The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

Factors influencing consumers’ Factors

influencing
attitudes and purchase consumers’
attitudes
intentions of e-deals
Isaac Cheah, Ian Phau and Johan Liang 763
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia Received 2 May 2014
Revised 13 October 2014
2 November 2014
Abstract Accepted 2 November 2014
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the key antecedents of attitude towards electronic
deals (e-deals) and factors influencing purchase intention of e-deals. Specifically, perceived value and price
consciousness will be tested as antecedents of attitudes towards e-deals. Attitudes towards e-deals,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control are proposed to have strong influences upon
purchase intention. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) provides the theoretical underpinning of the
conceptual framework.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through convenience sampling. Overall, 611 valid
responses of 780 distributed surveys were collected. Only 426 e-deals users were analysed by using structural
equation modelling to test the hypotheses.
Findings – It is found that perceived value is a strong predictor of attitudes towards e-deals. Another
finding also indicates that attitudes towards e-deals and normative influence positively affect consumers’
purchase intention towards e-deals.
Practical implications – Practitioners are advised to integrate social media (e.g. Facebook or Twitter)
and online communities to approach the “leader” to influence new potential consumers to purchase e-deals.
It is also important to maintain the good value of e-deals and emphasise the huge benefits of using e-deals
to persuade consumers to purchase it.
Originality/value – The originality of this study lies in extending the TPB as a robust measurement
to investigate online shopping behaviour in the context of e-deals.
Keywords Theory of planned behaviour, Interpersonal influence, Attitudes towards e-deals, e-Deals,
Perceived behavioural control
Paper type Research paper

Overview
A recent survey has reported that Australians are shopping online more frequently than
other developed nations (Parker, 2013). The annual World Internet Project has found the
number of online purchases made by Australians grew by more than 46 per cent between
2011 and 2013. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, figures show $258 billion
being spent on retail, with Roy Morgan estimating 9 per cent of that being spent online
(Bainbridge, 2013). Furthermore, some of the most popular online purchases were in
leisure and travel, which made up 45 per cent of online purchases, followed by fashion,
at 23.4 per cent (Bainbridge, 2013).
A recent and increasingly popular trend in internet retailing is online group buying
(Birmingham, 2014; Cheng and Huang, 2013; Hsu et al., 2014; Kitchen et al., 2014). Online
shoppers are now more active in searching for and obtaining electronic coupons and
group buying deals that will offer the best value at bargain prices (Birmingham, 2014;
Fortin, 2000; Hsu et al., 2014). These electronic deals (e-deals) can be obtained from a
cluster of “daily deals” web sites such as “Groupon”, “Scoopon”, “OzBargain”, and Marketing Intelligence & Planning
“CatchOfTheDay”. Internet group buying sites such as “Groupon” negotiate large Vol. 33 No. 5, 2015
pp. 763-783
discounts with local area businesses by promising to deliver a large number of customers. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-4503
These deals are then offered to site members. Groupon is the largest group buying site, DOI 10.1108/MIP-05-2014-0081
MIP serving 140 markets around the world. LivingSocial (serving 52 markets) is the second
33,5 largest site (Coulter and Roggeveen, 2012).
Most consumers’ e-shopping behaviour studies can be divided along three broad
streams. The first stream of research focuses on the impact of the characteristics of
e-shopping as a shopping channel. Specifically, the dimensions of channel characteristics
of e-shopping include e-shopping service quality (Ahn et al., 2004; Birmingham, 2014;
764 Lee, 2002; Ratten, 2010), relative advantages (Goldsmith and Goldsmith, 2002; Kitchen
et al., 2014; Koyuncu and Bhattacharya, 2004; Verhoef and Langerak, 2001), perceived
risk of and confidence in e-shopping ( Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; Liu and Wei, 2003; Liu et al.,
2005; Ratten and Ratten, 2007), and trust (Corbitt et al., 2003; Grazioli and Jarvenpaa,
2000; Hsu et al., 2014 Liu et al., 2005).
The second stream of research focuses on the vendor and product characteristics. For
example, a characteristic of online group buying sites is that promotional prices are only
valid provided a certain number of consumers sign up for the deal. If not enough consumers
select to purchase, then the deal does not move forward (Coulter and Roggeveen, 2012).
Moreover, online group buying sites are therefore similar to online group auction sites
(e.g. Zag.com; Pikaba.com) in that network externalities are present up until the deal is
“tipped” (i.e. the minimum purchase number has been reached) (Kauffman et al., 2010). Much
of the early research on internet shopping behaviour has focused on predicting the type of
consumer who is likely to use the internet to search for and buy products.
The third stream of research focuses on consumer characteristics (Babin et al., 1994;
Khare, 2014; Phau and Poon, 2000; Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001). These include
consumer’s shopping orientations (Li et al., 1999; Koyuncu and Bhattacharya, 2004;
van der Heijden and Verhagen, 2004), personality, social and psychological characteristics
(Blake et al., 2003; Donthu and Garcia, 1999; Kitchen et al., 2014; Limayem et al., 2000),
computer/internet experience (Bellman et al., 2000; Forsythe and Shi, 2003), in-home
shopping experience (Cho, 2004; Shim et al., 2001), and socio-demographics (Bellman
et al., 2000; Bhatnagar and Sanjoy, 2004; Kitchen et al., 2014; Ratten and Ratten, 2007).
With the rapid growth in online retailing, social media channels and internet
technologies, electronic commerce has become a large and crucial segment of the new
digital economy. To this end, the underlying reasons for the differences in consumer
choice characteristics and satisfaction indicators in the context of online group buying
sites or e-coupon or deal providers is still not well understood (e.g. Dawson and Kim, 2009;
Dholakia, 2010; Phau and Poon, 2000; Santos and Ribeiro, 2012; Trenwith, 2011). As such
there is an inherent need to investigate the nature and perceptions of retailers, the
characteristics of online shoppers, and the suitability of different types of products and
services (in the form of online daily deals) with respect to online shopping in Australia.
The study aims to examine two research objectives closing a number of inherent gaps
in the literature. First, it is to examine the impact of antecedents (e.g. “perceived value” and
“price consciousness”) against consumer attitudes towards e-deals (Phau and Poon, 2000;
Santos and Ribeiro, 2012). Second, it is to examine the relationship between consumer
attitudes, subjective norms (e.g. “interpersonal influence”), and perceived behavioural
control and their intention to purchase e-deals ( Jeffrey and Hodges, 2007; Khare, 2014;
Sorce et al., 2005).

