Effects of Trust Beliefs On Consumers Online Intention PDF

European Journal of Marketing
Effects of trust beliefs on consumers' online intentions

Enrique P. Becerra, Pradeep K. Korgaonkar,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE MALAGA, 0617437984@alu.uma.es At 14:05 25 March 2018 (PT)
Enrique P. Becerra, Pradeep K. Korgaonkar, (2011) "Effects of trust beliefs on consumers'

online intentions", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Issue: 6, pp.936-962, https://
doi.org/10.1108/03090561111119921
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111119921
Downloaded on: 25 March 2018, At: 14:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8065 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2010),"Online servicescapes, trust, and purchase intentions", Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 230-243 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011040631">https://
doi.org/10.1108/08876041011040631</a>
(2011),"The different effects of online consumer reviews on consumers' purchase intentions depending on
trust in online shopping malls: An advertising perspective", Internet Research, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 187-206 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111123766">https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111123766</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:500385 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
EJM
45,6 Effects of trust beliefs on
consumers’ online intentions
Enrique P. Becerra
936 Department of Marketing, McCoy College of Business Administration,
Texas State University – San Marcos, San Marcos, Texas, USA, and
Received March 2009 Pradeep K. Korgaonkar

Revised July 2009
Accepted August 2009
Barry Kaye College of Business, Florida Atlantic University,
Davie, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the simultaneous effects of the product, brand,
and vendor trust beliefs on consumers’ online intentions, i.e. the intention to purchase and the intention
to provide personal information online.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses an online 2 £ 2 £ 2 between-subjects factorial
experiment design with two vendor trust beliefs levels (high/low), two brand trust beliefs levels
(high/low), and two product trust beliefs levels (high/low). Multivariate analysis of covariance, linear
regression, and the SOBEL test were used to analyze the hypotheses.
Findings – The results suggest that brand trust beliefs affect online intentions, and may be needed to
increase online sales. The influence of vendor trust beliefs on online intentions varies with brand trust,
beliefs for products and for services is augmented by brand trust beliefs.
Research limitations/implications – The limitations are those typically applied to experimental
methodology. Intentions were used as surrogate for behavior, and a fictitious e-tailer selling two
products with fictitious brands was used.
Practical implications – E-tailers are encouraged to carry reputable brands and prominently
display information about these brands on their web sites. This will improve consumers’ trust beliefs,
increasing conversion rates, and reducing shopping cart abandonments.
Originality/value – The influence of trust beliefs on online behavior, notwithstanding its
importance, remains under-researched. The paper addresses this gap in the literature. Specifically,
it addresses the effects of the simultaneous influence of vendor, brand, and product trust beliefs on
shoppers’ online intentions. And it decomposes online intentions into its components, i.e. intentions to
provide personal information and intentions to purchase, to understand these simultaneous effects not
addressed before. The results contribute to the growing literature on trust and consumer online
behavior.
Keywords Internet shopping, Trust, Consumer behaviour, Brand loyalty, Information transfer,
United States of America
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The top ten electronic retailers (e-tailers) enjoy conversion rates (percentage of
shoppers who purchase) between 10 percent and 20 percent, but the average
European Journal of Marketing conversion rate of the majority of e-tailers is less than 5 percent (Nielsen/Net Ratings,
Vol. 45 No. 6, 2011
pp. 936-962 2005). In addition to the low conversion rates, the rate of growth for electronic retailing
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited (e-tailing) sales is slowing down (Richtel and Tedeschi, 2007), and future sales growth
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090561111119921 may depend on greater expenditures from existing buyers (Beck and Arnold, 2006).
Forecasts of US online retail sales for 2005-2011 suggest that it will be difficult for Effects of trust
e-tailers as a whole to attract new online buyers in the foreseeable future (Beck and beliefs
Arnold, 2006). In addition, multichannel and hybrid retailers, despite the increased
sales brought by their online presence, and pure e-tailers are striving to maximize their
online investment (Rigby, 2007). This suggests that increasing conversion rates and
attracting new online buyers is critical for the success of all online stores (Beck and
Arnold, 2006). 937
While a variety of reasons contribute to shoppers leaving the web without
purchasing, the literature suggests that lack of trust beliefs is the primary reason (e.g.
Johnson, 2007). Trust beliefs are positive expectations about the future intentions and
behavior and are a necessary, but not the only, prerequisite in relationships, including
e-tailing. Trust beliefs reduce perceptions of uncertainty, risk, and or vulnerability (e.g.
Kim and Benbasat, 2006). Consumer perceptions, such as trust beliefs, are considered a
definitive factor when formulating e-commerce strategies (e.g. Mukherjee and Nath,
2007; Schlosser et al., 2006), but they remain under-researched (Schibrowsky et al.,
2007).
Specifically, the simultaneous effects of product, brand, and vendor (e-tailer) trust
beliefs on consumers’ online intentions remain unexplored. The main unit of analysis
in online behavior studies is the e-tailer and/or the internet. This is because the main
difference between off-line retailing and e-tailing is the environment in which the
transaction occurs. However, the bricks-and-mortar retailing literature suggests that
purchase decisions are mostly influenced by the combination of price, brand/product,
and vendor perceptions (e.g. Grewal et al., 1998). Consumers’ product, brand, and
vendor perceptions may exert greater influence online than the price because prices can
be easily compared online, making them less important (e.g. Ancarani and Shankar,
2004). Therefore, we examine the simultaneous effects of the product, brand, and
vendor trust beliefs on shoppers’ online intentions and exclude the price (see Figure 1).
Specifically, we present findings from a 2 £ 2 £ 2 factorial design experiment, using
two products.
As Bart et al. (2005), Belanger et al. (2002), Gefen (2000), Gefen and Heart (2006), and
McKnight et al. (2002) suggest, we conceptualize online intentions as the combination
of the intention to purchase and the intention to provide personal information. Most
online transactions require consumers to provide personal and/or financial information
to complete online transactions (e.g. Bart et al., 2005). In addition, Belanger et al. (2002)
suggest that personal information security concerns can prevent online shoppers, or
those searching for products, brands, and/or vendors, from transacting online; thus,
online intentions must capture intentions to provide information to fully reflect online
intentions (e.g. Gefen and Heart, 2006; Mukherjee and Nath, 2007) and to understand
how to convert online shoppers into buyers. The current study adds to the literature by
testing the simultaneous effects of vendor, product, and brand trust beliefs on online
shoppers’ intentions, which has not been researched to date.
The current study draws from the literature on trust, e-commerce, e-tailing,
retailing, and consumer behavior and uses congruity theory to study the simultaneous
effects of product, brand, and vendor trust beliefs on consumers’ online intentions.
Congruity theory provides the foundation to examine the influence of reconciling
disparate information, such as product, brand, and store perceptions, on behavioral
intentions (e.g. Grewal et al., 1998; Meyers-Levy et al., 1994)
EJM
45,6
938
Figure 1.
Conceptual model of the
effects of trust beliefs on
consumers’ online
intentions
We organize the remainder of the article as follows: First, we discuss the relevant
literature and present our hypotheses. Second, we discuss the methodology, analysis,
and results. Finally, we offer managerial implications, note the limitations of the study,
and suggest directions for further research.
Background and hypotheses

Trust is the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of a trustee, and it is displayed
by actions taken despite perceived risk, uncertainty, and/or vulnerability (e.g.
purchasing online) (see, e.g. Jevons and Gabbott, 2000). In the extant literature on trust
and buying behavior, trust has been conceptualized and/or operationalized as either
the intention to behave in perceived risky situations (e.g. Gefen and Heart, 2006;
McKnight et al., 2002) or the trustworthiness of the object of trust (e.g. Doney and
Cannon, 1997; Mukherjee and Nath, 2007). Rousseau et al. (1998; see also Mayer et al.,
1995; Schlosser et al., 2006) suggests that trust is composed of both trustworthiness, or
the reason to behave, and behavior based on trustworthiness. We adopt this
conceptualization of trust and define it as follows (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712):
[Trust is] the willingness of a party i.e. trustor, to be vulnerable to the actions of another party
i.e. trustee, based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important
to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to control or monitor that other party.
McKnight et al. (2002) suggest four possible online trust behaviors:
(1) willingness to depend on the web site;
(2) following advice provided online;
(3) providing personal information online; and
(4) making an online purchase.
We examine the trusting behaviors of providing personal information and of making Effects of trust
an online purchase and refer to them as “online intentions”. The behavioral component beliefs
of trust may be based on cognitive and/or emotional expectations about the behavior of
the trustee (e.g. Schlosser et al., 2006). We refer to them as “trust beliefs”. We focus on
expectations that are predominately cognitive because in e-tailing, salespeople are
absent, and relationships tend to be impersonal and less interdependent (e.g.
Mukherjee and Nath, 2007), thus reducing the importance of predominant affective 939
trust beliefs.
Trust beliefs may be activated in perceived uncertain, risky, and/or vulnerable

