International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Assessing the effects of consumers’ product evaluations and trust on T

repurchase intention in e-commerce environments
⁎
Yulia W. Sullivana, Dan J. Kimb,
a
School of Management, Binghamton University - The State University of New York, NY, USA
b
College of Business, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study enhances the existing literature on online trust by integrating the consumers’ product evaluations
Perceived quality model and technology adoption model in e-commerce environments. In this study, we investigate how perceived
Perceived value value influences the perceptions of online trust among online buyers and their willingness to repurchase from the
Online trust same website. This study proposes a research model that compares the relative importance of perceived value
E-commerce
and online trust to perceived usefulness in influencing consumers’ repurchase intention. The proposed model is
Repurchase intention
tested using data collected from online consumers of e-commerce. The findings show that although trust and e-
commerce adoption components are critical in influencing repurchase intention, product evaluation factors are
also important in determining repurchase intention. Perceived quality is influenced by the perceptions of
competitive price and website reputation, which in turn influences perceived value; and perceived value, website
reputation, and perceived risk influence online trust, which in turn influence repurchase intention. The findings
also indicate that the effect of perceived usefulness on repurchase intention is not significant whereas perceived
value and online trust are the major determinants of repurchase intention. Major theoretical contributions and
practical implications are discussed.

1. Introduction taking behavior in the case of uncertainty (Fang, Qureshi, Sun, &
McCole, 2014; McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). Lack of trust
E-commerce websites are not only tools to support a business tends to prevent consumers from purchasing online and causes them to
transaction, but also companies’ channels to interact and communicate abandon their shopping cart during an online transaction (e.g., Awad
with their consumers (Al-Natour, Benbasat, & Cenfetelli, 2011). Ac- and Ragowsky, 2008). Trust in an e-commerce environment is im-
cording to Gartner (2015), online consumers’ expectations are con- perative because online consumers generally are more vulnerable to
tinuing to increase in the last past years. These heightened consumer transaction risks, especially when uncertainty regarding product or
expectations have increased the complexity of online systems that service quality offered by the online sellers is present (Ba and Pavlou,
businesses need to operate. In order to retain their consumers, online 2002). One of the most frequent ways to reduce these risks is by
businesses need to redefine strategies to meet consumers’ expectations creating value to increase trust between online sellers and buyers
and win their trust. Considering that it costs more time and effort to (Zeithaml, 1988). Thus, as consumer’s demands from business change
acquire new consumers than to retain existing one, it is crucial for simultaneously, trust can be a tool to create long-term revenue and
online businesses to gain and sustain consumer loyalty in e-commerce growth.
markets (Harris and Goode, 2004; Hung, Cheng, & Chen, 2012; Zhang To date, the study of online trust along with technology adoption
et al., 2011). factors, such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and will-
Research indicates that generating loyal consumer in electronic ingness to transact with online firms have dominated the information
markets is challenging and considered more important than in offline systems (IS) literature. A particular attention has been given to iden-
markets (Harris and Goode, 2004). Establishing online loyalty is de- tifying the relationships among these constructs (e.g., Al-Natour et al.,
pendent on generating consumers’ trust in online vendors (Harris and 2011; Awad and Ragowsky, 2008; Benlian, Titah, & Hess, 2012; Gefen,
Goode, 2004). As in traditional markets, trust has been considered Karahanna, & Straub, 2003). This effort has advanced our under-
crucial in an e-commerce environment due to its ability to promote risk- standing on the e-commerce adoption and has resulted in an emerging

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y.W. Sullivan), [email protected] (D.J. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.008
Received 3 July 2017; Received in revised form 6 December 2017; Accepted 7 December 2017
0268-4012/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

consensus as to its implications in business. The results of prior em- understanding on trust in e-commerce by integrating perceived value of
pirical studies have contributed to the development of e-commerce a product and/or a service in the research model. Second, by estab-
since online business owners or managers have tied various adoption lishing the importance of not only e-commerce adoption factors but also
variables and trust to their business success factors. This is no doubt due product evaluation factors, our study advances the existing e-commerce
to the assumption that improvement in perceptions of technology research on the effect of perceived value on repurchase intention
adoption and trust in online shopping markets should lead to con- through trust. Third, by focusing on different aspects of perceived value
sumers’ willingness to purchase or repurchase products from online (i.e., monetary aspect as in perceived competitive price and non-
firms. However, it is here the confusion remains. monetary aspect as in perceived quality), our study demonstrates that
Online sellers who refer to the e-commerce literature will poten- perceived value strengthens the trust formation in repurchase situation,
tially find incomplete information. Although this literature suggests even when risk or uncertainty is taken into account.
that the elements of e-commerce websites, such as website character- This paper is structured as follows: the next section reviews the
istics and perceived usefulness are associated with online trust, it is current literature on trust and buyers’ product evaluations model. Next,
unclear how product or service value is created and to what extent it we present the research model that examines the effect of trust and e-
affects trust in an online environment. With this regard, the elements of commerce components and products’ evaluation components on re-
product or service quality should be taken into account if online sellers purchase intention. The methodology, results, and hypotheses testing
aim to understand consumers’ perceived value (Dodds, Monroe, & are then presented. The paper concludes by discussing the limitation,
Grewal, 1991). Although a few studies (e.g., Lowry, Vance, Moody, theoretical and managerial implications of the study and offering sug-
Beckman, & Read, 2008) have measured the effects of quality-related gestions for future research.
attributes, such as reputation on online trust, no research has dis-
tinctively measure how quality attributes contribute to the formation of 2. Theoretical background
perceived value and trust in an online setting. This gap in the literature
leads us to assess the importance of perceived value and trust, relative 2.1. Trust in e-commerce
to perceived usefulness—a construct proven to be a major determinant
of e-commerce adoption (Gefen et al., 2003). Trust has been studied in many disciplines, including psychology,
Further, a large number of studies have been conducted to under- economics, marketing, and IS (Kim and Benbasat, 2009). In the trust
stand what makes online consumers repurchase from the same online literature, trust in e-commerce can be understood in two different
sellers (e.g., Fang et al., 2014; Gefen, 2002; Kim, Ferrin, & Rao, 2009; stages: pre-purchase and post-purchase (Kim et al., 2009; Zhang et al.,
Srinivasan, Anderson, & Ponnavolu, 2002) and these studies have de- 2011). Given we focus on investigating the impact of trust on re-
monstrated that first-hand experience with the seller in a repurchase purchase intention, we measure trust at the post-purchase stage. Post-
situation is important and can serve as a dominating source for evalu- purchase trust differs from initial trust in that at the post-purchase
ating trust (Fang et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2009). However, despite the phase, consumers have substantial and direct prior experience they
importance of first-hand experience, we argue that obtaining values is needed to make a decision whether they will conduct a future trans-
one’s major motivation to engage in repeat purchasing (Chiu, Hsu, Lai, action with the same sellers (Kim et al., 2009). In this repurchase si-
& Chang, 2012; Kim and Gupta 2009). This is because direct experience tuation, consumers tend to evaluate a product or service based on the
with the online seller lowers uncertainty and risk associated with online actual performance of the product or service as perceived after its
transactions by increasing consumers’ familiarity and knowledge about consumption. Using this first- hand experience, they are likely to re-
transactions with the vendor (Kim and Gupta 2009). As repeat con- evaluate their trust perception (Hsu, Chang, Chu, & Lee, 2014). In this
sumers have a better understanding of the attributes of the shopping case, familiarity or repeated interaction, which can lead to trust or
object, we argue that they rely more on perceived value to establish mistrust, is only present in repurchase situation and considered a major
their trust on online sellers and make a purchase decision. However, source of trust (Ba and Pavlou, 2002).
existing research on consumer trust and repurchase intention in e- Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) argued that risk-taking be-
commerce transactions has not adequately examine how value is per- havior, such as repurchase decision is a function of trust and perceived
ceived after an initial purchase experience and how it shapes trust contextual risk of the behavior. If the level of trust exceeds the
perceptions and repurchase intention. threshold of perceived risk, then consumers are likely to engage in re-
To address this gap in the literature, we draw on the theories in the purchase behavior (Fang et al., 2014). To promote trust, credible sig-
IS and marketing disciplines to explain how consumers’ perceptions of nals should be provided to differentiate trustworthy sellers from un-
product value are generated as they interact with shopping websites. trustworthy ones (Ba and Pavlou 2002). Based on the above arguments
Specifically, we investigate the influence of perceived value on con- and consistent with the existing literature (e.g., Ba and Pavlou 2002;
sumers’ trust beliefs and their willingness to repurchase from the same McKnight and Chervany, 2001), we define trust as the subjective as-
website. We also compare the relative importance of perceived value sessment of a website’s performance (including its brand and the firm or
and trust to perceived usefulness in influencing consumers’ willingness seller associated with the website as a whole) based on buyers’ con-
to repurchase. We predict that individuals’ perceived value will influ- fident expectations in a particular transaction that takes place in an
ence their trust on online shopping websites and both trust and per- environment characterized by uncertainty (Ba and Pavlou, 2002; Kim
ceived value will attenuate the effect of perceived usefulness on con- et al., 2009). This definition captures the notion of trust as a belief or an
sumers’ willingness to repurchase. Using data collected from actual e- expectation about an exchange partner that results from the partner’s
commerce users, we attempt to answer the following questions: expertise and reliability (Ganesan, 1994). Given an e-commerce website
replaces a salesperson’s functionalities on the internet, an exchange
RQ1: How does perceived quality of products influence perceived value in
partner represents the website as well as the online seller or firm as a
an online environment?
whole (e.g., www.amazon.com) (Kim et al., 2009). Trust as a belief also
RQ2: Does perceived value of products influence online trust in an e- means that one believes that the other party is willing and able to “act
commerce environment? in the consumer’s interest, honest in transactions, and both capable of,
and predictable at, delivering as promised” (McKnight and Chervany,
RQ3: Do online trust, perceived usefulness, and perceived value equally
2001, p. 46). From this definition, both parties expect a possibility or
influence repurchase intention? If not, how do these variables interplay to
mutually beneficial outcome from an online transaction (Ba and Pavlou,
influence repurchase intention?
2002).
This study makes several contributions. First, it extends our Trust belief is also conceptualized as a multidimensional construct.

200
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Two primary dimensions of trust that have been discussed and tested in and e-commerce adoption factors to include product evaluation com-
the previous studies are benevolence and credibility (Ba and Pavlou, ponents (i.e., perceived quality, perceived competitive price, and per-
2002; Ganesan, 1994). Benevolence is the belief that one partner has ceived value), which are discussed in the next section. We also report an
genuine intentions or motives beneficial to the other party even under empirical test of the effects of these components on perceptions of trust
unexpected conditions for which a commitment was not made and and repurchase intention.
credibility refers to the belief that one party is honest and reliable (Ba
and Pavlou, 2002). Whereas benevolence focuses on the motives and 2.2. Conceptual model for product evaluations
intentions of the exchange partners, credibility focuses on “an ex-
pectancy held by an individual that the partner’s word or written The relationships between perceived quality, perceived value, and
statement can be relied on” (Ganesan, 1994, p. 3). Given we are in- purchase decision (i.e., the quality-value-purchase chain) have been
terested in investigating the effect of trust in a repeated purchase si- widely conceptualized and tested in the marketing literature, especially
tuation, we specifically measure the credibility aspect of trust since this in traditional business situations (e.g., Dodds and Monroe, 1985; Dodds
aspect of trust has a stronger effect on long-term relationships between et al., 1991; Monroe and Krishnan, 1985; Parasuraman and Grewel,
sellers and buyers than the benevolence aspect of trust (Ganesan, 2000; Zeithaml, 1988). Dodds and Monroe (1985) proposed that price
1994). is a major determinant of product evaluations. Zeithaml (1988) adapted
In order to understand the current status of trust research in the the model proposed by Dodds and Monroe to explain the relationships
context of e-commerce, we reviewed empirical papers published in the between the concepts of price, perceived quality, and perceived value.
leading IS journals (e.g., MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Zeithaml (1988) argued that Dodds and Monroe’s model was too sim-
Journal of Management of Information Systems, Journal of the plistic and research on how consumers evaluate product quality should
Association of Information Systems, International Journal on Electronic be expanded beyond the price-perceived quality relationship. Using this
Commerce, etc.). Appendix A summarizes numerous studies on trust in basic conceptualization, Dodds et al. (1991) suggested that in addition
e-commerce and shows specified relationships between trust and to price, extrinsic cues1 of brand name and store name should be added
adoption factors. Most factors empirically tested in the previous studies to the model and the direct relationships between the external cues and
were shown to be technology adoption-related (e.g., perceived useful- perceived value should also be tested (see Fig. 1).
ness, website characteristics), highlighting the key roles of technology According to the product evaluations model, objective price is dif-
in an e-commerce environment. Further, a close evaluation of the lit- ferent from perceived price. Whereas objective price is the actual price
erature review summarized in Appendix A reveals that trust in e-com- of a product, perceived price is “the perceived level of (monetary) price
merce research was dominated by technology adoption models (e.g., at a vendor (i.e., objective price) in comparison with the consumer’s
Technology Acceptance Model, Theory Reasoned Action, etc.), in which reference price” (Kim, Xu, & Gupta, 2012, p. 10). Because consumers do
trust was generally associated with perceived usefulness, perceived ease not always remember the actual prices of products, they tend to encode
of use (e.g., Al-Natour et al., 2011; Awad and Ragowsky, 2008; Benlian prices in ways that are meaningful to them (Dodds et al., 1991). The
et al., 2012), and website characteristics, such as quality of information model indicates that objective price is likely to influence the percep-
(e.g., Alam and Yasin, 2010; Chen and Dibb, 2010) and website designs tions of price. Thus, subjective perceptions of price (i.e., the difference
(e.g., Cyr, 2008; Hampton-Sosa and Koufaris, 2005). Some of the em- between objective price and reference price) (Kim et al., 2012) has a
pirical models used the theories from the economics discipline to more direct and stronger impact on perceived quality than objective
measure how economic factors, such as price (e.g., Ba and Pavlou, price.
2002; Grewal, Gotlieb, & Marmorstein, 1994) and perceived risk (e.g., In addition to the perceptions of price, higher perceptions of brand
Alam and Yasin, 2010; Dinev and Hart, 2006; Gefen and Pavlou, 2012; and store also lead to higher perceived quality and consequently to a
Nicolaou and McKnight, 2006) were associated with trust. The most greater willingness to buy. The model also predicts that perceived
common dependent variables were attitude, purchase intention or quality influences perceived value, and in turn, purchase decision.
willingness to purchase, and purchase behaviors (e.g., Aljukhadar, Perceived quality is “the consumer’s judgment about a product’s overall
Senecal, & Ouellette, 2010; Bhattacherjee, 2002). excellence or superiority” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 3). According to Zeithaml
Managers who look to the literature as a means of identifying cri- (1988), perceived quality has four characteristics: “(1) it is different
tical success factors of e-commerce would agree that perceived useful- from the actual quality; (2) a higher level abstraction rather than a
ness of the website and website usability, which can be increased by specific attribute of a product; (3) a global assessment that in some
improving website characteristics, perceptions of trust, and perceived cases resembles attitude; and (4) a judgment usually made within a
risk are the primary factors leading directly to favorable outcomes. consumer’s evoked set” (pp. 3–4). Whereas objective quality refers to a
However, this implication is somewhat incomplete. Several points are specified level of quality based on some predetermined ideal standard,
apparent based on our review of previous studies. First, there is no perceived quality is a subjective judgment constructed by an individual
evidence explaining a process of value creation—a trade-off between based on his or her personal evaluation. Perceived quality has also been
quality and price—in an online environment. Although a number of referred to as a higher level abstraction (e.g., convenience and emo-
studies (Chiu et al., 2012; Fang et al., 2014; Grewal et al., 1994; Kim, tional feelings) rather than an attribute. Consumers organize informa-
2014) measured repurchase intention as a dependent variable, none of tion at various levels of abstraction ranging from simple product at-
these studies (with an exception of Chiu et al., 2012) specified the tributes (e.g., physical characteristics) to complex personal values (e.g.,
importance of perceived value dimensions on trust among repeat con- emotional payoff). Perceived quality is associated with the latest cate-
sumers. Given the perceptions of perceived value is critical when gory—somewhat abstract but measurable (Zeithaml, 1988). Further,
transactions involve monetary exchange, managers and researchers perceived quality can be viewed as a form of overall evaluation of a
would benefit from identifying the link between trusting beliefs and product, similar to attitude to some degree. This quality can either
perceived value. Second, although technology adoption-related factors cognitively or affectively formed. Whereas cognitive quality is more
are indisputably important determinants of behavioral intentions, there
is no reported investigation of the significant importance of these
1
variables when perceived value is integrated into the model. We argue According to Cue Utilization Theory, product’s cues can be classified into two cate-
gories: extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic cues are defined as product-related attributes that
that an effort to examine the relative importance of perceived value
are not inherent to the product being evaluated and if altered, do not change the fun-
derived from the actual product quality is crucial in e-commerce en- damental nature of the product (Wells et al., 2011). Intrinsic cues, on the other hand,
vironments. represent product-related attributes that cannot be manipulated without also altering
In this current study, we extend the conceptualization of online trust physical properties of the product (Richardson, Dick, & Jain, 1994).

