Journal of Internet Commerce

ISSN: 1533-2861 (Print) 1533-287X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wico20

“Showrooming” in Consumer Electronics Retailing:

An Empirical Study

Francisco Rejón-Guardia & Cuauhtemoc Luna-Nevarez

To cite this article: Francisco Rejón-Guardia & Cuauhtemoc Luna-Nevarez (2017) “Showrooming”
in Consumer Electronics Retailing: An Empirical Study, Journal of Internet Commerce, 16:2,
174-201, DOI: 10.1080/15332861.2017.1305812

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2017.1305812

Published online: 09 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wico20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 24 May 2017, At: 04:55
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE
2017, VOL. 16, NO. 2, 174–201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2017.1305812

“Showrooming” in Consumer Electronics Retailing:

An Empirical Study
Francisco Rejón-Guardiaa and Cuauhtemoc Luna-Nevarezb
a
Department of Business and Economics, University of Balearic Islands, Mallorca, Spain; bDepartment of
Marketing and Sport Management, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The present study focuses on multichannel retailing strategies Consumer electronics;
and describes the state of consumer behavior regarding showrooming; structural
“showrooming” (the practice of examining merchandise or model
products in a retail store and then buying it online). Founded on
the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the authors examine the
antecedents of showrooming using data collected from a
sample of 176 retail consumers. Based on their results, they
define perceived control, website compatibility, and subjective
norms as the main antecedents of consumer attitudes toward
online purchases. Additionally, they state that previous
experience and reasons against purchasing online are directly
associated with consumers’ intention to purchase on the
retailer’s website. Finally, some theoretical conclusions and
practical implications for retailers are discussed.

Introduction
The Internet offers several advantages over the traditional in-store retail
environment and represents the main source of information for consumers,
who visit retailers’ websites before and after an actual purchase (Cetelem
2013). Moreover, the Internet has become the most popular retail channel
for many consumers, especially in the leisure, fashion, tourism, and electro-
nics industries (Webloyalty 2013). Some recent studies draw attention to
two trends that are impacting both the online and offline retail channels,
namely webrooming and showrooming, in which the physical store and the
Internet exchange roles during the purchase decision-making process. As a
result, the Internet is becoming the main sales channel for most retailers,
whereas their physical stores are becoming a source of information for many
consumers. This phenomenon is not particular to a geographic area or
consumer typology; it can actually be considered a more generalized
consumption trend (Quint, Rogers, and Ferguson 2013).
The evolving online consumer behaviors require a more in-depth analysis
as online purchasing represents a growing trend among consumers; 42% of

CONTACT Cuauhtemoc Luna-Nevarez lunanevarezc@sacredheart.edu Department of Marketing and Sport

Management, Sacred Heart University, 5151 Park Avenue, Fairfield, CT 06825, USA.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 175

Internet users report making online purchases (Statista 2015a). Global

consumer retail sales are estimated at more than 750,000 million dollars
(Statista 2015b), and an increase of 300,000 million dollars in sales is
estimated for US retail e-commerce in 2015 (Statista 2015c). Furthermore,
with the increase in the use of mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets,
this trend is expected to grow even more. Other studies revealed that 70% of
consumers in the United States, England, and Canada reported having
practiced showrooming at least once during 2013, which suggests that retail
stores are becoming mere extensions of their own e-commerce websites
(Clifford 2012). This phenomenon has been studied by major retailers such
as Best Buy and Wal-Mart (Bustillo 2012; Zimmerman 2012). The tendency
to practice showrooming is also increased by the difficulty for consumers to
evaluate some product attributes on the online environment (Mehra, Kumar,
and Rahu 2013).
This research studies the showrooming phenomenon among retail consu-
mers. Founded on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the authors
developed and tested a theoretical framework for the antecedents of consumer
intentions to practice showrooming in the consumer electronics retail
industry. The study focuses on this industry because consumer electronics
is one of the most shopped categories online (ComScore 2012), thus it
represents a market segment where consumers are more likely to practice
showrooming (ComScore 2012; Zaubitzer 2013). The outline of this article
is as follows. First, a review of literature, including a description of the
showrooming concept and the main antecedent variables used to explain this
phenomenon, is presented. Second, the theoretical framework (based on the
TPB) is examined. Third, a series of hypotheses based on the proposed frame-
work is described. Fourth, the method, analysis, and results of the study are
explained. Finally, a discussion of the findings and their managerial implica-
tions for retailers is presented, as well as the limitations of the study.

Literature review
Definition and state of showrooming
The main premise of e-commerce is to transform consumer behavior.
The reduction of the discrepancies between supply and demand offered by
e-commerce enables ubiquitous market space, known as u-commerce (Cox
2004). Consumer behavior is changing (Chiang and Dholakia 2003) due to
technological advances such as the Internet, social networks, and mobile
devices, which have transformed traditional consumption and allowed retai-
lers to reach consumers through new touchpoints (Shankar et al. 2010). These
consumers that use different retail channels are known as multichannel
buyers (Zaubitzer 2013). The concept of showrooming is used to explain a
176 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

purchase behavior based on the comparison of products and retailers, and has
become a trend in the area of online consumer behavior, as stated by the
National Retail Federation (NRF; Smith 2013). According to Richter (2014),
showrooming refers to the practice of examining products in traditional retail
stores or any other offline expositions and later purchasing the products
online. In other words, “showroomers” visit a physical retail store, observe,
touch, feel, and try a product, but they do not buy it. An opposite trend also
exists and is called webrooming, in which consumers visit retail websites to
compare prices, attributes, opinions, and warranties among brands, but
purchase the desired product offline, at a physical store. That is, consumers
research products online (RO = Research Online), but the final purchase
occurs offline (PO = Purchase Offline) (Kramer 2014). A relevant aspect about
showrooming is that price plays a decisive role in the purchase decision-
making. Consumers are generally attracted to the lower prices on retail
websites relative to those at physical stores. This can be explained by the fact
that many online retailers do not incur as many expenses as most offline
stores do (Kramer 2014).
Today, showrooming is a practice that suggests a further step in the pur-
chasing process supported by consumers’ common sense. The phenomenon
has caught the attention of retailers, who have started to take actions in order
to solve this issue. Some actions focus on lowering product prices with the
intention of reducing the gap between prices at the physical store and those
offered online. According to a survey by Cetelem (2013), 23% of respondents
confirmed to know what showrooming is, and 28% of respondents stated to
have practiced showrooming in the past.
Marketing Vibes, a consulting firm, presented the following statistics
regarding showrooming: (1) There was a rise of 156% in purchases using price
comparison between online and offline stores from 2012 to 2014; (2) in 2012,
14% of consumers bought on a competitor’s website (and not on the website
of the visited retailer’s store); (3) most buyers who practice showrooming are
in the 25–34 age range, whereas 20% of buyers are in the range of 35–44 years
old; and (4) 30% of consumers buy a product on Amazon’s website after
obtaining information at a retail store (Vibes 2013). According to ComScore
(2012), 50% of the customers who engaged in showrooming were between
25–34 years old, 72% of them stated that a reason for this behavior was lower
online prices, and 45% of them stated that they wanted to view the product
before buying it online. The most purchased items in showrooming were
consumer electronics (63%), clothing and accessories (43%), books (29%),
and appliances (22%), followed by toys, jewelry/watches, and others
(Zaubitzer 2013).
Furthermore, the practice of showrooming has extended to the mobile
environment through the use of mobile terminals both inside and outside
stores (Kowatsch and Maass 2010). In a Google (2013) report about
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 177