situations, such as transacting online (e.g. Schlosser et al., 2006). Online trust beliefs
must be sufficiently positive to overcome perceived online uncertainty, risk, and/or
vulnerability. Otherwise, online perceptions, such as perceptions about the
product’s/brand’s reliability, the vendor’s and/or the internet’s ability to securely
maintain personal and/or financial information, and the vendor’s retailing behavior (e.g.
Johnson, 2007; Mukherjee and Nath, 2007), may prevent consumers from transacting
online. Accordingly, the simultaneous effects of online trust beliefs on consumers’
behavior must be understood (e.g. Mukherjee and Nath, 2007; Schibrowsky et al., 2007).
In addition to trust beliefs, the literature suggests that the following factors also
influence online intentions (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995; Gefen, 2000; McKnight et al., 2002;
Mukherjee and Nath, 2007; Shim et al., 2001):
.
channel trust or beliefs about the internet;
.
disposition to trust others; and
.
product and/or internet shopping experience/familiarity.
This study controls for these influences on online intentions, except for experience and
familiarity with the brand and/or vendor because it uses fictitious brands and e-tailers.
Trust beliefs
Trust beliefs are expectations, based on characteristics of the object of trust, about
outcomes dependent on the behavior of the object of trust. The literature suggests four
characteristics as the foundation of predominant cognitive trust beliefs (e.g. McKnight
et al., 2002):
(1) competence;
(2) benevolence;
(3) integrity; and
(4) predictability.
Competence refers to the trustee’s specific skills (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995). Benevolence
refers to the trustee’s positive orientation perception toward the trustor (e.g. Doney and
Cannon, 1997). Integrity captures the trustor’s perceptions of the trustee’s honesty,
dependability, reliability, credibility, and adherence to an acceptable set of principles
(e.g. Lee and Turban, 2001). Predictability refers to the trustee’s consistency that
enables the trustor to anticipate the trustee’s future behavior (e.g. Shapiro et al., 1992).
Empirical evidence demonstrates that these characteristics may be exhibited by the
product, brand, and/or vendor and may influence online intentions (e.g. Lee and Lee,
2005).
EJM Brand trust beliefs. The brand has been found to influence consumers’ purchase
45,6 intentions because it provides valuable information (e.g. Power et al., 2008). In the
e-tailing environment, in which products cannot be touched or inspected, the brand
communicates important information (e.g. Degeratu et al., 2000). Similarly, brand trust
beliefs or expectations about the brand’s actions have been found to influence
behaviors such as loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Lau and Lee, 1999) and
940 purchase intentions (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003; Elliott and Yannopoulou, 2007)
because they minimize perceived uncertainties (e.g. Power et al., 2008).
Delgado-Ballester et al. (2003) find that beliefs about the brand’s integrity influence
purchase intentions. Lau and Lee (1999) find that beliefs about the brand’s
predictability, integrity, and competence influence repurchase intentions. Chaudhuri
and Holbrook (2001) find that beliefs about the brand’s benevolence influence loyalty.
Power et al. (2008) suggest that brand trust beliefs increase the brand attractiveness
and connectedness, increasing the brand’s value, which in turn influences consumers’
purchase intentions. Thus, prior literature provides support for the proposition that
brand trust beliefs influence intentions to purchase.
Conversely, there is no indication in the literature that the brand or brand trust
beliefs influence intentions to provide personal information. We believe that because
the e-tailer, not the brand, seeks shoppers’ personal information, brand trust beliefs
may not influence consumers’ intentions to provide personal information online.
Therefore, brand trust beliefs may influence online intentions through their influence
on intentions to purchase.
Product trust beliefs. Bettman (1973) and Dowling and Staelin (1994) find that
perceived product risk and/or uncertainty, mediated by the brand, influences consumer
behavior. Online perceptions of product risk and/or uncertainty (e.g. Lee and Lee, 2005;
Lim, 2003) may arise from:
.
the product type;
.
performance variability;
. the newness of the product;
.
low levels of or bad experience with the product type;
.
lack of information about the product type; and
.
the inability to inspect/touch the product.
Similarly, product trust beliefs can influence consumer online behavior. Pavlou (2003)
finds that prior product knowledge and product trust beliefs minimize perceptions of
online risk, while Cheskin Research and Studio Archtype/Sapient (1999) find that
product trust beliefs influence online purchase intentions. Lee and Lee (2005) find that
assurances about a product’s quality or integrity influence online purchase intentions
and perceptions of vendor trust beliefs. These findings support the proposition that
product trust beliefs influence purchase intentions.
Similar to the brand trust beliefs, there is no indication that product trust beliefs
influence consumers’ intentions to provide personal information. Therefore, product
trust beliefs may influence consumers’ online intentions through their influence on
consumers’ intentions to purchase.
The simultaneous effects of brand trust beliefs and product trust beliefs. Dowling and
Staelin (1994) suggest that when the brand has been chosen, as in this study, the
influence of perceived product uncertainty on consumer behavior is mediated by the Effects of trust
brand, and correspondingly, the influence of brand trust beliefs may vary with product beliefs
uncertainty. We postulate that the influence of product trust beliefs may also be
mediated by brand trust beliefs because characteristics of the brand are the basis for
brand trust beliefs. In addition, brand trust beliefs may vary with product trust beliefs
because the brand influence varies with the product’s influence on consumer behavior.
Thus: 941
H1. The brand trust beliefs mediate the influence of the product trust beliefs on
intentions to purchase online and, consequently, on online intentions.

Vendor trust beliefs. The extant e-tailing literature suggests that vendor trust beliefs
influence consumers’ online intentions (e.g. Gefen and Heart, 2006; Schlosser et al.,
2006) and their intentions to provide personal information to complete the online
transactions (e.g. McKnight et al., 2002) because such beliefs minimize consumers’
online uncertainties (e.g. Pavlou, 2003). For example, Schlosser et al. (2006) find that
trust beliefs based on the e-tailer’s competence influence intentions to purchase online,
and McKnight et al. (2002) find that perceptions of e-tailers’ competence, benevolence,
and integrity influence consumers’ intentions to purchase and to provide personal
information. Gefen (2000) and Gefen and Heart (2006) find that familiarity with the
e-tailer, through its effect on e-tailer’s predictability, influences intentions to purchase
online.
The simultaneous effects of vendor trust beliefs and brand trust beliefs. The brand is
related to consumers’ vendor perceptions because brand assortment is a vendor
characteristic related to its competence and/or integrity (Lee et al., 2005). Lee et al.
(2005) find that a well-known, reputable brand signals ability, which in turn increases
vendor trust beliefs. Vendors’ image is enhanced and their sales may increase by
carrying brands perceived as higher quality (e.g. Delgado-Ballester and
Hernandez-Espallardo, 2008). Thus, the effect of vendor trust beliefs on consumers’
online purchase intentions may be more pronounced when brand trust beliefs are high
than when they are low. Given that there is no indication that the brand or brand trust
beliefs influence intentions to provide personal information, only the influence of
vendor trust beliefs on purchase intention will vary with brand trust beliefs. Therefore:
H2. The influence of vendor trust beliefs on intentions to purchase and,
consequently, on online intentions is more pronounced when brand trust
beliefs are high than when brand trust beliefs are low.
The simultaneous effects of vendor trust beliefs and product trust beliefs. Lee and Lee
(2005) find that product trust beliefs influence vendor trust beliefs. In addition, the
influence of product trust beliefs on purchase intentions may be mediated by brand
trust beliefs, and vendor trust beliefs’ influence on purchase intentions varies with
brand trust beliefs; thus, the influence of vendor trust beliefs on purchase intentions
may vary with product trust beliefs. There is no indication that product trust beliefs
influence intentions to provide information. Therefore, we postulate the following:
H3. The influence of vendor trust beliefs on intentions to purchase and,
consequently, on online intentions is more pronounced when product trust
beliefs are high than when product trust beliefs are low.
EJM Methodology, results, and analysis
45,6 Design
We tested the hypotheses using a 2 £ 2 £ 2 between-subjects factorial experiment
design with two levels of vendor trust beliefs (high/low), brand trust beliefs (high/low),
and product trust beliefs (high/low). We manipulated each trust belief by providing
ratings (high/low) for competence, benevolence, integrity, and predictability (see
942 Figure 2). We conducted four pretests to refine scales and treatment conditions and to
determine two products (airline tickets and teeth whitener) acceptable and recognizable
to subjects (See Appendix 1). In addition, the pretests enabled us to determine

