You are on page 1of 11

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Impediments to mobile shopping continued usage intention:


A trust-risk-relationship
Michael Gro n
Department of Planning and Innovation Management, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, LG 10, R 424k,
Erich-Weinert-Str. 1, Cottbus, 03046 Germany

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 5 June 2016
Received in revised form
26 July 2016
Accepted 24 August 2016

Smartphones are revolutionising our daily shopping routines in such a way that nowadays a mobile
service solution exists for everything or if not, then such a solution will soon be available. With the
increasing popularity of smartphones, research into the acceptance of mobile shopping (m-shopping) by
customers focuses more on drivers than on barriers. It is precisely for this reason that this study aims to
shed light on m-shopping impediments in order to gain deeper consumer insight and to overcome the
pro-innovation bias of existing studies. The empirical study results show that their overall risk perception hinders consumers from regularly engaging in m-shopping. In such cases, it is more transactionprocessing and nancial risks rather than privacy or security concerns that are signicant aspects for
experienced mobile shoppers.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Mobile shopping
Acceptance barriers
Perceived risk
Vendor trust
Smartphone

1. Introduction and delimitation of the underlying m-shopping understanding


Without any doubt, particularly in the smartphone and tablet
era, mobile shopping (m-shopping) has become a ubiquitous service that calls for a multifaceted understanding due to its wideranging context of use (e.g. Schwartz, 2011; Martin, 2013; Park
et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Pantano and Priporas, 2016). In its
most comprehensive sense, m-shopping refers to all the activities
of consumers who use wireless Internet service when shopping
and purchasing via a mobile phone (Ko et al., 2009 p. 671) such as
searching, comparing, buying, or evaluating. Conversely, in the
narrow sense the term simply refers to any monetary transactions
related to purchases of goods or services through internet enabled
mobile phones (Wong et al., 2012, p. 25; Wong et al., 2015). In
addition, m-shopping is considered to be an application bundle of
mobile commerce (Barutu, 2007) and a part of mobile marketing
(Strm et al., 2014; Pantano and Priporas, 2016). In conjunction
with both the literature classication framework by Gro, (2015a)
and the conceptual approach of technological trajectories of Funk
(2007), however, m-shopping topics can be broadly divided into
the three following parts.

 M-shopping stands for an autonomous channel for shopping


n

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: grossmic@gmx.net

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.013
0969-6989/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

and purchasing online via mobile phones (e.g. Gao et al., 2015;
Kim et al., 2015; Haught et al., 2014; San-Martn et al., 2013;
Hung et al., 2012).
M-shopping describes a personal assistant service that helps
consumers to optimise their shopping experiences in and
around the brick-and-mortar shop environment (e.g. Cliquet
et al., 2014; Khare and Rakesh, 2012; Karaatli et al., 2010; Yang,
2010).
M-shopping characterises methods of cross-media interaction
regarding the press, radio, and television in order to create new
feeder services for shopping and purchasing (Funk, 2007).

Hence, m-shopping's multifaceted approach drives the multichannel understanding to omni-channel shopping experiences
and closes the gap between ofine and online environment
(Huang et al., 2016; Beck and Rygl, 2015; Voropanova, 2015). Since
mobile shoppers habitually navigate from one mobile destination
to the next in just a single session, the path to purchase is becoming less dened. The central question in this context is
therefore not whether consumers are using smartphones for
shopping. As a matter of fact, they are doing this worldwide (e.g.
Nielsen, 2013). Nevertheless, they are using smartphones more for
pre- and post-purchasing activities than they are for making mobile purchases (m-purchases) (see e.g. eMarketer, 2016; Holmes
et al., 2014; vor dem Esche and Hennig-Thurau, 2014). It is
therefore interesting to highlight that in this research stream, the
primary focus of current empirical studies is more concerned with

110

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

importance of trust for risk reduction. In the third section, the


research hypotheses and model are presented. The fourth section
presents the research methodology, while in the fth section the
research results are revealed. Finally, the research limitations and
implications for future research are briey discussed.

2. Theoretical background of perceived risk

Fig. 1. Amount of money spent per purchase channel in Germany (gures have
been adapted from HDE (2016), and vor dem Esche and Hennig-Thurau (2014)).

the drivers than with the barriers of m-shopping acceptance, and,


therefore, the current body of existing research regarding m-purchasing suffers from a so-called pro-innovation bias (see e.g.
Gro, (2015a) for a topic-related literature review). This is why in
the present study the term m-shopping will refer to the rst of the
above-mentioned points, characterising it as an independent
shopping channel for purchasing goods and services through the
use of smartphones.
Considering for that purpose the total amount of money spent
per purchase channel in Germany, for instance, the German Digitalisation Consumer Report by von dem Esche and HennigThurau (2014) shows that m-shopping is still a new approach to
purchasing and ordering goods and services for many consumers.
Indeed, the monetary value of mobile data-centric transactions is
still far lower than the value of purchases made by xed-link Internet connection via a desktop computer or laptop (online
shopping). Furthermore, it is even lower than the value of voicebased orders via xed or mobile phone (telephone shopping) and
face-to-face purchases from salesmen, let alone that of the lion's
share of in-store purchases (see Fig. 1 for an overview).
Thus, these facts imply that consumers are still reticent to engage in m-purchasing. Contrarily to online or telephone shopping,
m-shopping dissemination is still suffering with regard to different
technology aspects (e.g. missing well-organised mobile shops, inconvenient and limited screen sise of mobile devices) and to some
consumer concerns regarding safety and security issues, as well as
their low level of condence in mobile platforms (e.g. eMarketer,
2015; vor dem Esche and Hennig-Thurau, 2014; San-Martn et al.,
2013; Lai et al., 2012; Ozok and Wei, 2010). While much is known
about what might be hindering consumers from switching from an
online to a mobile context, there is limited knowledge regarding
those who use their smartphone for m-shopping-related activities
such as information searching or product assessments, but who do
not (regularly) take the mobile path to purchase. Thus, to overcome the shortage of research on m-purchasing barriers, the objective of this paper is twofold: rst, it aims to identify critical
impediments to m-shopping acceptance; and secondly, it aims to
discuss those impediments impact on the continued usage of
smartphones for m-purchasing.
Concentrating on m-shopping barriers, the study contributes to
the literature is therefore remarkable since m-purchases is still
generally in its infancy across the world (Nielsen, 2013) and in
Germany in particular (see e.g. Fig. 1); and, moreover, research on
this topic tends to concentrate more on drivers of m-shopping
than on the impacts of barriers that might be hindering consumers
from more frequently making m-purchases via their smartphone.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. First, the next
section provides a general understanding of acceptance barriers in
terms of what perceived risk means, and then follows with a literature review regarding m-shopping impediments and the