consumers’ online behaviors, it was confirmed that 84% of smartphone buyers

use their phones as aids during their purchase decision-making at a retail
store. As stated by Parago’s (2013) report, 58% of smartphone adult users
and one-third of American adult buyers practice showrooming on a regular
basis. Another relevant fact from this report is that Amazon is the top online
site where Americans compare smartphones. Moreover, price is a key variable
that influences online purchasing behaviors, as 67% of buyers purchase their
smartphones at a retail store when the price is similar to Amazon’s price plus
a discount.
Among potential multichannel purchasing behaviors, it is important to
distinguish loyal-research shoppers from competitive-research shoppers
(Neslin and Shankar 2009). Loyal-research shoppers switch channels (i.e.,
offline to online or vice versa) during the purchasing process but stay with
the same retailer all the time. On the other hand, competitive-research
shoppers, also called free riders (Umit-Kucuk and Maddux 2010), use one
retailer’s channel to gather product information and switch to another
retailer’s channel to complete their purchase. This research focuses on
competitive showrooming, that is, the practice of using the physical store as
a source of information about products or services, and purchasing such
products from a different retailer afterward.
Loyal showrooming represents a good opportunity for retailers, but
research suggests that only 1.8% of “showroomers” engage in this type of
behavior (Van Baal and Dach 2005). According to Neslin and colleagues
(2006), loyal showrooming has been criticized because when retailers want
to attract more consumers and direct them to their online store, it is likely
that consumers switch to a competitor’s online store if the switching cost is
low. In the same line, competitive showrooming may have serious conse-
quences for retailers by bringing sales down and pressuring them to direct
consumers to their online store (website). Thus, competitive showrooming
may be considered a threat to the retail industry, particularly to small retailers.

Showrooming as a threat to small retailers

An important question to address regarding showrooming is how small busi-
nesses without an online presence may overcome this market trend. Previous
research has found a direct relationship between perceived price and the
intention to use a distribution channel (Yu, Niehm, and Russell 2011). The
price differences between channels and stores represent a critical factor that
impacts consumers’ purchase decision-making and the benefits for retailers
(Wolk and Ebling 2010). Hence, the practice of showrooming may negatively
impact small businesses because specialty stores often offer more sticky prices
and higher levels of service, which translates into higher costs that are difficult
to handle for small retailers. Therefore, consumers may achieve significant
178 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

savings by “showrooming,” which may be detrimental for small retailers who

do not follow a multichannel strategy that includes online distribution.
To counteract the negative impact of showrooming and reduce this trend,
retailers should try to reduce the differences between online and offline prices,
and reinforce the training programs of their salespeople (Quint et al. 2013).
Other authors suggest that retailers should keep price information up-to-date,
offer an integrated experience that encompasses both the online and offline
channels, ensure the free and quick shipping of products with clear delivery
policies, build better relationships with customers, focus more on the
consumer’s experience and less on product prices, and avoid making
customers wait. In sum, small retailers must revitalize the in-store experience
in order to overcome showrooming (Stephens 2013).

Theoretical model and hypotheses

TPB
A review of literature identified three main theories commonly used to predict
the acceptance and use of technology: the TPB (Azjen 2011), the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis 1986; Xioani and Prybutok 2003), and the
Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) Theory (Boateng, Molla, and Heeks 2009).
For this research, a theoretical model (based on the TPB) that analyzes
some variables influencing retail consumers to practice showrooming was
developed.
The TPB was proposed by Azjen (1985) as an extension of the theory of
reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). The main difference
between the theories is that in the TPB, the individual has the possibility of
controlling his behavior (Westaby, Versenyi, and Hausmann 2005). The
TPB has been extensively used by researchers in the last 20 years and has pro-
ven to be ideal to predict a great diversity of human intentions and behaviors
in multiple situations (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Lutz 2011). Some attempts to
improve the TPB have focused on its variables decomposition (DTPB) (Taylor
and Todd 1995) and a reformulation of the theory (RTPB) (Ajzen 2002a,
2002b). Such efforts to perfect the predictive theoretical model have proven
to be appropriate for innovation environments of technology acceptance
and for the use of information systems (Taylor and Todd 1995; Kuo and
Young 2008).
The TPB explains that an individual’s behavior is determined by his beha-
vioral intentions (BI), attitudes toward the behavior (ATB), social influence
(SI), subjective norms (SN), perceived behavioral control (PBC) (Ajzen
1991), previous experiences, beliefs on the behavior (Taylor and Todd
1995), and reasons for and against performing the desired behavior (Westaby
et al. 2005). In consumer behavior literature, the TPB models have been
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 179

extensively used in both the offline and online purchasing contexts (George
2004; Hansen, Jensen, and Solgaard 2004; Hsu et al. 2006). According to
previous research, the TPB is adequate to explain how consumer attitudes
toward practicing showrooming, the influence of subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control may predict consumer intentions to practice
showrooming (Luo et al. 2014). The following section describes the main
variables used on the proposed model as well as their interrelationships.

Reasons of use
A literature review suggests that reasons are the link between an individual’s
beliefs, his global motivations (e.g., attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived
control), and his behavioral intentions or intentions of use (Westaby et al.
2005). The theoretical framework proposes that reasons help consumers
justify and defend their behaviors by influencing their motivations and global
intentions (Westaby et al. 2005). This posits an important theoretical issue as
the reason concept has been proven to have a predictive validity in the context
of decision-making and judgment (Campion 1991; Pennington and Hastie
1988; Westaby et al. 2005). Therefore, reasons for and against performing a
behavior serve as an important link between the attitudes, subjective norms,
perceived control, behavioral intentions, and final behavior (Westaby et al.
2005). According to Inks and Mayo (2002), some consumers have reserva-
tions about online shopping which can be negatively affecting the acceptance
rates of the online channel. For this study, an analysis of previous research
was done to determine the main variables making up the reasons for and
against online purchasing, as such variables could affect consumers’ attitudes
toward showrooming and their intentions to perform this behavior.
This research uses the most relevant behavioral reasons addressed by the
e-commerce literature. The main reasons for consumers to purchase
(or not to purchase) online include the following:
1. Reduced stress by purchasing online, which has a direct effect on consumers’
behavioral changes and an indirect effect on their decision-making and
physical and psychological well-being (Moschis 2007). Research on stress
has proved that under stressful conditions, consumers perform behaviors
aimed to use resources more efficiently in order to have more control over
their environment, such as restraining themselves from making unnecess-
ary purchases (Durante and Laran 2016).
2. Reasons related to price differences between distribution channels which
suggest the existence of lower online prices (Kannan and Kopalle 2001;
Koufaris and Ajit Kambil 2001; Quint et al. 2013). The premise that
consumers may purchase products online at lower prices relative to the
offline channel becomes a reason for consumers to develop positive
attitudes toward online purchasing and intentions to purchase products
180 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

online. Regarding satisfaction, price has the highest impact on online

shoppers’ satisfaction, which reinforces the argument that online shopping
facilitates finding better deals, as consumers may compare online prices in
an easier way (Abdul-Muhmin 2010).
On the other hand, among the reasons that negatively influence
consumers’ attitudes and intentions to purchase online, the literature
reveals researchers’ interest in studying some reasons against purchasing
online, such as
3. Reasons related to the difficulties found by consumers in returning products
purchased online relative to those purchased at a physical store (Ofek,
Katona, and Sarvary 2011; Maity and Arnold 2013). In general, loosening
up return policies leads to a reduction in the number of products returned
to the store, which favors the online purchasing process and improves
customer satisfaction, especially for well-known brands (Walsh et al. 2016).
4. Reasons associated with longer delivery times for products purchased online
(Li, Lu, and Talebian 2015). On-time delivery is one of the variables with
the highest impact on customer evaluations and satisfaction (Dholakia
and Zhao 2010), assuming that consumers are willing to pay for shipping
costs as long as the product is delivered at the scheduled time
(Abdul-Muhmin 2010).
5. Consumers’ need to touch or see the product due to the lack of online infor-
mation about its physical attributes (Peterson, Balasubramanian, and
Bronnenberg 1997; Burke 2002; Gurrea and Sanclemente 2014). Some
research studies demonstrate how touching a product or a product catalog
increases consumer persuasion in low-involvement product communica-
tions (Peck and Wiggins Johnson 2011).
Based on these theoretical contributions, the authors hypothesize the
following:
H1a: The reasons for purchasing online have a positive effect on consumer
attitudes toward online purchases.
H1b: The reasons for purchasing online have a positive effect on consumer
intentions to purchase on the store’s website.
H2a: The reasons against purchasing online have a negative effect on consumer
attitudes toward online purchases.
H2b: The reasons against purchasing online have a negative effect on consumer
intentions to purchase on the store’s website.