acceptable fictitious brand and store names and whether subjects would be inclined to
purchase the selected product/service online or offline.
Procedure
The study recruited participants at a large US Southeastern university (Appendix 2).
Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and open to all students. To entice
participation, 2,000 flyers were distributed in different classes throughout the
university, and three iPod minis were raffled using the participants’ e-mail addresses.
Figure 2.
Example of manipulations
Professors encouraged student participation, and some offered extra credit. A total of Effects of trust
433 students participated, and we obtained 422 usable responses, for a 21.1 percent beliefs
usable response rate given the number of flyers distributed.
The majority of the participants were women (60 percent). Almost half were
between the ages of 18 and 22 (40.5 percent), were white (42.9 percent), and earned less
than $20,000 per year (53.2 percent). Participants were evenly split between those who
agreed that they shop online often (40.2 percent) and those who did not (43.8 percent), 943
and 16 percent fell in the middle of the seven-point scale. About half of the subjects
agreed that they had extensive experience purchasing airline tickets (45.5 percent), and
the majority agreed that they had limited experience purchasing teeth-whitening
products (77.3 percent). The demographic breakdown was similar to the university’s
demographic breakdown.
The study, disguised as an advertising study, exposed subjects to both products
and required subjects to log-on to the internet. Products were randomly presented and
separated by two pages of online advertisements that were not related to airline tickets
or teeth whitening; the airline ticket was presented first 50.2 percent of the time.
Subjects were randomly assigned to one of eight treatments for each product.
Treatments range from 47 to 57 subjects for the airline ticket and from 48 to 56 subjects
for teeth whitening.
The study was conducted at two university sites over four weeks. Written
instructions were given to all participants before they began the study and were also
provided on the web site. The web site had ten pages and two pop-up screens. The first
two pages provided the instructions. The first pop-up screen was presented after the
second page and required participants to provide their e-mail address, which served to
limit one response per participant. E-mail addresses were kept in no specific order in a
separate database to minimize respondent identification, and they were used to
determine the winners of the raffle.
The third and sixth pages of the web site presented information about the products,
including manipulations and scales. Some participants saw airline tickets on the third
page and teeth whiteners on the sixth page, whereas others saw the information in
reverse order. To maintain the disguise of an advertising study, the fourth and fifth
pages displayed three advertisements per page. The seventh and eighth pages
collected information about covariates and demographics, and the ninth and tenth
pages thanked and debriefed participants. The last pop-up was displayed after the
tenth page and logged participants off after they completed the study.
The procedure involved asking subjects to assume that they had the money to
purchase an airline ticket/teeth whitener online for themselves, or for someone they
care about. The study mimicked the information available online from shopping bots
(e.g. Bizrate.com). Subjects were told to read information gathered from The Consumer
Reports 2004 Buying Guide on ratings of the product’s, brand’s, and vendor’s
characteristics (e.g. competence), as well as average ratings for similar products,
brands, and vendors (see Figure 2). The study used Consumer Reports as a reference
based on Alba et al.’s (1997) conclusion that online consumers obtain information about
products, brands, and or vendors using independent web sites such as
Consumerreports.org. Afterward, subjects responded to a questionnaire with scales
that assessed the variables of interest.
EJM Measurement
45,6 Each product page evaluated dependent variables and included manipulation
questions. Additional information on channel trust beliefs, disposition to trust, internet
experience, product experience, and demographics were captured at the end of the
experiment. Subjects expressed their online trusting intentions on multi-item
seven-point scales developed from previous research and validated during pretests.
944 We measured online intentions using a scale developed from previous online intentions
research (see Figure 2). We measured channel trust beliefs (Lee and Turban, 2001;
McKnight et al., 2002), dispositions to trust (Gefen, 2000; Lee and Turban, 2001), and
prior online and prior product experience (Corbitt et al., 2003; McKnight et al., 2002)
using a seven-point scale developed from previous research.
We assessed indicators for internal and external consistency using correlation
analysis, factors analysis, and Cronbach’s alpha (e.g. Churchill, 1979). We conducted an
exploratory factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation for all four trust beliefs
(product, brand, vendor, and channel), disposition to trust, and prior experience scales.
The factor analysis extracted eight factors for both products tested and accounted for
more than 77 percent of the variance for both products. There were no major item
cross-loadings, and factor components loadings were within acceptable ranges (. 0.7),
as were reliabilities (0.89 20.95) and interitem correlations (0.72 – 0.92).
Manipulation checks
The manipulation check mean score suggests that participants perceived the
manipulations of the three independent variables as we intended. We performed an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess the effect of the two vendor trust beliefs levels
on the vendor trust beliefs manipulation check (airline ticket: F 1;417 ¼ 85:36; p , 0.001;
teeth whitener: F 1;417 ¼ 76:38; p , 0.001). Similarly, ANOVA results for the brand
trust belief levels and for the product trust belief levels on their respective
manipulation check indicated that the high trust belief level was perceived as more
trustworthy than the low trust belief level (brand trust beliefs: airline ticket:
F 1;417 ¼ 131:74; p , 0.001; teeth whitener: F1;417 ¼ 106:45; p , 0.01; product trust
beliefs: airline ticket: F 1;417 ¼ 2:84; p , 0.1; teeth whitener: F 1;417 ¼ 25:87; p , 0.001).
We performed a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to test the
hypotheses; the results appear in Table I. A MANCOVA is an appropriate statistical
technique to determine the main and the interaction effects of categorical variables,
above and beyond the effect of covariates, on multiple dependent variables. Before
describing the findings related to the hypotheses, we present the vendor, brand, and
product trust beliefs main effect on online intentions.
Vendor trust beliefs effect. The results support the influence of vendor trust beliefs
on online intentions (airline ticket(Wilks’lambda): F 1;407 ¼ 3:154; p , 0.05; teeth
whitener(Wilks’lambda): F 1;411 ¼ 8:036; p , 0.001) through intentions to purchase for
both products (airline ticket: F 1;408 ¼ 5:532; p , 0.05; teeth whitener: F 1;412 ¼ 15:224;
p , 0.001) and through intentions to provide personal information for teeth whitener
ðF 1;412 ¼ 8:679; p , 0.01). The influence of vendor trust beliefs on intentions to provide
personal information to complete the online transaction was not significant for the
airline ticket ðF 1;408 ¼ 1:068Þ:
Brand trust beliefs effect. The influence of brand trust beliefs on online intentions is
supported for both products (airline ticket(Wilks’lambda): F 1;407 ¼ 14:538; p , 0.001; teeth
Online intentions Intentions to purchase Intentions to provide information

Airline tickets Teeth whiteners Airline tickets Teeth whiteners Airline tickets Teeth whiteners
Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial
Wilks’ eta Wilks’ eta eta eta eta eta
lambda square lambda square F square F square F square F square
Intercept 0 17.199 * * * 0.077 0 33.505 * * * 0.075 0 5.685 * 0.014

Disposition to trust 2.050 0.010 0.644 0.003 2.475 0.006 0.510 0.001 4.067 * 0.010 1.280 0.003
Channel/
institutional-based
trust 2.430 0.012 8.331 * * * 0.039 0.771 0.002 4.92 * 0.012 4.217 * 0.010 16.7 * * * 0.039
Internet shopping
experience 1.804 0.009 0.304 0.001 0.153 0.000 0.009 0.000 1.082 0.003 0.349 0.001
Product experience 1.028 0.005 5.381 * * 0.026 2.024 0.005 10.715 * * 0.025 1.299 0.003 2.527 0.006
Product trust 1.621 0.008 2.719 0.013 2.323 0.006 1.767 0.004 3.092 0.008 0.742 0.002
Brand trust 14.538 * * * 0.067 11.395 * * * 0.053 25.111 * * * 0.058 20.49 * * * 0.047 4.49 * 0.011 1.477 0.004
Vendor trust 3.154 * 0.015 8.306 * * * 0.038 5.532 * 0.013 15.224 * * * 0.036 1.068 0.003 8.679 * * 0.021
Product trust £
brand trust 0.156 0.001 3.338 * 0.016 0.004 0.000 6.612 * * 0.016 0.120 0.000 1.411 0.003
Product trust £
vendor trust 0.881 0.004 1.258 0.006 0.560 0.001 2.518 0.006 0.061 0.000 0.679 0.002
Brand trust £
vendor trust 13.542 * * * 0.062 3.467 * 0.017 25.429 * * * 0.059 4.085 * 0.010 20.18 * * * 0.047 6.397 * 0.015
Product trust £
brand trust £
vendor trust 0.812 0.004 1.234 0.006 1.625 0.004 1.392 0.003 0.738 0.002 2.310 0.006
Note: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001
intentions
consumers’ online
beliefs
Effects of trust beliefs on