Literature review
A general purpose of studies relevant to e-shopping behaviour is to understand and predict
consumers’ e-shopping behaviour as well as, in some cases, to improve the design of
e-shopping sites. Chang et al. (2005) classified the antecedent factors of e-shopping behaviour
into three categories: perceived characteristics of the web as a sales channel, online Factors
consumer characteristics, and vendor and product characteristics. Among these influencing
characteristics, the former two have been examined extensively in previous research,
confirming their importance in understanding e-shopping behaviour.
consumers’
Consumers with different characteristics may react to e-shopping in different ways. attitudes
For example, those unfamiliar with computers and the internet will not think e-shopping
is an active alternative. In particular, a consumer’s shopping orientations refer to a 765
consumer’s general predispositions towards shopping activities. They are conceptualised
as specific dimensions of lifestyle and operationalized based on activities, interests, and
opinions regarding shopping behaviour (Li et al., 1999). Various studies have explored the
links between consumers’ shopping orientations and their intention (or actual choice) to
shop online.
Perceived value
Perceived value is defined as a “concern for price paid relative to quality received”
(Lichtenstein et al., 1993, p. 235), in particular the greater the perceived value received, the
greater the willingness by the consumer to adopt a new product (McGowan and
Sternquist, 1998). On the other hand, if a consumer does not believe that the product has
any value either as a result of price, quality, emotional, or a feeling of social acceptance
received from obtaining the item (Kitchen et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2005; Sweeney and
Soutar, 2001), the individual would not purchase the product.
Today, more consumers are trying to maximise value for money spent, demanding
better quality at lower prices (Kacen et al., 2012). As a result, perceived value is a decisive
factor influencing consumer attitudes and evaluations towards a product and
subsequently their purchasing decisions. Previous studies have identified various
advantages of e-shopping, in particular effort saving (Cho, 2004; Verhoef and Langerak,
2001), product value in terms of price and quality (Vijayasarathy and Jones, 2000). More
importantly, value-oriented consumers are more susceptible to purchasing discounted
deals or value coupons (Phau and Poon, 2000) as such this buying behaviour is reinforced
based on a positive state of fulfilment (e.g. satisfaction) with substantial savings.
Price consciousness
Price consciousness is “the degree to which a consumer focuses exclusively on paying low
prices” (Lichtenstein et al., 1993, p. 235). Price “sensitive” consumers are buyers who seek
best (lowest) prices and in general avoid buying expensive items. This market segment is
known to be more knowledgeable and “thrifty” in their spending patterns. Therefore,
price-conscious consumers are more likely to purchase online when e-shopping sites offer a
lower price or financial benefits (e.g. Koyuncu and Bhattacharya, 2004; Sim and Koi, 2002).
A feature of daily deal is that they tend to involve heavy discounting, far beyond typical
in-store discounting. Common daily deal discounts are in the 30-50 per cent range or more,
which is beyond the generally accepted range of 10-30 per cent (e.g. Gupta and Cooper,
1992; Harlam et al., 1995; Marshall and Leng, 2002). In this case, e-deals that provide
discounted products and services in huge quantity are attractive to price-conscious buyers
(Kacen et al., 2012). These online savings in the form of an online deal is likely to generate
some type of purchase satisfaction resulting in the likelihood of repeat purchase behaviour
and possibly over time, the compulsive buying of e-deals (Dholakia, 2011; Train, 2003).
Consumer attitudes towards e-deals
Consumers’ relevant social and psychological characteristics are mainly derived from
psychological theories such as TPB, social cognitive theory, and Technology Acceptance
MIP Model. Previous findings are consistent with these theories. Favourable attitudes towards
33,5 e-shopping are positively associated with consumers’ e-shopping intention and actual use
(e.g. Ahn et al., 2004; Kitchen et al., 2014; O’Cass and Fenech, 2002; Ratten and Ratten, 2007).
In addition, favourable attitudes towards the internet (Grazioli and Jarvenpaa, 2000; Sim and
Koi, 2002), towards vendors ( Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; McKnight et al., 2002), towards catalogue
retailing (Cho, 2004), and towards marketing and advertising (Donthu and Garcia, 1999)
766 were also found to positively affect the adoption of e-shopping.

Interpersonal influence
An important determinant of an individual’s behaviour is the influence of others
(Bandura, 1986; Bearden et al., 1989; Khare, 2014; Kitchen et al., 2014). Normative
influence based on the number of product-followers (i.e. potential purchasers) could result
in acting to persuade, convince, or influence others for the purpose of having a specific
effect (Kozinets et al., 2010). The number of previous buyers can serve as a form of “social
validation” (Cialdini, 2007; Granovetter and Soong, 1986) for that brand or product –
more specifically, a large buyer number signals higher product quality and/or greater
deal value (Dean and Lang, 2008; Hellofs and Jacobson, 1999). On the other hand,
information susceptibility is the basis of purchase decision on the expert opinions of
others to make informed choices (Bearden et al., 1989).
The assurance of opinion of others plays an important role as a point of reference
especially when consumers have little knowledge of the product category in question.
If peers or reference group were to have expert knowledge on the differences between
online coupon providers or the buying of e-deals and coupons (such as promotions or
product quality) it will consequently have an effect on consumers’ attitude towards e-deals
and its provider. In a similar manner, it is likely that the number of people who have
already purchased a group buying site deal can impact on consumer’s susceptibility
towards buying of e-deals as a form of “social validation”.

Perceived behavioural control

According to Fortin (2000), consumers’ perceived behavioural control varies with their
computer skills and facilities to search for e-deals. System quality “describes the
measures of web sites as information processing systems and taps engineering-oriented
performance characteristics such as operational efficiency and appearance” (Ahn et al.,
2004, p. 407). High-task-relevant cues (e.g. security, download delay, and navigability)
and low-task-relevant cues (e.g. visual appeal) are the two categories that characterised
web site quality, as suggested by Eroglu et al. (2001). Furthermore, the level of web
interface design has a significant impact on consumer purchase behaviour, including
impulse buying occurred at the web site as it has been found by previous researchers
(Hoffman and Novak, 1996; Nielsen, 1999; Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2003). Similarly,
Belanger et al. (2002) and McKnight et al. (2002) concluded that the impact of site quality
on e-shopping behaviour is positive. Further, some specific measurements of system
quality were found to positively influence consumers’ e-shopping intention and actual
use; for example, ease of navigation (Childers et al., 2001; Yoon, 2002), and better design
(Liang and Lai, 2002; Ranganathan and Ganapathy, 2002). Moreover, Kang et al. (2006)
suggested that the inclusion of consumers’ attitude towards internet searching is
important, not only because internet searching is necessary for obtaining e-deals, but also
because the internet is perceived to be a powerful tool for consumer information
searching in general.
Theoretical underpinnings and hypotheses development Factors
As Figure 1 reflects, this study seeks to fulfil the objectives summarised in the research influencing
model. A model underpinned by the TPB was designed to gain an exploratory
understanding of consumer e-deals shopping behaviour. The model presents “consumer
consumers’
attitudes towards e-deals” as the focal construct and relates it to other social-psychological attitudes
constructs; that is, perceived value (H1) and price consciousness (H2). In addition,
consumer attitudes (H3), interpersonal influence (H4a, H4b), and perceived behavioural 767
control (H5) predicts a causal relationship with “intention to buy e-deals”. The following
sections discuss the theoretical underpinnings behind each hypothesis.