Because empirical research on barriers for m-shopping acceptance is scarce (e.g. Gro, 2015a), a review of the literature is
needed. This chapter starts with a general understanding of perceived risk, and subsequently follows with m-shopping and insight into consumers' risk reduction strategy (in which trust takes
on a key role).
2.1. General understanding
The theory of (perceived) risk, which was introduced to explain
the behaviour of consumers in the decision-making process, has a
long history dating back to the 1960 s (e.g. Bauer, 1960, 1967;
Sheth and Venkatesan, 1968; Bettman, 1973; Taylor, 1974; Peter
and Ryan, 1976; Dowling, 1986). According to Bauer (1960, p. 390),
a consumer's shopping behaviour generally involves risk in the
sense that any action of a consumer will produce consequences
which he cannot anticipate with anything approximating certainty, and some of which at least are likely to be unpleasant.
Thus, risk perception stands for the degree to which a consumer
perceives uncertainties or consequences that come along with
product purchase and usage due to missing and/or inappropriate
information that is needed in advance (Mitchell and McGoldrick,
1996). What is decisive and thus of relevance for this interpretation of risk perception is not so much the real and objective negative consequences that can de facto be experienced; instead, it is
much more those consequences that are seen by the consumer as
negative and that thus have to be regarded as subjective risks in a
specic situation in which the purchase or use of a product is
involved.
Traditionally, the theoretical concept of (perceived) risk is related to consumer behaviour when buying physical products in the
brick-and-mortar environment. In this context, risk is used as a
hypothetical construct, involving various aspects such as nancial,
performance, psychological, physical, social, and time-loss risks
(see e.g. Stone and Grnhaug, 1993; Brooker, 1984; Jacoby and
Kaplan, 1972; Roselius, 1971). Bettman (1973), for example, makes
further distinctions between inherent and handled risks. This
covers the probability of loss arising from circumstances that are
present in the absence of any action taken to manage them (inherent risk) or that can be inuenced by the consumer (handled
risk).
This is also why, for instance, Cox (1967) and Cunningham
(1967) simplistically express the perceived risk as the result of a
function of two dimensions. This involves, rstly, the individual
evaluation of the probability that disadvantageous consequences
will ensue as a result of the purchase and usage of products, and,
secondly, an evaluation of how signicant the uncertain consequences can be considered and set in the relation to the individual importance. This means that the higher the likelihood of a
negative occurrence is in combination with personal signicance,
the higher the negative impact will be upon the consumer, eventually stopping him from buying or using the product. We are
therefore now discussing an acceptance barrier (Ram and Sheth,
1989).
Although the core understanding of risk perception in the literature seems to have remained stable over the time in the way in
which it is associated with negative impacts on purchase

Negative impact on switch intention; as well partly


moderating effects for push factors
Negative impact on use intention
Three single constructs (focusing switching costs, trust concerns, and privacy and Reective
security concerns)
Single constructs (based on psychological concerns)
Reective
Lu and Su (2009)

Martn-Gutirrez et al.
(2012)
Lai et al. (2012)

Yang and Forney (2013)

Taiwan (n 369 online


users)

Negative impact on mobile purchase involvement


Reective
Single constructs (based on functional and psychological concerns)

Reective

Four single constructs (focusing transactions cost, usages problems with mobile
phones, lack of personal and product relations)
Single constructs (based on psychological concerns; anxiety to use)

Spain (n 471 mobile


users)
USA (n 400 online
users)
Spain (n 674
consumers)
Taiwan (n174 students)

Kumar and Mukherjee


(2013)
San-Martn et al. (2013)

Sohn (2014)

Yang et al. (2015)

Reective

Negative impact for cognitive, but not for affective


attitude
Useful as segmentation variables for exploring different mobile shopper types
Negative moderating effects within the model
Reective

Negative impact on use intention


Formative

Multidimensional constructs (with seven single determinants: security, performance, nancial, social, psychological, physical and time-loss risk aspects)
Single constructs (based on security concerns)

Negative impact on shopping extension


Reective
Single constructs (based on privacy and security concerns)

Reective

China (n 462 mobile


shoppers)
China (n 309 mobile
customers)
Germany (n 207
students)
USA (n 289 students)
Gao et al. (2015)

Risk focus and/or determinates


Sample

1
In this respect it is noted that the selected study choice involves only empirical works focusing explicitly on m-shopping as an independent channel for
purchasing. By contrast, thus, studies that put m-shopping on a general level with
understanding of (business-to-consumer) mobile commerce (e.g. Khalifa and Shen,
2008; Wu and Wang, 2005) do not t the scope of the research. This is due to the
fact that such an unspecic viewpoint is more related to the technology and vendor's business model perspective than to the consumer point of view (Barutu,
2007; Balasubramanian et al., 2002). Certainly, for instance, m-shopping,
m-banking, and m-nancial are similar in terms of technological infrastructure,
transactional processing, and/or user interface design. However, for consumer acceptance in general, and for its application and usage context in particular, these
services could not be more different from each other, therefore requiring a specic
topic-related viewpoint to obtain better consumer insight (Cliquet et al., 2014;
Barutu, 2007).

111

Authors of the study

2.3. Risk reduction strategies and the relevance of trust in

Table 1
Topic-relevant SEM studies with focus on m-shopping risk perceptions.

There are different approaches to investigating the perceived


risk and its various aspects in the context of m-shopping, making a
direct comparison difcult. For this reason, Table 1 lists only empirical studies using the structural equation modelling (SEM)
technique1 and, not surprisingly, shows that the perceived risk in
its different forms has, in all cases, a negative impact on the intention to shop via mobile: it negatively impacts the adoption
intention, and even hinders consumers from shopping regularly
and from extending their m-shopping behaviour at all.
In this line of interest, it is furthermore necessary to point out
that the perceived risk is almost exclusively conceptualised around
a single focus. While the majority of current research covers aspects such as privacy and/or security concerns (e.g. Gao et al.,
2015; Yang et al., 2015; Kumar and Mukherjee, 2013) or psychological concerns (e.g. Yang and Forney, 2013; Martn-Gutirrez
et al., 2012; Lu and Su, 2009), for instance, the results drawn from
these studies are limited. This may be why in only a few studies,
such as Lai et al. (2012) and San-Martn et al. (2013), more than
one risk aspect is considered in greater detail. For instance, Lai
et al. (2012) stress that high switching cost, low trust perception,
and privacy and security concerns prevent consumers from
switching to the m-shopping context. Nonetheless, presently only
a single study, conducted by Sohn (2014), conceptualises the perceived risk as a multidimensional construct consisting of seven
determinants: security, performance, nancial, social, psychological, physical and time-loss risk aspects.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that m-shopping involves far
more risks and uncertainties than the examples listed in Table 1
would indicate (e.g. Ferri et al., 2013; Banerjee and Dholakia, 2013;
Ozok and Wei, 2010; Lee and Park, 2006). Due to limited functionality and usability issues, Ozok and Wei (2010) see m-shopping more as a shopping medium complementary to its online
shopping counterpart than as a direct alternative to it. Among
other things, Banerjee and Dholakia (2013) consider the consumers' lack of control over their physical environment and their
Wi-Fi access as a critical usage barrier for m-shopping (handling
risk). Lee and Park (2006) further argue that particularly consumers awareness of shoulder surfers (persons who closely watch
while one shops with one's mobile phone) hinders them from
purchasing via mobile while on the go. However, this additional
choice of discussed studies once more stresses that there are potentially many more factors that might hinder consumers from
regularly engaging in m-shopping activities.

Construct measurement
approach

2.2. M-shopping viewpoint

Single constructs (based on privacy and security concerns)

Main results regarding m-shopping acceptance


behaviour

behaviour, its aspects have changed since Internet transactions


have become popular (e.g. Forsythe et al., 2006; Cases, 2002),
particularly with regard to m-shopping (e.g. Sohn, 2014).

