This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Grifﬁth Business School, Grifﬁth University, Gold Coast, Australia
Received April 2007 Revised February 2008 Accepted August 2008
Loughborough University Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK, and
Len Tiu Wright
Leicester Business School, De Montfort University Business School, Leicester, UK
Purpose – The primary purpose of this paper is to bring together apparently disparate and yet interconnected strands of research and present an integrated model of e-consumer behaviour. It has a secondary objective of stimulating more research in areas identiﬁed as still being under-explored. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is discursive, based on analysis and synthesis of e-consumer literature. Findings – Despite a broad spectrum of disciplines that investigate e-consumer behaviour and despite this special issue in the area of marketing, there are still areas open for research into e-consumer behaviour in marketing, for example the role of image, trust and e-interactivity. The paper develops a model to explain e-consumer behaviour. Research limitations/implications – As a conceptual paper, the study is limited to literature and prior empirical research. It offers the beneﬁt of new research directions for e-retailers in understanding and satisfying e-consumers. The paper provides researchers with a proposed integrated model of e-consumer behaviour. Originality/value – The paper links a signiﬁcant body of literature within a unifying theoretical framework and identiﬁes of under-researched areas of e-consumer behaviour in a marketing context. Keywords Electronic commerce, Consumer behaviour, Marketing Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction Early e-shopping consumer research (e.g. Brown et al., 2003) indicated that e-shoppers tended to be concerned mainly with functional and utilitarian considerations. As typical “innovators” (Donthu and Garcia, 1999; Siu and Cheng, 2001), they tended to be more educated (Li et al, 1999), higher socio-economic status (SES) (Tan, 1999), younger than average and more likely to be male (Korgaonkar and Wolin, 1999). This suggested that the e-consumer tended to differ from the typical traditional shopper. More recent research, on the other hand, casts doubt on this notion. Jayawardhena et al. (2007) found that consumer purchase orientations in both the traditional world and on the Internet are largely similar, and there is evidence for the importance of social interaction (e.g. Parsons, 2002; Rohm and Swaminathan, 2004) and recreational
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for much useful input.
European Journal of Marketing Vol. 43 No. 9/10, 2009 pp. 1121-1139 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090560910976393
. 2006).. 2008). Novak et al. IMRG/Capgemini. 2002). Lynch and Beck. “image” is a concept used to signify our overall . The remainder of this article is organised as follows. whereas traditional shopping is languishing in zero growth or less (British Retail Consortium. The conceptual foundations are illustrated in Figure 1. First.. including interface. 2008. 2004.. Xia. 2002). 2000. 2001. Korgaonkar and Wolin. Stern and Stafford. 2007. 2004). including shopping and continued loyalty behaviour. Finally we present our concluding remarks. 1997). we draw from existing literature to present well-known factors that inﬂuence consumer behaviour and form the core of our model. 2002). 1999). payment (Torksadeth and Dhillon. 2004).... Wolﬁnbarger and Gilly. as demonstrated by virtual ethnography (webnography) of “Web 2. which “provides a relatively simple basis for identifying where and how to target consumers’ behavioural change attempts” (Sheppard et al. 2002). Jarvenpaa and Todd. 2002. this paper aims to examine concepts of e-consumer behaviour. including those derived from traditional consumer behaviour. 1999). design and navigation (Zhang and Von Dran. demographics (Brown et al. Johnson et al. 2007. Our model is underpinned by the theory of reasoned action (TRA). First. Factors inﬂuencing e-consumer behaviour The basic model argues that functional considerations inﬂuence attitudes to an e-retailer. the objective of this paper is to develop and argue in support of an integrated model of e-consumer behaviour.9/10 1122 motives (Rohm and Swaminathan. and ease of use (Devaraj et al. 2002).0” blogs. The paper also has a secondary objective of stimulating more research in areas identiﬁed as still being under-explored.. p.. 1988. 2003. Swaminathan et al. for example. McKinney et al. 2002. The study of e-consumer behaviour is gaining in importance due to the proliferation of online shopping (Dennis et al. Liao and Cheung. 2007). The technology approach has examined technical speciﬁcations of an online store (Zhou et al. 2002. The research area is potentially fruitful since..EJM 43. social networking sites and e-word of mouth (eWOM) (Wright. Kolsaker et al. 2002. Consumer-oriented research has examined psychological characteristics (Hoffman and Novak. The two perspectives do not contradict each other but there remains a scarcity of published research that combines both. we present a framework that can be adopted to examine both the inﬂuences and interrelationships between the factors in predicting e-consumer behaviour. even in recession.. and shopping orientation (Jayawardhena et al. information (Palmer. perceptions of risks and beneﬁts (Bhatnagar and Ghose. Accordingly. 1996. The choice of this theoretical lens lies in its acceptance as a useful theory in the study of consumer behaviour. 2002). which in turn inﬂuence intentions to shop with the e-retailer and then ﬁnally actual e-retail activity. intention to use (Chen and Hitt. Huang et al. 2004. The role of functional attributes Researchers attempting to answer why people (e-)shop have looked to various components of the “image” of (e-)retailing (Wolﬁnbarger and Gilly. 325). 2004. 2008). Second. Harris and Dennis. 2008). Wolﬁnbarger and Gilly. We develop our model in two stages. are continuing with double-digit growth (Deloitte.. shopping motivation (Childers et al. 2002). 2001.. Accordingly. drawing from both the consumer and technology viewpoints. 2007. This may be a valid approach for two reasons. e-shopping volumes in the UK.
