“Factors affecting Indian consumers’ online buying behavior”

Jayendra Sinha
AUTHORS
Jiyeon Kim

Jayendra Sinha and Jiyeon Kim (2012). Factors affecting Indian consumers’
ARTICLE INFO
online buying behavior. Innovative Marketing , 8(2)

RELEASED ON Monday, 09 July 2012

JOURNAL "Innovative Marketing "

FOUNDER LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives”

NUMBER OF REFERENCES NUMBER OF FIGURES NUMBER OF TABLES

0 0 0

© The author(s) 2021. This publication is an open access article.

businessperspectives.org
Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

Jayendra Sinha (USA), Jiyeon Kim (USA)

Factors affecting Indian consumers’ online buying behavior

Abstract
India has been gaining importance as a high potential lucrative market for global retailers. Since the recent economic
reforms, Indian consumers have just begun to understand benefits of using Internet for shopping. However, the grow-
ing number of Internet users has not been reflected to the online sales. Thus, it is important to identify factors affecting
Indian consumers’ online buying behavior in order to find the way to stimulate their online shopping behavior. The
purpose of this study is to identify factors affecting Indian consumers’ attitude toward shopping online by investigating
Indian consumers’ risk perceptions about shopping online. Constructs tested included previously identified factors
(convenience risk, product risk, financial risk, perceived behavior control, return policy, subjective norm, attitude, and
technology specific innovativeness) and Indian-specific factors (concerns associated with delivery of an ordered prod-
uct and cyber laws, shipping fees, and after service) specifically developed for this study. The concerns associated
with delivery of product, social and perceived behavioral control have been found to be significant factors affecting
attitude toward using Internet for shopping. In terms of gender difference, perceived risks (product, convenience, fi-
nancial, and non-delivery) and technology specific innovativeness were found to be significant for males and, for fe-
males, convenience risk and attitude towards online shopping were significant factors.
Keywords: online shopping, Indian consumer behavior.
Introduction” applied to Indian online shopping environments? In
order to address these research questions, it is im-
With the improving economic conditions because of
portant to test previously identifies concerns (in oth-
liberal economic policy, India has been gaining im-
er countries) as well as Indian-specific concerns as-
portance as a high potential lucrative market for
sociated with online shopping. Thus, the purpose of
global retailers. In 2009 Indian retail market size was
this study is to identify factors affecting Indian con-
ranked as the 5th largest globally, and was valued at
sumers’ attitude toward shopping online. This infor-
US$400 billion. A recent industry report by global
mation will help Internet retailers find the way to en-
consultancy Northbridge Capital stated the growth of
courage Indian shopper’s online purchase behavior.
India’s retail industry to be US$700 billion in 2010.
The per capita income in India has gone up (Hubacek Previous studies (i.e., Bhatnagar et al., 2000; Jar-
et al., 2007) as much as 14.2% (2006-07) after the venpaa and Todd, 1997; Vijayasarathy and Jones
recent economic reform, resulting in an increasing 2000) attempted to identify factors affecting Indian
number of Indian consumers with an affordability to consumers’ online purchases. However, only risk
use Internet service (at home, cyber cafes, or on a and benefit factors identified from the US studies
phone, etc) (www.tradechakra.com, 2008). This were applied to the Indian online shopping context,
supports industry statistics by Internet and Mobile failing to incorporate Indian culture-specific factors.
Association of India (IAMAI), showing 30% growth Thus, the purpose of this study is to identify factors
(2.15 billion USD) of e-commerce and mobile in- affecting Indian consumers’ online shopping beha-
dustry in 2008 alone. vior, specifically elucidating them in the Indian con-
In spite of a number of evidence showing the text. In addition to the previously identified factors
growth of Internet usage by Indian consumers, In- (i.e. psychological reasons such as perceived risks,
ternet sales show less than 1 percent of the total re- shipping costs & time, trust etc.), this study included
tail sales in India. This may represent a great poten- Indian culture-specific factors (e.g., shopping and
tial to grow yet some obstacles to overcome for on- leisure habits, credit card penetration rate, Internet
line retailers. Many Indian consumers have low self- related infrastructure, reliability of postal carriers,
efficacy in using Internet and feel shopping online etc.) that may play an important role in determining
to be unconventional. It seems that even for those, Internet adoption for e-commerce. Also, potential
who use Internet on regular bases, Internet is mainly gender difference in identifying factors affecting
for searching product information, comparing pric- male/female purchase behavior was investigated.
es, and/or checking consumer reviews rather than
1. Literature review
making a purchase. Would the reasons for Indian
shoppers not shopping online be the same as the 1.1. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Theory
ones identified in other countries online shopping of Planned Behavior (TPB) explains behaviors over
environments? Would there be specific concerns which individuals have incomplete voluntary con-
trol (Azjen, 1985, 1991; Azjen & Fishbein 1980).
” Jayendra Sinha, Jiyeon Kim, 2012. Attitude toward a behavior and subjective norm

