The factors that influence e-consumers´ behavior while making an online transaction (página 2)
Su et al. (2008) mentioned that apart from the absence of the
ambience of a physical shop (such as temperature, lighting, and
business equipment), the online retail environment also lacks
person-to-person contact (pg. 360). Like traditional customers,
e-consumers also feel the necessity of receiving high quality on
their physical products and a personalized customer service
online. According to Liao and Cheung, behavioral and attitudinal
variables affect e-shopping.
Internet experience and frequency
of Internet use have a positive effect on buying online (qtd. in
Farag et al., 2006, pg. 45). Farag (2006) maintains that a
positive attitude towards e-shopping, such as the perceived
quality of vendors on the Internet, also stimulates the use of
the Internet for shopping purposes (pg. 45). So far, we have
gathered from the e-commerce literature that the
buying behavior and attitude of an e-customer may be negatively
affected for reasons like lack of person-to-person contact,
impersonalized customer service, low-quality on physical products
purchased, and a poor perception of the e-sellers" Web site.
Besides outcome quality and customer service, Su et al.
(2008), found that process controllability, ease of use,
information quality, and Web site design play an indispensable
role to the provision of high-quality in e-commerce. However,
Zeithml et al. (2002) concluded through extensive
theoretical and empirical work that there has been a shifting of
online customers. Although Web presence and low price were
posited as the drivers of success in the early days of
e-commerce, these features no longer guarantee success after
years of development in this form of commerce (qtd. in Su et al.,
2008, pg. 371). In summary, E-commerce services are facing many
difficulties when trying to deliver quality signals to customers.
For example, they have to start focusing more on delivering
efficiently products and services, guarantee the quality of the
goods, offer consumer service online but also offline (e.g.,
after-sales service, commitment, response to complaints), and
invest in better and safer online transactions.
One of the main challenges that e-sellers face is to provide
trust to e-consumers. They need to help customers to safely
engage in e-transactions over the internet and encourage
trustworthy behavior among them. For this reason, some Web
companies or e-marketplaces have been investing and refining
reputation systems. Gavish and Tucci (2008) concluded that a
reputation system help e-buyers to judge unknown and mysterious
online customers, and then avoid or reduce internet auction
fraud; for example, a recent study by Gregg and Scott (2008) has
shown that reputation systems serve an important function in
today"s online world. They can allow buyers to assess the
trustworthiness of unknown online auction sellers and can be used
by sellers to improve their customer service.
The types of fraud a buyer can encounter when making a purchase
at an online auction include: sniping (Holahan, 2008),
non-delivery, misrepresentation, black market goods, fee
stacking, triangulation, and shill bidding (Gregg and Scott,
2008, pg. 70). Precisely, this kind of scams, plus some
others like pishing, changing seller ID, location, and terms of
contract after purchase (Gavish and Tushi, 2008, pg. 92) are the
type of actions that are making e-buyers to run away from this
market. In fact, a study sponsored by the U.S. FBI and U.S.
National White Collar Crime Center showed that the online fraud
has grown from around 20,000 in 2000 to around 200,000 in 2007,
which represents a compound annual growth rate of 39% (qtd. in
Gavish and Tucci, 2008). Basically, all the scams mentioned above
undermine the expectations of e-consumers, and also destabilize
the foundations of trust that customers have built online. Gregg
and Scott (2008) reached the conclusion that information sharing,
use of legitimate escrow services, develop of insurance policies,
more control over the Web sites, and
encourage visitors to protect themselves will help everybody to
have an advantage over the electronic thieves.
While gathering information for this review, it was found that
several articles offer similar actions to increase consumers"
perception about trust. For example, perceived usefulness,
perceived ease-of-use, perceived security, perceived privacy,
company competency, reputation, and willingness to customize are
seeing by customers as fundamental when buying online (Kim and
Ahn, 2006; Chen and Barnes, 2007; and Schlosser et al., 2006). It
is also important to mention that several studies have been
conducted to analyze the effect that privacy and security
statements have over the customers" trusting beliefs; however,
evidence on the effectiveness of such statements is
contradictory. Whereas Palmer et al. (2000) argues that
such statements help instill consumer confidence in e-commerce
sites, others like Montoya-Weiss et al. (2003) and Sultan
et al. (2002) suggest that they are not necessarily the
most important predictor of online trust (qtd. in Schlosser et
al., 2006, pg. 133).