this is an approach that has been demonstrated for traditional stores and shopping centres over many years (e. We therefore propose that: P1. The basic model evaluation or rating of something in such a way as to guide our actions (Boulding.’s (2005) E-S-QUAL.’s (2002) WebQual. E-consumer attitude towards an e-retailer will be positively inﬂuenced by customer perceptions of e-retailer image.. Teas. Parasuraman et al. Berry. 1992. 2001). For example. 1980) suggests that intentions are the direct outcome of attitudes (plus social aspects or “subjective norms”. the same approach has been applied for e-image components (Babakus and Boller. as discussed below) such that there are no intervening mechanisms between the attitude and the intention. Kimber. Dennis et al. Dennis et al.. 1969. 2000). shopper loyalty in-store and online are linked. Therefore: P2.E-consumer behaviour 1123 Figure 1. According to Kimber (2001). Second. More recently.. Tesco is well known as having a positive image both in-store and online. we are more likely to buy from a store that we consider has a positive image on considerations that we may consider important. . 2001). 1988. 2007. being the UK grocery market leader in both channels and the world’s largest e-grocer (Eurofood. 2008. This is particularly relevant because it is the traditional retailers with strong images that have long been making the running in e-retail (IMRG/Capgemini. 1956). and Yoo and Donthu’s (2001) SITEQUAL. the supermarket Tesco’s customers using both on.com (accessed 26 October. such as price or customer service.tesco. according to www. For example. 2002a..and ofﬂine shopping channels spend 20 percent more on average than customers who only use the traditional store. Kooli et al. Wolﬁnbarger and Gilly’s (2003) eTailQ. 1974). Lindquist. 2002b. E-consumer intentions to purchase from an e-retailer will be positively inﬂuenced by positive attitudes towards the e-retailer. TRA (Ajzen and Fishbein. Examples of e-service instruments include: Loiacono et al. Parasuraman et al. 1993). customer service and delivery or fulﬁlment. The most common image components in the e-retail context include product selection.g.
Thus: P3... in the interests of simplicity we consider them here to be related aspects of the same concept. 2005). 2007). This is in line with the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) paradigm (Mehrabian and Russell. “a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has conﬁdence” (Moorman et al. Oxford Internet Institute.. Trust. Jones and Vijayasarathy. This leads to: P4. Goode and Harris. 2004. and credence qualities of products.. 1962). 2005).. As e-shoppers become more experienced. 1999) are closely related to trust. Intention to shop with a particular e-retailer will be positively inﬂuenced by past experience. experience. 2002. they are more likely to trust and re-patronise. 2007. Lee and Turban. with few addressing actual adoption (Cheung et al. 2007. 1998)... as mentioned below. The consumer purchase process is a series of interlinked multiple stages including information collection. Since online shopping is a comparatively new activity. 2005. To evaluate the information demands of services. and privacy (individually identiﬁable information on the internet) (Bart et al. 1993). learning (Bettman. and still fewer continuance behaviour or loyalty. Security (safety of the computer and ﬁnancial information) (Bart et al. Actual purchases from an e-retailer will be positively inﬂuenced by intentions to purchase from an e-retailer. 2003). i.. 1992) is central to e-shopping intentions (Fortin et al. 1979. as consumers achieve more satisfactory e-shopping experiences. 2001). evaluation of alternatives. extending our framework to behavioural responses. e-Consumers’ learning about an e-retailer web site will positively inﬂuence their intention to purchase.e. Drawing on early work on another construct of consumer behaviour.9/10 1124 Most studies have gone only as far as modelling “intention”. the purchase itself and post-purchase evaluation (Engel et al. Therefore: P8. E-consumer trust in an e-retailer will positively inﬂuence intention to e-shop.EJM 43. 2005). which we name “trust”: P6. an e-retail site becomes more attractive and efﬁcient with increased use as learning leads to a greater intention to purchase (Bhatnagar and Ghose. Zeithaml (1981) suggested a framework based on the inherent search. Past experience and cues that reassure the consumer will positively inﬂuence trust in an e-retailer. . Kuehn. Nevertheless. trust grows and they tend to shop more and become less concerned about security (Chen and Barnes... 2005) and an online shopping consumer therefore relies heavily on experience qualities. Swaminathan et al. Notwithstanding that these constructs differ. Johnson et al. which can be acquired only through prior purchase (Lee and Tan. 1974) and adoption/continuance (Cheung et al. Actual purchases from an e-retailer will positively inﬂuence experience. 2005. online purchases are still perceived as riskier than terrestrial ones (Laroche et al. Thus: P7. P5.