201
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Fig. 1. Conceptual Relationship of Perceived Quality and Perceived Value of Products (Adapted from Dodds et al., 1991).

likely for consumer durable goods, affective quality is more likely for convey intrinsic product attributes (Wells et al., 2011). Given the
services and consumer nondurable goods. Lastly, perceived quality nature of online stores, consumers are unable to physically observe and
usually takes place in a ‘comparison context.’ Zeithaml claimed that “a directly evaluate the products. Consequently, online consumers will
product’s quality is evaluated as high or low depending on its relative depend on the extrinsic attributes, such as price and store reputation to
excellence or superiority among products or services that are viewed as gauge the quality of a product or service.
substitutes by the consumer” (p. 5). Consistent with the model of product evaluation, we specifically
Perceived value is generally defined as “the ratio or trade-off be- focus on the effect of two most researched external cues2—website or
tween quality and price” (Sweeney, Soutar, & Johnson, 1999, p. 79). online store reputation and perceived competitive price—on perceived
According to Zeithaml (1988), perceived value differs from perceived quality and perceived value in online shopping websites. Perceived
quality in two ways. First, perceived value is more individualistic and competitive price is equivalent to perceived price. Whereas perceived
personal than quality and thus, is a higher level concept than quality. price refers to one’s subjective perception of price at a particular in-
Second, perceived value (unlike perceived quality) filters through a ternet vendor is higher than prices at other vendors (Kim et al., 2012),
higher level abstraction of appreciation and does not come directly perceived competitive price is the opposite of perceived price—it refers
through intrinsic cues or extrinsic cues. Perceived value can also be to one’s subjective perception of price at a particular internet vendor is
viewed as “a consumer’s perception of the net benefits gained in ex- lower than prices at other vendors. Furthermore, although Dodds et al.
change for the costs incurred in obtaining the desired benefits” (Chen (1991) conceptualized perception of store reputation as one of the
and Dubinsky, 2003, p. 326). Perceived value includes relational ben- product evaluation factors, the conceptualization of store reputation is
efits (e.g., quality, ease of use to shop) and sacrifice (e.g., money, time similar to website reputation in an e-commerce environment. Given
and effort consumption) as well as transaction costs (e.g., the evaluative prior studies (e.g., Casalo, Flavián, & Guinalíu, 2007; Casalo, Flavián, &
effort required to search information before purchase, the effort re- Guinalíu, 2008; Li, 2014; Zhang et al., 2011) have suggested that
quired to prevent from being deceived, etc.) to maintain the ongoing website reputation can be categorized as website characteristics, we
relationship with an online store (Wu, Chen, Chen, & Cheng, 2014). classify website reputation as an e-commerce adoption component that
Thus, perceived value can be viewed as the consumers’ assessment of influences not only perceived quality and perceived value (Dodds et al.,
the utility of a product based on perceptions of what they received and 1991), but also online trust (Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, & Vitale, 2000; Teo
what they gave up (Dodds et al., 1991). and Liu, 2007). From the e-commerce adoption perspective, our model
is also intended to empirically investigate the roles of trust, perceived
usefulness, and perceived risk in online shopping environments. This
3. Research model and hypotheses paper focuses specifically on the consumer’s perceptions of trust in
online stores, not trust in third parties that mediate the relationship
Fig. 2 presents a proposed research model that is constructed based between buyers and sellers. Given research has shown that perceived
on the two theoretical lenses of the study: (1) product evaluations and ease of use is less important than perceived usefulness at the post-
(2) trust and e-commerce adoption. One of the major differences that purchase stage (e.g., Szajna, 1996), only perceived usefulness from the
distinguishes our current research model from those in prior research is technology adoption model is tested in the model. Table 1 presents the
that our model proposes an integrated relationship between online definition of each factual construct tested in the research model.
product evaluation components and trust and e-commerce adoption
components. Based on the conceptual model of product evaluation
(Dodds et al., 1991), we use extrinsic cues (i.e., perceived competitive 3.1. Perceived risk and trust
price and perceived store reputation) as the indicators of quality under
the assumption that consumers do not have sufficient information on Perceived risk is regarded as one’s subjective belief that there is
intrinsic product attributes (e.g., taste, physical presence, etc.). Al- some “probability of suffering a loss in pursuit of a desired outcome”
though consumers use both intrinsic and extrinsic cues to assess product
quality, extrinsic cues may be more influential in certain contexts, such
2
Dodds et al. (1991) proposed three external cues (i.e., perception of price, perception
as when extrinsic cues are more readily available than intrinsic cues
of store, and perception of brand) as the main predictors of perceived quality and per-
(Wells, Valacich, & Hess, 2011). This situation represents an interaction ceived value. Given there are unlimited product options in online environments, we do
between sellers and buyers in an online environment since current not emphasize product brand in this current study. Thus, only two external cue-
technological capabilities of e-commerce limit seller’s abilities to s—perception of price and perception of online store—are included in this current study.

202
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Fig. 2. Proposed Research Model.

Table 1
Construct Definition.

Construct Definition

Perceived Risk “[A] consumer’s expectation that the actions entailed in purchasing a good or a service from a B2C [Business to Customer] e-commerce site could
have unwanted outcomes” (Glover and Benbasat, 2010, p. 48).
Perceived Usefulness The degree to which a person believes that using a particular e-commerce website would enhance his or her purchase performance (Davis et al.,
1989).
Online Trust The subjective assessment of the website’s performance (including the website brand and the firm or seller as a whole) based on buyers’ confident
expectations in a particular transaction that takes place in an environment characterized by uncertainty (Ba and Pavlou, 2002; Kim et al., 2009).
Website Reputation An overall assessment of a website’s product and service expertise, consumer experience, and effective communications about the firm’s credibility
in serving consumers (Li, 2014).
Perceived Competitive Price One’s subjective perception of price at a particular internet vendor is lower than prices at other vendors (Adapted from the definition of perceived
price; see Kim et al., 2012).
Perceived Quality “[T]he consumer’s judgment about a product’s overall excellence or superiority” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 3).
Perceived Value “[A] consumer’s perception of the net benefits gained in exchange for the costs incurred in obtaining the desired benefits” (Chen and Dubinsky,
2003, p. 326).
Repurchase Intention Consumers’ subjective probability of revisit an online store (Wu et al., 2014).

(Pavlou and Gefen, 2004, p. 41). Perception of risk is commonly asso- and Hart, 2006). In the context of e-commerce, perceived risk can be
ciated with the uncertainty3 caused by the possibility of opportunistic described as the extent to which a user believes that using the website
behaviors of the seller that can result in a loss for the consumer (Dinev may have negative consequences or unwanted outcomes (Glover and
Benbasat, 2010). The virtual separation between consumers and online
sellers and the unpredictability of the internet infrastructure generate
3
an implicit uncertainty around online transactions (Pavlou, 2003).
In theory, risk can be viewed as distinct from uncertainty (Peter and Ryan, 1976). It is
argued that uncertainty exists when there is a lack of knowledge about the possible From this perspective, perceived risk includes issues such as download
outcomes and thus one cannot assign a probability to uncertainty events, whereas risk delays, limitations in the interface, search problems, inadequate mea-
exists when one can predict the possibility of a future outcome (Littler and Melanthiou, surement of web application success, security weakness, and a lack of
2006). There can be uncertainty about: the outcomes of adopting new technology, which internet standards (Chang and Chen, 2008). When engaging in online
features of technology may pose vulnerability, the credibility of information that is
transaction processes, consumers are usually aware of the existence of
available, etc. In circumstances where uncertainty is recognized, however, it has been
suggested that uncertainty can be translated into risk by accumulation of information risks that confront them (Pavlou, 2003). However, since the notion of
(Hart, Tzokas, & Saren, 1999; Littler and Melanthiou, 2006). Given risk mainly consists of objective risk is difficult to measure while at the same time a consumer
uncertainty (Taylor, 1974), they are often used interchangeably in e-commerce research has a certain expectation regarding an online seller’s behavior, different
(e.g., Kim et al., 2012; Pavlou, 2003; Pavlou and Gefen, 2004). This is also consistent with
forms of uncertainty can be viewed collectively to estimate risk (Pavlou,
Dowling and Stealin’s (1994) argument that “the concept of perceived risk most often
used by consumer researchers defines risk in terms of the consumer’s perceptions of the
2003).
uncertainty and adverse consequences of buying a product (or service)” (p. 119) (see also Perceived risk in online settings is associated with risks that arise
Littler and Melanthiou, 2006). For this reason, perceived risk and uncertainty are used from financial transactions as well as the product itself. Consumers are
interchangeably in this current study.