Compatibility with purchasing at the retail store

The compatibility with a user’s purchasing style measures the similarity
between the online purchasing mode and the degree to which consumers
believe that their purchase experience is compatible with their current styles,
habits, and past experiences at physical stores (Moore and Benbasat 1991). In
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 181

previous studies about compatibility in the e-commerce context, it was

demonstrated that compatibility is a key factor for consumers’ adoption of
e-commerce, especially when previous purchase experiences did not allow
consumers to physically evaluate the product quality (Jarvenpaa and Todd
1996). Hence, there is a need for retailers to offer experiences that are com-
patible to the product testing style at physical stores, for instance, using
new technologies such as 3-D modeling (Peterson et al. 1997). Therefore,
the perception of compatibility and enjoyment of online purchase experiences
relative to purchase experiences at a physical store will influence consumers’
attitudes toward purchasing online. That is, the positive attitudes toward an
online purchase may encourage consumers to perform the purchasing beha-
vior (Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, and Vitale 2000; Van der Heijden, Verhagen, and
Creemers 2003) through the intention of using the retailer’s website to pur-
chase (Jiang and Benbasat 2007). Thus, the authors hypothesize the following:
H3a: The compatibility with purchasing at the retail store will positively influence
consumer attitudes toward online purchases.
H3b: The compatibility with purchasing at the retail store will positively influence
consumer intentions to purchase on the store’s website.

Perceived control
Perceived control has been analyzed from different perspectives in order to
explain its influence on consumer behaviors (Koufaris 2002). A literature
review revealed that perceived control was incorporated to the TPB to
improve the prediction of behavioral intentions in cases of willingness (Ajzen
and Madden 1986; Millstein 1996), and it also represents one of the main
antecedents of technology use (Teo et al. 2009).
From the perspective of flow in online navigation, perceived control can be
defined as “the degree of control over one’s actions and the environment”
(Koufaris 2002, 208). In the e-commerce context, there is massive information
about products available, and consumers have less time for shopping
(Koufaris 2002), which causes utilitarian consumers to require more control,
less effort, and higher efficacy for their purchases (Jarvenpaa and Todd 1996;
Tracy 1998). Therefore, websites must offer consumers a higher control and
convenience by providing interfaces that are simple and easy to navigate,
facilitate product search and transactions, and allow consumers to easily
understand their use and content (Baty and Lee 1995). In this way, a high
degree of perceived control must foster an individual’s intention to perform
a behavior, increasing his effort and perseverance (Ajzen 2002a). If consumers
think that showrooming is difficult to do due to the difficulties found on the
store’s website, their degree of perceived control may be lower (Luo et al.
2014). Thus, the perceived control may translate into a behavior only if the
182 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

consumer has the time, abilities, willingness, and other resources needed to
perform the behavior. This research considers that the environment perceived
by consumers on a store’s website differs significantly from that of the
physical store, and that the perceived control variable suggests a measure of
self-efficacy in performing a specific behavior, which can vary across different
events or actions (Bandura 1982). As a consequence, consumers’ perceived
control over the action of performing showrooming will influence their
behavioral intentions. Thus, the authors hypothesize the following:
H4a: Consumers who perceive a higher control over performing showrooming
will have a more positive attitude toward online purchases.
H4b: Consumers who perceive a higher control over performing showrooming
will have a higher intention to purchase on the store’s website.

Online purchase experience and showrooming

Considering that consumer behavior results from learning (Bentler and
Speckart 1979), some researchers argue that past consumption behaviors
may provide a good prediction of behavioral intentions (Armitage and
Conner 2001). Some authors defend the influence of past purchase
experiences on consumer attitudes toward online purchases and intentions
to purchase online (May So, Danny Wong, and Sculli 2005; Huang and
Hsu 2009). Therefore, this research views showrooming as an opportunistic
online behavior that increases with consumer learning. Hence, the authors
hypothesize the following:
H5a: Consumers’ showrooming experience has a positive influence on attitudes
toward online purchases.
H5b: Consumers’ showrooming experience has a positive influence on intentions
to purchase on the store’s website.

Subjective norms
Subjective norms refer to the perceived social pressure to perform or not to
perform a behavior, and may be defined as the degree to which the people
who are important to the user think a specific behavior should be performed
(Ajzen 1991). In other words, subjective norms relate to the normative beliefs
about people’s expectations. For Ajzen (1991), a person of reference’s opinion
is weighed by the motivation that an individual has to comply with the desires
of such person. For example, a consumer may utilize a communication
medium to obtain information or make a purchase if he considers that other
influencing people demand such behavior, or if the user observes other people
around him performing the behavior. For this research, subjective norms are
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 183

defined as the degree to which a person perceives other people’s demands,

measured by the “relevance” that they give to the person’s use of a specific
technology. Previous research establishes a positive relationship between sub-
jective norms and purchasing behaviors, and between subjective norms and
attitudes. In the TPB, subjective norms are a main antecedent of intentions
(Ajzen and Madden 1986). Thus, if most consumers think that practicing
showrooming is an acceptable behavior, they will develop a stronger intention
toward such behavior (Luo et al. 2014). For that reason, the authors hypothe-
size the following:
H6a: Consumers who perceive a higher social pressure from people of reference
will have a more positive attitude toward online purchases.
H6b: Consumers who perceive a higher social pressure from people of reference
will have a higher intention to purchase on the store’s website.

Attitudes toward online purchasing and consumers’ intentions to

purchase on the store’s website
The proposed theoretical framework adopts a cognitive-affective approach to
explain the formation of consumers’ attitudes toward purchasing online or at
a physical store. This approach has been applied in several e-commerce
research studies and is useful to identify human responses in a holistic way
(Eagly, Mladinic, and Otto 1994; Kempf 1999; Onurbodur, Brinberg, and
Coupey 2000). Literature reveals that consumer intentions toward online
purchase behaviors are mainly determined by the attitude toward the online

Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model.

184 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

store or the attitude toward purchasing on a particular website. Thus, positive

attitudes toward the purchasing process, a brand, or a product will encourage
consumers to perform a purchase behavior and increase the likelihood that

Table 1. Scales.
Variables Items Source(s)
Reasons for In regards to online shopping, I think that: Peterson et al. (1997), Burke
purchasing . Shopping online reduces my stress (2002); O’Connor (2003);
online . Online prices are generally lower than Moschis (2007); Ofek, Katona,
in-store prices and Sarvary (2011); Maity and
Reasons against In regards to online shopping, I think that: Arnold (2013);Quint et al.
purchasing . It is more difficult to return a product (2013); Gurrea and
online purchased online than a product pur- Sanclemente 2014; Li, Lu, and
chased in-store Talebian (2015), Kannan and
. Not being able to see the product when Kopalle (2001); Koufaris and
purchasing online is a problem for me Ajit Kambil (2001)
. Shopping at a physical store is quicker
than shopping online
Compatibility . Evaluating products online is similar to Jiang and Benbasat (2007)
with evaluating them at a physical store
purchasing at . Evaluating products online is consistent
retail store with how I like to evaluate products at
the physical store
. Becoming familiar with products online is
similar to becoming familiar with
products at the physical store
Perceived During my last visit to the online store, I felt: Koufaris (2002)
control . Confused
. Calm
. In control
. Frustrated
Showrooming . Have you purchased a product on a store’s Luo et al. (2014)
experience website after visiting the physical store to
see and/or try the product?
Social influence: . People that usually influence my buying Venkatesh et al. (2003)
subjective behavior think that I should purchase
norms products online
. People that matter to me think that I
should purchase products online
Attitudes toward In regards to the store’s website that you are Lee et al. (2006)
online visiting,
purchasing . I like the idea of using Internet to make
purchases on the store’s website
. Using the Internet to purchase products
on the store’s website is a good idea
. I believe that the final outcome of
purchasing products online should be
positive.
Intention to . I have the intention to use the website of Venkatesh et al. (2003)
purchase on a store in order to purchase products in
the store’s the near future
website . My prediction is that I will use the website
of a store to purchase products in the near
future.
. I am going to use the website of a store to
purchase products in the near future.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 185