46
 Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

about engaging in a behavior are supposed to influ- financial risk (e.g., Is my credit card information
ence intention. Attitude depicts an individual’s feel- safe?), product risk (e.g., Is the product the same
ings, inclination or disinclination towards perform- quality as viewed on the screen?), convenience (e.g.,
ing a behavior. A prospective technology user’s Will I understand how to order and return the mer-
overall attitudes toward using a given technology- chandise?) and non-delivery risk (e.g., What if the
based system (i.e., Internet) or procedure represents merchandise is not delivered?) The level of uncer-
major determinants as to whether or not he/she will tainty surrounding the online purchasing process
ultimately use the system (Davis, 1993). Subjective influences consumers’ perceptions regarding the
norms reveal the individual’s perceptions of the in- perceived risks (Bhatnagar et al., 2000).
fluence of significant others (e.g., family, friends, 1.4. Internet usage in India. Over the past few
peers, etc.). Others’ opinions about online shopping decades, the Internet has developed into a vast glob-
as well as online reviews will influence online al market place for the exchange of goods and ser-
shopping behavior. TPB additionally includes per- vices in the world. In many countries, the Internet
ceived behavior control over engaging in behaviors, has been adopted as an important medium, offering
suggesting that human behavioral decision-making a wide assortment of products with 24 hour availa-
is affected by the consumer’s ability to perform the bility and wide area coverage. Indians use the Inter-
behavior. The ability to shop online (e.g., Internet net for e-mail and IM (98%); job search (51%);
accessibility, credit card ownership, etc.) might re- banking (32%); bill payment (18%); stock trading
frain a consumer from shopping online. (15%); and matrimonial search (15%) etc. (Feb,
1.2. Diffusion of innovation. The concept of inno- 2006 data) (www.internetworlstats.com).
vation has received a great deal of attention particu- The growth rate of electronic commerce in India,
larly in the information technology and marketing however, has yet been much below anticipation; its
research (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998; Midgley & proportion of total retail business is still small due to
Dowling, 1978; Rogers, 1995). Rogers (1995) con- its certain limitations (Sylke et al., 2004). Compared
ceptualized “personal innovativeness” as the degree to developed countries (e.g., United States of Amer-
and pace of adoption of innovation by an individual. ica), Indian telecommunications infrastructure is
weak. Thus consumers throughout the country are
Consumers who are innovative are representative as
not as prone to shop online as a more technological-
being highly abstract and possess a generalized per-
ly advanced country (Bellman, Lohse and Johnson
sonality trait (Im, Bayus & Mason, 2003). Examples
1999; Bhatnagar et al., 2000; MohdSuki, 2006). In-
as to the levels of abstraction inherent across the
dia’s low credit card penetration may be another
various literatures utilizing this perspective include
barrier to online shopping. Finally, India’s distribu-
“a willingness to change” (Hurt et al., 1977) and the
tion system is unable to provide timely and reliable
receptivity to new experiences and novel stimuli
delivery of products. This limitation is further ex-
(Goldsmith, 1984; Leavitt & Walton, 1975). The
acerbated when the return of products purchased
Internet is a fairly new and considered to be innova-
online is taken into consideration (Bingi, Ali &
tion that requires individuals to learn new skills in
Khamalah, 2000; Hoffman et al., 1999; Teo, 2002).
order to use the technology. Diffusion of innovation
In addition, little empirical research exists regarding
theory is applicable to understanding online con-
Indian online retail market and variables that influ-
sumer behavior. Consumers who are used to shop-
ence Indian online consumers’ purchasing beha-
ping in brick-and-mortar stores may have difficulty
viors. Thus it is important to understand variables
in changing habits and shopping online (Kaufman-
that influence Indian consumers’ online purchasing
Scarborough & Lindquist, 2002). On the other hand,
behaviors. Previous research suggested that men are
consumers who have high level of innovativeness
more likely to purchase products and/or services
may more likely to shop online.
from the Internet than women (Garbarino & Strahi-
1.3. Perceived risks. Online transaction involves a levitz, 2004; Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999; Van Slyke
temporal separation of payment and product deli- et al., 2002). Potential gender difference in identify-
very. A consumer must provide financial informa- ing factors influencing attitude toward using Internet
tion (e.g., credit card details) and personal informa- for shopping was also examined.
tion (e.g., name, address and phone number) for de-
2. Conceptual model and hypotheses
livery in order to complete the purchasing process.
Risks perceived or real, exist due to technology fail- The conceptual model was developed to examine
ure (e.g., breaches in the system) or human error the factors affecting Indian consumer’s online shop-
(e.g., data entry mistakes). The most frequently ping behaviors (see Figure 1). This model examines
cited risks associated with online shopping include (1) the influence of previously identified risk factors

47
Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

(financial, product, and convenience risks) and In- and (2) the influence of an individual’s technology
dian contextual service and infrastructure factors specific innovativeness (TSI), attitude, subjective
(concerns associated with a product delivery and norm and perceived behavioral control (PBC) on
return policy) on attitudes towards online shopping online shopping behavior.

Fig. 1. Proposed model of factors influencing Indian shoppers’ online shopping behavior

2.1. Perceived risks. Perceived risk refers to “the credit card information, or overcharge (Bhatnagar,
nature and amount of risk perceived by a consumer Misra & Rao, 2000; Forsythe & Shi, 2003). This
in contemplating a particular purchase decision” leads to the development of Hypothesis 1a.
(Cox & Rich, 1964).
Hypothesis 1a: The risk of losing money and finan-
Before purchasing a product, a consumer typically cial details will have negative influence on attitude
considers the various risks associated with the pur- towards online shopping.
chase. Many studies have indicated credit card secu-
Product risk is defined as the risk of receiving the
rity, buying without touching or feeling the item
product that is different from what’s perceived to be
(tactile input), being unable or facing difficulty to
in the product description. This could be resulted
return the item, shipping charges and privacy (secu-
from the quality of the retailer’s product description
rity) of personal information as still being the main
and the visual representation of the product, signifi-
concerns of online shoppers (Bellman et al., 1999;
cantly influencing the consumer’s ability to under-
Bhatnagar et al., 2000; Mohd&Suki, 2006). The
stand the product. Inability of physical product ex-
higher the perceived risk, the consumer may choose
amination and insufficient product information on
to patronize a brick-and-mortar retailer for the pur-
screen may increase concerns of consumers. The
chase of the product. Whereas, the lower the per-
issues surrounding product risk associated with on-
ceived risk, the higher the propensity for online
line shopping resulted in the following hypothesis.
shopping (Tan, 1999).
Hypothesis 1b: The product risk will have nega-
Financial risk is defined as the risk involved in con-
tive influence on the attitude of online shopping.
ducting financial transaction through the internet.
Previous research found financial risk being a pri- Convenience risk is defined as the discontent comes
mary reason consumers choose not to shop online from shopping via the Internet. Discomfort in online
(Miyazaki & Fernandez, 2001; Teo, 2002). Con- shopping is associated with the steps required to
sumers are likely to be hesitant to shop online when complete personal details to processes the check-out
they have concerns associated with financial risks, forms. The ease of shopping at the online retailer’s
such as the loss of credit card information, theft of website influence consumers’ perceptions of the