Negative impact on trust, ow and satisfaction

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

112

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

H2
Trust in the
Mobile Vendor
H1

Perceived Risk
Overall
H3

Continued Usage
Intention

H4

Internal Risk
Privacy Risk

H5

Security Risk

H6

Financial Risk

H7

Transaction-processing Risk
External Risk

Fig. 2. Research model with its hypotheses.

m-shopping
In general, when handling risky purchase situations consumers
either consciously or unconsciously follow strategies that allow
them to act in a more optimistic consumption pattern (Bauer,
1960). This is the case when the individual tolerance to risk
reaches a critical level. Then, according to Mitchell and McGoldrick
(1996) in their literature review, two generic approaches for risk
reduction can be distinguished: while one strategy contributes to
increasing the degree of certainty that the purchase will not fail,
the other strategy refers to the reduction of the consequences of
its failure. However, since it is nearly impossible to anticipate any
consequences that may arise with a purchase, let alone change
them, the most common approach involve strategies with which
consumers try to increase the certainty rather than to reduce the
consequences of failure (Cox, 1967; Sheth and Venkatesan, 1968).
Precisely for this reason, consumers tend to seek more information, follow family and close friends (word-of-mouth) recommendations, use well-known brands, respect company's image and reputation, value assurances, warranties and money-back
guarantees, and/or take their past experience into account, to
mention just a few examples of common risk handling tactics (see
e.g. Hawes and Lumpkin (1986); Mitchell and McGoldrick (1996)
for more examples; or Cases (2002) and Tan (1999) for examples
in the digital age). However, there is nevertheless a common
thread among all of consumers risk reduction strategies: trust is
involved (e.g. Yang et al., 2015).
Thus, contrarily to risk-related research, research into
m-shopping is far more inuenced by pertinent aspects related to
consumer trust due to its inherent risk absorption function. For
example, early research shows that condence in m-shopping is
positively affected by information richness (Chen and Lan, 2014),
mobile attributes (Dmour et al., 2014), shop design elements (Wu
and Wang, 2006), integration and consistency across multi-channel networks (Yang et al., 2015), conrmation of expectation
(Hung et al., 2012), brand impact (Amoroso, 2013), structural assurance, contextual and ubiquitous characteristics (Zhou, 2013),
and technological quality regarding system, information, and service (Gao et al., 2015). All of these studies verify that consumers
condence in m-shopping is not only positively correlated with
vendor satisfaction (San-Martn and Lpez-Cataln, 2013; Hung
et al., 2012), loyalty, and forcing the inertness to vendor change
(Amoroso, 2013), but also inuences consumers decision to engage
in m-shopping (e.g. Hung et al., 2012; Zhou, 2013; Chen and Lan,
2014) since trust additionally drives the perceived benets of
m-shopping (Yang et al., 2015). Thus, trust drives m-shopping
behaviour, while uncertainty and risk prevent it.
However, because of its novelty, condence in m-shopping has
still not reached the same level as it has in online shopping
(Holmes et al., 2014), therefore requiring much more investigation
especially with respect to consumers perception of risk.

3. Conceptual model
3.1. Continued usage intention
In this study, consumers' intention to continue to engage in
m-shopping is the explanatory variable. Building on previous research on m-shopping acceptance (Gao et al., 2015; Dmour et al.,
2014; Schramm-Klein and Wagner, 2014; Hung et al., 2012), consumers' continuance intention refers to the post-purchase stage, in
which the hypothesis suggests that consumers re-engage in
m-shopping activities. This assumption is primarily derived from
Bhattacherjee (2001) expectation-disconrmation model, which
stresses that a consumer's consumption experience might change
the expectation that (s)he will have regarding m-shopping and,
thus, (s)he might continue or discontinue m-shopping.
Accordingly, for example, when the expectations in terms of
m-shopping trustworthiness, usefulness, and/or enjoyment are
fullled, it is highly likely that consumers will continue rather
than discontinue m-shopping (Bhattacherjee, 2001; Yang et al.,
2015). The same might be applied to any uncertainties as long as
their degree of perceived risk is acceptable for consumers (Gao
et al., 2015) and vendors are considered to be trustworthy (SanMartn and Lpez-Cataln, 2013). Based on this understanding,
vendor trust and risk perception are described in more detail below. The underlying research model, including the relationship
between the constructs used, is visualised in Fig. 2.
Contrarily to previous research on m-shopping (e.g. Yang et al.,
2015; Lai et al., 2012), the present study evaluates the trust-risk
relationship by conducting a comparative analysis of two mobile
vendors. For both vendors, individual trust perception and (multifaceted) risk perception are considered to the same extent for
explaining consumers intention; valuable insight regarding crossvendor risk determinates can be thus provided for both consumer
behaviour and managerial action. This differs from any existing
research on m-shopping acceptance, in which only a single vendor
viewpoint with respect to a single risk perspective is preferred.
3.2. Trust in the mobile vendor (m-vendor)
The need for trust only arises in a risky situation' (Mayer et al.,
1995, p. 711). Because m-shopping involves many potential risks
for consumers (see e.g. Table 1 again), trust, and in particular the
condence in the m-vendor, plays an outstandingly important role
in the digital environment (Yang et al., 2015; Holmes et al., 2014;
San-Martn and Lpez-Cataln, 2013; Ferri et al., 2013; Hung et al.,
2012). According to McKnight et al. (2002), trust in the m-vendor
comprises two aspects (see also Zhou, 2013 and Gao et al., 2015,
for more information): on the one hand, there are the trusting
beliefs (e.g. ability, integrity, and benevolence) that mobile shoppers associate with m-vendors; and, on the other hand, there is
the trusting intention that is related to the consumers willingness
to engage in a business relationship with m-vendors by providing
personal information, following the m-vendor's advice, or making
purchases and transferring money directly via smartphone.
Based upon this causal relationship, the trusting beliefs are
therefore considered as the main drivers, and, moreover, as the
reason why the condence in m-vendors can be transferred to the
vendor-branded products, services, technologies, and verse vice
(Yang, 2015). Thus, trust is an integral part of consumers' risk reduction strategies and drives m-shopping acceptance to a higher
level. This is also why previous empirical studies show that trust
not only reduces uncertainty, the concern about risks, and the
social complexity with which a consumer is normally faced in the
m-shopping environment, but also helps consumers to engage in
this context in a more optimistic manner. It is therefore argued
that a high level of m-vendor trust will trigger more m-purchases,

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

while a lack of trust will cause the exact opposite (Gao et al., 2015;
Yang et al., 2015; Kumar and Mukherjee, 2013; Zhou, 2013; SanMartn and Lpez-Cataln, 2013; Lai et al., 2012). Therefore, in
accordance with the literature, the following two hypotheses are
proposed.
H1:. condence in an m-vendor has a positive inuence on consumers' intention to continue to engage in m-shopping (complexity reduction function).
H2:. condence in an m-vendor has a negative inuence on consumers' risk perception in m-shopping (risk absorption function).
3.3. Risk perceptions and their determinates
As previously mentioned, risk generally acts as an inhibitor for
m-shopping acceptance. It consists of many aspects and is therefore difcult to conceptualise in all of its critical aspects, not to
mention the empirical approach for measuring it. However, based
on the existing literature listed in Table 1, the following unspecied (overall) risk hypothesis can generally be postulated.
H3:. the overall perceived risk has a negative inuence on consumers' intention to continue to engage in m-shopping.
Succeeding Sohn (2014)'s conceptual formative approach to
m-shopping risk association, the present study furthermore prefers a multidimensional (formative) risk construct specication
consisting of four aspects: privacy risk, security risk, nical risk,
and transaction-processing risk.
Considering the (mobile) Internet as a shopping channel, security and privacy risks represent two critical barriers that hinder
the consumer from engaging in an optimistic manner, in particular
when it comes to m-purchases (Ferri et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2013;
Lai et al., 2012; Kleijnen et al., 2007; Vrechopoulos et al., 2003;
Miyazaki and Fernandez, 2001). Privacy concerns in m-shopping
refer to the extent to which consumers believe that they have
control over the use of their personal information when storing,
tracking, or sharing these information with others, regardless of
time and circumstances (Khalifa and Shen, 2008; Udo, 2001). On
the other hand, security concerns in m-shopping refer to the safety
of exchanged information (Khalifa and Shen, 2008). This includes,
in particular, the protection of data against accidental or intentional disclosure to unauthorised persons, or unauthorised modications or destruction (Udo, 2001, p. 165). Both risk aspects are
generally regarded as critical barriers to m-shopping acceptance
across the world (Munich Cycle, 2011). Thus, a lack of condence
in the privacy and security of mobile transactions performed by
using smartphones for marking purchases will consequently prevent the consumer from m-shopping on a regular basis (Gao et al.,
2015; Lai et al., 2012). Hence, the following hypotheses can be
formulated.