such behavior occurs (Jarvenpaa et al. 2000; Van der Heijden et al. 2003; Jiang
and Benbasat 2007). Regarding the online environment, Jarvenpaa and collea-
gues (2000) found that favorable attitudes toward purchasing on a store’s
website increase the likelihood of purchasing at the store, and consequently,
the attitude toward the store will influence purchase intentions (Grazioli
and Jarvenpaa 2000; Coyle and Thorson 2001). Other studies evaluated
purchase intentions through websites and concluded that online purchasing
is influenced by utilitarian value, attitudes toward online shopping,
availability of information, and hedonic values (Khare and Rakesh 2011).
The attitude toward the retail store is defined as the belief that purchasing
at the store will be very likely to produce an overall positive result or an
overall negative result (Jarvenpaa et al. 2000; Lim et al. 2006).
This research considers the attitude toward purchasing online as a global
evaluation of past online purchase experiences. Thus, the authors hypothesize
the following:
H7: A more positive attitude toward online purchasing will have a greater
influence on consumers’ intention to purchase on the store’s website.

Behavioral intentions (intentions of use)

The behavioral intention (BI) variable is deemed “the factor that captures the
intensity with which an individual will try to perform a behavior” (Ajzen
1991, 181). In the TPB, the behavioral intention is the most influencing
predictor of a behavior or final use. This was confirmed by Armitage and
Conner (2001), who examined 185 empirical studies published up to 1997
and found that the TPB captures between 27% and 39% of the variation of
behavior and intention of use. Therefore, among of the TPB constructs, beha-
vioral intention has proven to be the best predictor of effective behavior. For
the proposed research model, intention to practice showrooming represents
the main endogenous variable. Figure 1 shows the theoretical model which
reflects all proposed hypotheses, and Table 1 describes the measures utilized.

Methodology
Sample and data collection
One-hundred-and-seventy-six retail consumers (77 male and 99 female)
participated in a survey about the state of showrooming in the consumer
electronics retail environment. Participants were selected using a stratified
non-probabilistic sampling method in which the control variables were age
and gender. Respondents were recruited at the entrance of some of the main
consumer electronics stores in the province of Granada, Spain. Data were
186 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

Table 2. Sampling and data collection.

Population Retail customers
Population size
Sampling method Convenience and quota sampling
Questionnaire type Administered by researchers (CAPI)
Sample size 176 participants
Data collection time January 2015

collected using questionnaires administered by a group of market research

professionals from February to March 2015. Table 2 summarizes the technical
details of the study. Participants were between the ages of 18 and 70 years old,
with an average of 35 years (see Table 3 for demographic characteristics of the
sample).

Survey measures
To assure the content validity of the measures used in the survey, the authors
reviewed previous research studies and adapted the scales accordingly. They
used a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree. The indicators for the online purchase experience factor were drawn
from Hui, Teo, and Tom Lee (2007). The indicators used to measure the

Table 3. Sample demographics.

Gender n %
Male 77 43.8
Female 99 56.3
Total 176 100.0
Age
18–25 56 31.8
26–31 30 17.0
32–45 48 27.3
46–57 34 19.3
>58 8 4.5
Income level
<600 € 26 14.8
600–1,500 € 65 36.9
1,501–2,100 € 49 27.8
>2,100 € 36 20.5
Level of education
None 3 1.7
Primary school 14 8.0
Secondary school 57 32.4
High school or above 102 58.0
Employment status
Unemployed 17 9.7
Student 50 28.4
Housewife 13 7.4
Employed 66 37.5
Self-employed 28 15.9
Retired 2 1.1
Number of purchases in the last year: X = 8.24; DT = 22.166.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 187

compatibility with the purchases at the store were adapted from the scale
proposed by Jiang and Benbasat (2007). Regarding the evaluation of reasons
for and against online purchasing, due to the lack of empirically tested scales
in the literature, the authors used individual items tested in previous studies
by Peterson and colleagues (1997); Burke (2002); O’Connor (2003); Moschis
(2007); Ofek, Katona, and Sarvary (2011); Maity and Arnold (2013); Quint
and colleagues (2013); Gurrea and Sanclemente (2014); Li, Lu, and Talebian
(2015); Kannan and Kopalle (2001); and Koufaris and Ajit Kambil (2001).
These items included the following, regarding purchasing on a store’s website:
(a) purchasing online reduces my stress, (b) online prices are regularly lower
than those at the physical store, (c) it is more difficult to return the product
compared to an in-store purchase, (d) not seeing the product when buying at
the store is a problem for me, and (e) purchasing the product at the physical
store is faster. The indicators to measure the social influence of subjective
norms were adapted from the scale proposed by Venkatesh and colleagues
(2003). As for the measurement of perceived control, the indicators proposed
by Koufaris (2002) were adapted to this context. Regarding the scale for
attitudes toward the retail store, the authors used the items developed by
Lim and colleagues (2006). Finally, to measure the intention of using
the web to perform showrooming, the scale proposed by Venkatesh and
colleagues (2003) was adapted to the study.

Data analysis and results

Scale validation
The model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM), which
utilizes a component estimation technique based on partial least squares
(PLS). Such technique is similar to regression analysis and uses structural
models that focus on the theoretical relationships between latent variables
and their measures. This method is mainly used for prediction in causal
analyses based on variance, unlike other techniques that are based on covari-
ance such as LISREL or AMOS (Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted 1996, 25). It
has been also extensively used in marketing (Jarvis et al. 2003; Albers 2010;
Vinzi et al. 2010). One of its main advantages is that it does not require a large
sample size, and it is adequate for the early stages of theory development
(Barclay, Higgins, and Thompson 1995; Chin et al. 1996). The characteristics
and advantages of this multivariable analysis method have been widely
discussed in literature (Sarstedt, Henseler, and Ringle 2011). Given the
characteristics of this study and the variables proposed, PLS represents an
appropriate technique for the evaluation of the model.
For data analysis, the SmartPLS 2.0.M3 software was used (Ringle, Wende,
and Will 2005; Ringle, Wende, and Will 2010). Three types of validity were
188 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

tested, namely content validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.

Content validity was assessed by using previously tested scales, standard
procedures for scale adaptation, and academic experts. The scales showed
convergent validity, assessed by the Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability
(CR), and average variance extracted (AVE), which were greater than the
minimum accepted values in the literature (0.70, 0.70, and 0.50, respectively)
(Fornell and Larcker 1981), with the exception of the reasons for and against
showrooming variable, which showed a Cronbach’s alpha lower than 0.70, and
the compatibility with the retail store and perceived control variables which
showed values near 0.70. Regarding CR, all proposed scales showed values
equal to or higher than the minimum recommended values with the exception
of the reasons for showrooming. As for the AVE, all variables but perceived
control were above the recommended values.
Table 4 provides information about the number of items, Cronbach’s alpha,
CR, AVE, and reliability of constructs. All constructs showed convergent
validity in the empirical context. Discriminant validity was assessed through
the comparison between the square-root of AVE (with the correlations of
each latent variable) and the other model constructs, and through the analysis
of the correlations within constructs and between indicators and constructs
(Fornell and Larcker 1981; Barclay et al. 1995). Results demonstrated that
the scales clearly showed discriminant validity. Table 5 shows the correlations
within constructs and compares them to the square-root of AVE. Overall, the
results firmly support the content validity of the study, convergent validity,
and discriminant validity of the scales and scale items.
The correlation matrix did not show any highly correlated variable (the
highest correlation between the main constructs is r = 0.507). The common
method biased test generally shows a high correlation (r > 0.90) (Pavlou and
El Sawy 2006). Moreover, it was very unlikely that collinearity problems
occurred, as the PLS algorithm is a reflexive mode for all constructs (Chin
et al. 1996). The proposed research model was tested with SmartPLS 2.0.3.
In order to estimate path significance, the authors used a bootstrapping
procedure with 500 subsamples.
Overall, there was significant evidence to demonstrate convergent validity
of the scales, with the exception of the reasons for showrooming variable,
which was deleted from the model. The reliability of all items was acceptable
with the exception of item 4 of the perceived control scale, which was finally
discarded.