203
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

concerned that the product or service they buy on the internet might and/or concerns regarding the security of the website (Chiu et al.,
not deliver the expected benefits or fear that they may face unpredicted 2012). Consumers are more often motivated to avoid uncertainty than
harm (e.g., loss of privacy) when they conduct an online transaction to maximize utility in purchasing (Lim, 2003). Thus, once consumers
(Glover and Benbasat, 2010). Given attracting new consumers is con- have learned that interacting with the website could produce negative
siderably more expensive than retaining the existing consumers, redu- consequences, they will likely to avoid those consequences by staying
cing consumers’ perception of risk is especially relevant to ensure they away from the website (Chiu et al., 2012). In other words, given the
are willing to return to the online store (Gefen et al., 2003). Compared uncertain context of e-commerce, it is expected that perceived risk
to potential consumers, repeat consumers usually perceive a lower level would lower consumer’s willingness to repurchase from the same
of certainty in a transaction with the website because of a direct ex- website. Pavlou (2003) indicated that the relationship between per-
perience with the website (Kim et al., 2012). Nevertheless, any ex- ceived risk and transaction intentions can be explained by the notion of
istence of perceived risk will reduce the likelihood of trust relationship perceived behavioral control. In this context, perceived risk associated
between repeat consumers and online sellers. One way to retain these with online transactions may reduce perceptions of behavioral control
consumers is maintaining their trust in an online store (Gefen et al., (e.g., no control over future outcomes), and this lack of control is likely
2003; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; Pavlou, 2003). Trust plays a crucial role to negatively influence transaction intentions. Consistent with these
in helping buyers overcome perceptions of risk and uncertainty in on- arguments, we hypothesize that perceived risk is negatively associated
line environments (Lai and Tong, 2013). If consumers feel that the with repurchase intention.
online seller will violate its formal and informal obligations (e.g., not
H2. Perceived risk is negatively associated with repurchase intention.
delivering the right product at the right time as promised), they would
choose not to trust the website (Kim et al., 2009). Mayer et al. (1995)
suggested that “the need for trust only arises in a risky situation” (p. 3.3. Trust and perceived usefulness
711). This is because in a risky situation, consumers become vulnerable
to trusted parties. Thus, consumer trust could be described as a function Online trust has been considered a major determinant of perceived
of the degree of risk involved in the situation (Pavlou, 2003). Consistent usefulness, especially in an online environment (e.g., Gefen et al., 2003;
with the previous literature, we hypothesize that perceived risk is ne- Pavlou, 2003). Perceived usefulness is defined as the degree to which
gatively associated with online trust. people believe whether using a technology will improve their perfor-
mance (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). The usefulness of a website
H1. Perceived risk is negatively associated with online trust.
depends on both the effectiveness of its relevant technology properties
and on the extent of the human service behind the technology (Gefen
3.2. Perceived risk and repurchase intention et al., 2003). This implies that buyers weight benefits of using the
website based on their interaction with the website (e.g., whether they
Although perceived risk has been well known as a determinant of get the items they ordered, whether they can find product information
buyers’ purchase intention (during the pre-purchase stage), it also plays online, or whether the website is able to increase their purchase ex-
a crucial role in the post-purchase stage. Whereas purchase intention is perience) (Zhang et al., 2011). With regard to these benefits, Gefen
formed under the assumption of a pending initial transaction (Chang et al. (2003) noted that “trust should increase the perceived usefulness
and Wildt, 1994), repurchase intention is formed under the assumption of the interaction through the Web site by increasing the ultimate
that online buyers have completed an initial transaction with the benefits, in this case getting the products or services from an honest,
website (Hellier, Geursen, Carr, & Rickard, 2003). Unlike in a purchase caring, and able vendor, as expected” (p. 61). A high level of trust
intention situation, buyers already have the first-hand experience with transfers the satisfaction from past transactions with the sellers and
the seller in a repurchase situation and can use this experience as a increase buyers’ expectations for the current interactions (Sun, 2010).
source of decision making (Fang et al., 2014). Thus, online purchase When a website is viewed as trustworthy in the past, buyers are willing
intention can be defined as the likelihood of a consumer performing a to pay a premium price just for that added special relationship with the
specified purchasing behavior over the internet for the first time (Dodds website they trust (Gefen et al., 2003).
et al., 1991; Salisbury, Pearson, Pearson & Miller, 2001), whereas re- In the context of online shopping, feelings of trust developed be-
purchase intention can be viewed as the consumer’s subjective prob- tween online sellers and users will allow users to better understand the
ability of revisit an online store, taking into account his or her current information presented on the websites and receive more benefits from
situation or likely circumstances (Hellier et al., 2003; Wu et al., 2014). the websites (Al-Natour et al., 2011). Consumers can only fully ac-
A number of e-commerce studies have empirically tested the effect complish their tasks on the website if they can trust the medium (Gefen
of perceived risk on behavioral intention—both at the pre- and post- et al., 2003). Thus, trust provides a subjective guarantee that online
purchase stages (see Appendix A). For example, Jarvenpaa et al. (2000) sellers will fulfill what they have promised. Consistent with the litera-
found risk perception is negatively associated with willingness to buy ture, we hypothesize that trust positively influences perceived useful-
books online. Similarly, Pavlou (2003) found a negative relationship ness in that it allows consumers to be vulnerable to conduct online
between perceived risk and willingness to buy. The perception that transactions and in turn, ensures that they receive the expected useful
third parties could perform opportunistic behaviors reflects the possi- interaction (Pavlou, 2003).
bility that individuals might suffer the consequences of conducting
H3. Online trust is positively associated with the website’s perceived
online transactions. This perception of uncertainty in an online en-
usefulness.
vironment makes individuals hesitant to conduct e-commerce transac-
tions (Dinev and Hart, 2006). If online sellers successfully deliver a
product as promised, the risk of uncertainty will be lower and con- 3.4. Trust and repurchase intention
sumers are likely to return and repurchase from the same website
(Pavlou, Huigang, & Yajiong, 2007). In contrast, if buyers are worried From a relational perspective, trust is often portrayed as an outcome
about the outcomes of online transactions due to uncertainty, they are of the ability of an actor (e.g., a firm or brand) to meet set obligations
likely to avoid future exchange relationships with the sellers (Chiu (Harris and Goode, 2004). Trust has been presented as a central attri-
et al., 2012). bute in relationship initiation and formation in various exchange con-
Perceived risk explains why consumers decide not to conduct online texts (Harris and Goode, 2004). In an online environment, trust is
transactions. Higher perceived risk in e-commerce markets is com- viewed as a confidence belief that can positively influence willingness
monly caused by being unable to fully monitor the seller’s behavior to conduct an online transaction (Dinev and Hart, 2006). Since

204
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

consumers need to deal with the social complexity embedded in online such behaviors. Therefore, we hypothesize that website perceived
interactions (Gefen et al., 2003), trust is built on the basis of gradual usefulness is positively associated with repurchase intention.
interaction between buyers and sellers (Chen and Rau, 2014). In this
H5. Website perceived usefulness is positively associated with
context, trust is a significant antecedent of participation in e-commerce
repurchase intention.
because it helps reduce the social complexity by allowing consumers to
subjectively eliminate undesirable yet possible behaviors of online
sellers (Gefen et al., 2003).
3.6. Website reputation and perceived quality
Empirical evidence has emerged in support of a strong relationship
between consumers’ online trust and intention to purchase. For ex-
In the marketing literature, reputation is associated with brand
ample, Jarvenpaa et al. (2000) measured trust as the expectations that
equity and firm credibility (Zhang et al., 2011). Reputation is viewed as
an online vendor would keep the best interests of the consumers. They
the result of the comparison between what the sellers promise and what
found that these beliefs were positively associated with attitude, which
they eventually fulfill (Casalo et al., 2007). In the context of e-com-
in turn influenced willingness to make online purchases. Gefen et al.
merce, reputation involves consumer’s perceptions of the website’s
(2003) found a direct positive relationship between trusting beliefs and
public image, innovativeness, quality of product and service, and
individual’s willingness to conduct a transaction. Dinev and Hart
commitment to consumer satisfaction (Zhang et al., 2011). Consumers
(2006) used a set of beliefs including competence, reliability, and safety
can evaluate website reputation based on the evaluation of online
and found that a higher level of internet trust is related to a higher level
sellers’ past performance and behaviors (Zhang et al., 2011). The
of willingness to provide personal information to transact on the in-
sources of this evaluation can come from consumers’ relational net-
ternet. Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, Saarinen, and Vitale (1999) found that
works (e.g., friends and relatives) and/or public opinions (e.g., online
trust perceptions affected one’s willingness to buy books from websites.
reviews). According to Dodds et al. (1991), external cues, such as
Similarly, Malhotra, Kim, and Agarwal (2004) showed that trust was
perceptions of store reputation are the cues that influence perceptions
positively associated with intention to reveal personal information.
of product quality and value. They usually signal competence and in-
A buyer-seller relationship is considered high quality only when the
tegrity (Urban, Amyx, & Lorenzon, 2009), and have been used to un-
previous interaction with the seller has been positive and future inter-
derstand how consumers assess product quality when faced with in-
actions with the seller are expected (Zhang et al., 2011). After an initial
formation asymmetries (Wells et al., 2011). They can be used as a cue
purchase, consumers tend to modify their repurchasing decision by
that a seller can use “to convey information credibly about un-
adjusting their current beliefs to new information (Gupta and Kim,
observable product quality to the buyer” (Rao, Qu, & Ruekert, 1999, p.
2007). A high degree of trust is developed only when buyers feel sa-
259). Such a cue can also provide utility for consumers based on the
tisfied in their relationship with the seller (Zhang et al., 2011). Ac-
predictive value and the confidence value of the cue (Chen and
cording to Ganesan (1994), trust affects long-term orientation between
Dubinsky, 2003; Wells et al., 2011).
sellers and buyers by reducing the perception of risk associated with
Reputation can be a powerful heuristic cue for evaluations and
opportunistic behaviors by the sellers, increasing the confidence of the
choice decisions because it represents an intangible offering property
buyer that short-term inequities will be resolved over a long period, and
that must otherwise be learned through experience (Delgado-Ballester
reducing the transaction costs (e.g., costs of reaching an agreement
and Hernández-Espallardo, 2008). Reputation donates the persistence
satisfactory to both parties) in an exchange relationship. When a re-
of quality and serves as a surrogate for quality by providing consumers
lationship based trust has been established, buyers acknowledge pur-
with a bundle of information about the product (Chen and Dubinsky,
chase experiences in the past and they may be hesitant to switch to a
2003). According to the “affect-referral” process, consumers do not
new online store because switching will require learning costs (Wu
examine brand or website components every time they make a purchase
et al., 2014).
decision; they simplify their decision making process by basing their
The relationship between trust and repurchase intention can also be
judgments on brand or website attitudes (i.e., summary information)
supported by reciprocity arguments (Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol,
(Teas and Agarwal, 2000). Repeat consumers of online stores can use
2002). When online sellers act in a way that builds consumer trust,
reputation, image, and general impression of the established website to
perceived risk associated with the website is likely reduced, enabling
judge the perception of the new and unknown online products offered
consumers to make confident predictions about the sellers’ future be-
on that website (Delgado-Ballester and Hernández-Espallardo, 2008).
haviors (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). Given that trust reduces the fear of
Consistent with the literature, we hypothesize that website reputation is
being exploited and used, heightened levels of trust are associated with
positively associated with perceived quality.
increased levels of use (Awad and Ragowsky, 2008). Therefore, trust in
the website or online store is likely to have a direct effect on willingness H6. Website reputation is positively associated with perceived quality.
to repurchase from the same website.
H4. Online trust is positively associated with repurchase intention.
3.7. Website reputation and trust

3.5. Perceived usefulness and repurchase intention Reputation can be seen a collective social knowledge about the
trustworthiness of a website (Bansal, Zahedi, & Gefen, 2008). In the
A shopping website with high usability can improve consumers’ context of tradition buyer-seller relationships, reputation can be seen as
buying experience and their positive perception of the website (Zhang a consequence of the interactions of business within its environment
et al., 2011). From a technology adoption perspective, perceived use- (Casalo et al., 2008) and is commonly defined as “the extent to which
fulness has been shown to be a strong determinant of usage intention buyers believe a selling organization is honest and concerned about its
(e.g., Davis et al., 1989; Taylor and Todd, 1995). People would only use consumers” (Jarvenpaa et al., 2000, p. 48). This definition can be ex-
a website if they believe that using that website will increase their tended to the online environment in which reputation is generally a
performance (Davis et al., 1989). Although the relationship between result of an overall assessment of the website’s product and service
perceived usefulness and intention was originated in an acceptance expertise, consumer experience, and effective communications about
context, Bhattacherjee (2001) argued that it is likely to hold true in the website’s credibility in serving consumers (Li, 2014). Firms with a
continuance or repurchase contexts because human tendencies for good reputation are perceived to be reluctant to jeopardize their re-
pursuing rewards or benefits are independent of the timing or stages of putation assets by acting opportunistically (Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; Teo