never delivered or are received in an undesirable condition (Ferri


et al., 2013; Kleijnen et al., 2007). Hence, the following hypothesis
is postulated.
H6:. nancial risk has a negative inuence on consumers' intention to continue to engage in m-shopping.
Finally, the transaction-processing risk involves errors of mobile ordering and payment processes while m-shopping via
smartphones. M-shopping is an on-the-go shopping experience in
which consumers normally move around using their smartphone,
while their mobile data connection moves from one data cell to
the next (handover). Even though this process happens reliably
the vast majority of the time, it is nevertheless less stable and
causes more transaction errors than a xed Internet connection,
which is characterised by online shopping via a desktop computer
or laptop (Yang et al., 2015; Ferri et al., 2013; Wong et al., 2012;
Kleijnen et al., 2007). Considering the whole path to purchase, the
transaction-processing risk seems to be most critical in situations
in which the payment transaction is interrupted due to unstable or
limited mobile Internet access. This may induce the consumer to
avoid making m-purchases on the go, and, therefore, the following
hypothesis is postulated.
H7:. transaction-processing risk has a negative inuence on consumers intention to continue to engage in m-shopping.
Finally, it should be noted that, according to Riemer and Klein
(2001), risk can be divided into internal and external risks. Internal
risk refers to the vendor-customer relationship and thus represents uncertainties that are derived from the interaction within
the business relationship, whereas external risk refers to uncertainties regarding the technological medium inherent to the
m-shopping system. Thus, it is expected that, particularly to reduce internal risk in m-shopping, the consumer selects trusted
vendors.

4. Context and methodological approach


4.1. Sample choice and description
In order to analyse the depicted triangle relationship of risktrust-intention depicted in Fig. 2, an online survey was conducted
focusing on versed mobile buyers (people who have already used
their smartphones for purchasing goods or services either on
Amazon or eBay online marketplace). Amazon and eBay were
chosen as predestined trustful m-vendors for the following two
reasons.

 Firstly, both vendors are currently one of the two largest (mo-

H4:. privacy risk has a negative inuence on consumers intention


to continue to engage in m-shopping.
H5:. security risk has a negative inuence on consumers intention
to continue to engage in m-shopping.
Closely connected with privacy and security concerns are nancial loss concerns, which regard the potential loss of money
arising from additional handling and shipping costs for deliveries
or postal fees for returns (Forsythe et al., 2006). Besides any service- and product-related costs, however, m-shopping further requires the right equipment and a broadband mobile Internet access, which normally involves charges based on the data volume
transferred (Wu and Wong, 2005; Ko et al., 2009; Lai et al., 2012;
Sohn, 2014). Moreover, nancial risk also includes fraud, dubious
payment modalities, and any cases in which prepaid products are

113

bile) online retail vendors in Germany and, therefore, the consumers perception of the vendor's credibility would not be
signicantly inuenced by external aspects since, for instance,
Jarvenpaa et al. (2000) nd that the credibility perception of the
online vendor is critically affected by their perception regarding
store sise and reputation.
Secondly, the business models of both vendors are similar to
each other in that they both offer a regulated marketplace of
supply and demand (e.g. in terms of payment or delivery conditions). Thus, both marketplaces not only allow consumers to
make purchases directly from retail vendors (business-to-consumer relationship), but also provide a regulated platform
where consumers are able to offer and sell goods or services to
other consumers (consumer-to-consumer relationship).
Overall, the survey addressed 300 mobile buyers drawn from a

114

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

Table 2
Demographic characteristics of both data samples.
Criteria

Gender
Male
Female

Age
r 19 years
2029 years
3039 years
4049 years
Z 50 years
Education
School degree
(Under-)graduate
degree
Other degrees
Occupation
Student
Employee
Self-employed
Unemployed
Retired
Other/no answer

Amazon shopper sample (n 150)

Table 3
Constructs and corresponding items used for the research model.
eBay shopper sample
(n 150)

79 (52.7%)
71 (47.3%)

80 (53.3%)
70 (46.7%)

35.48 years
(S.D.11.28 years)
7 (4.7%)
46 (30.7%)
45 (30.0%)
33 (22.0%)
19 (12.7%)

35.93 years
(S.D. 11.33 years)
8 (5.3%)
43 (28.7%)
41 (27.3%)
38 (25.3%)
20 (13.3%)

101 (67.3%)
42 (28.0%)

120 (74.0%)
37 (22.7%)

7 (4.7%)

3 (3.3%)

23 (15.3%)
105 (70.0%)
5 (3.3%)
3 (2.0%)
4 (2.7%)
10 (6.7%)

22 (14.7%)
93 (62.0%)
5 (3.3%)
13 (8.7%)
4 (2.7%)
13 (8.6%)

purchased consumer panel. Table 2 rst provides an overview of


each sample demographic. Because an extra conducted chi-square
test for variance at a given signicance level (p-value r0.05) could
not identify any statistical differences across both data sample
demographics, both samples can be considered as more or less
equal to each other regarding their listed demographics.
4.2. Measures and analytic approach
Each measured construct used for the conceptual model depicted in Fig. 2 consisted of multiple items that were adapted from
previous literature to ensure content validity. Due to differences in
the linguistic usage between English and German, a slight language modication was required for clarity and understandability.
All items were based on a seven-point Likert scale and were pretested, but using different anchor points, as given in Table 3.
While both constructs Vendor Trust and Continued Usage
Intention were specied in a reective way, the Perceived Risk
construct was formatively specied. The specication of different
constructs was founded on the aforementioned theoretical approach, in which the risk construct is expressed by different single
aspects. Consequently, the measurement errors in a formative
construct are based on the items, whereas in a reective approach
the measurement errors are related to the construct (for a more
detailed discussion regarding the differences, see Diamantopoulos,
1999; Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; and Coltman et al.,
2008, for example).
Once both construct specications were used together in one
and the same model, and the research scope had more of an explanatory than a conrmatory focus, the partial least squares
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach was preferentially applied (Henseler et al., 2009; Ringle et al., 2012; Hair
et al., 2014). In particular, the SmartPLS software (version 3.2.3)
was used here for the empirical analysis (Ringle et al., 2015).
Benets of SmartPLS are that it requires few assumptions regarding the distribution of the variables, works well under conditions of small sample sise, and, above all, provides a robust approach for a multi-group analysis (Hair et al., 2014).
Assessing the results obtained by SmartPLS, a two-step analysis

Constructs and scale items


Continued Usage Intentiona (Bhattacherjee, 2001; Hung et al., 2012;
Schramm-Klein and Wagner, 2014; Gro, 2015b; Gao et al., 2015)
CUI_1
Given the chance, I intend to shop with my smartphone.
CUI_2
I expect my mobile shopping to continue in the future.
CUI_3
In the future, I intend to shop more with my smartphone than
I do today.
CUI_4
I will recommend mobile shopping to others.
Trust in the mobile vendora (Gefen et al., 2003; Gro, 2015b)
Based on my experience with [Amazon; eBay] in the past, I
think that the vendor
TR_1
TR_2
TR_3
TR_4
TR_5
TR_6

is honest.
is trustworthy.
provides good customer services.
keeps their promises and commitments.
cares about their customers and takes their concerns
seriously.
keeps customers interests in mind.