Structural model
Following Falk and Miller (1992), it was demonstrated that the R2 of
latent variables is higher than 0.1 before accepting or rejecting the proposed
hypotheses. Considering that the main objective of PLS is prediction, the
 Table 4. Goodness-of-fit indices for the estimated model.
Standard Cronbach
Factor Indicator Mean Deviation λ alpha CFI AVE
Reasons for online Shopping online reduces my stress 4.06 1.973 0.756 0.079 0.684 0.521
shopping Online prices are generally lower than in-store prices 4.99 1.481 0.685
Reasons against online It is more difficult to return a product purchased online than a product 4.50 1.766 0.644 0.571 0.777 0.540
shopping purchased in-store
Not being able to see the product when purchasing online is a problem for me 4.74 1.852 0.786
Shopping at a physical store is quicker than shopping online 4.73 2.065 0.765
Compatibility with Evaluating products online is similar to evaluating them at a physical store 3.60 1.660 0.901 0.654 0.850 0.740
purchasing at retail store Evaluating products online is consistent with how I like to evaluate products at 3.60 1.691 0.817
the physical store
Becoming familiar with products online is similar to becoming familiar with
products at the physical store
Perceived control Confused 5.16 1.929 0.910 0.640 0.714 0.531
Calm 4.81 1.976 0.453
In control 4.42 2.281 0.748
Frustrated 5.32 1.903 0.297
Showrooming experience Have you purchased a product on a store’s website after visiting the physical 4.03 2.413 1 1 1 1
store to see and/or try the product?
Social influence: Subjective People that usually influence my buying behavior think that I should purchase 3.70 1.749 0.940 0.765 0.890 0.803
norms products online
People that matter to me think that I should purchase products online 4.03 1.782 0.849
Attitudes toward online I like the idea of using Internet to make purchases on the store’s website 4.42 1.581 0.875 0.833 0.897 0.743
purchasing Using the Internet to purchase products on the store’s website is a good idea 4.81 1.515 0.857
I believe that the final outcome of purchasing products online should be 4.83 1.464 0.855
positive.
Intention to purchase on I have the intention to use the website of a store in order to purchase products 4.88 1.581 0.970 0.963 0.976 0.932
the store’s website in the near future
My prediction is that I will use the website of a store to purchase products in 4.85 1.515 0.960
the near future.
I am going to use the website of a store to purchase products in the near future. 4.69 1.464 0.965
CFI = Comparative Fit Index.

189
190
Table 5. Discriminant validity of scales (correlations between constructs, square-root of AVE, diagonal in bold).
Attitudes toward Reasons
online Perceived Intention Subjective Reasons against
purchasing Compatibility control of use norms for … … Showrooming
Attitudes toward online 0.862
purchasing
Compatibility 0.217 0.860
Perceived control 0.410 0.160 0.728
Intention of use 0.324 0.243 0.231 0.965
Subjective norms 0.191 0.101 0.141 0.207 0.896
Reasons for showrooming 0.213 0.175 0.100 0.499 0.217 0.721
Reasons against showrooming −0.267 −0.173 −0.255 −0.462 −0.130 −0.507 0.735
Showrooming 0.157 0.154 0.016 0.440 0.121 0.333 −0.314 1
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 191

Table 6. Structural model estimation.

Attitudes: β p value Intention of use: β p value
Reasons against −0.119 (1.978)* 0.024 −0.285 (3.889) 0.000
Compatibility 0.118 (2.109) 0.018 0.098 (1.537) 0.062
Perceived control 0.344 (3.961) 0.000 0.071 (1.338) 0.091 n.s.
Showrooming experience 0.082 (1.535) 0.063 0.303 (4.789) 0.000
Subjective norms 0.105 (1.499) 0.067 0.088 (1.978) 0.072 n.s.
Attitude — — 0.133 (2.138) 0.016
*t value in parentheses.

Stone-Geisser (Q2) test was used to assess the predictive relevance of

constructs. A positive Q2 demonstrates predictive relevance, that is, the
dependent construct value may be predicted from the independent variables
proposed in the model (Chin 1998). In this case, it was confirmed that the
Q2 values for all constructs provide evidence that the model has predictive
relevance, with the exception of the reasons against showrooming construct
with a value near 0. (Attitude toward the retail store: Q2 = 0.464;
Compatibility: Q2 = 0.231; Perceived control: Q2 = 0.151; Intention of use:
Q2 = 0.829; Subjective norms: Q2 = 0.375; Reasons against showrooming:
Q2 = 0.090). Finally, Table 6 shows the estimation of the structural model
and the coefficients for each proposed hypothesis. Hypotheses H2a, H2b,
H3a, H3b, H4a, H5a, H5b, H6a, and H7 were supported at a confidence level
of 95%. Figure 2 shows the final model.

Figure 2. Final model.

192 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

Discussion and implications

Since its emergence, the Internet has become one of the main sources of infor-
mation for consumers. Today, the literature shows evidence of an existing
purchase behavior in which consumers acquire information about a product
at the physical store and later purchase the product online. Such behavior
represents a threat for retailers who do not use a multichannel strategy or take
advantage of the Internet as a marketing channel. This research analyzes the
state of the showrooming phenomenon in retailing. For this purpose, the
authors developed a theoretical model of consumers’ intention to perform
showrooming based on the TPB, which includes several proposed variables
and their interrelationships.
A preliminary question that this research addresses is whether consumers
know the showrooming term. In sum, 67.3% of respondents stated they did
not to know about showrooming, but 48.5% of respondents mentioned they
acquire information about products and try them at physical stores, but com-
plete their purchase on the stores’ websites or other competitors’ websites.
One of the main contributions of this study refers to the use of the TPB to
explain a scarcely researched planned behavior (Richter 2014), namely show-
rooming, in which consumers make an online purchase after visiting, observ-
ing, and comparing products at a physical store. A second contribution relates
to the incorporation of variables not extensively used in literature into the
theoretical model, such as the reasons for and against a behavior and the com-
patibility with in-store purchasing (Jiang and Benbasat 2007). To summarize,
the proposed causal relationships based on reasons for attitudes and purchase
intention (H1a and H1b) were not statistically significant, as evidenced in
previous research (Westaby and Braithewaite 2003; Westaby et al. 2005).
Conversely, the reasons against showrooming were found to be a negative
direct antecedent of purchase intention (H2b) and attitudes toward the retail
store (H2a) as stated by Westaby and colleagues (2005). Based on these results,
retailers should minimize the difficulties (i.e., reasons against showrooming)
of consumers regarding product returns, especially through the online
channel. Moreover, improving delivery times for online purchased products
may lead consumers to perceive that the purchasing process at a physical store
is faster (Li, Lu, and Talebian 2015). Finally, the impossibility of consumers to
see the product they are planning to buy online represents an important
reason for not purchasing online, thus it would be critical for online retailers
to include more descriptive graphical information about their products
through the use of photographs, videos, and/or 3-D models (Peterson et al.
1997; Burke 2002; Gurrea and Sanclemente 2014).
This study confirms the important role of the compatibility between the
online purchase and the purchase at a physical store in the practice of
showrooming. This variable was found to have a direct positive relationship
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 193