205
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

and Liu, 2007). By making sacrifices and showing their concerns to In a traditional market, people can physically observe the quality of
another party, online sellers develop a reputation of fairness among the product. In an online setting, however, consumers may not have
their consumers (Ganesan, 1994). In contrast, sellers operating on an easy access to information regarding the quality of the product and
online store who have a reputation for terminating relationships and therefore, may be unable to judge the product quality (Ba and Pavlou,
refusing to listen to consumers provide a signal to buyers that the 2002). Online buyers have to rely on electronic information without
website’s sole purpose is to its own interest, rather than being con- having the ability to physically inspect the product (Ba and Pavlou,
cerned with consumer satisfaction. Such a negative reputation is likely 2002). However, the internet provides consumers with information that
to reduce website’s credibility—one form of trust that is established allows for price comparison (Swaminathan, Lepkowska-White & Rao,
based on the extent to which buyers believe that the website will per- 2003). In an experimental study, Lynch and Ariely (2000) found that
form its job effectively and reliably (Ganesan, 1994). Thus, improving price sensitivity declined as consumers received more information on
reputation of a website will improve trusting beliefs because reputation product quality online and increased when cross-store price comparison
is perceived as a characteristic that website has positive general traits was made easy. Nonetheless, others have shown that perceived price
that are absence among websites with a poor reputation (McKnight and continues to be a quality cue despite the presence of other extrinsic cues
Chervany, 2001). (Chen and Dubinsky, 2003). Given a product with a higher price pro-
vides a cue that it has a better quality than a product with a lower price,
H7. Website reputation is positively associated with online trust.
perceived competitive price (i.e., one’s perceptions of price of a parti-
cular website is lower than prices from other websites) should be a
3.8. Website reputation and perceived value negative indicator of perceived quality in an e-commerce environment.
H9. Perceived competitive price is negatively associated with perceived
A consumer forms website reputation based on subjective percep-
quality.
tions of various attributes, both tangible and intangible and thus web-
site reputation is a way in which a website is defined in a consumer’s
mind (Chang and Tseng, 2013). Past interactions with the website can 3.10. Perceived competitive price and perceived value
be a source of information which enables consumers to appreciate more
deeply the value of any offers the seller makes (Casalo et al., 2008). Whereas we hypothesize that perceived competitive price has a
Kotha, Rajgopal, and Rindova (2001) argued that reputation building negative relationship with perceived product quality, we argue that it
activities may be a key determinant of competitive success for online has a positive relationship with perceived value (Chen and Dubinsky,
sellers. For example, online companies with good reputations, such as 2003; Gupta and Kim, 2007). Perceived value is commonly viewed as a
eBay or Google are currently gaining the healthiest profits and a loyal trade-off between the “give” and “get” components of a product or
client base (Casalo et al., 2008). service (Chang and Wildt, 1994). The “give” component corresponds to
Due to the nature of online markets, well-established and reputable perceived price (i.e., the difference between objective price at an online
websites have been more readily accepted by consumers than have store and a consumer’s reference price) (Gupta and Kim, 2007),
unknown websites (Park and Lee, 2009). Consumers are able to receive whereas the “get” component corresponds to the quality of the product
credible information from a reputable website, and in turn, increasing as perceived by the consumer (Dodds et al., 1991; Chang and Wildt,
the predictive value of products offered on the website. Several em- 1994). If consumers make purchase choices based on segregated eva-
pirical studies in the past have shown a positive relationship between luation of attributes in the frame of multiple gains (i.e., the prices in the
reputation and perceived value. For example, Rangaswamy, Burke, and online shopping stores are lower than the consumer’s reference price)
Oliva (1993) found that product value was enhanced by promotions of (Gupta and Kim, 2007), they will experience more satisfaction as if they
quality, durability, and reputation. Thus, we hypothesize that website gain more values in an exchange for lower price. Thus, perceived value
reputation is positively associated with perceived value. increases when perceived competitive price increases as transaction
utility increases (Kim et al., 2012).
H8. Website reputation is positively associated with perceived value.
Online buyers are likely to see price as an important cost component
and compare prices between different alternatives (Chen and Dubinsky,
3.9. Perceived competitive price and perceived quality 2003). In an online environment, product quality tends to be compar-
able across vendors and consumers are generally familiar with the
A positive relationship has been observed between price and per- product information (Kim et al., 2012). Consumers can use multiple
ceived quality in a traditional market (e.g., Devaraj, Matta & Conlon, websites to gather information and compare the product price
2001; Rao and Monroe, 1989). Buyers assume there is a linear re- (Choudhury and Karahanna, 2008). They would be more attractive to a
lationship between price and perceived quality—the higher the price is, website that offers a product within their acceptable price ranges, re-
the higher the quality of the product is. This is consistent with the lit- sulting in high perceptions of perceived value. Consequently, con-
erature on hedonic quality measurement which indicates price in- sumers are likely to seek out a website that offers the lowest price
formation is the best measure of product quality (Zeithaml, 1988). Price possible (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003). In such a case, high levels of
is defined as “what is given up or sacrificed to obtain a product” (Zei- perceived competitive price may have a positive effect on perceived
thaml, 1988). Using price as a quality indicator represents a belief that value. Further, according to Gupta and Kim (2007), repeat consumers
price in the marketplace is determined by the interplay of competitive of online shopping often consider price a monetary sacrifice. From a
supply and demand (Dodds et al., 1991). This interplay would lead to a mental accounting theory perspective, a decrease in price implies
“natural ordering of competing products on a price scale,” resulting in a higher transaction utility. Since transaction utility is a component of
strong relationship between price and product quality (Dodds et al., overall value, perceived competitive price should positively influence
1991). Although objective price is a factor often cited for its association total value. Thus, we hypothesize.
with quality and value, perceived price has been identified as a relevant
H10. Perceived competitive price is positively associated with
intermediate variable in the price-quality-value relationship (Chang
perceived value.
and Wildt, 1994). Buyers do not usually remember the actual price of a
shopping object. Instead, they mentally encode prices in ways that are
meaningful to them (Kim et al., 2012). This price perception then in- 3.11. Perceived quality and perceived value
fluences the formation of quality perceptions (Chang and Wildt, 1994;
Dodds et al., 1991). From a consumer choice perspective, consumers estimate the value

206
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

of choice object by taking into account all relevant benefits and sacri- and can drive buying intention (Wu et al., 2014). Consumer’s perceived
fice factors (Kim, Chan, & Gupta, 2007). Perceived benefits are the value in an online shopping environment includes not only more ben-
combination of different products’ attributes (e.g., tangible and in- efits (e.g., quality and a friendly shopping interface), but also less sa-
tangible; intrinsic and extrinsic, etc.), available in relations to a parti- crifice (e.g., time saving, competitive price) (Wu et al., 2014). Although
cular transaction and use situation (Snoj, Pisnik Korda, & Mumel, it is generally argued that a consumer’s purchase decision is determined
2004). As the perception of value is viewed as a trade-off between a by expected utility before purchase, perceived value from a previous
“give” component (i.e., perceived sacrifice) and a “take component” purchase can also affect the consumer’s repurchase decision (Li and
(i.e., products and services) as described previously, it is reasonable to Hitt, 2010). In the post-purchase state, consumers may reassess the
argue that higher levels of perceived quality will lead to higher levels of product’s value by weighing the actual costs against the actual benefits
perceived value. and be inclined to rebuy, if the latter outweigh the former (Jensen,
A number of empirical studies have reported a strong relationship 2001). Therefore, we hypothesize that perceived value is positively
between perceived quality and perceived value (e.g., Brucks, Zeithaml, associated with repurchase intention.
& Naylor, 2000; Dodds et al., 1991; Teas and Agarwal, 2000). These
H13. Perceived value is positively associated with repurchase intention.
studies have shown that consumers’ perceived value can be affected by
the confirmation or disconfirmation of perceived quality after con-
suming the product versus their expectation before purchase (Li and 4. Research method
Hitt, 2010). Consumers’ post-purchase value is typically determined by
the trade-off between what consumers have received (e.g., quality) and 4.1. Measurement development
what they have given up in order to acquire the product (Dodds et al.,
1991; Jensen, 2001). Consistent with the prior literature, we hypothe- All measurement items were drawn from the literature. Items for all
size that perceived product quality is positively associated with per- constructs were worded in regards to the e-commerce websites to match
ceived value. the context of the study. All items were translated in Korean, back-
translated into English, and then carefully examined by the authors.
H11. Product quality is positively associated with perceived value.
Appendix B presents the measurement items used in the study along
with the sources from which they were drawn. All constructs were
3.12. Perceived value and trust measured using seven-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly dis-
agree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7).
Anderson and Srinivasan (2003) argued that online perceived value
and trust exert similar influences with regard to the relationship be- 4.2. Survey administration
tween satisfaction and loyalty. By generating trust in online transac-
tions, online vendors add value for consumers through reducing com- Online shopping websites in South Korea were selected as the target
plexity and in turn, diminishing the uncertainty associated with the of the study. Data were collected among internet users in South Korea.
transactions and helping consumers form consistent and reliable ex- Participants were asked to recall their most recent online shopping
pectations of electronic channels in ongoing relationships (Grabner- activity and specify the name of the shopping website. They were then
Kraeuter, 2002; Harris and Goode, 2004). A website perceived as being asked to respond to the survey questions based on their selection. A
trustworthy may reduce non-monetary transaction costs that consumers total of 312 responses were collected. On average, respondents spent
have to give up, such as the time and effort needed to choose a reliable around 20 min on the shopping website. The majority of these re-
shopping website (Kim et al., 2012). By reducing non-monetary costs, spondents had done more than one transaction on the online shopping
consumers may increase the acquisition utility and non-monetary as- mall. 72.4% of the respondents (226 participants) were females; 63.1%
pects of transaction utility (Kim et al., 2012). This perceived value may (197 respondents) reported that they had a college degree and 12% (38
then lead to the formation of perceived trust. respondents) had a graduate degree. 51.3% (160 respondents) were at
The relationship between perceived value and trust can also be their 30 s and 39.4% (123 respondents) were at their 20s. The rest of
explained by the equity theory. The equity concept refers to “consumer the sample varied from 40 s to 50s. According to the survey on the
evaluation of what is fair, right, or deserved for the perceived cost of world’s population shopping online conducted by Neilsen Online, South
the offering” (Yang and Peterson, 2004, p. 802). Consumers are refused Korea has the highest percentage of online shoppers, where 99% of
to feel equitably treated if they perceive that the ratio of their outcomes those with internet access used it to shop online (Alphr, 2015). Statistics
to inputs is incomparable to the ratio of outcome to inputs experienced also shows that internet users who have purchased goods and services
by the other parties (Yang and Peterson, 2004). If consumers feel un- over the internet were dominated by females (Statista, 2015). From
equally treated, then perceived value will decrease, impeding the for- these demographic respondents, we believe that our sample represents
mation of trust. Further, from a relational perspective, the benefits of the online shopper population in South Korea.
the relationship is viewed as a precursor of trust (Moliner, Sanchez,
Rodriguez, & Callarisa, 2007; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Thus, perceived 5. Data analysis and results
value can be considered an antecedent of consumers’ trust. Consistent
with the literature, we hypothesize that perceived value is positively 5.1. Testing the measurement model
associated with trust in the website.
First, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to de-
H12. Perceived value is positively associated with online trust.
termine the underlying relationships among measured variables. The
EFA results showed that all of the items loaded on their intended factors
3.13. Perceived value and repurchase intention (see Appendix C). We then used SmartPLS for assessing both the mea-
surement model and structural model (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015).
Perceived value has been shown to be a determinant of repurchase PLS places minimal restrictions on measurement scales, sample size,
intention (e.g., Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Wu et al., 2014). In gen- and residual distributions (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003). Thus,
eral, if a product or a service is perceived to be low in value due to PLS was chosen to accommodate our fairly complex model.
either low quality or high price, intention to purchase is expected to be A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in PLS to assess
low (Chang and Wildt, 1994). With this regard, it has been shown that item loadings, discriminant validity, and internal consistency of all
consumer’s value is the fundamental basis for all exchange activities scales. The results of the CFA are consistent with the EFA results. Item

207
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Table 2
Correlation Matrix and AVEs from PLS.

Construct CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Repurchase intention 0.88 0.65 0.81

2 Perceived Value 0.90 0.76 0.52 0.87
3 Perceived Competitive Price 0.87 0.77 0.41 0.54 0.88
4 Perceived Quality 0.91 0.76 0.44 0.61 0.41 0.87
5 Website Reputation 0.90 0.74 0.48 0.41 0.28 0.36 0.86
6 Perceived Risk 0.96 0.92 −0.33 −0.28 −0.21 −0.31 −0.20 0.96
7 Online Trust 0.95 0.83 0.58 0.50 0.33 0.53 0.50 −0.35 0.91
8 Perceived Usefulness 0.93 0.81 0.47 0.57 0.34 0.47 0.54 −0.29 0.61 0.90

*Composite reliability (CR) is a measure of scale reliability that estimates the total amount of true score variance in relation to the total scale score variance.
*Diagonal elements represent the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE). AVE measures the amount of variance captured by the measures of a construct in relation to error
variance of those items.

loadings and internal consistencies greater than 0.70 are considered Next, we formally test indirect or/and mediating effects of per-
acceptable (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). To assess convergent and dis- ceived usefulness, online trust, perceived quality, and perceived value
criminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), (1) indicators should as shown in our research model. Although indirect and mediating ef-
load more strongly on their corresponding construct than on other fects are commonly used interchangeably, Hayes (2009) suggests re-
constructs in the model, and (2) the square root of the average variance searchers to differentiate a mediating effect, which requires the pre-
extracted (AVE) should be larger than the inter-construct correlations. sence of the X → Y relationship, from an indirect effect, which does not
As shown in Appendix D, all indicators loaded more highly on their own require the existence of the X → Y relationship. Failure to test for an
construct than on other constructs. Further, as shown in Table 2, the indirect effect in the absence of a direct effect may cause researchers to
square root of all AVEs are above 0.80, which are much higher than all miss potentially important and useful mechanisms by which in-
the cross-correlations scores. These results suggest that all measures dependent variables exert some kind of effect on dependent variables
have adequate convergent and discriminant validity. (Hayes, 2009). Thus, we test for direct as well as indirect effects in our
Common method bias was assessed using Harman’s one factor test mediation paths. We ran a bootstrapping analysis to test for indirect
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). An exploratory factor effects using the SPSS Process macro that Hayes (2013) developed.
analysis was performed on the variables of interest. If a single factor is Although several alternative approaches have been proposed, boot-
obtained or if one factor accounts for a majority of the covariance in the strapping has been shown to be the most powerful method to detect an
independent and criterion variables, then the threat of common method indirect effect (Hayes, 2009; Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The results
bias is high. This test does not indicate a single-factor structure that (see Appendix E) indicate that: (1) online trust mediated the relation-
explained significant covariance, suggesting that common method bias ship between perceived risk and repurchase intention; (2) perceived
is not a cause for concern in our sample. Next, we also ran a CFA in usefulness did not mediate the relationship between online trust and
AMOS that included a method construct. Using this method construct repurchase intention; (3) product quality mediated the relationship
allows us not only comparing the loadings of each item on its own between website reputation and perceived value; (4) product quality
factor and the method factor, but also calculating the amount of method mediated the relationship between perceived competitive price and
bias present in the entire dataset (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Polites and perceived value; and (5) online trust mediated the relationship between
Karahanna, 2012). The estimated amount of method bias present in the perceived value and repurchase intention. Appendix F shows total ef-
dataset was only 1.3%. This indicates the absence of method bias issues fects for all constructs.
in our study.
5.3. The effect of perceived usefulness relative to perceived value and online
trust
5.2. The structural model

In order to compare the effects of perceived usefulness with per-

The PLS path coefficients are shown in Fig. 3. Eleven of thirteen
ceived value and online trust, we analyzed three additional structural
hypotheses were supported. As hypothesized, perceived risk was ne-
models. First, we ran a model in which perceived usefulness together
gatively associated with trust (β = −0.20, p < .001), whereas per-
with perceived risk are the antecedents of repurchase intention. The
ceived value and website reputation were positively associated with
path coefficients from this model are shown in Table 4 (Model 1). The
trust (β = 0.30, p < .001 and β = 0.34, p < .001, respectively). To-
two independent variables jointly explained 27% of the variance in
gether, perceived risk, perceived value, and website reputation ac-
repurchase intention. Second, we analyzed another model in which
counted for 39.5% of the variance in online trust. Online trust was a
perceived usefulness, perceived risk, and trust are the antecedents to
significant predictor of perceived usefulness (R2 = 36.9%). Surpris-
repurchase intention (see Table 3, Model 2). The three independent
ingly, the impact of perceived usefulness on repurchase intention was
variables jointly explained 38% of the variance in repurchase intention.
not significant. The significant antecedents of repurchase intention
Although the effect of perceived usefulness remained significant, its
were trust (β = 0.38, p < .001), perceived risk (β = −0.11, p < .05),
effect was slightly attenuated by trust. Next, we ran the third model (see
and perceived value (β = 0.27, p < .001). Together, they accounted
Table 4, Model 3) by adding perceived value in the model. As expected,
for 42% of the variance in repurchase intention. As hypothesized,
the effect of perceived usefulness became insignificant, whereas trust
perceived value (R2 = 49.3%) was predicted by website reputation
and perceived value were considered the major determinants of re-
(β = 0.17, p < .01), perceived competitive price (β = 0.32, p < .001),
purchase intention (R2 = 42%).
and perceived quality of the product (β = 0.41, p < .001). Contrary to
our hypothesis, perceived competitive price was positively associated
with product quality (β = 0.35, p < .001). Perceived competitive price 6. Discussion
and website reputation explained 24.6% of the variance in perceived
product quality. The hypotheses and their level of support are sum- The current paper aims to enhance the existing literature on online
marized in Table 3. trust by integrating the model of buyers’ product evaluations and trust