Effects of trust
945
Table I.
EJM whitener (Wilks’lambda):¼ F 1;411 ¼ 11:393; p , 0.001). The influence of brand trust
45,6 beliefs on intentions to purchase is significant for both products (airline ticket:
F1,408 ¼ 25.11, p , 0.001; teeth whitener: F 1;412 ¼ 20:44; p , 0.001). Its influence on
intentions to provide personal information to complete the online transaction is not
significant for teeth whitener ðF 1;412 ¼ 1:477Þ; but it is significant for air ticket
ðF 1;408 ¼ 4:495; p , 0.05); this questions the assumption that the brand may not
946 influence intentions to provide personal information online.
Product trust beliefs effect. The influence of product trust beliefs on online intentions
is not significant for either product (airline ticket(Wilks’lambda): F 1;407 ¼ 1:621; teeth
whitener(Wilks’lambda): F 1;411 ¼ 2:719Þ either through purchase intentions (airline ticket:
F 1;408 ¼ 2:323; teeth whitener: F 1;412 ¼ 1:767Þ or through intentions to provide
personal information to complete the online transaction (airline ticket: F 1;408 ¼ 3:092;
teeth whitener: F 1;412 ¼ 0:742Þ:
Hypothesis tests
The simultaneous effects of brand trust beliefs and product trust beliefs. The influence of
the brand trust beliefs £ product trust beliefs interaction on online intentions is
significant for teeth whitener ðF 1;411ðWilks’lambdaÞ ¼ 3:318; p , 0.05) but not for the
airline ticket ðF 1;407ðWilks’lambdaÞ ¼ 0:156Þ: For teeth whitener, the interaction was
significant for the intention to purchase ðF 1;412 ¼ 6:612; p , 0.01) but not for the
intention to provide personal information ðF 1;412 ¼ 1:411Þ: For the airline ticket, the
interaction was not significant for either the intention to purchase ðF 1;408 ¼ 0:004Þ or
the intention to provide personal information online ðF 1;408 ¼ 0:120Þ:
Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendation to test for mediation, we ran
linear regressions and the Sobel test for mediation. The first linear regression tested
whether product trust beliefs influence (for both products, p , 0.001) intentions to
purchase. The second linear regression tested whether product trust beliefs influence
(for both products, p , 0.001) brand trust beliefs. The third and final linear regression
tested whether brand trust beliefs influence intentions to purchase (for airline ticket,
p , 0.2; for teeth whitener, p , 0.05) while controlling for product trust beliefs (for
both products, p , 0.001). To confirm these results, we conducted a Sobel test of
mediation. The Sobel test results confirm the linear regression results, which suggest
that brand trust beliefs mediate the influence of product trust beliefs on the intention to
purchase for teeth whitener. The brand trust beliefs mediate the influence of product
trust beliefs on the intention to purchase for teeth whitener ðt ¼ 4:133; p , 0.001) but
not for the airline ticket ðt ¼ 1:379Þ; providing partial support for H1.
The simultaneous effects of vendor trust beliefs and brand trust beliefs. The effect of
the vendor trust beliefs £ brand trust beliefs interaction on online intentions is
significant for both products (airline ticket(Wilks’lambda): F 1;407 ¼ 13:542; p , 0.001;
teeth whitener(Wilks’lambda): F 1;411 ¼ 3:467; p , 0.05) through the intention to purchase
(airline ticket: F 1;408 ¼ 25:43; p , 0.001; teeth whitener: F 1;412 ¼ 4:085; p , 0.05) and
through the intention to provide personal information to complete the online
transaction, which was not expected (airline ticket: F 1;408 ¼ 20:18; p , 0.001; teeth
whitener: F 1;412 ¼ 6:397; p , 0.05).
For airline tickets, the mean score of the intention to purchase increases with brand
trust beliefs when vendor trust beliefs are high but stays the same when vendor trust
beliefs are low. For teeth whitener, the mean score of the intention to purchase
increases with brand trust beliefs when vendor trust beliefs are high or low. Similarly, Effects of trust
the mean score of the intention to provide personal information online for airline tickets beliefs
increases as brand trust beliefs increase when vendor trust beliefs are high but
decreases when vendor trust beliefs are low, and for teeth whitener, the mean score
increases as brand trust beliefs increase when vendor trust beliefs are high or low.
These findings suggest that for products (e.g. teeth whitener), the influence of vendor
trust beliefs on online purchase intentions varies with the levels of brand trust beliefs. 947
For services (e.g. airline tickets), brand trust beliefs augment the influence of trusted
e-tailers on online intentions but do not augment the influence of unknown or

not-trusted e-tailers on online purchase intentions. This supports the hypothesis that
the influence of vendor trust beliefs on trusting intentions increases as levels of brand
trust beliefs increase (H2).
The simultaneous effects of vendor trust beliefs and product trust beliefs. The results
do not support the increase in vendor trust beliefs as product trust beliefs
increases (H3) for both products (airline ticket(Wilks’lambda): F1,407 ¼ 0.881; teeth
whitener(Wilks’lambda): F 1;411 ¼ 1:258Þ either through intentions to purchase for both
products (airline ticket: F 1;408 ¼ 0:560; teeth whitener: F 1;412 ¼ 2:518Þ or through
intentions to provide personal information to complete the online transaction for both
products (airline ticket: F 1;408 ¼ 0:061; teeth whitener: F 1;412 ¼ 0:679Þ:
Covariates. The literature suggested four possible covariates: channel trust beliefs,
product experience, disposition to trust, and internet experience. The results indicate
that channel trust beliefs influence intentions to purchase for teeth whitener
(F1,412 ¼ 4.92, p , 0.05) but not for airline ticket ðF 1;408 ¼ 0:771Þ; and they influence
intentions to provide personal information to complete the online transaction for both
products (airline ticket: F 1;412 ¼ 16:7; p , 0.001; teeth whitener: F 1;408 ¼ 4:217;
p , 0.05). Experience with the product influenced only intentions to purchase teeth
whitener ðF 1;412 ¼ 10:715; p , 0.01). Internet experience and disposition to trust were
not significant for either product.
Discussion and implications

The results demonstrate the importance of the brand trust beliefs and the importance
of information about the characteristics of the product, brand, and/or vendor in
retailing transactions such as e-tailing. The influence of brand trust beliefs on online
intentions is significant, it partially mediates the influence of product trust (H1 is
partially supported), and it augments the influence of vendor trust beliefs. Brand trust
beliefs influence online intentions mostly by influencing intentions to purchase, but the
findings also suggest that brand trust beliefs influence intentions to provide
information, which was not expected. The influence of product trust beliefs is mediated
by brand trust beliefs for teeth whitener, but it is not significant for the airline ticket,
which may explain why the vendor trust beliefs £ product trust beliefs interaction is
not significant (H3 is not supported). The influence of vendor trust beliefs on online
intentions is augmented by the brand trust beliefs for the airline ticket, but it varies
with the levels of brand trust beliefs for teeth whitener (H2 is supported).
This difference can be explained by the different nature of the offerings tested. With
services, such as the airline ticket, consumers may be more concerned with uncertainties
related to the service provider (e.g. competence), while with products, consumers might
be more concerned with uncertainties related to the brand (e.g. integrity). For an airline
EJM ticket (i.e. a Delta Airlines ticket purchased through Orbitz.com) and other services, such
45,6 as cell phone service (i.e. Verizon service purchase through BestBuy.com), that are sold
by agents of the service provider, the brand augments the e-tailer’s influence on online
trusting intentions because it represents the service provider. For products such as teeth
whitener, brand trust beliefs exert more influence than vendor trust beliefs. This
suggests that for products more than for services, the brand trust beliefs have a greater
948 influence on determining online transactions.
Higher perceived uncertainty online than off-line indicates that consumers must either
obtain greater benefits or incur lower costs online than off-line to transact online (Teo and
Yu, 2005). Thus, e-tailers must either reduce the cost or increase the benefits to increase
conversion rates. To increase benefits, e-tailers selling services need to concentrate on
increasing vendor trust beliefs by providing information about their positive
characteristics throughout the web site and by increasing consumers’ satisfaction with
their service. In addition, these e-tailers must concentrate on carrying reputable brands
because the influence of brand trust beliefs augments the influence of vendor trust beliefs
for services. However, if the e-tailer is different from the service provider (i.e. Verizon at
BestBuy.com), the brand, representing the service provider, becomes more important.
Thus, it is important for such e-tailers to carry reputable brands, to display the positive
characteristics of these brands, and to focus on building vendor trust. Similarly, for
products, e-tailers also need to concentrate on carrying reputable brands, communicating
information about these brands throughout the web site, and creating vendor trust
because the influence of vendor trust on trusting intentions varies with brand trust (see
Degeratu et al., 2000; Delgado-Ballester and Hernandez-Espallardo, 2008).
The influence of channel trust beliefs on online trusting intentions was significant
for teeth whitener but not for airline tickets. This may be explained by the lack of
experience with teeth whitener and the difficulty in communicating product experience
attributes online, which may heighten shoppers’ online channel uncertainty. Carrying
reputable brands and building vendor trust may allow e-tailers to reduce shoppers’
channel uncertainty. We find that previous internet shopping experience was not
significant, which contradicts Shim et al.’s (2001) findings. It is possible that consumers
perceive every online transaction as a new transaction, thus reducing the influence of
previous online shopping experience.
Previous product experience was significant for teeth whitener but not for airline
tickets. Subjects had extensive experience with airline tickets but not with teeth
whitener. Thus, low experience with a product may increase perceptions of risk online.
This indicates that e-tailers must find ways to communicate an online product’s
experience attributes. For example, e-tailers may show a video of the product,
including how to use it, and/or offer product samples.
Overall, the study confirms that to understand shoppers’ online intentions, the
simultaneous effects of the product, brand, and vendor trust beliefs must be
considered, and the intention to purchase plus the intention to provide personal
information must be taken into account. The study augments the e-tailing literature by
clearly documenting the importance of brand trust beliefs in addition to the vendor
trust beliefs. Consequently, e-tailers are encouraged to carry reputable brands, to
prominently display information about these brands, and to improve perceptions about
their characteristics (e.g. integrity) to increase conversion rates and reduce shopping
cart abandonments.
Limitations and directions for further research Effects of trust
The study has some limitations that further research could address. The study is an beliefs
experiment, it is cross-sectional, and it uses only two products. These limitations may
be overcome by replicating the study using longitudinal data from more than two
product categories. An additional limitation was the use of fictitious brands and
vendors. Further research may address the simultaneous relationship of each of the
trust characteristics. Understanding the relationship among each of the e-tailer’s and 949
brand’s characteristics (e.g. competence, integrity) could provide insight into how
e-tailers can increase consumers’ benefits, reduce online uncertainties, and best
compete on a non-price basis.
References
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A. and Wood, S. (1997), “Interactive
home shopping; incentives for consumers, retailers, and manufacturers to participate in
electronic marketplaces”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, July, pp. 38-53.
Ancarani, F. and Shankar, V. (2004), “Price levels and price dispersion within and across multiple
retailer types: further evidence and extension”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 176-87.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychology research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F. and Urban, G. (2005), “Are the drivers and role of online trust the
same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 69, October, pp. 133-52.
Beck, V. and Arnold, P. (2006), “JupiterResearch forecast online retail spending will reach $144
billion in 2010, a CAGR of 12% from 2005”, Jupitermedia.com, available at: www.
jupitermedia.com/corporate/releases/06.02.06-newjupresearch.html (accessed September 7,
2007).
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, Vol. 11,
pp. 245-70.
Bettman, J.R. (1973), “Perceived risk and its components: a model and empirical test”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 10, pp. 184-90.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to
brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 81-93.
Cheskin Research and Studio Archetype/Sapient (1999), “E-tailing trust study”, January,
available at: www.cheskin.com/cms/files/i/articles//17__report-eComm%20Trust1999.pdf
(accessed February 27, 2007).
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.
Corbitt, B., 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. 203-15.
Degeratu, A., Rangaswamy, A. and Wu, J. (2000), “Consumer choice behavior in online and
traditional supermarkets: the effect of brand name, price, and other search attributes”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 17, pp. 55-78.
EJM Delgado-Ballester, E. and Hernandez-Espallardo, M. (2008), “Building online brands through
alliances in internet”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 9/10, pp. 954-76.
45,6
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L. and Yague-Guillen, M.J. (2003), “Development and
validation of a brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 45,
pp. 35-76.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
950 relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, April, pp. 35-51.
Dowling, G.R. and Staelin, R. (1994), “A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
activity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 119-34.