48
 Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

level of convenience risk (Jarvenpa & Tractinsk, pers mean going outside their usual shopping rou-
2001). Methods for reducing convenience risk in- tine. While the online shopping offers consumers a
clude providing an easy to navigate website as well wide breadth and depth of merchandise offerings, it
as an extensive customer service center. A call center, also requires them to acquire new technology skills
return policy, and a variety of payment options all in order to seek, evaluate and acquire products.
assist consumers in feeling more at ease (Lee, 2002).
Research has revealed that online shopping innova-
Hypothesis 1c: A user friendly website and service tiveness is a function of attitude towards the online
availability to help transaction will have positive influ- environment and individual personal characteristics
ence on attitude towards shopping online. (Midgley & Dowling, 1978; Eastlick, 1993; Sylke,
Belanger & Comunale, 2004; Lassar et al., 2005).
2.2. Service and infrastructural variables. Addi-
Innovative consumers are more inclined to try new
tional challenges for e-commerce diffusion in de-
activities (Robinson, Marshall & Stamps, 2004;
veloping countries like India are the lack of tele-
Rogers, 1995). Adoption of online shopping is de-
communications infrastructure throughout the coun-
piction of individual’s innovative characteristic
try (e.g., low computer usage and Internet penetra- (Eastlick, 1993). It is expected that person’s tech-
tion along with the lack of qualified staff to develop nology specific innovativeness has a propensity to
and support e-commerce sites (Bingi et al., 2000;
shop online.
Hoffman, 1999). These concerns may no longer be
significant deterrent for online shopping in many Hypothesis 4: Technology specific innovativeness
developed countries. The concerns associated with will affect online shopping behavior.
delivery of the product ordered, such as shipping 2.4. Subjective nmorm. According to the Theory of
fees, delayed delivery and/or not receiving a product Reasoned Action (TRA) (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980)
ordered. This is due to most India’s postal careers the human behavior is preceded by intentions, which
being unreliable except for the government owned are formed based on consumer’s attitude toward the
one that is pricey. Thus, online shoppers are forced behavior and on perceived subjective norms. Atti-
to choose the pricey postal career for more secure tude reflects the individual’s believes. Subjective
delivery or to take a risk of not getting the product norms capture the consumer’s perceptions of the
delivered when choosing other careers. Hypothesis
influence of significant others (e.g., family, peers,
1d was developed considering India’s insecure inef-
authority figures, and media). Subjective norms tend
ficient delivery system.
to be a strong influential factor especially in the ear-
Hypothesis 2: The fear of delayed product deli- ly stages of innovation implementation when users
very or not getting it delivered/losing it in transit have limited direct experience from which to devel-
will have negative influence on attitude towards op attitudes (Taylor & Todd, 1995). It is during this
shopping online. stage of attitudinal development that online retailers
can influence shoppers’ propensity for purchasing
The ease of return policy is often a concern to online
behaviors (Yu and Wu, 2007).
shoppers (Teo, 2002). The ramifications of how to
exchange products, the length of time allowed to Hypothesis 5: Family members, friends and peers’
return a product, and the cost associated with the online experiences and suggestions will positively
shipping of merchandise back to the online retailer influence on online buying behavior.
are often concerns associated with an online return
policy (Shim, Shin, Yong & Nottingham, 2002). 2.5. Attitude. Consumers’ attitudes towards per-
Hypothesis 3 was developed based on effect of well- forming a behavior has been proven as a strong pre-
placed return policy. dictor of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Atti-
tude has been applied in several ways in the context
Hypothesis 3: The good and convenient product re- of online shopping. Adopting a new technology is a
turn policy will have positive influence on attitude function of one’s attitude towards it (Moore & Ben-
towards shopping online. basat, 1991). It refers to the consumers’ acceptance
2.3. Technology specific innovativeness. Domain of the Internet as a shopping channel (Jahng et al.,
Specific Innovativeness (DSI) is “the degree to 2001). It also refers to consumer attitudes toward a
which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting specific Internet store (i.e., to what extent consum-
an innovation than other members of his system” ers think that shopping at this store is appealing).
(Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971, p. 27). Thus, in the Other previous researches have also revealed that
online shopping context, domain specific innova- attitude towards online shopping a significant pre-
tiveness is defined to be technology specific innova- dictor of making online purchases (George 2004;
tiveness. Shopping online for the most Indian shop- Yang et al., 2007).

49
Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

2.6. Perceived behavioral control. Ajzen and better understanding of their online shopping fears
Madden (1986) extended the TRA into the Theory (i.e., perceived risks), it was deemed critical to sur-
of Planned Behavior (TPB) by adding a new con- vey this group. Using a paper survey was deemed
struct “perceived behavioral control” as a determi- the most appropriate method of reaching this group.
nant of behavioral intention and behavior. Perceived Confidentiality of responses was assured and poten-
behavioral control refers to consumers’ perceptions tial respondents were invited to forward any queries
of their ability to perform a given behavior. TPB via e-mail to the researcher.
allows the prediction of behaviors over which The sample selected for this study consisted of per-
people do not have complete volitional control. Per- sons in the Delhi region and students at Banaras
ceived behavioral control reflects perceptions of Hindu University in India. A total of 987 surveys
internal constraints (self-efficacy) as well as exter- were administered; 287 paper surveys and 700 e-mail
nal constraints on behavior, like availability of re- surveys. Fifty-one paper surveys and 92 electronic
sources. Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) direct- surveys were returned for a total of 143 surveys. From
ly affects online shopping behavior (George, 2004) this, 127 usable surveys were obtained. The 13% re-
and has a strong relationship with actual Internet sponse rate is acceptable given the nature of the social
purchasing (Khalifa & Limayem, 2003). Thus, the science research (Touliatos and Compton, 1988) and
following hypothesis was developed. the sample population of India.
Hypothesis 7: Individual’s resources to shop online 4. Analyses
will have negative effect on online shopping behavior.
The data were analyzed using SPSS 16.0. Principal
3. Methods Component Analysis (PCA) using varimax rotation
A survey was developed to identify factors that in- with Kaiser Normalization conducted on the online
fluence Indian online shoppers’ behavior. Variables shopping behavior measures. This analysis was con-
examined are technology specific innovativeness, ducted as a reduction technique. There were total 50
perceived risks (financial risk, product risk, conven- items measuring 14 variables apart from the items ask-
ience risk and non-delivery risk), perceived beha- ing about Internet usage, pattern and demographic de-
vior controls, demographics and service and infra- tails (32 items). Principal component analysis has
structural factors (cyber laws, shipping charges and been used to factor observed interrelated variables
after sales service). Questions were adopted from together. Based on the PCA results, habit, trust and
previous research (40 questions) and 14 were devel- others have been deleted as the items were cross-
oped by the researcher. Item scales ranged from loading on multiple components. Thus latent va-
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The sur- riables were viable for final analysis. Components
vey was created in online and paper versions and in were extracted and labeled which had eigenvalues
above 1.00 and whose absolute values after rota-
order to reach consumers who have no regular access
tion was greater than 0.30. Reliability and validity
to Internet hence maximize the response rate.
tests were then conducted. Ten factors were gener-
3.1. Pilot study. The survey was written in English ated. They include: (1) financial risk (2) product
and pilot tested using a small group of student sam- risk (3) convenience risk (4) non-delivery risk (5)
ple (n = 15) at Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in return-policy (6) technology specific innovative-
Varanasi, India. English is taught as a mandatory ness (7) subjective norm (8) attitude (9) perceived
subject in schools throughout India. As such, the behavioral control.
subjects had no problem understanding English. The
purpose of the pre-test was to verify the survey’s The result of reliability tests indicated all the construct
content for clarity and understanding. Students were measures to be reliable with Cronbach’s alpha over
asked to indicate all areas that were either unclear, 0.80 except for the financial risk (0.748), the non-
difficult to read, or confusing. The survey was re- delivery risk (0.684) and the technology specific inno-
vised based on the feedback from the pretest. vativeness (0.778) (see Table 1). The items of these
components and additionally product risk and PBC
3.2. Data collection procedure. Two methods of (perceived behavioral control) were loaded separately
data collection were used: online and manual distri- but when measured together performed better in relia-
bution of a paper survey. The online survey allowed bility analysis. Construct correlations were below 0.8
the researcher to capture the Indian consumers who indicating acceptable discriminate validity based on
were proficient technology users. As identified in the rule of thumb suggested by Kline (1998). Multiple
the review of literature, a large portion of the Indian regression analysis was conducted to test Hypotheses.
population does not use the Internet on a regular A significance level of p < 0.05 was used as the guide-
basis nor do they shop online. In order to obtain a line for identifying statistically significant results.