with the attitude toward the retail store, as proposed by Jiang and Benbasat
(2007). This finding supports the argument that online retailers should mimic
the processes and aesthetics of their physical stores so that consumers may
perceive that the online purchase environment is similar the purchase
environment at the physical store. To extend the compatibility across chan-
nels, the authors suggest the creation of websites oriented to simplicity and
usability, the use of virtual shopping carts, and the categorization of products
using a structure similar to that used by department stores.
With regard to the antecedent variables analyzed in the model, perceived
control has been confirmed as the main antecedent of attitudes toward the retail
store (H3a), as proposed in literature (Westaby et al. 2005). This finding implies
that if retailers want to increase the positive attitudes toward purchasing on
their websites, consumers’ perceived control should be increased. To do so, it
is recommended that retailers improve their websites’ usability, with a main
focus on facilitating consumers’ navigation on the websites. The results demon-
strate that there is not a direct relationship between perceived control and
intention to use the website, based on the rejection of hypothesis H4b. Thus,
perceived control has a greater influence on attitudes relative to purchase inten-
tions, which contradicts the arguments proposed by Luo and colleagues (2014).
Regarding consumers’ previous experience with showrooming, the authors
found it the main antecedent of intentions of use (H5b) and on a lower scale,
an antecedent of the attitude toward purchasing online (H5a) (May So et al.
2005; Huang and Hsu 2009). This confirms that learning based on past
behaviors may be helpful to predict intentions of future behaviors (Conner
and Armitage 1998). The results suggest to retailers that their customers’ prac-
tice of showrooming increases the chances of repeating this behavior. Thus,
the authors recommend an in-depth analysis of customers’ showrooming
behaviors in order to understand their unmet needs and reasons for perform-
ing this behavior. With this information, a retailer may direct customers to its
own website, increase their loyalty, and reduce their intention to visit other
competitors’ websites.
Social influence through subjective norms demonstrates that such norms
are important to improve consumers’ attitudes toward online purchases
(H6a) but not to influence their online purchase behavior (H6b), which con-
tradicts the argument proposed by Luo and colleagues (2014). An explanation
for this result is that for some consumers, the online purchase process
represents a lonely act in front of a computer or mobile device, such that their
final purchase decision is not influenced by others but their opinions still
effect their attitudes considerably (Ickler et al. 2009). Hence, controlling the
influence of others, especially online actors such as bloggers, analysts, and
journalists, may be interesting to understand the effect of subjective norms
on showrooming. Finally, as demonstrated in e-commerce literature that
uses the TPB, the attitude toward online purchases is directly and positively
194 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

associated to the intention of web use (H7) (Armitage and Conner 2001). A
summary of all hypotheses and results is shown in Table 7.
As for the implications of this research, a relevant question is, how can a
small retail store compete against showrooming? Most small retailers have
focused on customer service. The authors provide the following recommenda-
tions: (1) to improve the customer experience by offering an aesthetic and
highly-usable website that includes a detailed analysis of products and price
comparisons, and integrating the online and offline channels effectively
(e.g., free Wi-Fi, discounts on mobile purchases); (2) to increase consumers’
perceived control (which would subsequently improve their attitudes toward
the retail store) by enhancing the product return process, increasing the
“tangibility” of the product, showing graphic information about products that
is as realistic as possible, and reducing product delivery times; (3) to maximize
the compatibility between the online purchase and the purchase at the
physical store by maintaining the web environment as similar as possible to
the retail store environment, using virtual shopping carts, categorizing
products effectively, offering similar payment procedures, and using bloggers
and other “influencers” to provide advice on the online channel; and (4) to
increase purchase likelihood by identifying and targeting loyal customers,
understanding their reasons for purchasing, reducing their reasons against
purchasing, and improving their overall attitudes toward the store.

Table 7. Summary of hypotheses.

Hypotheses Decision
H1a: The reasons for purchasing online have a positive effect on consumer Not supported
attitudes toward online purchasing.
H1b: The reasons for purchasing online have a positive effect on consumer Not supported
intentions to purchase on the store’s website.
H2a: The reasons against purchasing online have a negative effect on consumer Supported
attitudes toward online purchasing.
H2b: The reasons against purchasing online have a negative effect on consumer Supported
intentions to purchase on the store’s website.
H3a: The compatibility with purchasing at the retail store will positively influence Supported
consumer attitudes toward online purchasing.
H3b: The compatibility with purchasing at the retail store will positively influence Supported
consumer intentions to purchase on the store’s website.
H4a: Consumers who perceive a higher control over performing showrooming will Supported
have a more positive attitude toward online purchasing.
H4b: Consumers who perceive a higher control over performing showrooming will Not supported
have a higher intention to purchase on the store’s website.
H5a: Consumers’ showrooming experience has a positive influence on attitudes Supported
toward online purchasing.
H5b: Consumers’ showrooming experience has a positive influence on intentions Supported
to purchase on the store’s website.
H6a: Consumers who perceive a higher social pressure from people of reference Supported
will have a more positive attitude toward online purchasing.
H6b: Consumers who perceive a higher social pressure from people of reference Not supported
will have a higher intention to purchase on the store’s website.
H7: A more positive attitude toward online purchasing will have a greater Supported
influence on consumers’ intention to purchase on the store’s website.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 195

Limitations and future research

This research has some limitations that could be addressed in future research.
First, a different scale for the reasons for and against using the website variable
is recommended because the validity scores achieved in this research were not
high. Second, the sample size used in this research is relatively small. Thus,
future research should consider increasing the sample size and representative-
ness by extending participants’ selection to other geographic areas. A larger
sample size would allow researchers to use other calculation techniques based
on covariance such as those used by SEM estimation models in LISREL or
AMOS. Lastly, the use of PLS did not allow the authors to use adjustment
indices for the model, which can be addressed in future research studies.
Regarding future lines of research, the authors suggest extending this study
to other product categories. For example, it would be interesting to analyze
potential differences in the practice of showrooming across different product
categories, such as frequently purchased products, seasonal products, and/or
experiential products. Furthermore, it would be important to analyze the
impact of demographic differences on the practice of showrooming, as demo-
graphic variables appear in literature as some of the main moderators of the
TPB. Moreover, further research could examine cross-cultural differences in
the practice of showrooming by replicating this study in other geographic areas.

References
Abdul-Muhmin, A. G. 2010. Repeat purchase intentions in online shopping: The role of
satisfaction, attitude, and online retailers’ performance. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing 23 (1):5–20. doi:10.1080/08961530.2011.524571.
Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control,
11–39. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50 (2):179–211.
Ajzen, I. 2002a. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of
planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32:665–83. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.
2002.tb00236.x.
Ajzen, I. 2002b. Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action
perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2 (6):107–22. doi:10.1207/s15327957
pspr0602_02.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., and T. J. Madden. 1986. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions,
and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22 (5):453–74.
doi:10.1016/0022–1031(86)90045–4.
Albers, S. 2010. PLS and success factor studies in marketing. In Handbook of partial least
squares, 409–425. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Armitage, C. J., and M. Conner. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A
meta-analytic review. The British Journal of Social Psychology 40 (Pt 4):471–99. doi:10.1348/
014466601164939.
196 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 37 (2):122–47.