Another theoretical and empirical perspective regarding
consumers" tendencies was presented by Hanton (2008).
Specifically, he shows a push of internet consumers toward the
Long Tail and market fragmentation. This push has likely been
caused by the following factors: market saturation, the move to
mainstream, improved education, and Web innovation (Hanton, 2008,
pg.2). Again, as we have mentioned before, e-customers have been
looking for more personalized and customized products and
services. In other words, e-sellers must empower customers
through a better listening of complaints and a better customer
service; if not, e-buyers will keep moving forward to a more
personalized and fragmented market. One thing is certain, if
e-sellers do not invest more in taking care of the customers,
e-consumers will keep moving toward niche markets or physical
markets. In fact, Mandel (2008) maintains "The way America
measures Web Commerce may be painting an overly rosy picture of
the economy…U.S. e-consumers might be spending less than
the numbers show" (pg. 28).
Based on the analyzed literature, there are some points I believe
need to be investigated in a deeper way. First of all, the fact
that younger people (primarily buyers in their twenties and
thirties) are the main internet users and a very savvy cluster,
tell us that we need to better investigate their purchase
behavior; managers who see them as group to be targeted, need to
examine what are the steps to follow in order to keep them loyal
to the brand. Younger consumers online is a very hard group to
keep track of and maintain happy.
Also, a subject worth of study is the Web site investment. Web
site design plays such an important role in online purchase
intentions. Instead of serving a purely aesthetic function, it
signals that a firm"s ability can be trusted, which we found to
be the most significant driver of searchers" online purchase
intentions (Schlosser et al, 2006, pg. 144). However, this
investment represents extra money, time, resources, and effort.
Therefore, I suggest to investigate how much of the Web site
budget is selected to improve things such as the order
fulfillment department, privacy and security concerns, encryption
of the page, and the firewall structure. In short,
I believe some online companies may be spending a lot of money to
just make-up the main page -elements that do not represent more
security and trust to the e-consumer- instead of investing more
for the benefit of the consumer.
This research also shows that many customers know about the
danger of auctions and online transactions; however, they are
willing to take the risk to save a few dollars. This topic is
something that is worth study. Also, I think that little research
has been conducted regarding the behavior adopted by e-customers
after being cheated or swindled. Specifically, these subjects
should be investigated because some e-buyers are "supporting"
swindlers over the internet. What I mean, is that these customers
are very prone to be victims of scams but they accept it, and
they end up encouraging more and more people to use the Web as a
scam tool. Finally, during this research it was found several
theoretical and empirical studies about fraud and consumer
behavior before being swindled; nevertheless, very few articles
about consumer behavior and expectations after being swindled
were found. We need to explore the ways that e-consumers are
taking after the scam, and the mechanisms to be implemented in
order to bring them back.
Management Question
How e-consumers perceive Quality and Trust when purchasing
online?
Research Question
What factors of trust are modified on an e-consumer after
being swindled online?
Hypotheses
H1: The decreasing number of online transactions
is positively related to swindling experiences.
H2: Buying after a swindling experience is
positively related to the brand name of the Web site.
H3: Repeating an e-transaction after a swindling
experience is positively related to Web site design and
investment.
H4: Privacy and security statements are
positively related to swindling experiences.
H5: There are differences between the perception
of trust and the socio-demographic factors.
Methodology
Target Population
Active online buyers who have been victims of any kind of
internet fraud.
Sampling Frame
The sample group will be composed of active online buyers who
use internet to make transactions. The participants will be
chosen from an e-mail address list that will be acquired through
a marketing internet company.
This list must be updated and guarantee no duplicate emails. The
cost of this list oscillates between US $40 and US $50.
Participants will be asked to fill-in a survey which defines
if they met the selection criteria. The selected participants
will be active online buyers with more than one year" internet
shopping experience and have been victim of internet fraud. The
surveys will be administered to the addresses in the database;
this is done with the aim of selecting the target population that
meets the criteria until achieve the required sample size.
·
Minimum Sample Size
p = in this sample, 0.28 represents
the estimated proportion of e-consumers who have changed their
habits of online shopping due to internet frauds.
q = on the other hand, 0.72 stands for
the estimated proportion of e-buyers, who did not change their
online buying habits after being victims of at least one
fraud.