Social cognitive theory

Social cognitive theory defines human behaviour as a triadic, dynamic, and reciprocal
interaction of personal factors, behaviour, and the social environment (Bandura, 1977,
1986, 2001). The theory suggests that the dynamic interplay of personal, behavioural, and
social environmental influences uniquely determines human functioning (an individual’s
behaviour). Furthermore, people are both products and producers of their social
environment (Bandura, 1977; Pincus, 2004). A person’s behaviour influences the aspects
of the social environment to which they are exposed, and in turn that social environment
or “social interaction” modifies the person’s behaviour.
For example, the role of product knowledge or price cues (information derived from the
environment) that affects purchase decision ( purchase evaluation) is of primary importance
to consumers (Lichtenstein et al., 1993; Kitchen et al., 2014). A person’s behaviour can affect
the way in which they experience the social environment through selective attention. Based
on learned human preferences and competencies, individuals select who they interact with
and the activities in which they participate from a vast range of possibilities. Furthermore,
this process could be a form of “observational” or “incidental learning” where consumers
accidentally learn about a product through advertising, packaging, and sales promotions
when we are not looking for information (Solomon, 2014).
Therefore, one’s behaviour is dependent on the many potential social environmental
influences that come into play, and what forms they take. In turn, the social environment
(or the exchange of social antics, norms, and behaviours) partly influences the development
and activation of one’s behaviour (Ajzen 1985; Bandura, 1986, 2001; Ratten and Ratten, 2007).
Based on the discussions, the theory advocates that consumer’s perceived value of a
product or service (McGowan and Sternquist, 1998; Kitchen et al., 2014), and their level of

Perceived Value H1

Attitudes towards e-deals

H3
Price Consciousness H2

Subjective Norms H4a Intention to buy

a. Normative Influence
e-deals
b. Informative Influence H4b

Figure 1.
Perceived Behaviour H5 Conceptual
Control framework
MIP price consciousness (Lichtenstein et al., 1993; Koyuncu and Bhattacharya, 2004), towards
33,5 daily deal web sites, e-deals, and similar online services will play a multifaceted role in
influencing consumer attitude towards e-deals (O’Cass and Fenech, 2002; Ratten and
Ratten, 2007) and subsequently their buying behaviour. As such, the theory formulates
the following hypotheses:
H1. There is a positive relationship between a consumer’s price consciousness and
768 attitudes towards using e-deals.
H2. There is a positive relationship between a consumer’s perceived value and attitudes
towards using e-deals.

Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

The TPB is the overarching theoretical framework for this research. The TPB suggests that
a person’s behaviour is determined by his intention to perform the behaviour and that this
intention is, in turn, a function of his attitude towards the behaviour, his subjective norm, and
his perceived behaviour control (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). An important social/psychological
variable is perceived behavioural control, which refers to an individual’s perception of her
ability to perform a behaviour.
The theoretical component known as “perceived behavioural control” was found to
have a positive impact on consumers’ e-shopping intention and actual use (Limayem et al.,
2000; Shim et al., 2001). Similarly, the subjective norm of an individual (i.e. perceptions of
the feasibility of a behaviour as evaluated by referent people) positively influences her
intention to purchase online, which, in turn, has a positive effect on the actual choice of
e-shopping (Choi and Geistfeld, 2004; Limayem et al., 2000).
Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) proposed that a person’s behaviour is determined by his
intention to perform the behaviour and that this intention is, in turn, a function of his
attitude towards the behaviour and his subjective norm. Moreover, the subject of
“perceived behavioural control” is noted as an important element of this theory, suggesting
that individuals who believe they lack the necessary resources or opportunities to perform
a particular behaviour are unlikely to form strong behavioural intentions (e.g. motivation
for action), despite the fact that their attitude and subjective norms may still be favourable.
The concept of self-efficacy beliefs is the ability to influence an individual’s thought
patterns and emotional reactions (Bandura, 1977; Fortin, 2000; Ahn et al., 2004). For
example, high self-efficacy helps create feelings of serenity in approaching difficult tasks
and activities. Blake et al. (2003) found strong evidence that the greater the prevalence of
internet shopping among one’s social network, the greater one’s own frequency of
e-shopping. Therefore, unless the consumer believes that purchasing e-deals will have the
desired effect or outcome (in terms of substantial savings, greater social validation,
or better deal promotions), they will have little incentive or motivation to engage in this
online buying process. As such, the theory formulates the following hypotheses:
H3. There is a positive relationship between a consumer’s attitudes towards using
e-deals and intention to purchase e-deals.
H4. There is a positive relationship between consumer’s interpersonal influence (a)
normative influence and (b) informative influence (subjective norms) towards
e-deals and his/her intention to purchase e-deals.
H5. There is a positive relationship between a consumer’s perceived behavioural
control in using e-deals and intention to purchase e-deals.
Research methodology Factors
Data collection influencing
A convenience sample was drawn from undergraduate university students across different
disciplines. A student sample was chosen because it has some advantages for an e-shopping
consumers’
study (e.g. Belanger et al., 2002; Choi and Geistfeld, 2004). The “classic student” is aged attitudes
between 17 and 25 and are in the late stages of teenage years and the initial stages of
adulthood and are typically in the career development process (Chang et al., 2005). Young 769
people and especially students’ growing predilection for digital media consumption, along
with their desire for more personalisation, means that they are early adopters and heavy
users of technology. Therefore, the profile of a student sample is in some ways closer to that
of the online consumer population than is the profile of the general population more broadly.

Survey instrument
The survey instrument was developed using established scales from previous studies in
the same context of this study. It consists of a six-item scale to measure perceived value
(Sweeney and Soutar, 2001), a five-item scale to measure price consciousness (Alford
and Biswas, 2002), an eight-item to measure normative influence (Bearden et al., 1989),
a four-item to measure informative influence (Bearden et al., 1989), a five-item scale to
measure the effects of perceived behavioural control (Kang et al., 2006), a four-item scale
to measure attitude towards the advertised e-deals (Chen and Lu, 2011), and a five-item
scale to measure intention to buy e-deals (Chen and Lu, 2011) (refer to Appendix).
In addition, two print advertisements featuring e-deals in the food category were selected
as stimuli to determine the attitude and purchase intention. A section for demographic
profiles will be included in the last section. All items, excluding attitudes and intention
scales, were measured with a seven-point Likert scale with 1 representing “strongly
disagree” and 7 representing “strongly agree”.

Sample
A total of 780 self-administered questionnaires were distributed to voluntary participants
in universities. Questionnaires with missing data or insufficient responses to particular
sections were eliminated and not used for statistical analysis purposes. As a result, a total
of 611 questionnaires were useable and valid for analysis. Based on the filter questions,
there are 426 e-deals users and 185 e-deals non-users from overall valid data. Data from
426 e-deals users will be used for validity reasoning in this study. The details of the
demographic profiles are shown in Table I. Slightly over 50 per cent of the respondents
were females. Most of the e-deals users were in the “age range 18-25” (60.6 per cent).

