Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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)).
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
Martn-Gutirrez et al.
(2012)
Lai et al. (2012)
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)
Sohn (2014)
Reective
Multidimensional constructs (with seven single determinants: security, performance, nancial, social, psychological, physical and time-loss risk aspects)
Single constructs (based on security concerns)
Reective
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
Table 1
Topic-relevant SEM studies with focus on m-shopping risk perceptions.
Construct measurement
approach
112
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
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,
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.
Firstly, both vendors are currently one of the two largest (mo-
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
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
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%)
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
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.
115
Table 4
Verication of the reective measurement models.
Construct
Vendor Trust
TR_1
TR_2
TR_3
TR_4
TR_5
TR_6
CRb
AVEd
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
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
0.8
Latent Variable
(reflective)
RK_PH
116
Table 5
Verication of the formative measurement models.
Amazon sample (n150)
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
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
***
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
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
117
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
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.
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.