Perceived Riskb,c (Kleijnen et al., 2007; Khalifa and Shen, 2008; Martn-Gutirrez et al., 2012; Gao et al., 2015)
How high do you rate the current risk that mobile shopping

RK_1
RK_2
RK_3
RK_4
RK_PH

puts your privacy at risk.


causes problems to your personal data breach of security
and protection.
results in nancial loss for you.
includes transactional-processing errors which might negatively inuence your order and payment processing.
Considering all risks, how risky is m-shopping in your
opinion?

a
Sven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
b
Sven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high) for risk
facets RK_1 to RK_4.
c
Sven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely harmless) to 7 (very
risky) for overall risk perception PK_PH.

approach is recommended: while in the rst step the (reective


and formative) measurement models are examined separately to
test their reliability and validity, in the second step the structure
model is examined to test the hypothesis, including the comparison of the multi-group analysis (Henseler et al., 2009; Hair et al.,
2012; Wong, 2013).

5. Research model results


5.1. Evaluation of the measurement models
Considering rst the assessment for the reective construct
specication, both data samples regarding the constructs Vendor
Trust and Continued Usage Intention provide satised criteria in
terms of their factor loadings, composite reliability, Cronbach's
alpha, and average variance extracted (AVE) (see Table 4). All factor
loadings not only consistently exceed the threshold of 0.7, but are
also highly signicant (p 40.001), thus revealing good indicator
reliability (Hair et al., 2012; 2014). The internal consistency reliability is also supported since the values for both criteria of composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha clearly exceed the recommended threshold of 0.7. The same applies to the convergent
validity, because the AVE for each reective construct specication
is above the suggested threshold of 0.5 across both data samples.
Finally, but not specially listed in Table 4, both data samples provide sufcient discriminant validity. Not only are the square roots
of all AVE scores signicantly larger than any other correlation
coefcients among all constructs, but the loadings of all indicators

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

115

Table 4
Verication of the reective measurement models.
Construct

Vendor Trust
TR_1
TR_2
TR_3
TR_4
TR_5
TR_6

Amazon sample (n150) 4

eBay sample (n 150)

Factor loadings (t-valuea)

CRb

AVEd

Factor loadings (t-valuea)

CRb

AVEd

0.850 (22.447)
0.886 (30.450)
0.869 (27.058)
0.912 (51.208)
0.908 (48.468)
0.903 (41.709)

0.957

0.947

0.789

0.889 (28.476)
0.938 (60.234)
0.927 (47.189)
0.918 (43.668)
0.918 (56.817)
0.907 (41.734)

0.969

0.840

0.962

0.914

0.876

0.729

0792 (12.468)
0.875 (26.494)
0.871 (25.159)
0.913 (37.404)

0.921

0.889

0.746

Continued usage intention


CUI_1
0.823 (19.837)
CUI_2
0.887 (37.963)
CUI_3
0.794 (13.218)
CUI_4
0.906 (41.041)
a

Based on the bootstrap re-sampling procedure with 5000 samples.


CR Composite reliability.
Cronbach's Alpha.
d
AVE Average variance extracted.
b
c

are higher than all of their cross-loadings as well (Hair et al., 2012;
2014).
When assessing the validation for the formative specied risk
construct, a different validation approach is required. Therefore,
the outer weights, the multicollinearity, and the convergent validity are considered (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001;
Wong, 2013). This is why, in addition to the four risk indicators
(RK_1 to RK_4), a phantom variable (RK_PH, see in Table 3) was
evaluated in order to build up a two-component construct model,
as recommended by Wong (2013) and given in Fig. 3. The four risk
indicators were specied here in a formative pattern, and the
phantom variable was specied then in a reective pattern (Wong,
2013).
Based on this approach, the analysis results in Table 5 present
the criteria that are more or less fullled for both data samples.
The table demonstrates that neither of the data samples is signicantly affected by multicollinearity problems, because the values of the variance inuence factor (VIFo5) for all risk indictors,
and both values of the condition index for the whole construct
(CIo 30) are certainly below the recommended threshold (Hair
et al., 2012). With respect to the model's outer weight, it can
furthermore be indicated that different risk indictors are signicant across both samples. While for the Amazon shoppers the
security risk in particular does not seem to be of importance, the
same can be said of the transaction-processing risk for the eBay
shoppers.
In order to establish the convergent validity, the correlation
(path coefcient) between the latent variables within the twocomponent construct model has to be taken into account. Although in both cases the respective correlations (see Table 6 for
the Amazon and eBay shopper sample) do not exceed the
threshold value of 0.8 recommended by Wong (2013), these are
nevertheless highly signicant correlations and cause an R2 above
0.5 in both sample cases, nally providing satisfactory criteria for
the formative measurement model.
Tables 5,6 only represent the analysis results derived from the
two-component construct model (as given in Fig. 3) to validate
the formative measurement approach for each data sample separately. Thus, to shed light on the whole research model depicted in
Fig. 2, the following assessments have to be considered in detail.

RK_1
RK_2
RK_3

Latent Variable
(formative)

RK_4

Exogenous latent variables

0.8

Latent Variable
(reflective)

RK_PH

Endogenous latent variables

Fig. 3. Two-component construct model.

5.2. Evaluation of the structure model and hypotheses testing


The results of the assessment of the structure model relationship are presented in Table 7. In particular, to assess hypotheses 1
3, only the data criteria obtained for the path coefcients are of
relevant interest, whereas for assessing hypotheses 47, the data
criteria referring to the outer weights are relevant.
Regarding the Amazon shopper, the data results suggest that
trust in the vendor not only has a signicantly positive effect on
the consumers' continued usage intention with regard to
m-shopping (Amazon 0.282, p o0.01), but also helps to signicantly reduce the uncertainty with which a consumer is faced
while m-shopping (Amazon  0.171, p o0.05), supporting here
H1 and H2.
By contrast, for the eBay shopper vendor trust also has a signicantly positive effect on the consumers continued usage intention with regard to m-shopping (eBay 0.333, p o0.01), but
does not help to reduce any uncertainty (eBay  0.072,
p 0.193); this supports H1, but not H2. Nevertheless, for both
data samples the overall risk perception is still a critical barrier to
the consumers continued usage intention regarding m-shopping
(Amazon  0.310, p o0.01 vs. eBay  0.176, po 0.05), which
hinders the consumer from regularly engaging in m-shopping.
This supports H3 in both cases.
Next, the following differences can be mentioned with regard
to the outer weights of the risk constructs across both samples:
the perception of risk constructs for the Amazon shoppers is critically affected by aspects of the transaction-processing risk
( 0.508, po 0.05), followed more or less by privacy risk
( 0.367, p o0.1) and nancial risk ( 0.282, p o0.1) concerns.
On the other hand, because the security risk perception ( 0.046,
p 0.408) does not seem to be relevant, only hypotheses H4, H6,
and nd empirical support, at least marginally signicant at
po 0.10, but not H5. Regarding the eBay shoppers, their risk perceptions are mostly formed by transaction-processing risk
( 0.758, p o0.01) and slightly affected by nancial risk issues

116

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

Table 5
Verication of the formative measurement models.
Amazon sample (n150)

eBay sample (n 150)

Risk construct indicates

Indicator Weights

t-valuea

VIFb

RK_1
RK_2
RK_3
RK_4

0.548***
0.097
0.332***
0.220***

6.377
1.038
4.214
2.482

2.123
1.926
1.611
1.683

(Privacy risk)
(Security risk)
(Financial risk)
(Transactional risk)

CIc

Indicator Weights

t-valuea

0.458***
0.187*
0.462***
0.111

12.666

3.210
1.288
4.419
0.957

VIFb

CIc

1.937
1.791
1.619
1.412

13.036

**p o 0.05;
a

Results based on the bootstrap re-sampling procedure with 5000 samples.


VIF Variance ination factor.
c
CI Condition index.
*
p o 0.1.
***
p o 0.01 (one-sided).
b

6. Discussion and conclusion

Table 6
Results for convergent validity testing.