50
 Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

Table 1. Factor loadings from PCA & Cronbach’s alpha

Cronbach’s
Latent variable Constructs Factor loadings
alpha
Feel that it will be difficult settling disputes when I shop online. 0.866 0.898
It is not easy to cancel orders when shop online. 0.731
I will have problem in returning product bought online. 0.868
Convenience risk
I cannot get to examine the product when I shop online. 0.787
Finding right product online is difficult. 0.913
I cannot wait till the product arrives. 0.62
I do not shop online as I do not have a computer at home. 0.874 0.871
I do not shop online as I do not have a computer with Internet. 0.925
Perceived behavior control
I do not shop online as I do not have a credit card. 0.844
I do not shop online because the internet speed is very slow (webpage download time is low). 0.623
My friend's opinion is important to me when I make a purchase. 0.789 0.810
I will have no problem in shopping online if I get to know that my friends and relatives are doing
Subjective norm 0.746
it without any problems.
Sharing my experience through online product reviews will make me noticeable. 0.697
I am usually the first in my group to try out new technologies. 0.670 0.778
Technology specific My friends approach me for consultation if they have to try something new. 0.509
innovativeness I am confident of shopping online even if no one is there to show me how to do it. 0.861
I feel confident of using Internet for shopping after seeing someone else using it. 0.699
I do not purchase online if there is no free return shipment service available. 0.703 0.840
Return policy I purchase online only when I can return the product without any frills or strings attached. 0.647
I do not purchase online if there is no money back guarantee. 0.915
Using Internet for online shopping is easy. 0.930 0.860
Attitude
Shopping online is fun and I enjoy it. 0.800
I might not get what I ordered through online shopping. 0.704 0.881
Product risk I might receive a malfunctioning merchandise. 0.583
It is hard to judge the quality of merchandise online. 0.725
I feel that my credit card details may be compromised and misused if I shop online. 0.872 0.748
I might get overcharged if I shop online as the retailer has my credit card info. 0.817
Financial risk
I feel that my personal info given for the transaction to the retailer may be compromized to
0.799
a 3rd party.
I do not shop online because of non-availability of reliable & well-equipped shipper. 0.910 0.684
Non-delivery risk
I might not receive the product ordered online. 0.521

5. Results and discussion (28.3%) use credit cards. Detailed Internet usage of
the sample is presented in Table 1.
5.1. Sample characteristics. The total number of
responses obtained were 143 out of which 127 (65% 5.2. Internet usage and experience. Majority of
male and 35% female) were valid and usable. Ap- respondents uses Internet either at home (N = 74;
proximately 96% respondents were in the age range 58.3%) or at work/school (N=82; 64.6%) with just
21-39 years and average qualification was a post- as few as 21.3% (N = 27) of all still visit cyber-
graduate degree or above (around 84%) and 52 cafes. Majority of respondents said that mostly use
(40.9%) had an income more than Rs. 600,000/ Internet either for e-mail communication (N = 85;
year; approximately 73% of the respondent people 67%) or for work (N = 27; 21%). Of all the respon-
belonged to a household with 3 or more than 3 dents most had fair experience with the use of In-
people. 44 (34.6%) lived in self-owned and 34 ternet; 72 (56.7%) were using it for more than 5
(26.8%) in rented accommodation. Fifteen percent years while 34 (26.8%) were using it for more than
of the respondents never bought online and 40% 3 years but less than 5 years.
of them were educated below a post graduate de- 5.3. Online shopping experience and usage. Only
gree. Eighty four percent of respondents have 10 (7.9%) respondent were using Internet for shop-
computer at home and an 81% responded that they ping for more than 5 years, otherwise of people us-
have even Internet connection and 62 (48.8%) ing Internet for following years was like, 3-5 years –
have broadband service. Approximately 80% of 17 (13.4%), 2-3 years – 18 (14.2%) and 1-2 years 31
respondents have a credit card and 80 (63%) even (24.4%) people etc. 22 (17.3%) people never used
pay through credit cards only with a meager percent Internet for shopping. Almost 80% people said that
usage of other payment methods, for example – 36 they bought online only 3-5 times till date. 64
51
Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

(50.4%) respondents said that their online expenditure out differences in the relationship between va-
for last 6 months was more than Rs. 1500 and 61 riables for male/female consumers. The regression
(48%) respondents preferred buying tickets for cine- result showed all the risk factors and technology
ma/shows, 38 (29.9%) books and 29 (22.8%) used specific innovativeness to be significant for males
Internet for banking or financial services etc. while for females only convenience risk and atti-
Regression analysis was conducted to identify factors tude towards online shopping was significant. The
affecting Indian consumers’ online purchase beha- details of hypotheses testing results of results are
vior. The results were separated by gender to find presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Regression result based on gender
Female Male
Hypotheses
Beta p-value Beta p-value
H1a: Product risk Æ Attitude -0.289 0.054 0.307 0.005*