Data analysis
Exploratory factor analysis and reliability checks
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on each scale in the study to ensure the
unidimensionality of the scales, followed by a reliability check. Based on exploratory
factor analysis results, one item from perceived behavioural control scale and one item
from perceived value scale are removed because the factor loading scores are less than
0.40 (refer to Table II). As shown in Table III, all scales exhibit a high degree of reliability
with Cronbach’s α above 0.80 (Nunnally, 1978).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

For subsequent structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis to be valid, the measurement
model CFA must be estimated first. CFA also determines the validity of the EFA results for
MIP Demographic n (%)
33,5
Gender Male 200 (46.9)
Female 226 (53.1)
Age 18-25 258 (60.6)
26-35 73 (17.1)
36-45 26 (6.1)
770 45-55 42 (9.9)
56+ 27 (6.3)
Income Under AUD 20,000 119 (27.9)
AUD 20,001-60,000 99 (23.2)
AUD 60,001-100,000 82 (19.1)
AUD 100,001 and above 126 (38.5)
Frequency of use Less than 3 times a month 307 (72.1)
3-6 times a month 76 (17.8)
7-10 times a month 27 (6.3)
More than 10 times a month 16 (3.8)
User experience Novice 101 (23.7)
Beginner 160 (37.6)
Competent/experience 132 (31.0)
Table I. Expert 33 (7.7)
Demographic profiles Note: n ¼ 426

each scale. The results of CFA estimation has shown that all items are loaded significantly
( po0.001) on each factor with adequate factor loadings to prove discriminant validity.
All direct effect estimates are positive and most squared multiple correlations are at least
0.30. RMSEA, GFI, and AGFI will be used to indicate a good model fit for each congeneric
model in CFA testing. These measurement model results also establish divergent validity
of the underlying constructs and establish an essential pre-condition for the validity of
subsequent structural model estimation.

SEM
As suggested by Kline (2005), SEM was conducted to test the conceptual model fit.
Following its conceptual model, the initial full structural model (refer to Figure 2) is
considered not a good model fit based on its fit indicators ( χ2 (570) ¼ 1,771.507,
χ2/df ¼ 3.108, p ¼ 0.000, RMSEA ¼ 0.070, GFI ¼ 0.801, AGFI ¼ 0.767, and CFI ¼ 0.901).
There is a need to amend the model to achieve model fit. First step is to check the
significance of regression weight for each path analysis in the model. Path analysis between
informational influence and intention to purchase e-deals ( p-value ¼ 0.382W0.05) and path
analysis between price consciousness and attitudes towards e-deals ( p-value ¼ 0.113W0.05)
are removed because it shows no significant relationship on both path analysis according
to p-values. Next step is to examine that there is no strong correlation between two
variables (dependent and independent variables) based on modification indices. The strong
correlation between two variables can be interpreted as both variables have similar
measurement, hence, one of the variables need to be omitted from the model. Based on
the results of modification indices, perceived behavioural control variable is removed from
the model because it has strong correlation with perceived value variable and normative
influence variable. In addition, some of the observed variables are removed because it has
strong correlation with other variables. Therefore, three observed variables from normative
influence, one observed variable from perceived value, one observed variable from attitudes
 Factors
Factors
Items Norm Intent Attitude PriCon Info ValCon PBC influencing
consumers’
Normative4 0.914
Normative5 0.884
attitudes
Normative6 0.879
Normative3 0.878 771
Normative2 0.865
Normative7 0.851
Normative8 0.845
Normative1 0.803
Intention4 0.858
Intention5 0.836
Intention2 0.832
Intention1 0.830
Intention3 0.814
Attitude2 0.822
Attitude4 0.809
Attitude3 0.807
Attitude1 0.807
PriceConscious3 0.878
PriceConscious2 0.878
PriceConscious4 0.855
PriceConscious5 0.804
PriceConscious1 0.681
Informational3 0.903
Informational2 0.884
Informational4 0.864
Informational1 0.524
PerceivedValue2 0.849
PerceivedValue4 0.837
PerceivedValue1 0.825
PerceivedValue3 0.809
PerceivedValue5 0.758
PerceivedValue6 0.233
PerceivedBehaviorControl2 0.840
PerceivedBehaviorControl3 0.832
PerceivedBehaviorControl4 0.829
PerceivedBehaviorControl1 0.589 Table II.
PerceivedBehaviorControl5 0.359 Exploratory factor
Eigenvalues (% of variance) 34.326 11.088 10.015 9.145 5.700 4.969 3.827 analysis results for
KMO 0.922 each variable (direct
Bartlett Approx. χ2 ¼ 12,424.627; df ¼ 666; Sig. ¼ 0.000 oblimin rotation)

Scale measure Source No. of items Cronbach’s α

Perceived value Sweeney and Soutar (2001) 5 0.890

Perceived behavioural control
Price consciousness
Normative influence
Informative influence
Attitudes towards e-deals
Intention to buy e-deals
Kang et al. (2006) 4 0.816
Alford and Biswas (2002) 5 0.882
Bearden et al. (1989) 8 0.949
Bearden et al. (1989) 4 0.844 Table III.
Chen and Lu (2011) 4 0.932 Cronbach’s α of each
Chen and Lu (2011) 5 0.928 scale and its sources
MIP e5
0.41
ValCon5
33,5 0.51
0.52 0.64 e11 e12 e13
0.27
e14
0.72
e4 ValCon4
0.67 0.83 0.85 0.75 0.62
–0.16
0.82
e3 ValCon3 ValueCons Att1 Att2 Att3 Att4
0.78 0.89
0.91 0.79
0.43 0.92 0.87
e2 ValCon2