208
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Fig. 3. PLS Results.

and e-commerce adoption model. This study identifies the influence of Table 4
perceived value and trust on repurchase intention in the context of e- Perceived Usefulness vs. Perceived Value and Online Trust.
commerce. Our findings demonstrate that perceived value and trust
IVs Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
may diminish the effect of perceived usefulness on repurchase inten-
tion. This study also shows that although e-commerce adoption factors R2 0.27 .38 (ΔR2 = 0.11***) .42 (ΔR2 = 0.04***)
are essential, product-related factors are also important in determining Perceived Usefulness 0.42*** 0.18** 0.06 (ns)
value perceptions of online buyers. With this regard, trust mediates the Perceived Risk −0.21*** −0.13* −0.11*
Trust – 0.43*** 0.38***
relationship between perceived value and repurchase intention. The Perceived Value – – 0.26***
findings also show that perceived value is influenced by perceived
quality, perceived competitive price, and website reputation. Next, we Dependent Variable: Repurchase intention.
discuss the implications of our findings for both theory and practice. *** p < .001.
** p < .01.
* p < .05.
6.1. Implications for theory and research
purchase intention, our research elaborates and empirically tests the
This study makes several key contributions. First, it identifies the effects of extrinsic cues of price and website reputation on perceptions
importance of the relationship between perceived quality and perceived of quality and value, online trust, and repurchase intention. The find-
value in studying trust in e-commerce. Although research in online trust ings of this study represent an important step forward in unrevealing
has identified a number of factors influencing willingness to buy or the relationship between value, trust, and repurchase intention.

Table 3
Summary of Hypotheses Results.

Hypothesis Supported?

H1: Perceived risk is negatively associated with online trust (−) Yes (−)
H2: Perceived risk is negatively associated with repurchase intention (−) Yes (−)
H3: Online trust is positively associated with the website perceived usefulness (+) Yes (+)
H4: Online trust is positively associated with repurchase intention (+) Yes (+)
H5: Website perceived usefulness is positively associated with repurchase intention (+) No (ns)
H6: Website reputation is positively associated with perceived quality (+) Yes (+)
H7: Website reputation is positively associated with online trust (+) Yes (+)
H8: Website reputation is positively associated with perceived value (+) Yes (+)
H9: Perceived competitive price is negatively associated with perceived quality (−) No (+)
H10: Perceived competitive price is positively associated with perceived value (+) Yes (+)
H11: Product quality is positively associated with perceived value (+) Yes (+)
H12: Perceived value is positively associated with online trust (+) Yes (+)
H13: Perceived value is positively associated with repurchase intention (+) Yes (+)

Note: ns = not significant.

209
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Second, the results suggest that perceived value and website re- perceived competitive price and quality does not hold with the presence
putation are the major determinants of (post-purchase) trust. Direct of other extrinsic cues (Teas and Agarwal, 2000). With this regard,
experience with the website in the past helps establish a good reputa- consumers may develop high expectations of product quality with the
tion by increasing consumer familiarity and knowledge about transac- lowest price they are willing to pay for the product.
tions that take place on the website. Thus, repeat consumers have a Although perceptions of website usefulness have been consistently
better perception on what to expect from the website, which can be shown as a major determinant of behavioral intention in the context of e-
translated into trust after the initial purchase took place. Further, given commerce (e.g., Al-Natour et al., 2011; Benlian et al., 2012; Pavlou and
that online consumers are able to compare the array of benefits that Fygenson, 2006), our findings reveal that the effect of perceived usefulness
they will derive from the products or services that they buy (Anderson becomes insignificant with the presence of online trust and perceived value.
and Srinivasan, 1998), perceived value can be used as an indicator of This insignificant relationship might be because at the post-purchase stage,
whether the online seller is honest and reliable. Perceived value con- users have had an actual experience in using the product or service. Con-
tributes to the formation of trust by reducing complexity and un- sumers may transfer such experience to their next purchase decisions based
certainty associated with online transactions. It also reduces an in- on the value they gained from using the product bought on the website
dividual’s need to search for alternative websites since such a search (Washburn, Till & Priluck, 2004). Consequently, the value perceptions help
effort will be more expensive than staying with the current website consumers establish a trust relationship with the websites. At the same time,
(Hellier et al., 2003). This is why establishing a good reputation and perceived usefulness might be diminished as they rely more on perceived
increasing value after the initial transaction are crucial. They ensure value and trust in making their repurchase decisions.
consumers to buy and repeat a purchase from the same website by Further, the current study extends the literature on buyers’ product
creating a favorable feeling that consumers’ needs could be fulfilled by evaluations in an online environment. The results show that online buyers
the website (Hsu et al., 2014) and even increase consumers’ pro- tend to use price perceptions and website reputation as the indicators of
ductivity (e.g., better purchase decision in a short time period) in quality. Although consumers are unable to physically observe and evaluate
shopping for products or services when they conduct a transaction the products offered on the website prior to purchase, the internet enables
using a trusted website (Kim et al., 2009). them to search for complete information about the product. The findings
In addition to perceived value and website reputation, perceived risk reported here do provide evidence of the importance of website reputa-
also shows a significant relationship with online trust. Perceptions of risk tion, perceived competitive price, and product quality in creating value
can contribute to the success or failure of e-commerce websites. Although perceptions, and in turn, influencing repurchase intention. It is argued that
we did not discuss specific types of risk (e.g., security risk, privacy risk, a consumer who lacks knowledge about the product may use perceptions
financial risk, etc.), our results demonstrate that general risk perceptions of reputation, if available, to make the quality assessment and rely less on
still play an important role after the initial purchase experience. The the price cue (Dodds et al., 1991; Zeithaml, 1988). Although we did not
higher the post-purchase perception of risk, the higher the trust needed to control for the strengths of product knowledge or familiarity, we found
facilitate future transactions. Drawing upon our empirical findings, it may that consumers are likely to rely on the price cue when they make an
be inferred that risk not only directly influences repurchase intention, but online transaction. This observation is inconsistent with the previous
also indirectly through the mediating effect of trust. In order to eliminate studies probably because in an e-commerce context, buyers may have a
the “doubt” after the initial transaction, website reputation and perceived high relative advantage on comparing prices across different shopping
value discussed previously can provide a reassurance that the website is websites (Choudhury and Karahanna, 2008). Hence, their ability to search
trustworthy and will behave in accordance with the consumer’s confident for the best possible price plays a prominent role in forming their per-
expectations. Nevertheless, despite the importance of maintaining the ceptions of product value.
level of risk, our findings suggest that consumers are less likely to rely on Lastly, although IS research has empirically shown the role of trust
the presence of perceived risk-repurchase intention relationship at the and technology adoption variables in e-commerce environments, the
post-purchase stage. Instead, they depend more on the previous percep- role of these factors and their integration with product evaluation
tions of product value and online trust to determine their future decision. factors at the post-purchase stage, to the best of the authors’ knowledge,
Hence, we can expect less and less negative effect of risk on repurchase has not been considerably studied. The relative importance of trust in
intention as trust and perceived value increase. Future research is needed mediating the relationship between perceived value and repurchase
to investigate the effect of perceived risk across different stages of tech- intention suggests that consumers’ post-purchase evaluation of product
nology adoption. value provides a basis for maintaining trust in e-commerce websites,
Although prior studies have shown a negative relationship between and it is the trust perception that eventually determines repurchase
perceived competitive price and product quality (e.g., Chen and intention. This finding reinforces the idea that both technology adop-
Dubinsky, 2003; Dodds et al., 1991), our results indicate that perceived tion and product evaluation factors remain important in an online re-
competitive price is positively associated with perceived quality. We purchase situation, with trust as a significant mediator.
propose some possible explanations. First, in an online environment,
consumers perceive price differently. Perceived competitive price can 6.2. Implications for practice
be considered less cost from the consumers perspective. Buying a pro-
duct from a website with a high competitive price indicates consumers For e-commerce environments, the results of this study are prominent.
pay less and are able to reduce other costs of product acquisition and its The insignificant relationship between perceived usefulness and re-
use (Sweeney et al., 1999; Snoj et al., 2004). With the ability to com- purchase intention indicates that most buyers may rely less on perceived
pare price references across shopping websites, consumers are able to usefulness as they recognize the product or service value to establish trust
judge whether the product’s price is high or low. According to Adap- on websites. Online sellers who refer to the literature would agree that
tation Level Theory, the result of this comparison may form consumers’ adoption-related elements of e-commerce websites are directly related to
perceived competitive price (Kim et al., 2007). By subjectively ad- repurchase intention. By relying on this literature, e-commerce managers
justing the price’s point, consumers are likely to modify their quality might have focused on optimizing their value through website designs.
expectation. In this sense, the adaptation level of competitive price Our current study augments the existing literature by suggesting that the
perception may positively influence the quality perception in that attempts of online businesses to increase consumers’ value should be as-
consumers expect to buy a product within a standard level of quality sociated with both product and website elements.
weighted based on their lowest price point. Second, the positive re- As hypothesized, trust is a major determinant of what people expect in
lationship might be because the presence of website reputation cue. business transactions. Credibility and reliability in fulfilling both formal and
Some researchers suggest that the positive relationship between informal obligations are the keys to improve consumer loyalty. The findings

210
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

reveal that perceived value can be used to assure trust in shopping websites. Further, the literature suggests that trust can be conceptualized as a
In particular, we advise business managers to maximize the trust levels of multidimensional construct. In our study, we measured trust as a uni-
their consumers by using their previous interactions to create value. dimensional construct in the form of credibility. Research has shown
Perceived value will be generated if the consumers’ expectations are met. that the benevolence component of trust, which focuses on the motives
Therefore, online firms should carefully evaluate the gaps between what and intentions of the exchange partner (Ganesan, 1994; Pavlou, 2003)
consumers have sacrificed and what they have gained. can also be important after the initial purchase decision. Future re-
The results of the study also provide several important implications search should aim at identifying the impact of different components of
for designing B2C e-commerce websites. Although previous studies in IS trust in mediating the relationship between product evaluation com-
have suggested that perceived usefulness is a crucial component of ponents and repurchase intention. Future research can also theorize the
technology adoption, a continuous relationship between online buyers interplay between these different components of trust and product va-
and sellers is not possible without trust and perceived value. Given lues that influence a long-term relationship between buyers and online
perceived value is influenced by product evaluation components (i.e., sellers.
website reputation, perceived competitive price, and product quality), Another limitation is the possible presence of social desirability bias
it is suggested that the functional features of e-commerce websites due to the self-selection of products and an online shopping mall.
should aim to increase these product evaluation components. For ex- Although this may result in relatively high means for the variables,
ample, in order to increase the store reputation, sellers can divide on- there was enough variability in our measures to make the hypotheses
line reviews into different categories (e.g., product price, product testing possible. However, further research is required to test this as-
quality) and ask consumers to review each of the component in- sertion. Lastly, conclusions drawn in this study are based on a single
dependently. With the emphases on different product evaluation com- study. All constructs were measured at one point in time, as such, the
ponents, it is easier for sellers to promote companies’ major strengths, potential for common method variance exists. Future research is en-
while addressing problems identified by the buyers. couraged to measure the constructs at multiple time points.
Lastly, given retaining existing consumers costs more time and ef-
fort than acquiring new ones, online businesses should be able to de-
7. Conclusions
liver high-quality products through a well-reputable website. To do
this, companies can promote their websites by emphasizing the pro-
This study augments the existing literature on online trust by in-
ducts and services offered on their websites. In a long -term, consumers
tegrating the product evaluations model and technology adoption
may remember purchase as well as use experiences more readily than
model. This study argues that repurchase intention in the context of e-
facts or information presented on the websites. Taken together, a
commerce can be better understood by assessing the relationships be-
trustworthy website, accompanied by high perceptions of product value
tween perceived quality, perceived value elements, and trust in e-
and low levels of risk will lead to a successful online business.
commerce. The findings indicate that the effect of perceived usefulness
on repurchase intention is diminished by the effect of perceived value,
6.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research
online trust, and perceived risk. In sum, this study sheds light on how
online buyer-seller relationships can be strengthened by considering the
We acknowledge some limitations of the study. First, with respect to
perceptions of product quality as well as product value to increase trust
the external validity, the respondents were online shoppers in South
perceptions of online buyers.
Korea. Although this population is a suitable representative of internet
users, future research is encouraged to collect data from different
countries and compare the results with our current study. Second, in the Acknowledgments
conduct of our study, subjects were not given to acknowledge specific
attribute/feature information associated with the products. Not having The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for the critical com-
this information, subjects may use different product information as a ments that have greatly improved the quality of the paper. The research
reference when they answered the survey questions. Thus, future re- of the second author has been supported by the National Research
search is encouraged to use more controllable research environments Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government(NRF-
(e.g., laboratory study) to manipulate the external cues. 2017S1A3A2066149).