H1b: Financial risk Æ Attitude -0.186 0.221 0.333 0.002*

H1c: Convenience risk Æ Attitude -0.462 0.001* 0.265 0.016*

H2: Delivery concernsÆ Attitude 0.221 0.144 0.218 0.049*
H3: Return policy Æ Attitude 0.155 0.309 0.200 0.072
H4: Innovativeness Æ Behavior -0.306 0.100 0.450 0.004*
H5: Attitude Æ Behavior 0.652 0.001* 0.188 0.253
H6: Subjective norm Æ Behavior -0.157 0.407 -0.012 0.944
H7: Perceived Behavioral Control Æ Behavior -0.167 0.377 -0.424 0.007*

Note: * = sig. at p < .05

Overall, the convenience risk was found to be only contrary to the finding of Lee (2002) which says
factor affecting Indian consumers’ online buying that returning hassles lead to dissatisfaction in con-
behavior. However, the results showed some inter- sumers and that is why they avoid shopping online.
esting differences when broken down by gender. It
For males technology innovativeness (H4) is a sig-
was found that the male are more concerned towards nificant variable male respondents, p = 0.004 (Table
perceived risk factors (H1a: p = 0.002, H1b: p = 1) while for female respondents it was not a signifi-
0.005, H1c: p = 0.016) and concerns associated with cant variable, p = 0.100, because they are socially
non-delivery of the product (H2: p = 0.049) while more active than the females and perhaps interac-
female whereonly concerned about the convenience tion with other people makes them more aware of
risk (H1c: p = 0.001). This is consistent with the newer technology and developments. For females
findings of the extant studies (e.g., Forsythe & Shi, it is not significant and the the reason could be in-
2003; Biswas & Biswas, 2004) where financial, fluence of other factors like habit of shopping in
product and convenience risk are an important sig- brick and mortar shop and non-availability of price
nificant risk factor for not shopping online; the poss- negotiation platform as about 46.5% agreed that
ible reason of insignificance in Indian females ap- they do not buy unless they negotiate price and as
pears to be the indifference and unwillingness to- per Westfall and Boyd (1960) neither the Indian
wards online medium and as shopping for them is buyer nor the seller is comfortable unless they
more of a social activity. As found out in a study by negotiate price.
Swinyard & Smith (2003), there is group of Internet The influence of subjective norm on online shop-
users (called non-shoppers of online) and since In- ping behavior (H5) was not statistically supported,
dian Internet users do not tend to shop online they male, p = 0.944 (Table 1) and female, p = 0.407
belong to this class only and the reason again seems (Table 1). This means the opinion of friends and
to be preference for brick and mortar shops to get peers will not be likely to influence Indian consum-
the feel of the product before buying it rather than ers’ online buying behavior. This finding is consis-
relying completely on the provided information. The tent with previous studies Wang et al. (2007) where
reason of difference between male and female’s per- friends, relatives and media (subjective norm) has
ception could be that in India male are primary earn- not been an important factor influencing the online
ing members of a family, so they are little concerned shopping behavior but not with others like Järveläi-
and frugal with their money. The return policy (H3) nen (2007) and Khalifa and Limayem (2003) where
is also not significant with, male, p = 0.072 and for subjective norm has been significant. India is collec-
female, p = 0.309 (Table 1). The reason again seems tive society (Hofstede, 1980). People like to go to
to be indifference towards online shopping which is market places together and value opinion of others.

52
 Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

They also opine good about sharing online expe- shopping behavior while among male innovative-
rience. The reason of this inconsistency appears to ness was significant which meant females frame
be distrust for online retailers and transaction. their opinion then they will go ahead without consi-
dering risks if the process is easy and user friendly
Attitude towards online shopping is significant for
while male will gauge various risks before shopping
females but not for males, female p = 0.001 (Table
online. The study found that the majority of people
1) while for male, p = 1.351. There seems that fe-
who bought online more number of times were in the
male although have a good opinion for online shop-
age group of 40-49 years. This is different from
ping but they do not want to do it because of incon-
common prediction that younger people who will be
venience they perceive in online shopping. For male
more proficient in Internet use and hence likely to
it is contrary to finding of Wang et al. (2007) that
buy. Although it has been pointed out by Järveläinen
found attitude to be a significant factor affecting
(2007) that customizing the system as per the re-
online shopping intention of Taiwanese consumers.
quirement for different demographic groups is not
This means that although Indian male consumers
advisable, but the system should be easy to use keep-
find online shopping easy, enjoy using Internet
ing in mind for inexperienced customers and allow-
(Mean is 4.92) but that does not give them com-
ing experienced users some customization options
fort of going ahead and shop online. The possible
could be attractive.
reason could be inexperience in online shopping
and lack of efforts from companies to create posi- Implications. There are a few implications from
tive image towards this shopping medium and these findings on online shopping that merit atten-
other factors. tion. Such as, retail companies should start taking
The perceived behavioral control has an insignifi- measures to eliminate risk factor and build trust in
cant influence on online shopping behavior, p = this form of retail. The retail managers should
0.377 for female and p = 0.007 for males (Table sway consumers through ads, promotions, online
1) shows that since majority (84.3%) of respon- only discounts etc. to let people cross the thre-
dents have computer at home and (81.1%) re- shold and start buying because Indian consumers
sponded that they have even Internet connection are still comfortable with brick and mortar format
and (48.8%) have broadband service so they be- as they appreciate friendly approach of salesman
lieve that non-availability of Internet infrastruc- and social element of shopping, which has been
ture will not significantly impact online shopping found as important customary element in shop-
behavior. Which is contrary to the finding of ping (Tauber, 1972). In addition, they need to
Wang et al. (2007) and other studies (e.g. Khalifa make web their website user friendly and less in-
and Limayem, 2003) found PBC to be a signifi- triguing. It should encourage online consumers to
cant factor affecting online shopping behavior. spend time exploring the site and comparing pric-
Conclusion, implications and limitations es online, provide detail product information and
member discounts. The results also suggest that
People in India are using Internet for last few after-sales operations like, dispute settling and
years (on an average more than 3 years) for dif- delivery, should be carried out promptly and
ferent purposes like, banking, buying travel tick- quickly so that consumer would build faith in the
ets etc. but not for anything for which they do not system. During the process of purchasing, online
need to queue up. The reasons as quoted by agents can help customers and simplify the pur-
Channel Push’s (www.channelpush.com) article – chasing procedure to give a feeling of friendliness of
State of Online Retailing in India are, slow build- salesman – or demonstrate how to purchase with clear
ing up of Internet infrastructure, lack of interac-
text, images or examples. Because of perceived lack of
tive and informative websites and unwillingness
secured transaction, retailers should introduce a me-
on the part of retailers.
chanism that would improve safety and privacy to mo-
The results of this study shed insights of online tivate people to buy online. It will also be important to
retailing in India – specifically factors affecting mention that price bargaining factor needs to be incor-
Indian consumers’ online buying behavior. Al- porated to keep people in sync with their buying habits
though the convenience risk seemed to be the only and giving a feel of having bought a good deal. This
factor significantly affecting Indian consumers’ could perhaps be done by keeping fixed and variable
online purchases, when looking at male and fe- component in pricing and letting people chose from
male perceptions, there were different factors af- variable component.
fecting male/female consumer’s behaviors. Per-
ceived risk is significant for male but not for female, Previous research has revealed that Indian online buy-
except convenience risk (p = 0.001). For female ing behavior is related to certain demographics (e.g.,
attitude has been significant factor for online Li, Cheng, and Russell, 1999; Weiss, 2001), indicat-
53
Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