772 e1
0.67

ValCon1 0.82
0.19

Attitude e37
0.40
e10 PriceCon5 0.63
0.55 0.49 0.09
e9 PriceCon4 0.70

0.83
0.91
–0.48 e8 PriceCon3 PriceCons 0.67 0.80

0.75 0.87 0.89 Int1 e32 –0.43

0.57
e7 PriceCon2 0.79
e22 Norm8 e38
0.52 0.89
0.5 0.63 Int2 e33
e6 PriceCon1
0.72 e21 Norm7 0.49 0.74 –0.42
0.28 0.86
0.2 0.68 0.76 Intention Int3 e34
0.10
e20 Norm6 0.79 0.81 0.66
0.14
0.29 0.74 0.82 Int4 e35

e19 Norm5 0.61 0.28

–0.13 0.86

0.85 0.92 Normative Int5 e36

0.78
e18 Norm4
0.90
0.80
0.86
e17 Norm3
0.77 –0.04
0.74

e16 Norm2

0.19 0.60
0.12
e15 Norm1

0.67
e26 Info4 0.82

0.88
0.94
e25 Info3

0.66 0.81 Informative

e24 Info2 0.07

0.12 0.25
e31 PBC5 0.27
e23 Info1 0.15
0.50 0.69
0.83
e30 PBC4

0.74
0.86
0.27 e29 PBC3 PBC
0.55 0.74

e28 PBC2
0.24

Figure 2. e27 PBC1 0.49

Initial full
structural model Notes: CFA Reactive 2 = 1,771.507; df = 570; CMIN/DF=3.108; p =0.000; rmsea = 0.070;
PCLOSE = 0.000; rmr = 0.628; CFI = 0.901; AGFI = 0.767; GFI = 0.801

towards e-deals, and two observed variable from intention to purchase e-deals are removed.
After a number of iterations of the structural model were engaged, the conceptual model
(refer to Figure 3) can be consideredas a good model fit ( χ2 (86) ¼ 164.485, p ¼ 0.000, CMIN/
df ¼ 1.913), other indicators such as RMSEA ¼ 0.046, PCLOSE ¼ 0.702, GFI ¼ 0.984,
AGFI ¼ 0.934, and CFI ¼ 0.953 are within the recommended fit level (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
 acceptable
0.52
e11 e12 e13 Factors
e4 0.72
quality
0.84 0.85 0.75
influencing
0.67
0.82 good favourable positive consumers’
e3 economical

Perceived
attitudes
0.78 0.88 Value 0.92 0.92 0.87
e2 fair price

0.67
0.82 0.47
0.22
773
Attitudes
e1 good value towards e37
edeals
0.64
buy before
0.80 e33
0.73 expire
0.64

e22 identify with

others 0.57 0.69
0.80 0.83
intention
to_buy_e_deals buy to try e34

0.79
0.89
sense of 0.89
e20 belonging 0.78
0.18 e38
buy if see it e35
0.80

good 0.89
e19 Normative
impression
Influence

0.78 0.88

others’
e18
expectation

0.31
0.64

e16 others’ liking 0.80

Figure 3.
Respecified full
Notes: Model fit indicators = 164.485; df = 86; CMIN/DF=1.913; p = 0.000;
2 structural model
rmsea = 0.046; PCLOSE = 0.702; CFI = 0.984; AGFI = 0.934; GFI = 0.953

Based on SEM results, H1 and H3 are accepted and H4 is partially accepted. Conversely, H2
and H5 are rejected.

Discussion
The results generated for H1, revealed a significant factor coefficient value of 0.47 for this
structural pathway. In addition, results suggested that consumer’s perceived value of
e-deals that are characterised as “fair priced” (0.78), “economical” (0.67), and of “good value”
(0.67) outweigh that of “acceptable quality” (0.52). This set of findings mirrors that of past
research in Cho (2004), Verhoef and Langerak (2001), and Vijayasarathy and Jones (2000).
H2 suggests that price consciousness positively influences upon attitudes towards
e-deals. The results did not support this hypothesis. It explains that price-conscious
consumers are not necessarily having favourable attitudes towards e-deals, even though it is
cheaper. This is largely attributed to their willingness to pursue heavily discounted
e-deals regardless of the amount of extra effort required. As per the social cognitive theory,
“learning through observation” is an essential element that influences individual decision
making and further assist individuals to learn and acquire new knowledge or experience
simultaneously (Bandura, 1977; Pincus, 2004). These “bargain hunters” and similar types of
MIP consumers are more likely to perceive (and believe) that these online e-deals and bargain
33,5 vouchers will provide a better or the “best price” in comparison to the existing market
price(s). Furthermore, given the findings it is presumable that Australian consumers are
more likely to be driven by “value” (e.g. e-deals that are economical and have consistent and
acceptable quality) rather than “price” (e.g. e-deals that are heavily discounted) in their
pursuit for online bargains and e-deals. This result contradicts the findings from past
774 research (Sim and Koi, 2002; Koyuncu and Bhattacharya, 2004; Kacen et al., 2012).
Attitudes towards e-deals was hypothesised to have a positive influence upon intention
to buy e-deals and it is supported with a high coefficient value ( β ¼ 0.73) that indicates
a strong relationship. According to the SEM results, “good” (0.84), “favourable” (0.85), and
“positive” (0.75) are the elements of positive feelings that represent individuals’ attitudes
towards e-deals that lead to higher intention to buy e-deals. This finding suggests that it is
important to accentuate what consumers want to observe in the advertisement to enhance
their positive attitudes towards e-deals to increase the chance for them to buy the e-deals.
The result from H3 reflects the concept of TPB model (Ajzen, 1985, 1991), where attitude is
a strong predictor of intention. This outcome also has strengthened the indications from
past research (Ahn et al., 2004; O’Cass and Fenech, 2002).
H4, which states that interpersonal influence has a positive influence on intention to buy
e-deals, is only partially supported. The normative influence dimension is significant but
not for the informative influence dimension. This outcome indicates that individuals, who
are more likely to buy e-deals, are affected by normative influence benefactors, such as
“identify with others” (0.64), “sense of belonging” (0.79), “good impression” (0.80), “others”
expectation” (0.78), and “others” liking (0.64). Even though there is a correlation (r ¼ 0.31)
between “others” expectation” and “others” liking”, both benefactors are essential because
it measures different contexts from others’ point of view about e-deals. Therefore, these
findings suggest that expert opinion from friends, family, or colleagues does not have
significant impact to enhance consumers’ intention to buy e-deals. Conversely, persuasion
or influence from others as a form of “social validation” (Cialdini, 2007; Granovetter and
Soong, 1986) will affect the consumers to buy e-deals because consumer can identify
themselves with others as a sense of belonging. In addition, consumers want to get an
approval of their buying decision from others.
H5 suggests that perceived behavioural control has a positive influence upon intention
to buy e-deals. Even though the probability of regression weight is less than 0.05 ( p ¼ 0.03),
all its independent variables have strong correlations towards other variables that has huge
impact to the model fit. Hence, perceived behavioural control needs to be omitted from the
structural model. The TPB’s “perceived behavioural control” element and concept of self-
efficacy beliefs states that unless the individual believes that his or her actions will have the
desired consequences, they will have little incentive or motivation to engage in those actions
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fortin, 2000; Ahn et al., 2004). In this
case, unless consumers believe that they possess the necessary computer literacy skills to
engage in purchasing e-deals, they will be unlikely to engage in such buying behaviour.
From this finding, it is clear that ease of navigation as a part of perceived behavioural
control does not have a significant effect towards consumers’ intention to buy e-deals. This
outcome also contradicts the findings from past research (Childers et al., 2001; Yoon, 2002).