Appendix A. Empirical literature linking trust and adoption factors in e-commerce

Source Relevant Constructs Link(s) to Outcomes

Alam and Yasin Good online experience, Quality of Information, Perceived risk, Online brand trust
(2010) WOM, Brand reputation, Security
Aljukhadar et al. Media richness, E-Store social presence, Retailer trust, Agent trust Perceived risk, Purchase intentions
(2010)
Al-Natour et al. (2011) Perceived personality similarity, Perceived decision process Perceived ease of use, Perceived usefulness, Trust,
similarity Perceived enjoyment
Awad and Ragowsky WOM quality, Subjective norms, Perceived ease of use Perceived usefulness, Online trust, Intention
(2008)
Ba and Pavlou (2002) Trust in seller, Product price Price premium
Balasubramanian, Trust disposition, Price, Operational competence, Satisfaction Trustworthiness
Konana, and
Menon (2003)
Benlian and Hess Usability, Transparency, Quality assured content, Security, Self-reported participation in community exchanges
(2011) Privacy, Interpersonal trust, System trust
Benlian et al. (2012) Online product recommendation use, Product type, Trusting Intention to reuse online Product recommendation,
beliefs, Perceived usefulness, Perceived ease of use, Perceived Intention to purchase
affective quality

211
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Bhattacherjee (2002) Familiarity with online firm Trust, Willingness to transact

Bock, Lee, Kuan, and WOM, Offline trust, Website quality Online trust, Online purchase intention
Kim (2012)
Chen and Dibb (2010) Website usability, Security and privacy, Product information Website approach intention
quality, Speed download, Trust in website
Chen and Rau (2014) Cognitive-based trust antecedent (i.e., reputation), Calculative- General trust and trust of B2C websites and group-
based trust antecedent buying websites.
Chen, Zhang, and Xu Information interaction, Emotional interaction, Mutual trust Loyalty to the platform provider
(2009) among members, Trust in the platform provider
Chiu et al. (2012) Familiarity, Trust, Value, Utilitarian value, Hedonic value, Repeat purchase intention
Satisfaction, Habit
Choi, Lee, and Kim Social presence, Product type, Trust Reuse intention
(2011)
Choudhury and Relative advantage (trust is one of three dimensions of relative Behavioral intention
Karahanna (2008) advantage)
Cyr (2008) Navigation design, Visual design, Information design, Satisfaction, e-Loyalty
Trust in website
Delgado-Ballester and Characteristics of brand associations (i.e., Perceived similarity and Initial trust in the new online brand, Willingness to
Hernández- Degree of association) provide personal information, Bookmarking
Espallardo (2008) intentions, Purchase intention
Dinev and Hart (2006) Privacy risk, Internet trust, Privacy concern Willingness to provide personal information
Dinev, Hu, and Yayla Perceived risk of online advertising, Perceived benefits of online Intent to advertise online
(2008) advertising, Perceived effectiveness of third party solutions, Trust
in search engine, Perceived support from search engine, Attitude
toward online advertising, Subjective norm of industry
Everard and Galletta Trust, Perceived quality of online store Intention to purchase
(2006)
Fang et al. (2014) Satisfaction with vendor, Perceived effectiveness of e-commerce Repurchase intention
institutional mechanisms, Trust in vendor
Gefen and Pavlou Perceived effectiveness of institutional structure (PEIS), Trust, Risk Transaction activities
(2012)
Gefen et al. (2003) Trust in e-vendor, Perceived ease of use, Perceived usefulness Intended use of website
Grazioli and Trust, Perceived deceptiveness, Trust mechanism Attitude toward online shopping
Jarvenpaa (2000)
Grewal et al. (1994) Internet pricing, Size of price difference, Post-purchase trust Repurchase intention
Hampton-Sosa and Website appeal, Initial trust Intention to use website
Koufaris (2005)
Hu, Wu, Wu, and Privacy assurance Initial trust in an online vendor
Zhang (2010)
Hung et al. (2012) Trust, Perceived waiting Repurchase intention
Ho and Chau (2013) User’s privacy concerns, Perceived location accuracy, Perceived Intention to use the service by the merchant
location precision, Integrity trust in a merchant, Integrity distrust
in a merchant
Hwang (2014) Trust (i.e., ability, benevolence, integrity) Intention to use, Loyalty
Hwang and Lee (2012) Social norms, Online trust beliefs, Uncertainty avoidance Purchase intention
Jarvenpaa et al. Perceived size, Perceived reputation, Trust in store, Attitude, Risk Willingness to buy
(1999) perception
Kim (2008) Security protection, System reliability, Privacy concern, Third Trust in e-vendor, Willingness to use
party seal, Referral
Kim (2012) Initial trust, Perceived usefulness, Perceived ease of use, Usage First purchase intention
attitude
Kim (2014) Consumer trust propensity, e-vendor trust, e-channel trust, e- e-channel reuse intention, Repurchase intention
channel confirmation/disconfirmation, e-vendor confirmation/
disconfirmation, e-channel satisfaction, e-vendor satisfaction
Kim et al. (2009) Trust, Perceived risk, Perceived benefit, Expectation, Perceived Willingness to purchase, e-Loyalty
performance, Confirmation, Satisfaction
Kim and Benbasat Content of trust-assuring arguments, Source argument, Price, Trusting beliefs in an internet store
(2009) Order of visit
Komiak and Benbasat Perceived personalization, Familiarity, Cognitive trust, Emotional Intention to adopt as a decision aid, Intention to
(2008) trust adopt as a delegated agent
Lai and Tong (2013) Security, Usability, Reliability and availability, Audits and Trust in internet-based interorganizational systems
verification, Interoperability adoption
Lee and Park (2014) Cue multiplicity in text-based e-tail content, Telepresence, Social E-Shopping enjoyment, Decision affirmation
presence, Website trust, Social approval
Lee, Turban, Matthew, Trustworthiness of internet merchant, Trustworthiness of internet Consumer trust in internet shopping
and Lee (2001) shopping medium, Contextual factors, Individual trust propensity

212
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Li, Browne and Quality of alternatives, Investment size, Satisfaction, Stickiness intention
Wetherbe (2006) Communication quality, Opportunistic behavior, Commitment,
Trust
Liang, Ho, Li, and Social support, Relationship Quality (i.e., Trust, Satisfaction, Social commerce intention, Continuance intention
Turban (2001) Commitment), Website quality
Lim, Sia, Lee, and Trusting beliefs Attitude, Willingness to buy
Benbasat (2006)
Liu, Marchewka, Lu, Privacy, Trust Behavioral intention
and Yu (2004)
Liu and Goodhue Task-technology fit, Trust, Web aesthetics Intention to revisit
(2012)
Lowry et al. (2008) Brand awareness, Brand image, Website quality, Dispositional Initial trusting intention
trust, Institutional-based trust initial trusting beliefs
Lowry, Wilson, and Disposition to distrust, Disposition to trust, Source credibility Distrusting beliefs, Trusting beliefs, Trusting
Haig (2014) intentions
Malhotra et al. (2004) Trusting beliefs, Risk beliefs Behavioral intention
Mavlanova and Product presentation, Seller trust, Perception of counterfeit Willingness to buy
Benbunan-Fich deception, Perception of trust in the seller
(2010)
Nicolaou and Perceived information quality, Perceived risk, Trust Intention to use
McKnight (2006)
Pavlou (2003) Trust in web retailers, Perceived risk, Perceived usefulness, Intention to transact
Perceived ease of use
Pavlou and Dimoka Outstanding text comment, Abysmal text comment, Trust Trust (i.e., benevolence and credibility)
(2006) propensity, Buyer’s past experience, Price premiums
Pavlou and Fygenson Trust, Perceived usefulness, Perceived ease of use, Website Intention to get information, getting information
(2006) navigability, Perceived behavioral control, Attitude, Subjective behavior
norms
Pavlou and Gefen Trust in intermediary, Trust in the community of sellers, Perceived Transaction intention, Transaction behavior
(2004) risk
Pavlou and Gefen Psychological contract violation, Trust in community of sellers, Transaction intentions, Transaction behavior
(2005) Perceived risk from community of sellers
Pavlou et al. (2007) Perceived uncertainty, Trust, Perceived information asymmetry, Purchase intention, Actual purchase
Fears of seller opportunism, Information privacy concern,
Information security concerns
Pengnate and Relevant information, website visual appeal, website usability, Website trust
Antonenko (2013) metacognitive awareness
Pennington, Wilcox Vendor reputation, Attitude toward vendor, Perceived trust in Purchase intention
and Grover (2003) vendor
Pizzutti and Fernandes Familiarity with the online seller, Quality of prior experience with Loyalty
(2010) the online seller, Familiarity with e-commerce, Quality of prior
experience with e-commerce, Satisfaction with complaint
handling, Trust in the online seller, Trust in e-commerce
Premazzi et al. (2010) Initial trust, Compensation, Trust condition Willingness to provide information, Behavioral
information disclosure
Qiu and Benbasat Life help interfaces Cognitive trust, Emotional trust
(2005)
Qiu and Benbasat Social presence, Trusting beliefs, Perceived usefulness, Perceived Usage Intentions
(2009) enjoyment
Sia et al. (2009) Culture, Portal affiliation, Peer consumer endorsement, Trusting Attitude, Intention to buy, Actual buying
beliefs
Shin and Shin (2011) Risk, Security Trust
Suh and Han (2003) Perceived strength of control, Trust, Attitude toward using e- Behavioral intention to use, Actual use
commerce
Sun (2010) Cognitive trust, Affective trust, Perceived usefulness, Perceived Retention to the marketplace
enjoyment
Utz, Matzat, and Competence-based trust violations, Morality-based violations of Perceived trustworthiness
Snijders (2009) trust, Trustworthiness judgments, Dispositional trust
Van der Heijden, Trust in online store, Perceived risk, Perceived ease of use, Attitude towards online purchasing, Online
Verhagen, and Perceived usefulness purchase intention
Creemers (2003)
Vance, Elie-Dit- System quality perceptions, Ease of use, Uncertainty avoidance, Intention to use
Cosaque, and Trusting beliefs in IT artifact, Institution-based trust
Straub (2008)
Wu, Hu, and Wu Disposition to trust, Perceived interactivity, Perceived web Attitude toward e-vendor’s website, Purchase
(2010) assurance, Perceived risk, Initial online trust in e-vendor intention

213
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Yoon (2002) Website trust, Transaction security, Website properties, Navigation Purchase intention
functionality, Personal variables, Website awareness, Website
satisfaction
Zahedi and Song Trustworthiness beliefs, Information quality, Reputation, Prior Trust attitude
(2008) experience, Propensity to trust, Satisfaction
Zhang et al. (2011) Distrust in vendor behavior, Perceived website usability, Perceived Repurchase intention
expertise, Reputation, Relationship quality
Zhou, Lu, and Wang Website design quality, Service quality Trust, Satisfaction, Repurchase intention
(2009)

Appendix B. Measurement items

Construct Source Items

Perceived Quality Dodds et al. (1991) 1. The quality of the product sold on the shopping website was excellent.
2. The performance of the product sold on the shopping website was excellent.
3. Generally, I’m satisfied with the quality of the product sold on the shopping website.
Website Jarvenpaa et al. (1999) 1. The shopping website has a good reputation among its consumers.
Reputation 2. The shopping website is well known among people.
3. The website has a favorable rating.
Perceived Dodds et al. (1991), Gupta 1. The price of the product on this website is cheaper than other shopping websites.
Competitive and Kim (2007) 2. Compare to the price of the same product that I purchased before, the product’s price on this
Price website is (1) very expensive to (7) very affordable.
Perceived Value Dodds et al. (1991) 1. The product I bought on the shopping website was a very good value for the money.
2. The product I bought on the shopping website was considered to be a good buy.
3. The price shown for the product I bought on the shopping website was very acceptable.
Perceived Trust Ba and Pavlou (2002) 1. The shopping website properly delivers to me a product that matches the posted
description.
2. There is no gap between the shopping website’s posted delivery terms and conditions before
and after purchase services (e.g., quality, follow-up, A/S, etc.).
3. I think the shopping website is honest.
4. Overall, I trust the shopping website.
Perceived Davis et al. (1989) 1. The website improved my performance in shopping (e.g., the transaction was processed
Usefulness quickly).
2. The transaction process on the shopping website enhanced my effectiveness in purchasing the
product.
3. I think the shopping website was very useful in purchasing the product.
Perceived Risk Pavlou et al. (2007) 1. The overall buying process at the shopping website involves a high degree of risk or
uncertainty.
2. There was a high degree of risk or uncertainty when purchasing the product from the website.
Repurchase Gefen (2000); Jarvenpaa 1. If I were to buy the product again, I would likely to buy it from the same website.
Intention et al. (2000) 2. If I could, I would like to reuse to the website for my next purchase.
3. I intent to revisit the website in the future.
4. I would like to revisit the website to purchase products in the near future.