ing that, compared with brick-and-mortar shoppers, Limitations. This study has few limitations. First,
online consumers tend to be better educated (Bellman this survey limits us to a pool of Internet users. Hence,
et al., 1999; Li et al., 1999; Swinwyard and Smith, the results may not be generalizable to non-Internet
2003), have higher income (Bellman et al., 1999; Li et users. Although through paper survey it was in-
al., 1999; Donthu and Garcia 1999; Swinwyard and tended to cover few non-users but since the pool of
Smith, 2003), and more technologically savvy (Li et respondents was either students or working profes-
al., 1999; Swinwyard and Smith, 2003). Thus, further sionals so all of them had sufficient exposure to in-
study identifying particular demographics (other than ternet. Second, the samples of Internet users for this
just gender) that might have an influence on Indian study were mostly those who are more knowledgea-
consumers’ online shopping behavior might be useful. ble about the Internet and are thus experienced In-
ternet users. Thus, the sample of respondents may
The findings of the study will help online retailers to be skewed toward more experienced Internet users.
better understand the psyche of consumers and equip This may also restrict the generalizability of the
themselves to attract consumers towards online format. findings. Due to limitation of time a convenient
They could introduce money back guarantee, insured sampling was done a random sampling would give a
and assured delivery to alleviate risk factors. It would better idea of Indian consumer as a whole. Also, the
help managers understand the online consumer better sample size is small to be called a true depicter of pop-
and work towards new area of retail in India as Inter- ulation as the study was limited to two cities only. In-
net shopping would help retailers present a potential- clusion of cultural and value dimensions can provide a
ly low cost alternative to brick and mortar option. different perspective towards Indian consumers.
References
1. Agarwal, Ritu & Prasad, J. (1998). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the
Domain of Information Technology, Information Systems Research, 9 (2), pp. 204-215.
2. Ajzen, Icek (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior, in Kuhl, J. and Beckman, J. Eds, Ac-
tion-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 11-39.
3. Ajzen, Icek and Madden, Thomas J. (1986). Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Per-
ceived Behavioral Control, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, pp. 453-474.
4. Bailay, Rasul (2003). In India, shopping takes on a whole new meaning, Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition),
December 16, p. A. 15.
5. Beilock, Richard and Dimitrova, Daniela V. (2003). An Exploratory Model of Inter-country Internet Diffusion.
Telecommunications Policy, 27 (3-4), pp. 237-252.
6. Bellman, Steven, Lohse, Gerald L. and Johnson, Eric J. (1999). Predictors of Online Buying Behavior, Communi-
cations of the ACM, 42 (12), pp. 32-38.
7. Bhatnagar, Amit & Ghose, Sanjay (2004). Segmenting consumers based on the benefits and risks of Internet shop-
ping, Journal of Business Research, 57 (12), pp. 1352-1360.
8. Bhatnagar, Amit, Misra, Sanjog, and Rao, H. Raghav (2000). On Risk, Convenience and Internet Shopping Beha-
vior, Communications of the ACM, 48 (2), pp. 98-105.
9. Bingi, P. Ali, M. and Khamalah, J. (2000). The Challenges Facing Global e-commerce, Information Systems Man-
agement, pp. 26-34.
10. Biswas, Dipayan & Biswas, Abhijit (2004). Perceived risks in online shopping: Do signals matter more on the
web? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), pp. 30-45.
11. Cho, Chang. H., Kang, Jaewon and Cheon, John H. (2006). Online Shopping Hesitation, Cyber Psychology & Be-
havior, 9 (3), pp. 261-274.
12. Choi, Jayoung & Lee, Kyu H. (2003). Risk perception and e-shopping: a cross-cultural study, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 7 (1), pp. 49-64.
13. Cox, Donald F. & Rich, Stuart J. (1964). Perceived Risk and Consumer Decision-Making: The case of Telephone
Shopping, Journal of Marketing Research, 1 (4), pp. 32-39.
14. Desai, A. (2006). Adaptive India-Changing Market Scenario, European Association for Comparative Economics
Studies EACES 9th Bi-Annual Conference: Development Strategies – A Comparative View.
15. Donthu, Naveen and Garcia, Adriana (1999). The Internet Shopper, Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (3), pp. 52-58.
16. Dowling, Grahame R. and Staelin, Richard (1994). A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-handling Activi-
ty, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), pp. 119-134.
17. Eastlick, M. Ann (1993). Predictors of videotext adoption, Journal of Direct Marketing, 7, pp. 66-74.
18. Ernst and Young (1999). Third Annual Online Retailing Report.
19. Explaining the Global Digital Divide: Economic, Political, and Sociological Drivers of Cross-National Internet
Use, Wharton eBusiness Initiative Working Paper Series, 2004.
20. Festervand, Troy A., Snyder, Don R. & Tsalikis, John D. (1986). Influence of catalog vs. store shopping and prior
satisfaction on perceived risk, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 14 (4), pp. 28-37.