6.1. Summary
Vendor

Path coefcient

t-valuea

R2

Amazon
eBay

0.742***
0.709***

11.063
16.719

0.550
0.503

Motivated by the growing importance of m-shopping systems


and by the lack of relevant literature pertaining to potential impediments to m-purchasing, the present study focused on the
impact of vendor trust and risk perception in order to predict the
continued usage intention regarding m-shopping. To this end, an
online survey involving 300 consumers experienced in m-purchasing was conducted, and the data samples were divided into
two equally numbered samples, comprising Amazon and eBay
shoppers, to uncover any sample differences.
The provided descriptive and inferential statistics analysis for
both data samples leads to the conclusion that both Amazon and
eBay shoppers are very similar to one another. Moreover, trust in
the m-vendor, particularly in the marketplace, motivates
m-shopping acceptance. M-vendor trust not only facilitates consumers' intention to continue to use m-shopping, but also helps
(here more for Amazon shoppers than for eBay shoppers) to reduce uncertainty with which consumers might be faced while
shopping via their smartphones. Thus, the ndings suggest that,
for both groups, condence in an m-vendor has two main functions: (1) it decreases uncertainty and risk that consumers normally face in the m-shopping context (risk absorption function),
and (2) it motivates consumers to re-engage in m-shopping activities (complexity reduction function).

Results based on the bootstrap re-sampling procedure with 5000 samples.


p o 0.01 (one-sided).

***

( 0.479, po 0.1), which only supports H6 and H7 in this case,


but not H4 and H5.
Finally, with respect to the multi-group analysis (MGA) results
in Table 7, obtained using Henseler's (2012) PLS-MGA approach,
there are indeed no statistical differences across both data samples
regarding the path coefcients as well as the construct weights
comparison. It should be noted for reasons of comprehensibility
that Henseler's (2012) PLS-SEM approach is a non-parametric
signicance test that is based on the bootstrap output, with which
the bootstrap estimates of the eBay group sample were compared
with each bootstrap estimate of the Amazon group sample. Following the one-sided hypothesis testing method, the result is at
least marginally signicant at the 10% level (p o0.10 or p 40.90)
(Sarstedt et al., 2011; Henseler et al., 2009); but this is here, in
general, not supported.

Table 7
Results of hypotheses testing.
Amazon sample (n 150)
Hypotheses and path

Path coefcient
***

H1:
TR 4 CUI
0.282
H3:
RISK (overall) 4 CUI
0.310***
H2:
TR 4 RISK (overall)
0.171**
Hypotheses and weights
Construct weights
H4:
RK_1 (Privacy risk)
0.367*
H5:
RK_2 (Security risk)
0.046
H6:
RK_3 (Financial risk)
0.282*
H7:
RK_4 (Transactional risk)
0.508**
***

p o 0.01 (one-sided).
po 0.05.
*
p o 0.1.
a
Results based on the bootstrap re-sampling procedure with 5000 samples.
b
MGA Multi-Group Analysis.
**

t-valuea
2.917
3.305
1.992
t-valuea
1.443
0.232
1.316
2.161

MGA2

eBay sample (n 150)


Rb
0.206
0.129

Path coefcient
***

0.333
0.176**
0.072
Construct weights
0.147
0.365
0.479*
0.758***

t-valuea

Rb

4.394
2.115
0.867
t-valuea
0.399
1.143
1.527
2.492

0.150

0.662
0.856
0.790
P
0.302
0.142
0.680
0.731

0.105

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

Besides this relationship, the study results also conrm the


assumption that consumers select m-vendors carefully, although
they suggest that internal risk issues (e.g. privacy risk, security
risk, and nancial risk) are of minor importance, becoming only
marginally signicant at p o0.10 for both data samples. On the
other hand, however, the results indicate that external risks that
are an inherent part of the m-shopping system, such as the
transaction-processing risk, are the most critical usage barrier for
both data samples.
6.2. Theoretical and managerial implications
From a theoretical perspective, the ndings of this study support statistical relevance for both the research model in general
and the formative specied risk construct in particular, conrming
the underlying theoretical assumptions. Contrarily to previous
research, this study contributes to the body of existing literature
by applying a formative risk specication, allowing besides the
general (negative) impact on consumers continued intention to
purchase mobile, detailed insight into several relevant risk aspects
as well. This study makes the distinction between internal and
external risk, and the results clearly indicate that external risks are
more critical than internal risks. This is grounded in the fact that
internal risk relates to the vendor-customer relationship (Riemer
and Klein, 2001) and that, as an common risk handling tactic,
consumers therefore prefer to choose m-vendors in whom they
have condence. Nevertheless, since only the (external) transaction-processing risk is regarded as a critical usage barrier, the results suggest that other crucial internal and/or external barriers
exist that need to be identied.
Besides any theoretical implications, some implications for
managers can be extracted from the study ndings to push consumers' acceptance to a higher level. Improvements are required
in order to increase m-shopping acceptance and to encourage the
consumers' intention to purchase more regularly on Amazon and
eBay via smartphone. Above all, technical improvements are
highly recommended to reduce transactional processing errors
caused by unstable Internet connection and dead spots. Here, for
instance, a full coverage of (mobile) Internet access might be
achieved through a seamless combination of mobile and xed-link
networks. Consumers are used to having a stable mobile data
network connection while m-shopping outside of buildings, but
when they are underground using public transport or inside brickand-mortar shops and in shopping centres, the mobile data connection is frequently interrupted or can be lost.
Hence, an automatic handover from mobile and xed-link
networks (e.g. Wi-Fi spots may be available around such dead
spots) are considered to be useful, facilitating a seamless
m-shopping experience. Particular in Germany, this is currently
not given due to the so-called provider liability law, which makes
private as well as commercial hotspot providers accountable for
any users' activity, and, therefore, both types of providers have
avoided for providing free Wi-Fi access to the public. However,
according to a recent announcement made by the German government, an amendment has recently been adopted that will
abolish the provider liability law and thus open the path to more
seamless networking for both mobile and xed-link networks. A
seamless m-shopping experience will thus become a reality. These
improvements, however, should then be made while keeping
privacy and security issue concerns in mind, and while avoiding
corrupt and fraudulent activities that could cause nancial losses
for consumers.
6.3. Limitations and outlook for future research
Due to the triangle relationship involving the constructs

117

Vendor Trust, Continued Usage Intention, and Risk Perception,


the results drawn from the research model are limited. Subsequent
studies should therefore not only extend the research model with
other constructs that might be of interest in order to strengthen
the explanatory power, but should also more elaborately discuss
the risk perspective and its single aspects. For this aspect, the
theoretical section of this paper (see Section 2.2 again) provides a
useful basis.
A further limitation that offers opportunities for follow-up research arises from the fact that for this study only two selected
retail vendors for m-shopping were taken into account. Both
vendors would be just as successful with their prospering business
models if they had not focused on consumer-relevant acceptance
criteria such as trust. Consequently, it might be of great value to
know how the underlying study results regarding Amazon and
eBay would be different in comparison to smaller or maybe relatively new companies such as start-ups.
In any case, one should bear in mind that m-shopping research
is still in the infancy stage, and therefore this study provides only
momentary insight into potential m-shopping impediments,
which might quickly become obsolete. This is why long-term research might yield useful insight when considering or comparing
drivers and barriers of m-shopping acceptance over time.