Elliott, R. and Yannopoulou, N. (2007), “The nature of trust in brand: a psychosocial model”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 988-98.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, April, pp. 70-87.
Gefen, D. (2000), “E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust”, OMEGA: The International
Journal of Management Science, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 725-37.
Gefen, D. and Heart, T. (2006), “On the need to include national culture as a central issue in
e-commerce trust beliefs”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 1-30.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N. (1998), “The effect of store name, brand name,
and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 331-52.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N. and Vitale, M. (2000), “Consumer trust in an internet store”,
Information Technology and Management, Vol. 1, pp. 45-71.
Jevons, C. and Gabbott, M. (2000), “Trust, brand equity and brand reality in internet business
relationships: an interdisciplinary approach”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 16,
pp. 619-34.
Johnson, D.S. (2007), “Achieving customer value from electronic channels through identity
commitment, calculative commitment, and trust technology”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 2-22.
Keppel, G. (1991), Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kim, D. and Benbasat, I. (2006), “The effect of trust-assuring arguments on consumer trust in
internet stores: application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 286-300.
Lau, G.T. and Lee, S.H. (1999), “Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty”,
Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 341-70.
Lee, B.C., Ang, L. and Dubelaar, C. (2005), “Lemons on the web: a signaling approach to the
problem of trust in internet commerce”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 607-23.
Lee, M.K.O. and Turban, E. (2001), “A trust model for consumer internet shopping”, International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 75-91.
Lee, S.M. and Lee, S.L. (2005), “Consumers’ initial trust toward second-hand products in the
electronic market”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 85-98.
Lim, N. (2003), “Consumer’s perceived risk; sources versus consequences”, Electronic Commerce Effects of trust
Research and Applications, Vol. 2, pp. 216-28.
beliefs
McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002), “Developing and validating trust
measures for e-tailing: an integrative typology”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 334-59.
Mayer, R., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34. 951
Mertler, C.A. and Vannatta, R.A. (2002), Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods: Practical
Application and Interpretation, 2nd ed., Pyrczak, Los Angeles, CA.

Meyers-Levy, J., Louie, T.A. and Curren, M.T. (1994), “How does the congruity of brand names
affect evaluations of brand name extensions?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1,
pp. 46-53.
Mukherjee, A. and Nath, P. (2007), “Role of electronic trust in online retailing”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 1173-202.
Nielsen/NetRatings (2005), “Online retail report card: highest conversion rates amongst
non-brick-and-mortar retailers, according to Nielsen/NetRatings Megaview Online Retail”,
available at: www.netratings.com/pr/pr_050407.pdf (accessed October 10, 2006).
Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk
with the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 101-34.
Power, J., Whelan, S. and Davies, G. (2008), “The attractiveness and connectedness of ruthless
brands: the role of trust”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 586-602.
Richtel, M. and Tedeschi, B. (2007), “Online sales lose steam”, The New York Times, June 17,
available at: www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/technology/17ecom.html?ex¼1190260800&en
¼4f80b2a729b08e4a&ei¼5070 (accessed September 7, 2007).
Rigby, E. (2007), “Online trick turn browser to sales clicks”, Financial Times, May 18, p. 3.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Introduction to special topic
forum: not so different after all: a cross discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Schibrowsky, J.A., Peltier, J.W. and Nill, A. (2007), “The state of internet marketing research”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 7/8, pp. 722-33.
Schlosser, A.E., White, T.B. and Lloyd, S. (2006), “Converting web site visitors into buyers:
how web site investment increases consumer trusting beliefs and online purchase
intentions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, April, pp. 133-48.
Senecal, S. and Nantel, J. (2004), “The influence of online product recommendations on
consumers’ online choices”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 159-69.
Shapiro, D.L., Sheppard, B.H. and Cheraskin, L. (1992), “Business on a handshake”, Negotiation
Journal, October, pp. 365-77.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P. (2001), “An online prepurchase intentions
model: the role of intentions to search”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 397-416.
Stevens, J.P. (1996), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 3rd ed., Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Teo, T.S.H. and Yu, Y. (2005), “Online buying behavior: a transaction cost economics
perspective”, OMEGA: The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 33 No. 5,
pp. 451-65.
EJM Appendix 1
Effects of trust beliefs on consumers’ online intentions: pretest information
45,6 We conducted four pretests at different times and with different sets of subjects. We describe
these four pretests in turn in the following discussion.
Pretest 1. The first pretest validated the product trust scale (see Table AI), which we adapted
from the brand trust scales developed by Lau and Lee (1999; a ¼ 0:93Þ; Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001; a ¼ 0:81Þ; and Delgado-Ballester et al. (2003; a ¼ 0:95Þ: We used products/services
952 familiar to the respondents to test the scale (e.g. airlines, cell phones, soft drinks, news services,
personal computers, internet service providers).
Satisfaction has been found to correlate with brand trust (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Lau
and Lee, 1999). Given that brand trust may vary with product trust, we expected the product
trust scale to correlate with satisfaction. We obtained satisfaction scores for the product/services
tested from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (www.acsi.org) and J.D. Power &
Associates (www.jdpa.com) (see Table II).
We randomly assigned subjects to one of the six different product/service presentations
combinations created. The scale had eight items, each of which was measured on a seven-point
scale ð1 ¼ strongly disagree, and 7 ¼ strongly agree). We obtained 59 usable responses from 69
respondents. We deleted two items (“product never disappoints me” and “I can trust product
completely”) after a within-block factor analysis. Afterward, we ran a principal component factor
analysis without these two items (see Table II). The analysis yielded six factors without any
major cross-loadings—one factor for each product/service category—and extracted 83.32
percent of the variance. Factors loadings and reliability were in the acceptable range (see
Table AI).
The mean scores for product trust displayed a high level of correlation with the satisfaction
scores (see Table II). Thus, we concluded that the product trust scale was acceptable.
Pretest 2. The second pretest validated brand trust, vendor trust, disposition to trust, and
channel trust scales. A total of 96 subjects participated in a paper-and-pencil survey about a
Kyocera digital camera sold at Abtelectronics.com. We measured each construct on a multi-item
seven-point scale ð1 ¼ strongly disagree, and 7 ¼ strongly agree). Within-block factor analysis
suggested that all items loaded on their respective construct. A principal component factor
analysis of all items suggested no major cross-loadings, extracted 81.4 percent of the variance,
and had acceptable factor loadings (0.764 – 0.949). Reliabilities were also acceptable
(0.933 –0.986), suggesting that the scales are acceptable.
Pretest 3. The third pretest tested the manipulation of the product, brand, and vendor trust
beliefs. Each factor (e.g. vendor trust) had two levels (high and low), and we tested each factor
level separately, for a total of six different surveys (two for each factor). We chose the digital
camera category, given its familiarity to the subjects. The pretest used a pre-tested made-up
brand (KXTM) and online vendor name (ZOOOM.com). Following Alba et al.’s (1997) and
Senecal and Nantel’s (2004) suggestion that online consumers tend to consult recommendations
of independent web sites to make their purchase decisions, we designed the pretest to mimic
information from the Consumerreports.org
An overall rating for the factor trust characteristic (competence, integrity, benevolence, and
predictability) was presented in a format similar to recommendations found online (e.g.
Bizrate.com). We used a scale ranging from 1 to 10 to assess trust, in which a rating below 2
signified a low level and a rating of higher than 8.5 signified a high level. In addition, we
presented an overall rating. The following is an example:
.
Vendor trust (high level). The following information appeared in The Consumer Reports
Buying Guide regarding online vendors: “Our survey asked readers to rate online vendors
based on their capabilities to fulfil their orders: on time, with responsiveness to their
customers, based on payment security assurances and performance, on maintaining their
word, on their knowledge of the product offering and on their service effectiveness. The
Soft drink Cell phone service Airline service News services Internet service Pc Personal computer
I feel I can trust purchasing __ 20.854 0.787 0.850 20.585 20.678 0.747
I trust __ 20.814 0.782 0.935 20.914 20.827 0.832
__ can be trusted to do the job 20.957 0.816 0.862 20.955 20.933 0.854
I can rely on __ 20.747 0.723 0.928 20.888 20.871 0.737
Because I know it will not let me down 20.668 0.823 0.824 20.846 20.789 0.729
__ never disappoint mea
I can trust __ completelya
__ meet my expectations 20.795 0.835 0.796 20.726 20.728 0.740
Reliability 0.948 0.944 0.960 0.948 0.963 0.932
Satisfaction mean score (100) 84.000 65.000 66.000 66.000 89.000 74.000
Trust mean scoreb (max 7) 5.003 3.905 4.881 4.169 4.161 5.067
Notes: aDeleted; bStatistically significant; cDirect Oblimin rotation used (air/cell and soft/isp not sig. correlated)
reliability, and mean