doi:10.1037/0003–066X.37.2.122.
Barclay, D., C. Higgins, and R. Thompson. 1995. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to
causal modeling: Personal computer use as an illustration. Technology 2 (2):285–309.
Baty, J. B., and R. M. Lee. 1995. InterShop: Enhancing the vendor/customer dialectic in
electronic shopping. Journal of Management Information Systems 11 (4):9–31. doi:10.1080/
07421222.1995.11518058.
Bentler, P. M., and G. Speckart. 1979. Models of attitude-behavior relations. Psychological
Review 86 (5):452–64. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.86.5.452.
Boateng, R., A. Molla, and R. Heeks. 2009. E-commerce in developing economies: A review of
theoretical frameworks and approaches. http://Services.igi-Global.com/Resolvedoi/resolve.
aspx? 1–56. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-100-1.ch001.
Burke, R. R. 2002. Technology and the customer interface: What consumers want in the
physical and virtual store. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30 (4):411–32.
doi:10.1177/009207002236914.
Bustillo, M. 2012. Best Buy forced to rethink big box. Wall Street Journal, March 29, Business
section. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303404704577311322427071212.
Campion, M. A. 1991. Meaning and measurement of turnover: Comparison of alternative
measures and recommendations for research. Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (2):199–212.
doi:10.1037/0021–9010.76.2.199.
Cetelem. 2013. El observatorio. Análisis de consumo en España. http://www.elobservatorioce-
telem.es/observatorio/Cetelem-observatorio-distribucion-2013-peq.pdf.
Chiang, K.-P., and R. R. Dholakia. 2003. Factors driving consumer intention to shop online:
An empirical investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Consumers in Cyberspace
13 (1):177–83. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP13–1&2_16.
Chin, W. W. 1998. Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. VII–XVI.
Chin, W., B. L. Marcolin, and P. Newsted. 1996. A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and
voice mail emotion/adoption study. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on
Information Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, pp. 21–41.
Clifford, S. 2012. Retailers encourage shoppers to buy online and pick up in-store. The New
York Times, July 4. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/business/retailers-lure-online-
shoppers-offline.html.
ComScore. 2012. The state of the U.S. online retail economy in Q3 2012. comScore, Inc. http://
www.comscore.com/esl/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2012/SORQ32012.
Conner, M. and C. J. Armitage. 1998. Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and
avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (15):1429–1464.
Cox, J. C. 2004. Ubiquitous consumption and the marketing mix. Journal of Internet
Commerce 3 (2):21–32. doi:10.1300/J179v03n02_02.
Coyle, J. R., and E. Thorson. 2001. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and
vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising 30 (3):65–77. doi:10.1080/00913367.
2001.10673646.
Davis, F. D. 1986. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://
www.researchgate.net/profile/Fred_Davis2/publication/35465050_A_technology_acceptance_
model_for_empirically_testing_new_end-user_information_systems__theory_and_results_/
links/0c960519fbaddf3ba7000000.pdf.
Dholakia, R. R., and M. Zhao. 2010. Effects of online store attributes on customer satisfaction
and repurchase intentions. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
38 (7):482–96. doi:10.1108/09590551011052098.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 197

Durante, K. M., and J. Laran. 2016. The effect of stress on consumer saving and spending.
Journal of Marketing Research 53 (5):814–28. doi:10.1509/jmr.15.0319.
Eagly, A. H., A. Mladinic, and S. Otto. 1994. Cognitive and affective bases of attitudes toward
social groups and social policies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 30 (2):113–37.
doi:10.1006/jesp.1994.1006.
Falk, R. F., and N. B. Miller. 1992. A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of
Akron Press.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):39–50. doi:10.2307/
3151312.
George, J. F. 2004. The theory of planned behavior and Internet purchasing. Internet Research
14 (3):198–212. doi:10.1108/10662240410542634.
Google. 2013. Mobile-in-Store_research-Studies.pdf. https://ssl.gstatic.com/think/docs/
mobile-in-store_research-studies.pdf.
Grazioli, S., and S. L. Jarvenpaa. 2000. Perils of Internet fraud: An empirical investigation of
deception and trust with experienced Internet consumers. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans 30 (4):395–410. doi:10.1109/3468.
852434.
Gurrea, R., and C. O. Sanclemente. 2014. El Papel de La Vivacidad de La Información Online,
La Necesidad de Tocar Y La Auto-Confianza En La Búsqueda de Información Online-
Offline. Revista Española de Investigación En Marketing ESIC 18 (2):108–25. doi:10.1016/
j.reimke.2014.06.004.
Hansen, T., J. M. Jensen, and H. S. Solgaard. 2004. Predicting online grocery buying intention:
A comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior.
International Journal of Information Management 24 (6):539–50. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2004.08.004.
Hsu, M.-H., C.-H. Yen, C.-M. Chiu, and C.-M. Chang. 2006. A longitudinal investigation of
continued online shopping behavior: An extension of the theory of planned behavior.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64 (9):889–904. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.
04.004.
Huang, S., and C. H. C. Hsu. 2009. Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived
constraint, and attitude on revisit intention. Journal of Travel Research 48 (1):29–44.
doi:10.1177/0047287508328793.
Hui, K.-L., H. H. Teo, and S.-Y. Tom Lee. 2007. The value of privacy assurance: An
exploratory field experiment. MIS Quarterly 31 (1):19–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
25148779.
Ickler, H., S. Schülke, S. Wilfling, and U. Baumöl. 2009. New challenges in e-commerce: How
social commerce influences the customer process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
5th National Conference on Computing and Information Technology, NCCIT, Bangkok,
Thailand,
Inks, S. A., and D. T. Mayo. 2002. Consumer attitudes and preferences concerning shopping
on-line. Journal of Internet Commerce 1 (4):89–109. doi:10.1300/J179v01n04_06.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., and P. A. Todd. 1996. Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the
World Wide Web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 1 (2):59–88. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/27750810.
Jarvis, C. B., S. B. MacKenzie, and P. M. Podsakoff. 2003. A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2):199–218.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., N. Tractinsky, and M. Vitale. 2000. Consumer trust in an Internet store.
Information Technology and Management 1 (1–2):45–71. doi:10.1023/A:1019104520776.
198 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

Jiang, Z., and I. Benbasat. 2007. Research note—Investigating the influence of the functional
mechanisms of online product presentations. Information Systems Research 18 (4):454–70.
doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0124.
Kannan, P. K., and P. K. Kopalle. 2001. Dynamic pricing on the Internet: Importance and
implications for consumer behavior. International Journal of Electronic Commerce
5 (3):63–83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27750982.
Kempf, D. S. 1999. Attitude formation from product trial: Distinct roles of cognition and affect
for hedonic and functional products. Psychology and Marketing 16 (1):35–50. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1520-6793(199901)16:1<35::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-U.
Khare, A., and S. Rakesh. 2011. Antecedents of online shopping behavior in India: An
examination. Journal of Internet Commerce 10 (4):227–44. doi:10.1080/15332861.2011.
622691.
Koufaris, M. 2002. Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online
consumer behavior. Information Systems Research 13 (2):205–23. doi:10.1287/isre.13.2.
205.83.
Koufaris, M., and P. A. L. Ajit Kambil. 2001. Consumer behavior in web-based commerce: An
empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6 (2):115–38. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/27751014.
Kowatsch, T., and W. Maass. 2010. In-store consumer behavior: How mobile recommendation
agents influence usage intentions, product purchases, and store preferences. Computers
in Human Behavior, Emerging and Scripted Roles in Computer-supported Collaborative
Learning 26 (4):697–704. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.006.
Kramer, A. 2014. Webrooming, the next big thing in all-channel retailing | blog post.
Capgemini Capgemini Worldwide. https://www.capgemini.com/blog/capping-it-off/2014/
01/webrooming-the-next-big-thing-in-all-channel-retailing.
Kuo, F.-Y., and M.-L. Young. 2008. Predicting knowledge sharing practices through intention:
A test of competing models. Computers in Human Behavior, Including the Special Issue:
Electronic Games and Personalized eLearning Processes 24 (6):2697–2722. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2008.03.015.
Lee, M. K., C. M. Cheung, C. L. Sia, and K. H. Lim. 2006. How positive informational social
influence affects consumers’ decision of Internet shopping? In System Sciences, 2006.
HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Vol. 6, 115a-115a. Washington, DC: IEEE.
Li, Z., Q. Lu, and M. Talebian. 2015. Online versus bricks-and-mortar retailing: A comparison
of price, assortment and delivery time. International Journal of Production Research
53 (13):3823–35. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.973074.
Lim, K. H., C. Ling Sia, M. K. O. Lee, and I. Benbasat. 2006. Do I trust you online, and if so,
will I buy? An empirical study of two trust-building strategies. Journal of Management
Information Systems 23 (2):233–66. doi:10.2753/mis0742–1222230210.
Luo, Q., L.-B. Oh, L. Zhang, and J. Chen. 2014. Examining the showrooming intention of
mobile-assisted shoppers in a multichannel retailing environment. In PACIS, 141. http://
www.pacis-net.org/file/2014/2123.pdf.
Maity, D., and T. J. Arnold. 2013. Search: An expense or an experience? Exploring the
influence of search on product return intentions. Psychology & Marketing 30 (7):576–87.
doi:10.1002/mar.20629.
May So, W. C., T. N. Danny Wong, and D. Sculli. 2005. Factors affecting intentions to
purchase via the Internet. Industrial Management & Data Systems 105 (9):1225–44.
doi:10.1108/02635570510633275.
Mehra, A., S. Kumar, and J. S. Raju. 2013. ‘Showrooming’ and the competition between store
and online retailers. Available at SSRN, 2200420.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 199