Z = the study wishes to have a 95
percent confident level.
E = the allowance for sampling error
is not greater than 2.0 percentage points.
·
Sampling Technique
A Simple Random Sampling will be used to collect the data.
This sampling technique is appropriate because it increases
representativeness and ensures that each element in the
population will have an equal chance of being included in the
sample. Likewise, it requires minimum advance knowledge of the
population and is less expensive than the stratified
technique.
·
Primary Survey Method
E-mail survey sent through electronic method. The primary
survey method will be a structured questionnaire that consists of
a set of closed ended-questions, such as multiple choice, scales,
and some dichotomous questions.
This method is appropriate for this study because is quick,
inexpensive, flexible, efficient, and accurate. However, some of
these e-mail surveys could not be responded because e-buyers may
confuse it with spam e-mail. The reason of
using closed-ended questions is because they take less time from
the ,
the participant and the researcher; so they are a less expensive
survey
method. Generally, the response
rate is higher with surveys
that use closed-ended questions than with those that use
open-ended questions.
Moreover, they are easier to analyze and can be more specific;
thus they are more likely to communicate similar meanings. Unlike
closed-ended questions, open ended-ones allow respondents
to use their own words, but it is difficult to compare the
meanings of the responses and coding the information.
Online Trust and Internet Fraud
Questionnaire
This survey has been prepared with the aim of measuring the
impact that internet fraud has over the perception of trust
online. Please provide us the following information on your
opinions concerning this topic. Your opinions and position
concerning internet swindling are very important to us. The
information is completely anonymous and confidential, so please
Do Not write your name on the questionnaire. Remember, there is
no right or wrong answer.
If you have ever been a victim of online fraud, please answer
the following questionnaire:
1. Are you: [1]
Male
[2] Female
2.
Are
you:
[1] Single
[2] Married
3. Date of Birth:
__________________
(Month / Day / Year)
4. Are
you:
[1] American
Indian
[2] Asian or Pacific Islander
[3] Black, African American
[4] Hispanic, Latino
[5] White, Caucasian
[6] Other __________________
(Please
Specify)
5. Nationality: (i.e.: United States,
Brazil, Japan, etc.) ________________________
6. Approximately, how many times have you
been a victim of online fraud?
_____
7.
Please mark the type(s) of fraud have you been victim
of:
___ Non-delivery
___ Misrepresentation
___ Black-market goods
___ Hidden charges to the item
___ Stolen credit card information
___ Other, ________________________
Please specify
8. Have you bought anything online after the
swindling experience? If yes, go to question 10.
[1] No
[2] Yes
9. What is the main reason?
[1] There is a feeling it
will happen again. [2] I prefer
in-store shopping now.
[3] Internet skills are
not good
enough
[4] Other: __________________________
Please
specify
10. One of the major reasons for the current lack of
trust online is the inability of the e-
companies to develop a
strong and secure environment?
[1] Strongly Agree
[2] Agree
[3] No Opinion
[4] Disagree
[5] Strongly Disagree
11. Indicate your attitude regarding the presence of a
privacy and security statement before
buying online?
Good:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] : Bad
Important:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] : Unimportant
Acceptable:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] : Unacceptable
12. When is time to evaluate the Privacy and Security
Statement online, I normally assess?
[ ] I
do not evaluate this item
[ ] I make
sure there is a VeriSign Secured TM
logo in the Website
[ ] I do
not buy unless the Website uses PayPal TM
to make its transactions
[ ] I need
to see both of them (VeriSign Secured TM
& PayPal TM)
[ ] I look
for different security patterns,
_________________________________________
Please Specify
13. Did the brand name influence me to buy again after
the fraud?
[1] No
[2] Yes
14. One of the major reasons for the current lack of
trust online is the inability of the e-
companies to deliver a
recognizable and trustworthy name, logo, slogan, and design
scheme?
[1] Strongly Agree
[2] Agree
[3] No Opinion
[4] Disagree
[5] Strongly Disagree
15. When engaging in an online transaction, what is your
#1 issue in the decision to buy?
[ ] Brand
name
[ ] Website design & investment
[ ] Company
size
[ ] All of them
[ ] Other,
Please specify:
________________________________
Preference Related Issues
Please indicate your agreement with each of the following
statements by checking the category that best describes your
feeling in the space provided.