results (factor component
Product category scale
beliefs
scores)
loadings across,
Effects of trust
Table AI.
953
EJM rating ranged from 1 to 10, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent. The overall rating
was the average score for all categories rated. ZOOOM.com received the highest rating of
45,6 all the online digital cameras vendors rated. ZOOOM.com obtained an overall rating of 8.9
out of a possible 10 and obtained the highest rating of any vendor on capability to fulfill
orders, receiving a 9.2 out of a possible 10.”
.
Brand trust (low level): The following information appeared in The Consumer Reports
Buying Guide regarding brands of digital cameras: “Digital cameras’ printing resolution or
954 megapixels range from 3 to 5. Our readers’ survey rated digital camera brands with 3, 4,
and 5 megapixels, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent. Each
surveyed reader rated digital camera brands based on their reliability, performance,
easiness of use, printing quality, features, and service responsiveness. The overall rating
is the average scored for all the categories rated. The KXTM Dimage TSM 3-megapixel
digital camera received an overall rating of 1.0 out of a possible 10. The KXTM Dimage
TSM was rated the lowest, 0.9 out of a possible 10, in performance, printing quality,
reliability, and service responsiveness, from all the 3-megapixel digital cameras
surveyed.”
For the product trust, 73 subjects participated (42 for the high level); for the brand trust,
32 subjects participated (17 for the high level); and for the vendor trust, 37 subjects participated
(18 for the high level). We used a multi-item seven-point scale for each factor; we also measured
demographics and product, brand, and vendor experience. We conducted an analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) to check the difference between the two levels tested for each factor
(demographics and usage experience were covariates). The results showed a significant
difference ( p , 0.05) between the high and the low factor levels, suggesting that the
manipulations worked and could be used in the main study.
Pretest 4. The fourth pretest tested product/services, including channel of purchase (offline
vs. online), to determine which products/services were most likely to be purchased and where
(online vs. offline) they were most likely to be purchased during the next 12 months by the
participants of the main study. We asked 87 respondents to state the likelihood that they or
someone they care about would purchase each of 27 products (see following list). We used a
seven-point scale, ranging from 1 ¼ very unlikely to purchase to 7 ¼ very likely to purchase.
Then, we asked participants to determine their likelihood of purchasing each of the 27
products/services presented online versus offline. We used a seven-point scale, ranging from
1 ¼ entirely offline to 7 ¼ entirely online. We obtained 78 usable responses.
The 27 products/services are as follows:
(1) Flat screen TV.
(2) Digital camera.
(3) Jewelry (watch, rings, earrings).
(4) Hotel/motel room.
(5) GPS (global positioning system).
(6) Teeth whitener.
(7) Computer printer ink cartridge.
(8) Camcorder.
(9) PDA (personal digital assistant).
(10) MP3 player.
(11) Cellular phone device.
(12) Backpack.
(13) DVD player.
(14) Airline ticket. Effects of trust
(15) Computer scanner. beliefs
(16) Vacuum cleaner.
(17) Computer printer.
(18) Home stereo.
(19) Laptop computer. 955
(20) Clothing/shoes.
(21) Electric razor.

(22) Anti-wrinkle cream.
(23) Toaster.
(24) CD player.
(25) Microwave.
(26) Computer software.
(27) Vitamins.
Airline tickets received the highest mean score for the likelihood of purchasing online within the
next 12 months, and teeth whitening received the highest mean score for the likelihood of
purchasing offline within the next 12 months. Thus, we selected airline tickets and teeth
whitening for the main study.
After we selected the products/services, we pre-tested made-up brand and vendor names. We
asked a convenience sample of 30 respondents about their familiarity with two different made-up
brands and two different made-up vendor names for each product/service selected. We selected
the brand and vendor name with the lowest recognition for the study. After the pretests, we
trimmed the manipulation scales to three items to reduce the survey length and tested these
reduced scales. During the main study, we analyzed the scales again, yielding similar results to
those of the pretest (see Table AII).
Appendix 2
Main study description
Briefing and debriefing. The main study, a 2 £ 2 £ 2 completely randomized between-subjects
factorial design experiment with two products (airline ticket and teeth whitening), was disguised
as an online advertising study. Participants were recruited at a large US Southern university.
Participation was anonymous and voluntary. The experiment required participants to log-on to
the internet. The study was open to all students.
To obtain a power of 0.80 at a 0.05 significance level, the ideal sample size was 480 subjects,
or 60 participants per cell. To reach the desire sample size, the study was promoted in different
classes with a flyer (2,000 were distributed) that described the study (an online advertising
study). The flyer also provided an online address where additional information was provided,
including where the study would be conducted, how to participate, and the time slots available to
participate. To entice participation, the flyer noted that three iPods minis would be raffled among
participants. In addition, some professors provided extra credit for participating in the study.
We conducted the study at two different university locations over a period of four weeks.
Written instructions were given to all participants (Figure A1), and participation was not
allowed if they arrived after the scheduled starting time. The instructions briefed subjects about
the online advertising study, including stating that other questions not related to the study
would be asked. In addition, it instructed participants to log-on to Internet Explorer and then to
log-on to the study’s web site.
45,6
EJM
956
Table AII.
reliability analysis
Main study factor and
Airline tickets Teeth whiteners Scale source
Product trust A ¼ 0.94 A ¼ 0.90 Adapted from Lau and Lee’s (1999) brand trust
Product _______ is trustworthy Pcm1 0.773 0.879 scale ða ¼ 20:93Þ; Delgado-Ballester et al.’s (2003)
I would rely on product ______ Pcm2 0.801 0.889 brand trust scale ða ¼ 0:85Þ; and Chaudhuri and
I would trust product ______ Pcm3 0.794 0.830 Holbrook’s (2001) brand trust scale ða ¼ 0:81Þ
Brand trust A ¼ 0:89 A ¼ 0:92
I would rely on brand _______ bm1 0.914 0.915
I would trust brand _______ bm2 0.909 0.914
Brand ________ would be trustworthy bm3 0.890 0.86
Vendor trust A ¼ 0:95 A ¼ 0:85 Adapted from Lau and Lee’s (1999) scale ða ¼ 0:9Þ;
I would rely on vendor ___________.com vm1 0.953 0.942 Jarvenpaa et al.’s (2000) scale (no a reported), and
I would trust vendor _________.com vm2 0.964 0.949 McKnight et al.’s (2002) scale ða ¼ 0:96Þ
Vendor _________.com would be trustworthy vm3 0.933 0.935
Disposition to trust A ¼ 0:92 A ¼ 0:92 Adapted from Gefen’s (2000) scale ða ¼ 0:86Þ and
I generally trust others dt1 0.738 0.744 Lee and Turban’s (2001) scale ða ¼ 0:78Þ
I tend to count upon others dt2 0.668 0.697
I generally have faith in humanity dt3 0.832 0.818
I tend to trust even when not knowing it dt4 0.806 0.791
Trusting others is easy dt5 0.803 0.805
My tendency to trust is high dt6 0.890 0.902
It is easy to trust others dt7 0.896 0.887
Channel trust A ¼ 0:95 A ¼ 0:95 Adapted from Lee and Turban’s (2001) scale
Internet is reliable tc1 0.445 0.453 (a . 0.7) and McKnight et al.’s (2002) scale
Shopping online is reliable tc2 0.660 0.709 ða ¼ 0:94Þ
Internet shopping can be trusted tc3 0.729 0.776
Internet has enough safeguards to transact tc4 0.864 0.892
Internet legal and other structures protect me tc5 0.823 0.83
Internet is safe to shop tc6 0.872 0.906
I am comfortable shopping online tc7 0.832 0.866
(continued)
Airline tickets Teeth whiteners Scale source
Online vendors act in customer’s best interest tc8 0.725 0.737