Concluding comments
Conceptual implications
The research contributes substantively by depicting the specific theoretical meaning and
role that each studied construct plays. The present research was derived from various
research gaps found in the online buying and “shopping” behaviour marketing literature. Factors
Unsurprisingly, given the relative newness of the phenomenon, there is little empirical influencing
study of daily deal web sites and its offerings. Despite the continuous effort to build on the
literature, researchers have little theoretical knowledge as to when, what, why, and how
consumers’
these various socio-psychological factors have their influences on our buying behaviour in attitudes
an online marketplace, and more specifically in the context of evaluating and purchasing
e-deals. Therefore, this study is expanding the current online shopping literature by 775
investigating the concept of “e-deals” which is “an online deal which offers deep discounts
for the product or service being offered”.
In adopting the TPB model, the study proposed and examined its research model based
on a theoretically driven conceptual framework. This study incorporated other relevant
theories such as the social cognitive theory and the theory of reasoned action in relating and
justifying the effects of social and psychological variables and “semantic cues” as an
examination of how consumers would evaluate or decide on purchasing a product or service
from a daily deal web site. These socio-psychological antecedents such as a consumer’s
perceived value, their level of price consciousness, their susceptibility towards interpersonal
influence, and the self-efficacy concept and beliefs to the online business environment or the
“daily deal space” were drawn to provide the foundation in the investigation of consumers’
attitudes and their willingness to purchase e-deals.

Managerial implications
This is one of the pioneering studies in defining and examining the nature of
e-shoppers and their purchase behaviour of e-deals in the Australian context.
This research and its theoretical basis hold valuable implications for the growing
literature on attitude formation and online consumers purchase behaviour
tendencies, which is an important individual-level construct to better understand
e-marketing dynamics.
This study showcases three main findings. First, consumer attitude towards e-deals
shows a positive relationship with consumer’s perceived value, but not with price
consciousness tendencies. The findings reiterate that if a consumer sees the worth of using
an electronic deal or redeeming an e-coupon for a product or service (i.e. the perceived
value), then their awareness levels in terms of the prospective vendor sites and types of
e-deals would increase as well as their frequency in visiting these daily deal web sites
which, in turn would, potentially, promote a favourable attitude towards using e-deals
(Cho, 2004; Verhoef and Langerak, 2001; Vijayasarathy and Jones, 2000). Moreover, given
that the study examines a category of product (i.e. food) that is generally low cost and is
frequently purchased, there is evidence to support its constant purchase pattern over the
internet (Phau and Poon, 2000).
On the other hand, there is a distinct difference between the predictive factors of
“value” and “price”. Put simply, searching for a “cheap or discounted” product or service
online vs one that is “value for money” is two entirely different behavioural intentions.
Consumers who are characterised as “price conscious” are likely to be sceptical of such
online deals and more risk averse to sample similar online discount schemes and
initiatives (e.g. Sim and Koi, 2002; McKnight et al., 2002). The findings suggest that
price-conscious consumers are in fact unlikely to display any signs of favourable attitude
towards using e-deals. Therefore, it is crucial for both marketing practitioners in particular
e-vendors to make more informed decisions especially in terms of “targeting strategies” of
how e-deals and similar online product and service offerings should be communicated
differently to new customers and existing ones.
MIP Promotional strategies should be set up in a way that disseminate positive word of
33,5 mouth and information to raise consumer’s awareness about the “perceived value” in
using e-deals either through online communication initiatives such as social media
(Facebook, twitter), the online communities of bloggers, or via database marketing,
in order for consumers to form more favourable opinions of the e-deals from online
vendors, in specific product or service categories (i.e. beauty vs travel). However, it is
776 important to note that the more price conscious a consumer is about e-deals and
e-shopping in general, does not necessarily mean that they would use e-deals to make a
purchase. In this case, e-providers should consider setting up strategies that will avoid or
at least limit proven buyers (i.e. buyers who would likely buy a given item even without
that 50 per cent discount), instead advertised (or target) these e-deals in such a way that
only new buyers can find them. For example, this could mean offering a discount on a
very specific, niche product, this way; the buyers using the e-deals will likely be
customers with a legitimate interest in the item, not just all-consuming bargain hunters.
Second, the study results show that consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence
and intention to purchase e-deals is significant and positive. This indicates that
interpersonal influence by peers and norms (i.e. one’s social network) will positively
influence consumer’s intention to purchase e-deals which, in turn, has a positive effect on
the actual choice of e-shopping. Furthermore, this finding mirrors past studies such as
Choi and Geistfeld (2004), Limayem et al. (2000), and Blake et al. (2003). From a managerial
perspective, this finding may create possible opportunities and additional challenges for
e-providers in particular group buying sites with regards to cultivating this type of
positive social validation amongst new and existing buyers and groups. Therefore,
e-providers should consider appointing a “leader” or “trend setter” within the online social
communities in order to create exposure for their business as well as to influence new and
potential consumers to purchase e-deals. For example, utilising a variety of popular
YouTube personalities such as “Ryan Higa”, “Kevjumba”, or “Jenna Marbles” can be a
good starting point in raising the business profile.
With regards to consumer’s perceived behavioural control in using e-deals and
intention to purchase e-deals, the inverse findings deviates from studies such as Limayem
et al. (2000), Shim et al. (2001), and Kang et al. (2006). This means that consumers’ attitude
(and or ability) towards internet searching (or site navigation) will not have a significant
effect on their purchase intention of e-deals. However, it is arguable that “internet
searching” is but one of the multiple components in a consumer’s ability to perform the
necessary behaviour of purchasing e-deals. For instance, other factors such as consumers’
computer skills and facilities, web site quality in terms of security, download delay, and
visual appeal could also hinder the consumer’s “ease of navigation” (e.g. Ahn et al., 2004;
Eroglu et al., 2001). Nonetheless, marketers should try to educate consumers with related
skills to search for tailored e-deals on the one hand, while at the same time, marketers
should do their best to make e-deals and e-coupon redemption easier (Chen and Lu, 2011).
For example, detail instructions of a simple redemption procedure are necessary
to facilitate those consumers who have favourable attitudes towards using e-deals.
Third, the relationship between consumer’s attitude towards using – and their purchase
intentions of e-deals is significant and positive, indicating that consumers with favourable
attitude towards using e-deals are more willing to buy e-deals. This echoes previous results
in other studies such as Chen and Lu (2011), Ahn et al. (2004), and O’Cass and Fenech (2002).
Underpinned by the TPB, the above finding can help formulate effective communication
initiatives and appeals leading to other increasing e-marketing opportunities. There are
some recommendations for new advertising and branding strategies for online retailers who
wish to remain competitive in their current marketplace. It is imperative that businesses Factors
who wish to engage with online group buying sites and e-providers consistently refine their influencing
marketing strategies in order to maintain (or increase) the degree of differentiation and
chances for continued success in this competitive market. This may include research
consumers’
activities such as evaluating online trends, examining buyer behaviour, and even crafting attitudes
new products or services based on the tried and true, and fresh and new ideas. For example,
it is essential for practitioners to create user-friendly applications to assist with purchasing e- 777
deals such as “one-click buy” application can enhance consumers’ attitudes towards e-deals
and will lead them to purchase e-deals easily.

