US online retail industry around $6.5 billion in lost sales

every year.

Factors that might lead to aborted transactions

Many previous studies into e-commerce have aimed to

identify the factors that persuade consumers to shop online.However, the majority of these investigations have

concentrated on the early stage of the buying process. Onthe contrary limited research exists into why customers take

the decision to abandon their shopping cart towards the end

of the activity after investing effort into selecting their

purchases.In the present study, Rajamma et al. aim to address this void

by identifying reasons why consumer abort their shopping

activities during the checkout phase after evidently being

satisfied with the process up to that point. Perceived waiting

time, perceived risk and transaction inconvenience are

investigated as possible determinants of this action.The authors use the expectancy-disconfirmation model to

frame the current research. A key premise of this model is that

consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction will be determined by

whether or not their prior expectations are confirmed. It is

suggested that consumers who make purchases online have

certain expectations based on their previous experience of

internet shopping. For instance, it is usual to anticipate that

making a process will involve a quick, simple and convenient

process in which the consumer has a significant amount of

control. Privacy is also commonly associated with online

shopping, although most consumers will acknowledge that

submitting payment details via the Internet involves a degree

of risk.Based on the model employed, the overall assumption is

that consumer purchase intention may be influenced by

whether these prior expectations are met. Academics have

previously pointed out that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are

not absolute to explain why consumers may be content with

some aspects of their shopping experience but not others. To

Rajamma et al. this might explain why shopping cart

abandonment takes place even when the experience has met

prior expectations earlier on. They also put forward the

notion that higher levels of satisfaction during the initial stages

of the shopping activity may even result in consumers raising

their expectations about what should happen at the checkout.Several studies have discovered that correlation exists

between perceived waiting time and satisfaction. This can be

of particular significance to shoppers with other demands on

their time. In view of the anticipation of convenience, many

researchers believe that perceived waiting time is also highly

relevant to those who buy online. Factors that may impact on

waiting time include sluggish uploading or downloading of

pages and lengthy or complex forms to complete.Perceived risk has also been widely identified as significant

in respect of online shopping. Organizations have attempted

to allay fears about security and confidentiality by including

the likes of web assurance seals, guarantees of privacy and

feedback and reviews from both other consumers and experts.

Despite such measures, many transactions are still curtailed

leading to the assumption that the risks associated with

handing over confidential information are considered too

great. According to some sources, consumers may feel that e-

commerce firms are not doing enough. They also note that

the risk level may be perceived as higher during certain stages

of the shopping process. The entry page to a website and

when the transaction is nearing completion are suggested as

stages where consumers will feel most anxious.For internet shoppers, convenience is regarded as one of the

most influential factors. They expect transactions to be speedy

and efficient but the experience is often made more complex

by technical problems, items being out of stock, hidden

charges, limited payment options and being forced to

complete detailed registration forms. The dissatisfaction that

can result from these inconveniences heightens the possibility




Volume 18 · Number 3 · 2009 · 188–197

196

of consumers abandoning their transaction before it iscompleted.

Study and implications

To explore the significance of the above factors, Rajamma et al.invited undergraduates at two universities from differentregions in the US to complete online questionnaires relatingto shopping cart abandonment. Of the 720 who participatedin the main study, 58 percent were female and 42 percentmales. The age and gender distribution and the number ofaborted online shopping transactions were similar in both

respondent groups.Results showed perceived transaction inconvenience to be

the most influential factor on aborted transactions. Theauthors suggest that online retailers could help by requestingonly essential information and providing the facility to storedetails in secure servers to save time during subsequent visits.Real-time storage is also recommended as this wouldminimize inconvenience to consumers who lose theirconnection due to website malfunctions. Simplifying whatformats shoppers can use to enter data may likewise improvesatisfaction.Perceived risk was identified as another significant factor.

To counter this, companies should display “detailedunambiguous information” relating to the site’s security andprivacy and this information should appear on the pagesignaling that the transaction is nearing conclusion. Retailersmight also consider better informing consumers about how tocheck for indicators that the site is secure and providereassurance about other key risk factors.

The relationship between perceived waiting time andaborting the transaction was opposite to that hypothesized.Findings revealed that consumers became less likely toabandon their shopping cart as waiting time increased. Thismight suggest that consumers may not be deterred by slightdelays towards the end of the online shopping process.However, Rajamma et al. warn against complacency herebecause longer waiting time may increase perceptions ofinconvenience and indirectly result in an aborted transaction.They urge web retailers to consider redesigning their webpages to utilize fewer graphics and lower amounts of text tohasten loading times.Managers need to appreciate the significance of context

with regard to risk in order to counter negative consumerperceptions. It is, however, maintained that the implicationsof these findings may be relevant to conventional retail outletsas well as online stores. The authors likewise put forward theidea that marketing and brand managers have a role to play inimproving the transaction completion process.Future investigations could consider other factors that

might result in shopping cart abandonment, such asconsumer anxiety. Researchers might also examine earlierstages of the online shopping process. Levels of perceivedconvenience, risk and waiting time may prove significant asmight cultural factors and the wide variety in data transferspeeds around the world.

(A precis of the article “Why do shoppers abandon shopping cart?Perceived waiting time, risk, and transaction inconvenience”.Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)




Volume 18 · Number 3 · 2009 · 188–197

197

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Ps34

Documents

Transcript of Ps34