54
 Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

21. Fishbein, Martin & Ajzen, Icek (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research: Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
22. Flynn, Leisa R. and Goldsmith, Ronald E. (1993). A validation of the Goldsmith and Hofacker innovativeness
scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (4), pp. 1105-1116.
23. Forsythe, Sandra M. & Shi, Bo (2003). Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping, Journal of
Business Research, 56 (11), pp. 867-875.
24. Forsythe, Sandra M., Liu, Chuanlan, Shannon, David and Gardner, L. Chun (2006). Development of a scale to
measure the perceived benefits and risks of online shopping, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 20 (2), pp. 55-75.
25. Garbarino, Ellen & Strahilevitz, Michal (2004). Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the
effects of receiving a site recommendation, Journal of Business Research, 57, pp. 768-775.
26. George, Joey F. (2004). The theory of planned behavior and Internet purchasing, Journal of Internet Research, 14
(3), pp. 198-212.
27. Goldsmith, Ronald E. and Hofacker, Charles F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness, Journal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, 19, pp. 1004-1016.
28. Goldsmith, Ronald E., Freiden, Jon B. and Eastman, Jacqueline K. (1995). The generality/specificity issue in con-
sumer innovativeness research, Technovation, 15 (10), pp. 601-612.
29. Guillen, Mauro F. and Sandra L. Suarez (2001). Developing the Internet: Entrepreneurship and Public Policy in
Ireland, Singapore, Argentina, and Spain, Telecommunications Policy, 25, pp. 349-371.
30. Hae, Young L., Hailin Qu & Yoo Shin K. (2007). A study of the impact of personal innovativeness on online tra-
vel shopping behavior – A case study of Korean travelers, Tourism Management, 28 (3), pp. 886-897.
31. Hamel, G. & Sampler, J. (1998). December 7. E-corporation; More than just Web-based, it’s building a new indus-
try order, Fortune, pp. 52-63.
32. Hargittai, Eszter (1999). Weaving the Western Web: Explaining Differences in Internet Connectivity Among
OECD Countries, Telecommunications Policy 23, pp. 701-718.
33. Harrison, Allison W. and Rainer, R. Kelly (1992). The influence of individual differences on skill in end-user
computing, Journal of Management Information Systems, 9 (1), pp. 93-111.
34. Hirschman, Elizabeth. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity, Journal of Consumer
Research, 7 (3), pp. 283-295.
35. Hoffman, Donna L., Novak, Thomas P. & Peralta, Marcos (1999). Building Consumer’s Trust Online, Communi-
cation of the ACM, 42 (4), pp. 80-85.
36. Hofstede, Geert (1980). Culture’s consequences, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37. Hubacek, Klaus, Guan, Dabo & Barua, Anamika (2007). Changing lifestyles and consumption patterns in develop-
ing countries– A scenario analysis for China and India, Futures, 39 (10), pp. 1084-1096.
38. Hurt, H. Thomas, Joseph, Katherine and Cook, Chester. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness,
Human Communication Research, 4 (1), pp. 58-65.
39. Im, Subin, Bayus, Barry L. and Mason, Charlotte H. (2003). An empirical study of innate consumer innovative-
ness, personal characteristics and new product adoption behavior, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
31 (1), pp. 61-73.
40. Jahng, Jungjoo, Jain, Hemant and Ramamurthy, K. (2001). The impact of electronic commerce environment on
user behavior, E-service Journal, 1 (1), pp. 41-53.
41. Järveläinen, Jonna (2007). Online Purchase Intentions: An Empirical Testing of a Multiple-Theory Model, Journal
of Organizational Computing, 17 (1), pp. 53-74.
42. Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L. & Tractinsky, Noam (1999). Consumer trust in an Internet store: a cross cultural validation,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5 (1), pp. 1-36.
43. Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., Todd, Peter A. & Crisp, C. Brad (1997). Individual differences and Internet shopping atti-
tudes and intentions.Available [Online] http://informationr.net/ir/12-2/Crisp.html.
44. Karayanni, Despina A. (2003). Web-shoppers and non-shoppers: Compatibility, relative advantage and demo-
graphics, European Business Review, 15 (3), pp. 141-152.
45. Kartsounis, G.A., Magnenat-Thalmann, N. & Rodrian, Hans C. (2001). E-tailer: Integration of 3D scanners, CAD
and virtual try-on technologies for online retailing of made-to-measure garments, Research and Technological De-
velopment RTD project.
46. Kaufman-Scarborough, C. & Lindquist, John D. (2002). E-shopping in a multiple channel environment, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 19 (4), pp. 333-350.
47. Khalifa, M. and Limayem, Moez (2003). Drivers of Internet shopping, Communications of the ACM, 46 (12),
pp. 233-239.
48. Kirton, Michael (1976). Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61
(5), pp. 622-629.
49. Kline, Rex B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, NY: Guilford.
50. Korgaonkar, Pradeep and Wolin, Lori D. (1999). A multivariate analysis of web usage, Journal of Advertising
Research, 39 (2), pp. 53-68.
51. Koyuncu, Cunyet & Bhattacharya, Gautam (2004). The impacts of quickness, price, payment risk, and delivery
issues on on-line shopping, Journal of Socio-Economics, 33 (2), pp. 241-251.