References
Amoroso, D.L., 2013. The importance of institution-based trust in mobile adoption
with online shopping application. Int. J. Technol. Diffus. 4 (4), 126.
Balasubramanian, S., Peterson, R.A., Jarvenpaa, S.L., 2002. Exploring the implications
of m-commerce for markets and marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 30 (4), 348361.
Banerjee, S., Dholakia, R.R., 2013. Situated or ubiquitous? A segmentation of mobile
E-shoppers. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 11 (5), 530557.
Bauer, R.A., 1960. Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: Hancock, R.S. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 43rd National Conference of the American Marketing Association on Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, Chicago, USA, June 1517,
pp. 389398.
Bauer, R.A., 1967. Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: Cox, D.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking
and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Harvard Business School,
Bosten, pp. 2333.
Barutu, S., 2007. Attitudes towards mobile marketing tools: a study of turkish
consumers. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 16 (1), 2638.
Beck, N., Rygl, D., 2015. Categorization of multiple channel retailing in multi-, cross, and omni-channel retailing for retailers and retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
27 (6), 170178.
Bettman, J.R., 1973. Perceived risk and its components: a model and empirical test.
J. Mark. Res. 10 (5), 184190.
Bhattacherjee, A., 2001. Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-conrmation model. MIS Q. 25 (3), 351370.
Brooker, P., 1984. An assessment of an expanded measure of perceived risk. Adv.
Consum. Res. 11 (1), 439441.
Cases, A.-S., 2002. Perceived risk and risk-reduction strategies in Internet shopping.
Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 12 (4), 375394.
Chen, Y.-F., Lan, Y.-C., 2014. An empirical study of the factors affecting mobile
shopping in Taiwan. Int. J. Technol. Hum. Interact. 10 (1), 1930.
Chen, J.Q., Zhang, R., Lee, J., 2013. A cross-culture empirical study of m-commerce
privacy concerns. J. Internet Commer. 12 (4), 348364.
Cliquet, G., Picot-Coupey, K., Hur, E., Gahinet, M.-C., 2014. Shopping with a
smartphone: a French-Japanese perspective. Mark. ZFP J. Res. Manag. 36 (2),
96106.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T.M., Midgley, D.F., Veniak, S., 2008. Formative versus reective measurement models: two applications of formative measurement. J.
Bus. Res. 61 (12), 12501262.
Cox, D.F., 1967. Risk handling in consumer behavior an intensive study of two
cases. In: Cox, D.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer
Behavior. Harvard Business School, Bosten, pp. 3481.
Cunningham, S., 1967. The major dimensions of perceived risk. In: Cox, D.F. (Ed.),
Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Harvard Business
School, Bosten, pp. 82108.
Diamantopoulos, S., 1999. Viewpoint export performance measurement: reective versus formative indicators. Int. Mark. Rev. 16 (6), 444457.
Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H.M., 2001. Index construction with formative
indicators: an alternative in scale development. J. Mark. Res. 38 (2), 269277.
Dmour, H.A., Alshurideh, M., Shishan, F., 2014. The inuence of mobile application
quality and attributes on the continuance intention of mobile shopping. Life Sci.
J. 11 (10), 172181.
Dowling, G.R., 1986. Perceived risk: the concept and its measurement. Psychol.
Mark. 3 (3), 193210.
eMarketer, 2015. Why mobile shopping remains an upper-funnel affair (Online).
Available from: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Why-Mobile-Shopping-Re

118

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

mains-Upper-Funnel-Affair/1012661 (retrieved July 16).


eMarketer, 2016. Most digital buyers will make purchases via a smartphone by
2017 (Online). Available from: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Most-Digi
tal-Buyers-Will-Make-Purchases-via-Smartphone-by-2017/1013590 (retrieved
July 16).
Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., Guzzo, T., 2013. Factors determining mobile shopping. A theoretical model of mobile commerce acceptance. Int. J. Inf. Process. Manag. 4 (7),
89101.
Forsythe, S., Liu, C., Shannon, D., Gardner, L.C., 2006. Development of a scale to
measure the perceived benets and risks of online shopping. J. Interact. Mark.
20 (2), 5575.
Funk, J.L., 2007. The future of mobile shopping: the interaction between lead users
and technological trajectories in the japanese market. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 74 (3), 341356.
Gao, L., Waechter, K.A., Bai, X., 2015. Understanding consumers' continuance intention towards mobile purchase: a theoretical framework and empirical study
a case of China. Comput. Hum. Behav. 53 (12), 249262.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, E.W., 2003. Trust and TAM in online shopping: an
integrated model. MIS Q. 27 (1), 5190.
Gro, M., 2015a. Mobile shopping: a classication framework and literature review.
Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 43 (3), 221241.
Gro, M., 2015b. Exploring the Acceptance of Technology for Mobile Shopping: An
Empirical Investigation among Smartphone Users. Int. Rev. Retail, Distrib.
Consum. Res. 25 (3), 215235.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A., 2012. An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J.
Acad. Mark. Sci. 40 (3), 414433.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2014. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Haught, M.J., Wei, R., Xuerui, Y., Zhang, J., 2014. Understanding the psychology of
mobile phone use and mobile shopping of the 1990s Cohort in China: a lifestyle
approach. Int. J. Online Mark. 4 (3), 6884.
Hawes, J.M., Lumpkin, J.R., 1986. Perceived risk and the selection of a retail patronage mode. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 14 (4), 3742.
HDE, 2016. Umsatzentwicklung im Einzelhandel (Online). Available from: http://
www.einzelhandel.de/index.php/presse/zahlenfaktengraken/item/110189-um
satzentwicklungimeinzelhandel (retrieved July 16).
Henseler, J., 2012. PLS-MGA: a non-parametric approach to partial least squaresbased multi-group analysis. In: Gaul, W.A., Geyer-Schulz, A., Schmidt-Thieme,
L., Kunze, J. (Eds.), Challenges at the Interface of Data Analysis, Computer Science, and Optimization. Springer, Heidelberg/Berlin, pp. 495501.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R., 2009. The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing. In: Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N. (Eds.),
Advances in International Marketing. Emerald, Bingley, pp. 277320.
Holmes, A., Byrne, A., Rowley, J., 2014. Mobile shopping behaviour: insights into
attitudes, shop-ping process involvement and location. Int. J. Retail Distrib.
Manag. 42 (1), 2539.
Huang, L., Lu, X., Ba, S., 2016. An empirical study of the cross-channel between web
and mobile shopping channels. Inf. Manag. 53 (2), 265278.
Hung, M.-C., Yang, S.-T., Hsieh, T.-C., 2012. An examination of the determinants of
mobile shopping continuance. Int. J. Electron. Bus. Manag. 10 (1), 2937.
Jacoby, J., Kaplan, L.B., 1972. The Components of perceived risk, In: Venkatesan, M.
(Ed.): Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer
Research, Association for Consumer Research, College Park, USA, pp. 382393.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., Vitale, M., 2000. Consumer trust in an internet store.
Inf. Technol. Manag. 1 (1&2), 4571.
Karaatli, G., Ma, J., Suntornpithug, N., 2010. Investigating mobile services' impact on
consumer shopping experience and consumer decision-making. Int. J. Mob.
Mark. 5 (2), 7586.
Khalifa, M., Shen, K.N., 2008. Explaining the adoption of transactional B2C mobile
commerce. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 21 (2), 110124.
Khare, A., Rakesh, S., 2012. Mobile marketing in indian retail: a preliminary investigation of relationship and promotional endeavours through short message
service. Int. J. Bus. Compet. Growth 2 (2), 110128.
Kim, C., Li, W., Kim, D.J., 2015. An empirical analysis of factors inuencing
M-shopping use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 31 (12), 974994.
Kleijnen, M., Ruyter, K. de, Wetzels, M., 2007. An assessment of value creation in
mobile service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness. J. Retail.
83 (1), 3346.
Ko, E., Kim, E.Y., Lee, E.K., 2009. Modeling consumer adoption of mobile shopping
for fashion products in Korea. Psychol. Mark. 26 (7), 669687.
Kumar, A., Mukherjee, A., 2013. Shop while you talk: determinants of purchase
intentions through a mobile device. Int. J. Mob. Mark. 8 (1), 2337.
Lai, J.-Y., Debbarma, S., Ulhas, K.R., 2012. An empirical study of consumer switching
behaviour towards mobile shopping: a push-pull-mooring model. Int. J. Mob.
Commun. 10 (4), 386404.
Lee, S., Park, S., 2006. Improving Accessibility and security for mobile phone
shopping. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 46 (3), 124133.
Lu, H.-P., Su, P.Y.-J., 2009. Factors affecting purchase intention on mobile shopping
web sites. Internet Res. 19 (4), 442458.
Martin, C., 2013. Mobile Inuence: The New Power of the Consumer. Palgrave/
MacMillan, New York.
Martn-Gutirrez, S.S., Lpez-Cataln, B., Ramn-Jernimo, M.., 2012. Determinants of involvement in mobile commerce. The moderating role of gender.
EsicMarket Econ. Bus. J. 141, 69101.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (3), 709734.
McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C., 2002. Developing and validating trust
measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (3),
334359.