Internet vendors are competent at servicing customer tc9 0.797 0.782
If customer requires help online vendor will provide it tc10 0.783 0.714
I am comfortable relying on Internet vendors tc11 0.851 0.851
Experience with airlines A ¼ 0:80 A ¼ 0:80 Adapted from Lau and Lee’s (1999) scale
I have extensive experience air traveling iex1 0.933 0.926 ða ¼ 0:62Þ
I air travel often iex3 0.930 0.931
Experience with teeth whiteners A ¼ 0:89 A ¼ 0:89
I have an extensive experience with teeth whiteners Airex1 0.959 0.937
I have used teeth whiteners often Airex2 0.952 0.949
Internet shopping experience A ¼ 0:91 A ¼ 0:91 Adapted from Corbitt et al.’s (2003) scale ða ¼ 0:61Þ
Approximate amount of money spent online last Teethex1 0.858 0.825 and McKnight et al.’s (2002) scale ða ¼ 0:69Þ
12 months
I shop online often Teethex2 0.914 0.902
Notes: The extraction method is principal component analysis, and the rotation method is Oblimin with Kaiser normalization. Variance extracted ¼ 77:6
percent for airline tickets and 77.3 percent for teeth whiteners.
beliefs
Effects of trust
Table AII.
957
EJM The first page of the web site restated the briefing and instructions, and to maintain the disguise,
the web site presented two pages of online advertisements that were not related to the products
45,6 tested (a description of the web site is available in manuscript). The web site randomly assigned
each participant to one of the eight different treatments and a presentation order of trust beliefs.
For example, one order had information about the vendor shown on the left, followed by
information about the brand (center), with information about the product category presented on
the right (see Figure 2). In short, the experiment had six different orders for the trust beliefs
958 (vendor, brand, and product), and eight different treatments or cells, for a total of 48 different
combinations. All subjects were presented information about the two product/services. The order
Figure A1.
Instruction page – main
study (university
information has been
disguised)
of presentation for the product/service was randomized; some subjects were presented with the Effects of trust
airline ticket first, whereas others saw teeth whitening first.
After the subjects completed the study, the instruction sheet was returned to the research beliefs
assistant. The web site had ten pages and two pop-up screens. Description of the web site can be
found in the manuscript. Subjects not willing to participate in the study and/or those who
already participated could press the CANCEL button provided on the first page of the web site.
Subjects who were willing to participate and agreed to abide by the study requirements could
press the I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE button provided on the first page of the study. 959
If the CANCEL button were pressed, the web site would log the subject off Internet Explorer.
The web site only allowed forward movement of the pages. If the back button were pressed, the
subject would be logged-off from the internet browser. If the I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE
button were pressed, the second page of the web site would appear. The first pop-up screen asked
for the university e-mail address; the university e-mail address was used to determine the
winners of the iPod drawing and as a control mechanism for the study. If no e-mail address was
provided or if the e-mail address was not a university e-mail address, the web site would not
move forward to the third page. Only responses from subjects who provided a valid university
e-mail address were allowed. If the e-mail address had already been provided, the web site would
issue a warning and would not move forward. Duplicate e-mail addresses were not allowed, and
participants could only participate once.
The last page of the web site (page 10; Figure A2) thanked subjects for participating in the
study and again reminded them to refrain from talking to anyone about the study. Page 10 also
debriefed subjects about the nature of the study and the usage of fictitious brand and vendors.
Participants were also told to check their university e-mail address from time to time to find out if
they had won one of the three iPod minis.
Methodology. Measurement. We used scales consistent with published research, and we
developed scales from previously validated scales. The online intentions scale is consistent with
published research. For example, Bart et al. (2005) use the following scale to measure online
intentions:
.
I would purchase an item at this site (intent).
.
I would recommend this site to a friend (intent).
.
I am comfortable providing financial and personal information on this site (intent).
.
I would book mark this site (intent).
.
I would register at this site (intent).
Figure A2.
Web site page 10
EJM Gefen and Heart (2006) use the following scale to measure online intentions:
45,6 .
I would use my credit card to purchase from Amazon.com Use2.
.
I am very likely to buy books from Amazon.com Use1.
This study uses the following online intentions scale, which is consistent with Bart et al.’s (2005)
and Gefen and Heart’s (2006), and was developed based on the scales used by Gefen (2000),
960 McKnight et al. (2002), and Pavlou (2003):
.
How likely is it that you would purchase _______ (product) ______ (brand) at _____
(online vendor)?
.
How likely is it that you would provide personal information such as your name, address,
phone number, credit card number, and/or email address to complete this purchase?
The remaining scales, which appear in Table AI, are consistent with published research on
online behavior.
Data analysis. We analyzed data using SPSS 12.0 for Windows in three stages. In the first
stage, we analyzed and screened the data. In the second stage, we analyzed the manipulations. In
the third stage, we tested the hypotheses. We used an ANCOVA to test the manipulations, and
we used multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), ANCOVA, and linear regressions
were used to test hypotheses. We used an ANCOVA as a follow-up analysis to the MANCOVA.
Response times per participant averaged 10.43 minutes, with a median time of 9.9 minutes, a
low of 1.8 minutes, and a high of 59.3 minutes. We analyzed responses to determine whether
response time influenced responses, but we found no statistical difference. The participants’
demographic breakdown was similar to the overall university’s student body demographic
breakdown, suggesting that the sample of respondents was a good representation of the
university student body.
Products were evenly presented to participants, with airline tickets presented first to
respondents 50.2 percent of the time and teeth whitening 49.8 percent of the time. When we do
not account for the order in which the two tested products were presented, the sample number of
subjects per cell varied slightly, from a low of 47 to a high of 57 subjects for airline tickets and
from a low of 48 to a high of 56 for teeth whitening. When we account for the order of product
presentation, for airline tickets, the lowest number of subjects was 22 and the highest was 29, and
for teeth whitening, the lowest number of subjects was 23 and the highest was 30.
The assumption of homogeneity of the variance-covariance matrix is not affected by unequal
sample sizes when few dependent variables are tested with a sample size of 20 subjects or more
per cell; however, it is affected by deviations from normality (Mertler and Vannatta, 2002).
Participants were evenly split between those who agreed that they shop online often (40.2
percent) (scores above 4.0) and those who did not (43.8 percent) (scores below 4.0), with the
remainder (16.0 percent) falling in the middle of the seven-point scale. We concluded that the
sample was evenly divided between those who shop online often and those who do not. More
participants agreed that they had extensive experience and used airlines often (45.5 percent)
(scores above 4.0) than those who disagreed (34.8 percent) (scores below 4.0), while 19.6 percent
scored in the middle of the seven-point scale. For teeth whitening, more participants disagreed
with the experience questions (77.3 percent) than agreed (13.0 percent), while 9.7 percent neither
agreed nor disagreed with the statements. We found that participants had had high experience
with airlines and low experience with teeth whitening.
Results. We analyzed the results separately by product. First, we screened and analyzed data
and assessed the statistical assumptions. Second, we analyzed manipulations, including
assessment of scales. Finally, we tested the hypotheses.
Data analysis. We excluded 11 responses with incomplete information because subjects
logged off the web site before completing the study and/or tried to page back, which caused the
system to log the subject off, leaving a total of 422 usable observations. We identified outliers
using Mahalanobis distances within regression for each treatment level (Mertler and Vannatta, Effects of trust
2002; Stevens, 1996). We identified four outliers for airline tickets (Cases 379, 380, 226, and 255)
and five for teeth whitening (Cases 81, 379, 380, 226, and 255). We checked all outliers and found beliefs
them to be free of data entry and/or instrumentation errors. Therefore, we included the outliers in
the analysis.
We used skewness and kurtosis coefficients to assess departures from normality (skewness
. þ/– 3.09), particularly when determining whether the distribution of scores were symmetrical
(e.g. Hair et al., 1998; Mertler and Vannatta, 2002). We transformed variables that exceeded the
961
skewness threshold using standard data transformation techniques (e.g. Hair et al., 1998; Mertler
and Vannatta, 2002).