Overall your reason(s) for choosing a Website to |
|
|
|
|
| |
17. |
Technology Investment
|
[1] |
[2] |
[3] | [4] | [5] |
18. | Web site design
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
19. | Simple online transaction
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
20. | Ease of use/Navigation
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
21. | Usable linkage
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
22. | Fulfilling advertisement design
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
23. | Security level of encryption
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
24.
| Availability of the Web site | [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
25. Rank the following four reasons for selecting
a Web site to make a purchase from 1-4 with
1 being the most
important and 4 being least important. Mark only item as 1, one
item as
two, etc.
[ ] Web site design and
investment
[ ] Strong privacy and security
statements
[ ] Company size & Brand
recognition
[ ] Customer service online/offline
Thank you for taking the time and effort
to complete this questionnaire
Conclusions
1. The results obtained from this study
will allow further optimization of privacy and security
statements. Therefore, Web pages and e-vendors will take into
consideration the perception of swindled e-customers to their own
benefit.
2. In case the results show a positive relation between
trust and Website design/investment, this study will help
e-sellers to improve the online marketing strategies used to
attract and keep customers loyal to the brand.
3. The results will help determine if an online
recognizable Website, or a well-known brand name, is sufficient
enough to motivate and influence e-customers who have been
victims of fraud.
4. In the case the results show a positive relation
between swindling and a decrease in demand for e-transactions,
this study will definitely help e-companies to realize the harm
that swindlers are doing to their businesses. Likewise, the
presence of a positive relation will motivate e-vendors to
plan better strategies to
attack swindlers and to recover the trust of conned
consumers.
Limitations
1. One of the
limitations I may find is that I could not reach the minimum
sample size; or, on the other hand, reach it but with several
defective samples that may not work at all.
2. A lack of visual
interaction between the interviewer and participant may cause an
information bias. Because the size of the sample, I will not be
available to help participants to solve specific questions in the
questionnaire and that may cause the information bias to
happen.
3. Usually, the
voluntary survey cooperation is low; therefore, it may be a
problem for my study if some participants expect to receive a
gift or stimulus in exchange for the information required. In
fact, the delivery of the stimulus would be very expensive
because the geographic position of the participants is very
widespread.
4. Another
limitation I may find is the lack of computers with high-speed
connections or software; therefore, the participants may
get tired of answering or loading the information to e-mailing
back, and they would stop answering it.
References
Farag, Sendy, Kevin Krizek, and Martin Dijst (2006),
"E-Shopping and its Relationship with In-store
Shopping: Empirical Evidence from the Netherlands and the USA,"
Transport reviews,
26, (1), 43-61.
Gavish, Bezalel, and Tucci, Christohper L. (2008), "Reducing
Internet Auction Fraud",
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 51, (5),
89-97.
Gregg, Dawn G. and Scott, Judy E (2008), "A Typology of
Complaints About eBay Sellers,"
International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Communications of the ACM, 51, 4, 69-74.
Hanton, Jamie (2008, June). "The Hyper-Personalized Business
Model Trend." Retrieved July 7,
2008, from http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/trends/63526.html
Holahan, Katherine (2008), "eBay Auctions: Going,
Going…" Business Week Magazine,
June
30, 52-53.
Kim, Myoung-Soo, and Ahn, Jae-Hyeon (2006), "Comparison of
Trust Sources of an Online Market-
Maker in the E-marketplace: buyer"s and seller"s perspectives."
Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 47, (1), 84-94.
Mandel, Michael (2008), "How Strong Is the U.S. Consumer?"
BusinessWeek Magazine, July 14
&21, 28.
Schlosser, Ann E., White, Tiffany B., and Lloyd, Susan M.
(2006), "Converting Web Site Visitors
into Buyers: How Web Site Investment Increases Consumer Trusting
Beliefs and Online
Purchase Intentions," American Marketing Association, 70,
133-148.
Su Quinn, Li Zhao, and Ting Cheng (2008), "Conceptualizing
Consumer"s Perceptions of
E-commerce Quality" International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management,
36, (5), 360-374.
Yu-Hui Chen, and Stuart Barnes (2007), "Initial Trust and
Online Buyer Behavior", Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 107, (1), 21-36.
Author
Andres Correa-Cortes
United States
2008
 Página anterior | Volver al principio del trabajo | Página siguiente  |