Millstein, S. G. 1996. Utility of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior for
predicting physician behavior: A prospective analysis. Health Psychology 15 (5):398.
Moore, G. C., and I. Benbasat. 1991. Development of an instrument to measure the
perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems
Research 2 (3):192–222. doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
Moschis, G. P. 2007. Stress and consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 35 (3):430–44. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0035-3.
Neslin, S. A., and V. Shankar. 2009. Key issues in multichannel customer management:
Current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Anniversary
Issue 23 (1):70–81. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2008.10.005.
Neslin, S. A., D. Grewal, R. Leghorn, V. Shankar, M. L. Teerling, J. S. Thomas, and P. C.
Verhoef. 2006. Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management.
Journal of Service Research 9 (2):95–112.
O’Connor, P. 2003. On-line pricing: An analysis of hotel-company practices. The Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 44 (1):88–96.
Ofek, E., Z. Katona, and M. Sarvary, M. 2011. “Bricks and clicks”: The impact of product
returns on the strategies of multichannel retailers. Marketing Science 30 (1):42–60.
Onurbodur, H., D. Brinberg, and E. Coupey. 2000. Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative
models of the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology 9 (1):17–28.
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0901_2.
Parago. 2013. Dynamic pricing in a smartphone World.pdf. https://info.bhengagement.com/
acton/attachment/7506/f-0005/1/-/-/-/-/Dynamic%20Pricing%20in%20a%20Smartphone%
20World.pdf.
Pavlou, P. A., and O. A. El Sawy. 2006. From IT leveraging competence to competitive
advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information
Systems Research 17 (3):198–227. doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0094.
Peck, J., and J. Wiggins Johnson. 2011. Autotelic need for touch, haptics, and persuasion: The
role of involvement. Psychology and Marketing 28 (3):222–39. doi:10.1002/mar.20389.
Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1988. Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory
structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 14 (3):521–33. doi:10.1037/0278–7393.14.3.521.
Peterson, R. A., S. Balasubramanian, and B. J. Bronnenberg. 1997. Exploring the implications
of the Internet for consumer marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
25 (4):329. doi:10.1177/0092070397254005.
Quint, M., D. Rogers, and R. Ferguson. 2013. Showrooming and the rise of the mobile assisted
shopper. Columbia Business School. Center on Global Brand Leadership. http://www.
academia.edu/download/40699309/Aimia_MobileAssistedShopper.pdf.
Richter, F. 2014. Infographic: Showrooming in the retail environment. http://www.statista.
com/chart/1024/showrooming-infographic/ (accessed October 19, 2014).
Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and A. Will. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0.M3 (beta), Hamburg, Germany:
University of Hamburg. Available at www.smartpls.de
Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and A. Will. 2010. Finite mixture partial least squares analysis:
Methodology and numerical examples. In Handbook of partial least squares, ed. V. E. Vinzi
W. W. Chin J. Henseler and H. Wang 195–218. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Handbooks of
Computational Statistics.
Sarstedt, M., J. Henseler, and C. M. Ringle. 2011. Multigroup analysis in partial least squares
(PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In Measurement and
research methods in international marketing. Advances in international marketing, Vol. 22,
195–218. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/
10.1108/S1474-7979(2011)0000022012.
200 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ

Shankar, V., A. Venkatesh, C. Hofacker, and P. Naik. 2010. Mobile marketing in the retailing
environment: Current insights and future research avenues. Journal of Interactive Marketing
24 (2):111–20. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2010.02.006.
Smith, S. 2013. The showrooming showdown. Text. National Retail Federation. February 28.
https://nrf.com/news/retail-trends/the-showrooming-showdown.
Sommer, L. 2011. The theory of planned behaviour and the impact of past behaviour.
International Business & Economics Research Journal 10 (1):91. doi:10.19030/iber.
v10i1.930.
Statista. 2015a. Digital buyer penetration worldwide from 2011 to 2018. http://www.statista.
com/statistics/261676/digital-buyer-penetration-worldwide/ (accessed February 10, 2015).
Statista. 2015b. Global retail e-commerce sales volume from 2009 to 2018. http://www.statista.
com/statistics/222128/global-e-commerce-sales-volume-forecast/ (accessed February 10, 2015).
Statista. 2015c. Retail e-commerce sales in the United States from 2012 to 2018. http://www.
statista.com/statistics/183750/us-retail-e-commerce-sales-figures/ (accessed February 10, 2015).
Stephens, D. 2013. The retail revival: Reimagining business for the new age of consumerism.
1st ed. Ontario: Wiley.
Taylor, S., and P. A. Todd. 1995. Understanding information technology usage: A test of
competing models. Information Systems Research 6 (2):144–76. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144.
Teo, T., C. B. Lee, C. S. Chai, and S. Luan Wong. 2009. Assessing the intention to use technology
among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis
of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education 53 (3):1000–09.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.017.
Tracy, B. 1998. E-tailing: What web customers really want. Advertising Age’s Business
Marketing 83(11):39–41
Umit-Kucuk, S., and R. C. Maddux. 2010. The role of the Internet on free-riding: An
exploratory study of the wallpaper industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
17 (4):313–20. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.03.003.
Van Baal S., and C. Dach. 2005. Free riding and customer retention across retailers’ channels.
Journal of Interactive Marketing 2 (19):75–85. doi:10.1002/dir.20036.
Van der Heijden H., T. Verhagen, and M. Creemers. 2003. Understanding online purchase
intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European Journal of
Information Systems 12 (1):41–48. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000445.
Venkatesh, V., M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (3):425–78. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/30036540.
Vibes. 2013. About Showrooming. Retrieved from http://www.vibes.com/press-releases/
showrooming-increases-156-percent-from-2012-finds-new-research-from-vibes/
Vinzi, V. E., W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, and H. Wang. 2010. Handbook of partial least squares:
Concepts, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Walsh, G., A. K. Albrecht, W. Kunz, and C. F. Hofacker. 2016. Relationship between online
retailers’ reputation and product returns. British Journal of Management 27 (1):3–20.
doi:10.1111/1467–8551.12120.
Webloyalty. 2013. Comprador online Europeo 2013. http://corporatecontent.s3.amazonaws.
com/1113NPWebloyaltyEstudioIpsos_1385024160.pdf.
Westaby, J. D., and K. N. Braithwaite. 2003. Specific factors underlying reemployment self-
efficacy comparing control belief and motivational reason methods for the recently
unemployed. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39 (4):415–437.
Westaby, J. D., A. Versenyi, and R. C. Hausmann. 2005. Intentions to work during terminal
illness: An exploratory study of antecedent conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology
90 (6):1297–1305. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.90.6.1297.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 201

Wolk, A., and C. Ebling. 2010. Multi-channel price differentiation: An empirical investigation
of existence and causes. International Journal of Research in Marketing 27 (2):142–50.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.01.004.
Xioani, Z., and V. Prybutok. 2003. Factors contributing to purchase intentions on the Internet.
Journal of Internet Commerce 2 (1):3–18. doi:10.1300/J179v02n01_02.
Yu, U.-J., L. S. Niehm, and D. W. Russell. 2011. Exploring perceived channel price, quality,
and value as antecedents of channel choice and usage in multichannel shopping. Journal
of Marketing Channels 18 (2):79–102. doi:10.1080/1046669X.2011.558826.
Zaubitzer, C. 2013. Understanding the showrooming phenomenon. Thesis, Grin Verlag, Munich.
http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/278999/understanding-the-showrooming-phenomenon.
Zimmerman, A. 2012. Showdown over “showrooming.” Wall Street Journal, January 23, Tech
section. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204624204577177242516227440.