Appendix C. Exploratory factor analysis results

Mean SD TRUST RI PU REP PQ PV RISK PRICE

TRUST1 5.10 1.04 0.82 0.13 0.20 0.16 0.21 0.13 0.08 0.11
TRUST2 5.05 1.20 0.86 0.16 0.19 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.09
TRUST3 5.05 1.09 0.83 0.18 0.24 0.12 0.19 0.11 0.13 0.03
TRUST4 5.22 1.11 0.72 0.30 0.21 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.12
RI1 5.25 1.05 0.27 0.74 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.13 0.22 0.15
RI2 5.06 1.19 0.04 0.79 0.06 −0.08 0.26 −0.02 −0.03 0.16
RI3 5.27 0.95 0.33 0.64 0.18 0.25 0.06 0.22 0.07 0.14
RI4 5.60 1.03 0.24 0.68 0.11 0.29 −0.03 0.32 0.15 −0.03
PU1 5.13 1.10 0.26 0.05 0.79 0.11 0.18 0.08 0.04 0.16
PU2 5.24 0.99 0.27 0.11 0.80 0.23 0.10 0.20 0.16 0.01
PU3 5.31 0.99 0.25 0.21 0.74 0.24 0.11 0.28 0.09 0.12
REP1 5.13 1.06 0.24 0.17 0.31 0.69 0.19 0.09 0.06 0.10
REP2 5.18 1.34 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.88 0.01 0.08 0.08 −0.04

214
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

REP3 4.99 1.07 0.25 0.16 0.15 0.81 0.09 0.08 −0.01 0.17
PQ1 5.17 0.92 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.81 0.33 0.07 −0.02
PQ2 5.06 0.96 0.22 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.85 0.13 0.13 0.08
PQ3 5.17 1.06 0.28 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.59 0.08 0.13 0.46
PV1 4.95 0.97 0.07 0.17 0.26 0.00 0.39 0.53 0.00 0.37
PV2 5.30 1.06 0.11 0.20 0.18 0.13 0.28 0.77 0.13 0.19
PV3 5.24 1.04 0.29 0.13 0.24 0.15 0.16 0.74 0.06 0.22
RISK1 3.31 1.26 −0.12 −0.06 −0.09 −0.08 −0.08 −0.09 −0.93 −0.10
RISK2 3.33 1.28 −0.16 −0.16 −0.10 −0.03 −0.13 −0.05 −0.91 −0.02
PRICE1 5.20 1.14 0.14 0.23 0.03 0.08 0.15 0.30 0.13 0.70
PRICE2 5.12 1.02 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.89

Notes: RI = Repurchase Intention, PV = Perceived Value, PQ = Perceived Quality, REP = Website Reputation, PU = Perceived Usefulness. Bold
shows the significant factor loadings of their intended factors at p < 0.001.

Appendix D. PLS item factor loadings and cross loadings

RI PV PRICE PQ REP RISK TRUST PU

RI1 0.86 0.47 0.38 0.41 0.47 −0.26 0.56 0.47

RI2 0.85 0.43 0.28 0.32 0.44 −0.29 0.48 0.42
RI3 0.86 0.43 0.37 0.38 0.40 −0.36 0.51 0.38
RI4 0.64 0.33 0.28 0.30 0.17 −0.14 0.29 0.19
PV1 0.39 0.83 0.49 0.55 0.27 −0.19 0.37 0.45
PV2 0.48 0.90 0.46 0.54 0.37 −0.29 0.41 0.48
PV3 0.47 0.87 0.48 0.50 0.40 −0.24 0.51 0.55
PRICE1 0.43 0.53 0.91 0.43 0.27 −0.24 0.35 0.32
PRICE2 0.27 0.42 0.85 0.29 0.21 −0.12 0.21 0.27
PQ1 0.40 0.57 0.28 0.91 0.31 −0.23 0.44 0.41
PQ2 0.37 0.50 0.32 0.91 0.32 −0.29 0.47 0.41
PQ3 0.38 0.51 0.50 0.80 0.32 −0.28 0.47 0.40
REP1 0.46 0.41 0.29 0.40 0.89 −0.21 0.50 0.56
REP2 0.28 0.21 0.09 0.15 0.78 −0.15 0.26 0.32
REP3 0.45 0.38 0.29 0.31 0.91 −0.15 0.48 0.45
RISK1 −0.29 −0.27 −0.22 −0.28 −0.21 0.95 −0.31 −0.27
RISK2 −0.35 −0.26 −0.18 −0.30 −0.18 0.97 −0.36 −0.29
TRUST1 0.49 0.46 0.31 0.51 0.46 −0.29 0.90 0.55
TRUST2 0.50 0.42 0.27 0.45 0.42 −0.29 0.91 0.53
TRUST3 0.51 0.44 0.24 0.48 0.43 −0.33 0.93 0.56
TRUST4 0.62 0.50 0.36 0.49 0.52 −0.37 0.90 0.57
PU1 0.33 0.47 0.28 0.41 0.40 −0.21 0.52 0.84
PU2 0.42 0.49 0.26 0.40 0.51 −0.31 0.55 0.93
PU3 0.50 0.58 0.36 0.44 0.52 −0.27 0.56 0.92

Notes: RI = Repurchase Intention, PV = Perceived Value, PQ = Perceived Quality, REP = Website Reputation, PU = Perceived Usefulness. Bold
shows the significant factor loadings of their intended factors at p < 0.001.

Appendix E. Mediation test results (process model using SPSS)

Test Total Effect [95% CI] Direct Effect [95% CI] Indirect Effect [95% CI] Sig?

Perceived Risk → Trust → Repurchase Intention −0.18*** −0.10* −0.08** Yes

Trust → Perceived Usefulness → Repurchase Intention 0.37*** 0.36*** 0.01 (ns) No
Website Reputation → Product Quality → Perceived Value 0.26*** 0.16** 0.10*** Yes
Website Reputation → Perceived Value → Trust 0.46*** 0.32*** 0.14*** Yes
Perceived Competitive Price → Product Quality → Perceived 0.48*** 0.33*** 0.15*** Yes
Value
Perceived Value → Trust → Repurchase Intention 0.41*** 0.28*** 0.13*** Yes

If the 95% confidence interval of the standardized value of direct and indirect effect did not include zero, we conclude that there was a significant
effect (Hayes, 2009).
***
p < .001.
**
p < .01.
*
p < .05.

215
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

Appendix F. Total effects (PLS)

Dependent Variable Independent Variable Total Effect

Repurchase intention Online Trust 0.41***

Perceived Value 0.39***
Website Reputation 0.25***
Perceived Risk −0.19**
Perceived Competitive Price 0.18***
Perceived Product Quality 0.16***
Perceived Usefulness 0.06 (ns)
Perceived Value Perceived Competitive Price 0.47***
Perceived Quality 0.41***
Website Reputation 0.27***
Online Trust Website Reputation 0.43***
Perceived Value 0.30***
Perceived Risk −0.20***
Perceived Competitive Price 0.14***
Perceived Quality 0.12***
Perceived Usefulness Online Trust 0.61***
Website Reputation 0.26***
Perceived Value 0.18***
Perceived Risk −0.12***
Perceived Competitive Price 0.09***
Product Quality 0.08**
Product Quality Perceived Competitive Price 0.35***
Website Reputation 0.26***

***
p < .001.
**
p < .01.
*
p < .05.

References Bock, G.-W., Lee, J., Kuan, H.-H., & Kim, J.-H. (2012). The progression of online trust in
the multi-channel retailer context and the role of product uncertainty. Decision
Support Systems, 53, 97–107.
Al-Natour, S., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. (2011). The adoption of online shopping as- Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V. A., & Naylor, G. (2000). Price and brand name as indicators of
sistants: Perceived similarity as an antecedent to evaluative beliefs. Journal of the quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Association for Information Systems, 12(5), 347–374. Science, 28(3), 359–374.
Alam, S. S., & Yasin, N. M. (2010). What factors influence online brand trust: Evidence Casalo, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2007). The influence of satisfaction, perceived
from online tickets buyers in Malaysia. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic reputation and trust on a consumer’s commitment to a website. Journal of Marketing
Commerce Research, 5(3), 78–89. Communications, 13(1), 1–17.
Aljukhadar, M., Senecal, S., & Ouellette, D. (2010). Can the media richness of a privacy Casalo, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2008). The role of perceived usability, re-
disclosure enhance outcome? A multifaceted view of trust in rich media environ- putation, satisfaction and consumer familiarity on the website loyalty formation
ments. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(4), 103–126. process. Computer in Human Behavior, 24(2), 325–345.
Alphr, (Jan 28, 2015). 85% of world’s population shopping online. Alphr, Available on- Chang, H. H., & Chen, S. W. (2008). The impact of online store environment cues on
line at http://www.alphr.com/news/internet/160155/85-of-worlds-population- purchase intention: Trust and perceived risk as a mediator. Online Information Review,
shopping-online. 32(6), 818–841.
Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003). E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: A contingency Chang, E.-C., & Tseng, Y.-F. (2013). E-store image, perceived value and perceived risk.
framework. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 99–121. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 864–870.
Awad, N. F., & Ragowsky, A. (2008). Establishing trust in electronic commerce through Chang, T.-Z., & Wildt, A. R. (1994). Price, product information, and purchase intention:
online word of mouth: An examination across genders. Journal of Management An empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 16–27.
Information Systems, 24(4), 101–121. Chen, J., & Dibb, S. (2010). Consumer trust in the online retail context: Exploring the
Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in antecedents and consequences. Psychology & Marketing, 27(4), 323–346.
electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), Chen, Z., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2003). A conceptual model of perceived consumer value in e-
243–268. commerce: A preliminary investigation. Psychology & Marketing, 20(4), 323–347.
Balasubramanian, S., Konana, P., & Menon, N. M. (2003). Consumer satisfaction in virtual Chen, N., & Rau, P. L. P. (2014). Effects of trust on group buying websites in China.
environments: A study of online investing. Management Science, 49(7), 871–889. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(8), 615–626.
Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. M., & Gefen, D. (2008). The moderating influence of privacy con- Chen, J., Zhang, C., & Xu, Y. (2009). The role of mutual trust in building members’ loyalty
cern on the efficacy of privacy assurance mechanisms for building trust: A multiple- to a C2C platform provider. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(1),
context investigation. The proceedings of 29th international conference on information 147–171.
systems. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent
Benlian, A., & Hess, T. (2011). The signaling role of it features in influencing trust and variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a monte
participation in online communities. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, carlo simulation study and an electronic mail emotion/adoption study. Information
15(4), 7–56. Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.
Benlian, A., Titah, R., & Hess, T. (2012). Differential effects of provider recommendations Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., Lai, H., & Chang, C.-M. (2012). Re-examining the influence of
and consumer reviews in e-commerce transactions: An experimental study. Journal of trust on online repeat purchase intention: The moderating role of habit and its
Management Information Systems, 29(1), 237–272. antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 53, 835–845.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expecta- Choi, J., Lee, H. J., & Kim, Y. C. (2011). The influence of social presence on consumer
tion-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. intention to reuse online recommender systems: The roles of personalization and
Bhattacherjee, A. (2002). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial product type. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(1), 129–154.
test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 211–241. Choudhury, V., & Karahanna, E. (2008). The relative advantage of electronic channels: A