Mitchell, V.-W., McGoldrick, P.J., 1996. Consumer's risk-reduction strategies: a review and synthesis. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 6 (1), 133.
Munich cycle, 2011. Zukunftsbilder der digitalen Welt: Nutzerperspektiven im internationalen Vergleich, Band IV. (Online access under) http://www.tns-in
fratest.com/Wissensforum/stu-dien/pdf/2011_Zukunftsbilder_der_digitalen_
Welt.pdf (last accessed 27.04.16).
Miyazaki, A.D., Fernandez, A., 2001. Consumer perceptions of privacy and security
risks for online shopping. J. Consum. Aff. 35 (1), 2744.
Nielsen, 2013. The mobile consumer a global snapshot (Online). Available from:
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/uk/en/documents/MobileConsumer-Report-2013.pdf (retrieved July 16).
Ozok, A.A., Wei, J., 2010. An empirical comparison of consumer usability preferences in online shopping using stationary and mobile devices: results from a
college student population. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 10 (2), 111137.
Pantano, E., Priporas, C.-V., 2016. The effect of mobile retailing on consumers'
purchasing experiences: a dynamic perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61 (8),
548555.
Park, C., Jun, J.K., Lee, T.M., 2015. Do mobile shoppers feel smart in the smartphone
age? Int. J. Mob. Commun. 13 (2), 157171.
Peter, J.P., Ryan, M.J., 1976. An investigation of perceived risk at the brand level. J.
Mark. Res. 13 (2), 184188.
Ram, S., Sheth, J.N., 1989. Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing
problem and its solution. J. Consum. Mark. 6 (2), 514.
Riemer, K., Klein, S., 2001. E-commerce erfordert vertrauen. WISU Das Wirtsch. 30
(5), 710717.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Straub, D., 2012. A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in
MIS ouarterly. MIS Q. 36 (1), IIIXIV.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M., 2015. SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt, http://www.smartpls.com.
Roselius, T., 1971. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. J. Mark. 35 (1),
5661.
San-Martn, S., Lpez-Cataln, B., 2013. How can a mobile vendor get satised
customers? Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 113 (2), 156170.
San-Martn, S., Lpez-Cataln, B., Ramn-Jernimo, M.A., 2013. Mobile shoppers:
types, drivers, and impediments. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 23 (4),
350371.
Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., 2011. Multigroup analysis in partial least
squares (pls) path modeling: alternative methods and empirical results. In:
Sarstedt, M., Schwaiger, M., Taylor, C.R. (Eds.), Measurement and Research
Methods in International Marketing 22. Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
pp. 195218.
Schramm-Klein, H., Wagner, G., 2014. Broadening the perspective on e-commerce:
a comparative analysis of mobile shopping and traditional online shopping.
Mark. ZFP J. Res. Manag. 36 (2), 119130.
Schwartz, G., 2011. The impulse economy: understanding mobile shoppers and
what makes them buy, Atria Books, New York.
Sheth, J.N., Venkatesan, M., 1968. Risk-reduction processes in repetitive consumer
behavior. J. Mark. Res. 5 (3), 307310.
Sohn, S., 2014. Warum smartphone-Nutzer nicht mobil einkaufen. Mark. Rev. St.
Galle. Die neue Thexis 31 (5), 3241.
Stone, R.N., Grnhaug, K., 1993. Perceived risk: further considerations for the
marketing discipline. Eur. J. Mark. 27 (3), 3950.
Strm, R., Vendel, M., Bredican, J., 2014. Mobile marketing: a literature review on its
value for consumers and retailers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 21 (6), 10011012.
Tan, S.J., 1999. Strategies for reducing consumers risk aversion in Internet shopping. J. Consum. Mark. 16 (2), 116180.
Taylor, J.W., 1974. The role of risk in consumer behavior. J. Mark. 38 (2), 5460.
Udo, G.J., 2001. Privacy and security concerns as major barriers for e-commerce: a
survey study. Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur. 9 (4), 165174.
Voropanova, E., 2015. Conceptualizing smart shopping with a smartphone: implications of the use of mobile devices for shopping productivity and value. Int.
Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 25 (5), 529550.
Vor dem Esche, J., Hennig-Thurau, T., 2014. German digitalization consumer report,
Research Report No. 2 (Online). Available from: https://www.rolandberger.de/
media/pdf/Roland_Berger_German_Digitalization_Consumer_Report_
20140718.pdf (retrieved July 16).
Vrechopoulos, A.P., Constantiou, I.D., Sideris, I., Doukidis, G., Mylonopoulos, N.,
2003. The critical role of consumer behavior research in mobile commerce. Int.
J. Mob. Commun. 1 (3), 229340.
Wang, R.J.-H., Malthouse, E.C., Krishnamurthi, L., 2015. On the Go: how mobile
shopping affects customer purchase behavior. J. Retail. 91 (2), 217234.
Wong, K.K.-K., 2013. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
Techniques using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 24 (1), 132.
Wong, C.-H., Lee, H.S., Lim, Y.S., Chua, B.H., Tan, G.W.-H., 2012. Predicting the
consumers' intention to adopt mobile shopping: an emerging market perspective. Int. J. Netw. Mob. Technol. 3 (2), 2439.
Wong, C.-H., Tan, G.W.-H., Ooi, K.-B., Lin, B., 2015. Mobile shopping: the next
frontier of the shopping industry? An emerging market perspective. Int. J. Mob.
Commun. 13 (1), 92112.
Wu, J.-H., Wang, S.-C., 2005. What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 42 (5),
719729.
Wu, J.-H., Wang, Y.-M., 2006. Development of a tool for selecting mobile shopping
site: a customer perspective. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 5 (3), 192200.
Yang, K., 2010. Determinants of US consumer mobile shopping services adoption:
implications for designing mobile shopping services. J. Consum. Mark. 27 (3),
262270.
Yang, S., 2015. Role of transfer-based and performance-based cues on initial trust in
mobile shopping services: a cross-environment perspective. Inf. Syst. e-Bus.
Manag. 14 (1), 4770.

M. Gro / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016) 109119

Yang, K., Forney, J.C., 2013. The moderating role of consumer technology anxiety in
mobile shopping adoption: differential effects of facilitating conditions and
social inuences. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 14 (4), 334347.
Yang, S., Chen, Y., Wei, J., 2015. Understanding consumers' web-mobile shopping
extension behavior: a trust transfer perspective. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 55 (2),
7887.
Zhou, T., 2013. An empirical examination of the determinants of mobile purchase.
Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 17 (1), 187195.

119

Michael Gro received his M.Sc. in Business Administration from the Brandenburg
University of Technology Cottbus (Germany). He is currently a Ph.D. candidate at
the same University and works as a consultant for the IT and telecommunications
industry. Mr. Gro's research interests are in the areas of electronic and mobile
commerce with the focus on retailing. In the course of his career, he has gained
enormous experience in the German retail industry and electronic commerce area.

You might also like