Limitations and future directions

A number of limitations exist for this research. This study is only based on
Australian consumers and only focuses on the food category. Exploring other products or
services categories and consumers in other countries may offer different insights and
findings. This paper also focuses exclusively on e-deals users. It will be interesting
to investigate non-users’ perspectives to gain information of how to persuade them into
users. The comparison of demographic profiles between users and non-users is
also recommended. Future research should also investigate other personality traits such
as impulsive and addictive consumptions towards e-deals as the moderator variables in
the study.

References
Ahn, T., Ryu, S. and Han, I. (2004), “The impact of the online and offline features on the user
acceptance of internet shopping malls”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 405-420.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour”, in Kuhl, J. and Beckmann, J.
(Eds), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 11-39.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 179-201.
Alford, B.L. and Biswas, A. (2002), “The effects of discount level, price consciousness and sale
proneness on consumers’ price perception and behavioral intention”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 55 No. 9, pp. 775-783.
Babin, B., Darden, W. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Bainbridge, A. (2013), “More than 50 per cent of Australians shopping online: Roy Morgan
research”, available at: www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-04/more-than-50-per-cent-of-
australians-shopping-online/4731590 (accessed 3 February 2014).
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol 52 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), “Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 473-481.
MIP Belanger, F., Hiller, J.S. and Smith, W.J. (2002), “Trustworthiness in electronic commerce:
the role of privacy, security, and site attributes”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
33,5 Vol. 11 Nos 3/4, pp. 245-270.
Bellman, S., Lohse, G.L. and Johnson, E.J. (2000), “Predictors of online buying behaviour”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42 No. 12, pp. 32-38.
Birmingham, A. (2014), “Group buying hits the wall in Australia as revenues stagnate, available
778 at: http://which-50.com/blog/2014/march/26/group-buying-hits-the-wall-in-australia-as-
revenues-stagnate/#.U1o3d_mSx8E (accessed 20 April 2014).
Bhatnagar, A. and Ghose, S. (2004), “Segmenting consumers based on the benefits and risks of
internet shopping”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 12, pp. 1352-1360.
Blake, B.F., Neuendorf, K.A. and Valdiserri, C.M. (2003), “Innovativeness and variety of internet
shopping”, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 156-169.
Chang, M.K., Cheung, W.M. and Lai, V.S. (2005), “Literature derived reference models for the
adoption of online shopping”, Information and Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 543-559.
Chen, M.F. and Lu, T.Y. (2011), “Modeling e-coupon proneness as a mediator in the extended TPB
model to predict consumers’ usage intentions”, Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 508-526.
Cheng, H.H. and Huang, S.W. (2013), “Exploring antecedents and consequence of online
group-buying intention: an extended perspective on theory of planned behavior”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 185-198.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for
online retail shopping behaviour”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-535.
Cho, J.S. (2004), “Likelihood to abort an online transaction: influences from cognitive evaluations,
attitudes, and behavioral variables”, Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 827-838.
Choi, J. and Geistfeld, L.V. (2004), “A cross-cultural investigation of consumer e-shopping
adoption”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 821-838.
Cialdini, R.B. (2007), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Corbitt, B.J., Thanasankit, T. and Yi, H. (2003), “Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumer
perceptions”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 203-215.
Coulter, K.S. and Roggeveen, A. (2012), “Deal or no deal?: how number of buyers, purchase limit,
and time-to-expiration impact purchase decisions on group buying websites”, Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp.78-95.
Dawson, S. and Kim, M. (2009), “External and internal trigger cues of impulse buying”, Direct
Marketing: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 20-34.
Dean, D. and Lang, J.M. (2008), “Comparing three signals of service quality”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Dholakia, U.M. (2010), “How effective are groupon promotions for businesses?”, available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1696327 (accessed 18 February 2013).
Dholakia, U.M. (2011), “How businesses fare with daily deals: a multi-site analysis of Groupon,
Livingsocial, Opentable, Travelzoo, and BuyWithMe promotions”, available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1863466 (accessed 18 January 2013).
Donthu, N. and Garcia, A. (1999), “The internet shopper”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 52-59.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2001), “Atmospheric qualities of online retailing:
a conceptual model and implications”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 177-184.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Factors
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading.
influencing
Forsythe, S.M. and Shi, B. (2003), “Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in internet consumers’
shopping”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 867-875.
attitudes
Fortin, D.R. (2000), “Clipping coupons in cyberspace: a proposed model of behaviour for deal-prone
consumers”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 515-534.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Goldsmith, E.B. (2002), “Buying apparel over the internet”, The Journal of 779
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 89-100.
Granovetter, M. and Soong, R. (1986), “Threshold models of interpersonal effects in consumer
demand”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 83-99.
Grazioli, S. and Jarvenpaa, S.L. (2000), “Perils of internet fraud: an empirical investigation of
deception and trust with experienced internet consumers”, IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics A, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 395-410.
Gupta, S. and Cooper, L. (1992), “The discounting of discounts and promotion thresholds”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 401-411.
Harlam, B., Krishna, A., Lehmann, D. and Mela, C. (1995), “Impact of bundle type, price framing
and familiarity on purchase intention for the bundle”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Hellofs, L.L. and Jacobson, R. (1999), “Market share and customers’ perceptions of quality: when
can firms grow their way to higher versus lower quality?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 16-25.
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996), “Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments: conceptual foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 50-68.
Hsu, M.H., Chang, C.M., Chu, K.K. and Lee, Y.J. (2014), “Determinants of repurchase intention in
online group-buying: the perspectives of Delone and McLean IS success model and trust”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 234-245.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modelling, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-55.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N. and Vitale, M. (2000), “Consumer trust in an internet store”,
Information Technology and Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 45-71.
Jeffrey, S.A. and Hodge, R. (2007), “Factors influencing impulse buying during an online
purchase”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 367-379.
Kacen, J.J., Hess, J.C. and Walker, D. (2012), “Spontaneous selection: the influence of product and
retailing factors on consumer impulse purchases”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 578-588.
Kang, H., Hahn, M., Fortin, D.R., Hyun, Y.J. and Eom, Y. (2006), “Effects of perceived behavioural
control on the consumer usage intention of e-coupons”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 841-864.
Kauffman, R.J., Lai, H.C. and Lin, H.C. (2010), “Consumer adoption of group-buying auctions:
an experimental study”, Information Technology Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 191-211.
Khare, A. (2014), “Consumers’ susceptibility to interpersonal influence as a determining factor of
ecologically conscious behaviour”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Kitchen, P.J., Alwi, S.F.S., Che-Na, N. and Lim, P.Y. (2014), “Coupon redemption behaviour: a Malaysian
cross-segment investigation”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 66-88.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, Guildford, New York, NY.
MIP Koyuncu, C. and Bhattacharya, G. (2004), “The impacts of quickness, price, payment risk, and
delivery issues on on-line shopping”, Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 241-251.
33,5
Kozinets, R.V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. and Wilner, S.J.S. (2010), “Networked narratives:
understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-90.
Lee, P.M. (2002), “Behavioral model of online purchasers in e-commerce environment”, Electronic
780 Commerce Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 75-85.
Lee, D., Trail, G.T., Kwon, H.H. and Anderson, D.F. (2005), “Licensed sport merchandise
consumption: psychometric properties of the MVS, PRS, and PERVAL scales”, Sport
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 89-101.
Li, H., Kuo, C. and Russell, M.G. (1999), “The impact of perceived channel utilities, shopping
orientations, and demographics on the consumer’s online buying behavior behavior”,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Liang, T.P. and Lai, H.J. (2002), “Effect of store design on consumer purchases: an empirical study
of on-line bookstores”, Information and Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 431-444.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway, N.M. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1993), “Price perceptions and consumer
shopping behavior: a field study”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 234-245.
Limayem, M., Khalifa, M. and Frini, A. (2000), “What makes consumers buy from internet?
A longitudinal study of online shopping”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics A, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 421-432.
Liu, C., Marchewka, J.T., Lu, J. and Yu, C.S. (2005), “Beyond concern: a privacy-trust-behavioral
intention model of electronic commerce”, Information and Management, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 289-304.
Liu, X. and Wei, K.K. (2003), “An empirical study of product differences in consumers’
e-commerce adoption behaviour”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 229-239.
McGowan, K. and Sternquist, B. (1998), “Dimensions of price as a marketing universal:
a comparison of Japanese and US consumers”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 6
No. 4, pp. 49-65.
McKnight, H.D., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002), “The impact of initial consumer trust on
intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model”, Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, Vol. 11 Nos 3/4, pp. 297-323.
Marshall, R. and Leng, S. (2002), “Price threshold and discount saturation point in Singapore”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 147-159.
Nielsen, J. (1999), “User interface directions for the web”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 65-73.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Cass, A. and Fenech, T. (2002), “Web retailing adoption: exploring the nature of internet users web
retailing behavior”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 81-94.
Parker, J. (2013), “Internet sales rise as Aussies head online to shop more often”, available at:
www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-30/survey-shows-online-shopping-continues-rapid-growth/
5178794 (accessed 3 February 2014).
Phau, I. and Poon, S.M. (2000), “Factors influencing the types of products and services purchased
over internet”, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 102-113.
Pincus, J. (2004), “The consequences of unmet needs: the evolving role of motivation in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 375-387.
Ranganathan, C. and Ganapathy, S. (2002), “Key dimensions of business-to-consumer web sites”, Factors
Information and Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 457-465.
influencing
Ratten, V. (2010), “Social cognitive theory and the adoption of e-book devices”, International consumers’
Journal of E-Business Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 3-16.
attitudes
Ratten, V. and Ratten, H. (2007), “Social cognitive theory in technological innovations”, European
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 90-108.
Santos, J.F. and Ribeiro, J.C. (2012), “The Portuguese online wine buying consumer: 781
characteristics, motivations and behaviour”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 294-311.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P. (2001), “An online prepurchase intentions
model: the role of intention to search”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 397-416.
Sim, L.L. and Koi, S.M. (2002), “Singapore’s internet shoppers and their impact on traditional
shopping patterns”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 115-124.
Solomon, M.R. (2014), Consumer Behavior – Buying, Having and Being, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Sorce, P., Perotti, V. and Widrick, S. (2005), “Attitude and age differences in online buying”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 122-132.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple
item scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Train, K. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Trenwith, C. (2011), “Businesses reeling under pressure to join daily deal craze”, available at:
www.businessday.com.au/small-business/smallbiz-marketing/businesses-reeling-under-
pressure-to-join-daily-deal-craze-20110602-1fi87.html (accessed 13 January 2013).
Van der Heijden, H. and Verhagen, T. (2004), “Online store image: conceptual foundation and
empirical measurement”, Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 609-617.
Verhoef, P.C. and Langerak, F. (2001), “Possible determinants of consumers’ adoption of
electronic grocery shopping in the Netherlands”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 275-285.
Vijayasarathy, L.R. and Jones, J.M. (2000), “Print and internet catalog shopping: assessing
attitudes and intentions”, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 191-202.
Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M.C. (2001), “Shopping for freedom, control and fun”, California
Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 34-55.
Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M.C. (2003), “eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring, and predicting
eTail quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 183-198.
Yoon, S.J. (2002), “The antecedents and consequences of trust in online purchase decisions”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 47-63.