55
Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

52. Kumar, Archana, Lee, Hyun J. & Youn, K. Kim (2008). Indian consumers’ purchase intention toward a United
States versus local brand, Journal of Business Research, 62 (5), pp. 521-527.
53. Lassar, Walfried M., Manolis, Chris and Lassar, Sharon S. (2005). The relationship between consumer innovativeness,
personal characteristics, and online banking adoption, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23 (2), pp. 176-199.
54. Lee, Matthew K.O. and Turban, E. (2001) . A trust model for consumer Internet shopping, International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 6 (1), pp. 75-91.
55. Lee, Pui M. (2002). Behavioral Model of Online Purchasers in E-Commerce Environment. Electronic Commerce
Research, 2, pp. 75-85.
56. Lewis, Michael (2006). The effect of shipping fees on customer acquisition, customer retention, and purchase
quantities, Journal of Retailing, 82 (1), pp. 13-23.
57. Li, Hairong, Kuo, Cheng. & Russell, Martha G. (1999). The impact of perceived channel utilities, shopping orien-
tations, and demographics on the consumer’s online buying behavior, Journal of Computer Mediated Communica-
tion, 5 (2), pp. 1-20.
58. Li, Na and Zhang Peng, (2002). Consumer Online Shopping Attitudes and Behavior: An Assessment of Research,
Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems, pp. 508-517.
59. Liang, Ting P. and Huang, J.S. (1998). An empirical study on consumer acceptance of products in electronic mar-
kets: a transaction cost model, Decision Support Systems, 24, pp. 29-43.
60. Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1993). A Longitudinal study of product form innovation: the interaction be-
tween predisposition and social messages, Journal of Consumer Research, 19, pp. 611-625.
61. Midgley, David F. and Dowling, Grahame R. (1978). Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement, Journal of
Consumer Research, 4 (4), pp. 229-235.
62. Miyazaki, A.D. & Fernandez, Ana (2001). Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks for online shop-
ping, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35 (1), pp. 27-33.
63. Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an
Information Technology Innovation, Information Systems Research, 2 (3), pp. 192-222.
64. Nelson, Phillip (1970). Information and Consumer Behavior, Journal of Political Economy, 78 (2), pp. 311-329.
65. O’Cass, Aron and Fenech, T. (2003). Webretailing adoption: exploring the nature of Internet users’ Web retailing
behavior, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10, pp. 81-94.
66. Park, C. & Jun, J.K. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of Internet buying behavior, International Marketing
Review, 20 (5), pp. 534-553.
67. Peterson, R.A., Balasubramanian, S. and Bronnenberg, B.J. (1997). Exploring the implications of the Internet for
consumer marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, pp. 329-346.
68. Poel, Den Van and Leunis, Joseph (1999). Consumer acceptance of the Internet as a channel of distribution, Jour-
nal of Business Research, 45 (3), pp. 249-257.
69. Ranganathan, C. and Ganapathy, Shobha (2002). Key dimensions of business-to-customer web sites, Information
& Management, 39, pp. 457-465.
70. Robinson, Leroy. Jr., Marshall, Greg W. and Stamps, Miriam B. (2005). Sales force use of technology: antece-
dents to technology acceptance, Journal of Business Research, 58 (12), pp. 1623-1631.
71. Rogers, Everett M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, New York: The Free Press.
72. Rosen, Kenneth T. & Howard, Amanda L. (2000). E-Retail: Gold Rush or Fool’s Gold? California Management
Review, 42 (3), pp. 72-100.
73. Salo, J. & Karjaluoto, H. (2007). A conceptual model of trust in the online environment, Online Information Re-
view, 31 (5), pp. 604-621.
74. Schept (2008) in Chain Store Age – The news magazine for retail executives, www.chainstoreage.com.
75. Shim, J.P., Shin, Yong, B. & Nottingham, Linda (2002). Retailer Web Site Influence on Customer Shopping: Ex-
ploratory Study on Key Factors of Customer Satisfaction, Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 31
(3), pp. 53-76.
76. Spence, Homer E., Engel, James F. & Blackwell, Roger D. (1970). Perceived risk in mail-order and retail store
buying. Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (3), pp. 364-369.
77. Srivastava, R.K. (2008) Changing retail scene in India, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Manage-
ment, 36 (9), pp. 714-721.
78. Suki, Norbayah M., Suki, Norazah M. (2007). Online buying innovativeness: effects of perceived value, perceived
risk and perceived enjoyment, International Journal of Business and Society, 8 (2), pp. 81-93.
79. Swinyard, William R. & Smith, Scott M. (2003). Why People Don’t Shop Online: A Lifestyle Study of the Inter-
net Consumers, Psychology and Marketing 20 (7), pp. 567-597.
80. Sylke, V.C., Belanger, F. & Comunale, C.L. (2004). Factors influencing the adoption of web-based shopping: the
impact of trust, ACM SIGMIS Databas, 35 (2), pp. 32-49.
81. Sylke, Van C., Belanger, France & Comunale, Christie L. (2002). Gender differences in perceptions of web-based
shopping, Communications of the ACM, 45 (8), pp. 82-86.
82. Tan, Soo J. (1999). Strategies for reducing consumer’s risk aversion in Internet shopping, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16 (2), pp. 163-178.

56
 Innovative Marketing, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

83. Taylor, Shirley & Todd, Peter, A. (1995). Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experiences, MIS Quarterly, 19
(3), pp. 561-570.
84. Teo, Thompson S.H. (2002). Attitude toward online shopping and the Internet, Behavior and Information Tech-
nology, 21 (4), pp. 259-271.
85. Touliatos, John and Compton, Norma H. (1988). Research Methods in Human Ecology/Home Economics, Iowa
State University: Ames, IA.
86. Tuaber, Edward M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 30, pp. 46-72.
87. Tuaber, Edward M. (1995). Why do people shop? Marketing Management, 42, pp. 58-60.
88. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Davis, Fred D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model:
Four Longitudinal Field Studies, Management Science, 46 (2), pp. 186-204.
89. Vijaysarathi, Leo R. & Jones, Joseph M. (2000). Intentions to Shop using Internet Catalogues: Exploring the Effects of
Product Types, Shopping Orientations, and Attitudes towards Computers, Electronic Markets, 10 (1), pp. 29-38.
90. Wang, M.S., Chen, C.C., Chang, S.C. & Yang, H.Y. (2007). Effects of Online Shopping Attitudes, Subjective
Norms and Control Beliefs on Online Shopping Intentions: A Test of the Theory of Planned Behavior, Interna-
tional Journal of Management, 24 (2), pp. 296-302.
91. Weiss, Mary J. (2001). Online America, American Demographics, March 23 (3), pp. 53-56.
92. Westfall, Ralph & Boyd, Harper W. (1960). Marketing in India, Journal of Marketing, 25 (2), pp. 11-17.
93. Yang, Bijou, Lester, David & James, Simon (2007). Attitudes Toward Buying Online as Predictors of Shopping
Online for British and American Respondents, Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10 (2), pp. 198-203.
94. Yang, Xia and et al. (2003). Consumer preferences for commercial Website design: an Asia-Pacific perspective,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20 (1), pp. 10-27.
95. Yu, Tai-Kuei & Wu, Guey-Sen (2007). Determinants of Internet Shopping Behavior: An Application of Reasoned
Behavior Theory, International Journal of Management, 24 (4), pp. 744-762.
96. Zaltman, Gerald and Moorman, Christine (1988). The importance of personal trust in the use of research, Journal
of Advertising Research, 28 (5), pp. 16-24.

57