We used Levene’s test for equal variance and the F-max test (, 3.0) with the dependent
variables to assess the homogeneity of variance of each group and combination of groups (e.g.
Hair et al., 1998; Keppel, 1991; Mertler and Vannatta, 2002). All F-max values were well within
acceptable levels, leading to the conclusion that the variables displayed an acceptable
homogeneity of variance for the analysis.
Manipulation analysis. Each variable manipulated – product trust, brand trust, and vendor
trust – had two levels of manipulation, high or low. Before the manipulation analysis, we ran a
principal component factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation (scales are correlated) to
determine the validity of the five trust scales and the three experience scales used (see Table AI).
The factor analysis extracted eight factors and 77.63 percent of the variance for airline ticket and
77.3 percent for teeth whitening. Scales for each construct hung together with factor components
above 0.7, except for two questions pertaining to the institutional-based trust scale, which loaded
above 0.45. However, we found no major cross-loadings among the scales. Reliabilities were also
within acceptable ranges (0.8 – 0.94). The scales displayed acceptable reliability and validity to
proceed with the manipulation analysis.
We used an ANCOVA to test the manipulations. We controlled for order of presentation of
product, order of the presentation of the object of trust (left/center/right), and response time. We
assessed the ANCOVA assumptions of homogeneity of variance and homogeneity of covariate
regression slopes. The F-max test was within acceptable levels (, 3.0), signifying that the F-test
would not be biased, even when the homogeneity of variance assumption has not been met. The
test for the covariate regression slopes, except for vendor trust for teeth whitening, was not
significant, signifying that the assumptions are within acceptable levels and therefore do not
hinder the analysis. We ran an ANCOVA for each manipulation and an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for vendor trust for teeth whitening to determine whether departure from acceptable
levels could hinder the analysis.
The results led us to conclude that the manipulations were successful, and thus that the
hypotheses may be tested. The control variables (order of presentation of product and response
time) were not significant for all trust manipulations, and thus we did not include them in the
hypothesis analysis. Order of presentation of the object of trust was significant for product and
vendor trust for airline ticket, and thus we included it in the hypothesis analysis of airline ticket.
Hypotheses testing. We ran a preliminary MANCOVA analysis to assess the homogeneity of
the variance-covariance matrix and the homogeneity of the covariate regression hyperplanes.
The test statistics, Box’s test, and the test for the interaction between the factors and the
covariate were not significant, suggesting that the assumptions underpinning the MANCOVA
analysis had been met. Because Box’s test was not significant, we used Wilks’ lambda as the
multivariate test statistic (Mertler and Vannatta, 2002). We present the results for the
MANCOVA and ANCOVA analysis in the manuscript. Order of presentation of the object of
trust for airline ticket was not significant and did not affect the results; thus, the results we
present in the manuscript exclude order of presentation.
EJM About the authors
Enrique P. Becerra is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Marketing at Texas State
45,6 University, San Marcos, Texas. His research deals with consumer behavior including
advertising, pricing, trust, virtual reality, and cultural/ethnicity influences, and e-tailing. His
research has been published in the Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, the Journal
of Virtual Worlds Research, and the International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing.
Enrique P. Becerra is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: eb25@txstate.edu
962 Pradeep K. Korgaonkar is the InternetCoast Institute Adams Professor of Marketing at
Florida Atlantic University. His research interests are in the areas of e-commerce, advertising,
and retailing. His research has been published in numerous journals including the Journal of
Advertising, the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of
Computer Mediated Communications, the Journal of Consumer Marketing, the Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising, the Journal of Internet Research, the Journal of Retailing, and
the Journal of Marketing Research, among others.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Millissa F.Y. Cheung, W.M. To. 2017. The influence of the propensity to trust on mobile users' attitudes
toward in-app advertisements: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human
Behavior 76, 102-111. [Crossref]
2. OrtizJaime, Jaime Ortiz, ChihWen-Hai, Wen-Hai Chih, TengHsiu-Chen, Hsiu-Chen Teng. 2017.
Electronic word of mouth in the Taiwanese social networking community: participation factors. Internet
Research 27:5, 1058-1084. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. LeitchShirley R., Shirley R. Leitch. 2017. The transparency construct in corporate marketing. European
Journal of Marketing 51:9/10, 1503-1509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Kate L. Daunt, Lloyd C. Harris. 2017. Consumer showrooming: Value co-destruction. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services 38, 166-176. [Crossref]
5. ChangHsin Hsin, Hsin Hsin Chang, HuangChing Ying, Ching Ying Huang, FuChen Su, Chen Su Fu,
HsuMing Tse, Ming Tse Hsu. 2017. The effects of innovative, consumer and social characteristics on
willingness to try nano-foods. Information Technology & People 30:3, 653-690. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
6. LiuFei, Fei Liu, XiaoBo, Bo Xiao, LimEric T.K., Eric T.K. Lim, TanChee-Wee, Chee-Wee Tan. 2017.
The art of appeal in electronic commerce. Internet Research 27:4, 752-771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Maria Leonilde R. Varela, Goran D. Putnik, Maria do Sameiro Carvalho, Luís Ferreira, Maria Manuela
Cruz-Cunha, V. K. Manupati, K. Manoj. 2017. Analysing Critical Success Factors for Supporting Online
Shopping. International Journal of Web Portals 9:2, 1-19. [Crossref]
8. PongpaewWimmala, Wimmala Pongpaew, SpeeceMark, Mark Speece, TiangsoongnernLeela, Leela
Tiangsoongnern. 2017. Social presence and customer brand engagement on Facebook brand pages. Journal
of Product & Brand Management 26:3, 262-281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. HalaszovichTilo, Tilo Halaszovich, NelJacques, Jacques Nel. 2017. Customer–brand engagement and
Facebook fan-page “Like”-intention. Journal of Product & Brand Management 26:2, 120-134. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
10. Van TonderEstelle, Estelle Van Tonder, PetzerDaniël Johannes, Daniël Johannes Petzer, van ZylKarlien,
Karlien van Zyl. 2017. A mediated model of relationship quality factors affecting behavioural intention at
a luxury motor vehicle dealership. European Business Review 29:1, 43-60. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Farid Huseynov, Sevgi Özkan Yıldırım. 2016. Behavioral Issues in B2C E-commerce. Information
Development 32:5, 1343-1358. [Crossref]
12. M. L. R. Varela, M. F. Ferreira, G. G. Vieira, V. K. Manupati, K. Manoj. A multi-perspective integrated
framework of critical success factors for supporting on-line shopping 1-6. [Crossref]
13. Ya Ping Chang, Xue Bing Dong. 2016. Research on the impact of consumer interaction behaviour on
purchase intention in an SNS environment. Information Development 32:3, 496-508. [Crossref]
14. Hong-Youl Ha, Joby John, J. Denise John, Yong-Kyun Chung. 2016. Temporal effects of information
from social networks on online behavior. Internet Research 26:1, 213-235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Kem Z.K. Zhang, Morad Benyoucef, Sesia J. Zhao. 2016. Building brand loyalty in social commerce: The
case of brand microblogs. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 15, 14-25. [Crossref]
16. Hongwei He, Lloyd C. Harris, Weiyue Wang, Kamran Haider. 2016. Brand identity and online self-
customisation usefulness perception. Journal of Marketing Management 32:13-14, 1308. [Crossref]
17. Jillian Martin, Gary Mortimer, Lynda Andrews. 2015. Re-examining online customer experience to
include purchase frequency and perceived risk. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25, 81-95.
[Crossref]
18. Yung-Shao Yeh, Yung-Ming Li. 2014. Design-to-lure in the e-shopping environment: A landscape
preference approach. Information & Management 51:8, 995-1004. [Crossref]
19. Helen McCormick, Jo Cartwright, Patsy Perry, Liz Barnes, Samantha Lynch, Gemma Ball. 2014. Fashion
retailing – past, present and future. Textile Progress 46:3, 227-321. [Crossref]
20. Kem Z.K. Zhang, Christy M.K. Cheung, Matthew K.O. Lee. 2014. Examining the moderating effect
of inconsistent reviews and its gender differences on consumers’ online shopping decision. International
Journal of Information Management 34:2, 89-98. [Crossref]

21. Dianne Cyr. 2013. Website design, trust and culture: An eight country investigation. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications 12:6, 373-385. [Crossref]
22. Benjamin Boeuf, Sylvain Sénécal. 2013. Online international outshopping experience: Proposition of a
research model. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 28:3, 110-119. [Crossref]
23. Enrique P. Becerra, Vishag Badrinarayanan. 2013. The influence of brand trust and brand identification
on brand evangelism. Journal of Product & Brand Management 22:5/6, 371-383. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
24. Myfanwy Trueman, Nelarine Cornelius, James Wallace. 2012. Building brand value online: exploring
relationships between company and city brands. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 1013-1031.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. 2012. Volume Removed - Publisher's Disclaimer. Procedia Engineering 50, 1-966. [Crossref]
26. Mohammad Ahmad Al‐Hawari. 2011. Automated service quality as a predictor of customers'
commitment. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 23:3, 346-366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Angelo A. Camillo, Loredana Di Pietro. Social Media and its Effect on Consumer Loyalty 195-211.
[Crossref]
28. Teena Bagga, Roushan Chouhan. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of C2C Websites in Delhi-NCR
121-131. [Crossref]

Effects of Trust Beliefs On Consumers Online Intention PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Effects of Trust Beliefs On Consumers Online Intention PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

European Journal of Marketing

Effects of trust beliefs on consumers' online intentions

Enrique P. Becerra, Pradeep K. Korgaonkar, (2011) "Effects of trust beliefs on consumers'

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Received March 2009 Pradeep K. Korgaonkar

Background and hypotheses

Trust beliefs may be activated in perceived uncertain, risky, and/or vulnerable

intentions to purchase online and, consequently, on online intentions.

to subjects (See Appendix 1). In addition, the pretests enabled us to determine

Online intentions Intentions to purchase Intentions to provide information

Intercept 0 17.199 * * * 0.077 0 33.505 * * * 0.075 0 5.685 * 0.014

Effects of trust beliefs on

e-tailers on online intentions but do not augment the influence of unknown or

Discussion and implications

activity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 119-34.

Application and Interpretation, 2nd ed., Pyrczak, Los Angeles, CA.

reliability, and mean

(21) Electric razor.

Airline tickets Teeth whiteners Scale source

Online vendors act in customer’s best interest tc8 0.725 0.737

and Vannatta, 2002).

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Journal of Marketing 51:9/10, 1503-1509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Journal of Information Management 34:2, 89-98. [Crossref]

S-ar putea să vă placă și