216
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

multidimensional view. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 179–200. cultivating online consumer repurchase intention: The moderating effect of perceived
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, waiting. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(10), 666–677.
and consumer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environ- Hwang, Y., & Lee, K. C. (2012). Investigating the moderating role of uncertainty avoid-
ments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218. ance cultural values on multidimensional online trust. Information & Management,
Cyr, D. (2008). Modeling website design across cultures: Relationships to trust, satisfac- 49(3–4), 171–176.
tion, and e-loyalty. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 47–72. Hwang, Y. (2014). Understanding the different influences of online trust on loyalty by risk
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer takers and avoiders. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(12),
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 977–984.
982–1003. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., Saarinen, L., & Vitale, M. (1999). Consumer trust in an
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Hernández-Espallardo, M. (2008). Effect of brand associations on internet store: A cross-cultural validation. Journal of Computer Mediated
consumer reactions to unknown on-line brands. International Journal of Electronic Communications, 5(2), 1–35.
Commerce, 12(3), 81–113. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an internet store.
Devaraj, S., Matta, K. F., & Conlon, E. (2001). Product and service quality: The ante- Information Technology and Management, 1(1–2), 45–71.
cedents of customer loyalty in the automotive industry. Production and Operations Jensen, H. R. (2001). Antecedents and consequences of consumer value assessments:
Management, 10(4), 424–439. Implications for marketing strategy and future research. Journal of Retailing and
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce Consumer Services, 8(6), 299–310.
transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80. Kim, D., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Trust-assuring arguments in B2C e-commerce: Impact of
Dinev, T., Hu, Q., & Yayla, A. (2008). Is there an on-line advertisers’ dilemma? A study of content, source, and price on trust. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3),
click fraud in the pay-per-click model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 175–206.
13(2), 29–60. Kim, H. W., & Gupta, S. (2009). A comparison of purchase decision calculus between
Dodds, W. B., & Monroe, K. B. (1985). The effect of brand and price information on potential and repeat customers of an online store. Decision Support Systems, 47,
subjective product evaluations. In E. Hirschman, & M. Holbrook (Vol. Eds.), Advances 477–487.
in consumer research: Vol. 12, (pp. 85–90). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Gupta, S. (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An
Research. empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 111–126.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2009). Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones
information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), for successful e-commerce relationships: A longitudinal exploration. Information
307–319. Systems Research, 20(2), 237–257.
Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling Kim, H. W., Xu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2012). Which is more important in Internet shopping,
activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 119–134. perceived price or trust? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(3),
Everard, A., & Galletta, D. F. (2006). How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, 241–252.
trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. Journal of Management Kim, D. J. (2008). Self-perception-based versus transference-based trust determinants in
Information Systems, 22(3), 56–95. computer-mediated transactions: A cross-cultural comparison study. Journal of
Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., & McCole, P. (2014). Trust, satisfaction, and online re- Management Information Systems, 24(4), 13–45.
purchase intention: The moderating role of perceived effectiveness of e-commerce Kim, J. B. (2012). An empirical study on consumer first purchase intention in online
institutional mechanisms. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 407–427. shopping: Integrating initial trust and TAM. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2),
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un- 125–150.
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), Kim, D. J. (2014). A study of the multilevel and dynamic nature of trust in e-commerce
39–50. from a cross-stage perspective. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(1),
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. 11–64.
Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1–19. Komiak, S. Y. X., & Benbasat, I. (2008). A two-process view of trust and distrust building
Gartner, (2015). The Gartner Digital Commerce Vendor Guide, Analysts: Chris Fletcher, in recommendation agents: A process-tracing study. Journal of the Association for
et al., Gartner, April 9, 2015. Information Systems, 9(12), 727–747.
Gefen, D., & Pavlou, P. A. (2012). The boundaries of trust and risk: The quadratic mod- Kotha, S., Rajgopal, S., & Rindova, V. (2001). Reputation building and performance: An
erating role of institutional structures. Information Systems Research, 23(3), 940–959. empirical analysis of the Top-50 pure internet firms. European Management Journal,
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An 19(6), 571–586.
integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 533–556. Lai, I. K., & Tong, V. W. (2013). The impact of company, subject, and system char-
Gefen, D. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce. Journal of the Association for acteristics on the trust factors affecting the adoption of Internet-based inter-
Information Systems, 3(1), 27–51. organizational systems. Information Systems Management, 30(4), 280–292.
Glover, S., & Benbasat, I. (2010). A comprehensive model of perceived risk of e-commerce Lee, E.-J., & Park, J. (2014). Enhancing virtual presence in e-tail: Dynamics of cue mul-
transactions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(2), 47–78. tiplicity. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(4), 117–146.
Grabner-Kraeuter, S. (2002). The role of consumers’ trust in online-shopping. Journal of Lee, M. K. O., Turban, E., Matthew, K. O., & Lee, E. T. (2001). A trust model for consumer
Business Ethics, 39(1–2), 43–50. internet shopping. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 75–91.
Grazioli, S., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2000). Perils of internet Fraud: An empirical investigation Li, X., & Hitt, L. M. (2010). Price effects in online product reviews: An analytical model
of deception and trust with experienced Internet consumers. IEEE Transactions on and empirical analysis. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 809–831.
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 30(4), 395–410. Li, D., Browne, G., & Wetherbe, J. (2006). Why do internet users stick with a specific
Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J., & Marmorstein, H. M. (1994). The moderating effects of message website? A relationship perspective. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. Journal of 10(4), 105–141.
Consumer Research, 21(1), 145–153. Li, Y. (2014). The impact of disposition to privacy: Website reputation and website fa-
Gupta, S., & Kim, H.-W. (2007). The moderating effect of transaction experience on the miliarity on information privacy concerns. Decision Support Systems, 57, 343–354.
decision calculus in on-line repurchase. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Liang, T.-P., Ho, Y.-T., Li, Y.-W., & Turban, E. (2011). What drives social commerce: The
12(1), 127–158. role of social support and relationship quality. International Journal of Electronic
Hampton-Sosa, W., & Koufaris, M. (2005). The effect of website perceptions on initial Commerce, 16(2), 69–90.
trust in the owner company. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 10(1), Lim, K., Sia, C., Lee, M., & Benbasat, I. (2006). Do I trust you online, and if so, will I buy?
55–81. An empirical study of two trust-building strategies. Journal of Management Information
Harris, L. C., & Goode, M. M. H. (2004). The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of Systems, 23(2), 233–266.
trust: A study of online service dynamics. Journal of Retailing, 80, 139–158. Lim, N. (2003). Consumers’ perceived risk: Sources versus consequences. Electronic
Hart, S., Tzokas, N., & Saren, M. (1999). The effectiveness of market information in en- Commerce Research and Applications, 2(3), 216–228.
hancing new product success rate. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2(1), Littler, D., & Melanthiou, D. (2006). Consumer perceptions of risk and uncertainty and the
20–35. implications for behaviour towards innovative retail services: The case of internet
Hayes, A. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new banking. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13, 431–443.
millenium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. Liu, B. Q., & Goodhue, D. L. (2012). Two worlds of trust for potential e-commerce users:
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A Humans as cognitive misers. Information Systems Research, 23(4), 1246–1262.
regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications. Liu, C., Marchewka, J. T., Lu, J., & Yu, C.-S. (2004). Beyond concern: A privacy-trust-
Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A., & Rickard, J. A. (2003). Customer repurchase behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Information and Management,
intention: A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/ 42(2), 127–142.
12), 1762–1800. Lowry, P. B., Vance, A., Moody, G., Beckman, B., & Read, A. (2008). Explaining and
Ho, S. Y., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2013). The effects of location personalization on integrity trust predicting the impact of branding alliances and website quality on initial consumer
and integrity distrust in mobile merchants. International Journal of Electronic trust of e-commerce websites. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4),
Commerce, 17(4), 39–72. 199–224.
Hsu, M., Chang, C., Chu, K., & Lee, Y. (2014). Determinants of repurchase intention in Lowry, P. B., Wilson, D. W., & Haig, W. L. (2014). A picture is worth a thousand words:
online group-buying: The perspectives of DeLone & McLean IS success model and Source credibility theory applied to logo and website design for heightened cred-
trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 234–245. ibility and consumer trust. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(1),
Hu, X., Wu, G., Wu, Y., & Zhang, H. (2010). The effects of web assurance seals on con- 63–93.
sumers’ initial trust in an online vendor: A functional perspective. Decision Support Lynch, J. G., & Ariely, D. (2000). Wine online: search costs affect competition on price,
Systems, 48(2), 407–418. quality, and distribution. Marketing Science, 19(1), 83–103.
Hung, S. W., Cheng, M. J., & Chen, P. C. (2012). Reexamining the factors for trust in Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy

217
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Salisbury, W. D., Pearson, R. A., Pearson, A. W., & Miller, D. W. (2001). Perceived security
Research, 15(4), 336–355. and World Wide Web purchase intention. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Mavlanova, T., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2010). Counterfeit products on the internet: The 101(4), 165–177.
role of seller-level and product-level information. International Journal of Electronic Shin, D. H., & Shin, Y. J. (2011). Consumers’ trust in virtual mall shopping: The role of
Commerce, 15(2), 79–104. social presence and perceived security. International Journal of Human-Computer
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organi- Interaction, 27(5), 450–475.
zational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. Sia, C. L., Lim, K. H., Leung, K., Lee, M. K. O., Huang, W. W., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Web
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). What trust means in e-commerce consumer strategies to promote internet shopping: Is cultural-costomization needed? MIS
relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Quarterly, 33(3), 491–512.
Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35–59. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in
McKnight, D., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. (1998). Initial trust formation in new relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37.
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490. Snoj, B., Pisnik Korda, A., & Mumel, D. (2004). The relationships among perceived
Moliner, M. A., Sanchez, J., Rodriguez, R. M., & Callarisa, L. (2007). Perceived re- quality, perceived risk and perceived product value. Journal of Product & Brand
lationship quality and post-purchase perceived value: An integrative framework. Management, 13(3), 156–167.
European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1392–1422. Srinivasan, S., Anderson, R., & Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce: An
Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1985). The effect of price on subjective product evalua- exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 8(4), 283–299.
tions. In J. Jacoby, & J. C. Olson (Eds.). Perceived quality: how consumer view stores and Statista (2015). Percentage of internet users in South Korea who have purchased goods
merchandise (pp. 209–232). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. and services over the internet in 2013, by gender. Statista. Available Online at http://
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship mar- www.statista.com/statistics/226786/share-of-internet-shoppers-in-south-korea-by-
keting. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. gender/.
Nicolaou, A. I., & McKnight, D. H. (2006). Perceived information quality in data ex- Suh, B., & Han, I. (2003). The impact of consumer trust and perception of security control
changes: Effects on risk, trust, and intention to use. Information Systems Research, on the acceptance of electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic
17(4), 332–351. Commerce, 7(3), 135–161.
Parasuraman, A., & Grewel, D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality-value- Sun, H. (2010). Sellers’ trust and continued use of online marketplaces. Journal of the
loyalty chain: A research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), Association of Information Systems, 11(4), 182–211.
168–174. Swaminathan, V., Lepkowska-White, E., & Rao, B. P. (2003). The Internet and consumer
Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: buying behavior: a research framework and analysis. In C. Steinfield (Ed.). Current
A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 61–67. topics in e-commerce (pp. 64–84). Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Pavlou, P. A., & Dimoka, A. (2006). The nature and role of feedback text comments in Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). The role of perceived risk in the
online marketplaces: Implications for trust building, price premiums and seller dif- quality-value relationship: A study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing, 75(1),
ferentiation. Information Systems Research, 17(4), 392–414. 77–105.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model.
adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), Management Science, 42(1), 85–92.
115–143. Taylor, J. W. (1974). The role of risk in consumer behavior. The Journal of Marketing,
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building effective online marketplaces with institution- 38(2), 54–60.
based trust. Information Systems Research, 15(1), 37–59. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2005). Psychological contract violation in online marketplaces: competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
Antecedents, consequences, and moderating role. Information Systems Research, 16(4), Teas, R. K., & Agarwal, S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’
372–399. perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Pavlou, P. A., Huigang, L., & Yajiong, X. (2007). Understanding and mitigating un- Science, 28(2), 278–290.
certainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Teo, T. S. H., & Liu, J. (2007). Consumer trust in e-commerce in the United States,
Quarterly, 31(1), 105–136. Singapore and China. Omega, 35, 22–38.
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and Urban, G. L., Amyx, C., & Lorenzon, A. (2009). Online trust: State of the art, new frontiers,
risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic and research potential. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2), 179–190.
Commerce, 7(3), 69–103. Utz, S., Matzat, U., & Snijders, C. (2009). On-line reputation systems: The effects of
Pengnate, S., & Antonenko, P. (2013). A multimethod evaluation of online trust and its feedback comments and reactions on building and rebuilding trust in on-line auc-
interaction with metacognitive awareness: An emotional design perspective. tions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(3), 95–118.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29(9), 582–593. Van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., & Creemers, M. (2003). Understanding online pur-
Pennington, R., Wilcox, H. D., & Grover, V. (2003). The role of system trust in business-to- chase intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European
consumer transactions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(3), 197–226. Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 41–48.
Peter, J. P., & Ryan, M. J. (1976). An investigation of perceived risk at the brand level. Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., & Straub, D. W. (2008). Examining trust in information
Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 184–188. technology artifacts: The effects of system quality and culture. Journal of Management
Pizzutti, C., & Fernandes, D. (2010). Effect of recovery efforts on consumer trust and Information Systems, 24(4), 73–100.
loyalty in e-tail: A contingency model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Washburn, J. H., Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. (2004). Brand alliance and customer-based
14(4), 127–160. brand-equity effects. Psychology & Marketing, 21(7), 487–508.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method Wells, J. D., Valacich, J. S., & Hess, T. J. (2011). What signal are you sending? How
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended website quality influences perceptions of product quality and purchase intentions.
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 373–396.
Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012). Shackled to the status quo: The inhibiting effects of Wu, G., Hu, X., & Wu, Y. (2010). Effects of perceived interactivity, perceived web as-
incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS surance and disposition to trust on initial online trust. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Quarterly, 36(1), 21–42. Communication, 16(1), 1–26.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing Wu, L. Y., Chen, K. Y., Chen, P. Y., & Cheng, S. L. (2014). Perceived value, transaction
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research cost, and repurchase-intention in online shopping: A relational exchange perspective.
Methods, 40(3), 879–891. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2768–2776.
Premazzi, K., Castaldo, S., Grosso, M., Raman, P., Brudvig, S., & Hofacker, C. F. (2010). Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty:
Consumer information sharing with e-vendors: The roles of incentives and trust. The role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing, 21(10), 799–822.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(3), 63–91. Yoon, S. J. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of trust in online-purchase deci-
Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2005). Online consumer trust and live help interfaces: The effects sions. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 16(2), 47–63.
of text-to-speech voice and three-dimensional avatars. International Journal of Human- Zahedi, F. M., & Song, J. (2008). Dynamics of trust revision: Using health infomediaries.
Computer Interaction, 19(1), 75–94. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 225–248.
Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end
agents: A social relationship perspective to designing information systems. Journal of model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Management Information Systems, 25(4), 145–182. Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K. K., Ramsey, E., McCole, P., & Chen, H. (2011). Repurchase
Rangaswamy, A., Burke, R. R., & Oliva, T. A. (1993). Brand equity and the extendibility of intention in B2C e-commerce – A relationship quality perspective. Information and
brand names. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), 61–75. Management, 48(6), 192–200.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on Zhou, T., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2009). The relative importance of website design quality and
buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing service quality in determining consumers’ online repurchase behavior. Information
Research, 26(3), 351–357. Systems Management, 26(4), 327–337.
Rao, A. R., Qu, L., & Ruekert, R. W. (1999). Signaling unobservable product quality
through a brand ally. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 258–268. Yulia W. Sullivan is an assistant professor of MIS in the School of Management at
Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic of store per- Binghamton University, the State University of New York. She earned her PhD degree in
ceptions cue effects on brand quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 28–36. information systems from the University of North Texas and her MBA from Chosun
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS University, South Korea. Her research interests include human-computer interaction,
GmbH. http://wwww.smartpls.com. cognitive information systems, IS and decision making, and mixed methods research. Her

218
Y.W. Sullivan, D.J. Kim International Journal of Information Management 39 (2018) 199–219

work has appeared in several journals including Journal of the Association for Information and conference proceedings including Information Systems Research, Journal of
Systems, International Journal of Information Management, Journal of Medical Internet Management Information Systems, Journal of AIS, European Journal of Information Systems,
Research, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, and others. She has also pre- Communications of ACM, Communications of AIS, Decision Support Systems, International
sented her research at the International Conference on Information Systems and the Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing,
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Electronic Market, and so on. He has been
awarded the National Science Foundation CyberCorps: SFS grant for multi-years, 2012
Dan J. Kim is a Professor of Information Technology and Decision Sciences (ITDS) at Emerald management Review Citations of Excellence Awards, 2010 Best Published Paper
University of North Texas (UNT). His research interests are in multidisciplinary areas such Award in ISR, an Emerald Literati Network 2009 - Outstanding Paper Award, the ICIS
as information security (InfoSec) and privacy, information assurance, and trust in elec- 2003 Best Paper-First Runner-up Award, and the AMCIS 2005 Best Research Paper Award
tronic commerce. Recently he has focused on InfoSec Self-Efficacy, Web Assurance Seal at AMCIS 2005. He was ranked at 22nd worldwide in terms of research productivity from
Services (WASS), and Trust in e-collaborations. His research work has been published or year 2008 to 2010 based on top three leading IS journals: ISR, MISQ and JMIS.
in forthcoming more than 150 papers in refereed journals, peer-reviewed book chapters,

219