Further reading
Chen, L.D., Gillenson, M.L. and Sherrell, D.L. (2002), “Enticing online consumers: an extended
technology acceptance perspective”, Information and Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 705-719.
Holmes-Smith, P. and Coote, L. (2002), Structural Equation Modelling: From the Fundamentals to
Advanced Topics, School Research Evaluation and Measurement Services, Elsternwick.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

MIP Appendix. Survey instruments
Perceived value (6-items)
33,5
(1) E-deals offered a good buy (value) for money.
(2) Products and services purchased from e-deals represent a fair price.
(3) Products and services purchased from e-deals would be economical.
782 (4) Products purchased from e-deals have acceptable quality.
(5) Services purchased from e-deals have consistent quality.
(6) Products purchased from e-deals would not last a long time. (removed)
Price consciousness (5-items)
(1) I am willing to go to extra effort to find lower prices in e-deals.
(2) I will shop at more than one store (online or retail) to take advantage of low prices.
(3) I would always shop at more than one store (online or retail) to find low prices.
(4) The money saved by finding lower prices is usually worth the time and effort.
(5) The time it takes to find lower prices is usually worth the effort.
Normative influence (8-items)
(1) I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve of them.
(2) It is important that others like the products and brands I buy.
(3) When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will
approve of.
(4) If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brands they expect me to buy.
(5) I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others.
(6) I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that others
purchase.
(7) If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same brands that they buy.
(8) I often identify with other people by purchasing the same products and brands they
purchase.
Informative influence (4-items)
(1) To make sure I buy the right product or brand, I often observe what others are buying
and using.
(2) If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product.
(3) I often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from a product
class.
(4) I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy.
Perceived behavioural control (5-items)
(1) It takes little time to find the e-deals I need on the website.
(2) Whenever I want certain e-deals, I can find them on the website.
(3) It is easy to search, buy and redeem e-deals on the website.
(4) As far as the e-deals I need are on the website, it is easy for me to find it.
(5) There are few obstacles for me to use e-deals. (removed)
Attitudes towards e-deals (4-items) Factors
influencing
consumers’
attitudes

783

Intention to buy e-deals (5-items)

Corresponding author
Professor Ian Phau can be contacted at: ian.phau@cbs.curtin.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.