intention is inﬂuenced by two factors: (1) “attitude toward the behaviour”. the TPB purports to improve on the TRA by adding “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). Numerous studies of traditional shopping have drawn attention to these aspects (e. 1975. 1989) and the Uniﬁed Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al. 1995).com. Sheppard et al. Researchers have shown that there is a positive relationship between experience with computing technology. As introduced in the section entitled “The role of functional attributes” above.com. which are central to our model (Cheung et al. such as communications with like-minded people. these are “social factors”. 1980). In the information systems literature. the concept of PBC has an equivalent in “self-efﬁcacy”. but e-retailers have difﬁculty in satisfying these needs (Shim et al. Ajzen and Fishbein.sneakerplay. “Subjective norm” refers on one hand to beliefs that speciﬁc referents dictate whether or not one should perform the behaviour or not. 2000).g. Social inﬂuences are also important for e-shopping. Rohm and Swaminathan (2004) found that social interaction was a signiﬁcant motivator for e-shopping (along with variety seeking and convenience. Parsons (2002) found that social motives such as social experiences outside home. 1980).. 2003). TRA argues that whether our best friends think that we should make a particular purchase inﬂuences our intention. can be important motivators that inﬂuence intention. Consumers with a more general interest in social e-shopping are catered for by www. The extended model is illustrated in Figure 2. below). E-consumer attitude towards an e-retailer will be positively inﬂuenced by social factors. 1991). membership of peer groups.osoyou. There is considerable empirical . specialist fascination for athletic footwear may be members of www. perceived outcome and usage (Agarwal and Prasad. E-consumer behaviour 1125 Since attitude and subjective norm cannot be the exclusive determinants of behaviour where an individual’s control over the behaviour is incomplete. by which we mean the inﬂuences of others on purchase intentions. the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis.0 social networking sites can link social interactions concerning personal interests with relevant e-shopping. 1988). deﬁned as the ease or difﬁculty that the person perceives of performing the behaviour. deﬁned as the judgment of one’s ability to use a computer (Compeau and Higgins. and status and authority were valid for e-shopping.We now extend our model to include social and experiential aspects of e-consumer behaviour along with consumer traits. Web 2. and on the other the motivation to comply with speciﬁc referents (Ajzen and Fishbein. Thus: P9. 1999).. which we consider with situational factors. 2005). 2005. communication with others with similar interests. Social beneﬁts of e-shopping. 1991). For example. For example. and (2) “subjective norms” (Fishbein and Ajzen. Dennis. include the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen. Empirical studies demonstrate that the addition of PBC signiﬁcantly improves the modelling of behaviour (Ajzen.. people with a speciﬁc. An integrative framework Social factors The TRA family theories. Similarly.. Simply put.
The enhanced model .EJM 43.9/10 1126 Figure 2.
We therefore extend our framework to include relevant experiential and situational factors. thus constitute the “glue” of the integrative theoretical framework for our propositions P1-P7 above. Ease of use is central to the e-interactivity dimension of our model. Venkatesh et al. Ease of use concerns the degree to which e-shopping is perceived as involving a minimum of effort. Experiential aspects of e-shopping For decades. 2000. (3) product characteristics. Situational factors may include variety seeking and convenience (identiﬁed by Rohm and Swaminathan. for example in navigability and clarity (Chen et al. TAM was originally conceived to model the adoption of information systems in the workplace (Davis.evidence on the effect of computer self-efﬁcacy (e. and consumer traits in the three sections below. (2004) add four factors: (1) consumer traits. TAM and UTAUT. 1989) but two speciﬁc dimensions relevant to e-shopping have been identiﬁed: (1) usefulness. the UTAUT. Perea y Monsuwe et al. Agarwal et al. and (2) ease of use. These studies conﬁrm the essential effect of computer self-efﬁcacy in understanding individual responses to information technology in general and e-shopping in particular. usefulness is incorporated into the image components of product selection. above) (Chen et al. 2000). forthcoming). Usefulness refers to consumers’ perceptions that using the internet will enhance the outcome of their shopping and information seeking (Chen et al.. 2002) and others such as situational factors (Moon and Kim. Enjoyment reﬂects the hedonic aspects discussed in the section entitled “Experiential aspects of e-shopping” below. considered in the section entitled “Experiential aspects of e-shopping” below. In our model. retailers and researchers have been aware that shopping is not just a matter of obtaining tangible products but also about experience. Venkatesh. and (4) trust (trust is considered in the section entitled “The role of functional attributes” above). as illustrated in Figure 2. (2003) recognised the moderating effects of consumer traits. (2) situational factors. which we therefore concentrate into our “Past experience” variable (see the section entitled “The role of functional attributes” above). 2002). There is conceptual and empirical overlap of the constructs of PBC and self-efﬁcacy with past experience (Alsajjan and Dennis. considered in the section entitled “Consumer traits” below. customer service and delivery or fulﬁlment in the “Role of functional attributes” section above... 2001) and ´ consumer traits (Venkatesh et al. 2004.g. enjoyment and E-consumer behaviour 1127 . as a signiﬁcant motivator for e-shopping). The TRA family theories.. These include social ones (included in the TRA aspect of our model. In a further development of TAM. (1992) have added a new dimension of attitude into TAM: enjoyment. including TPB. 2002). TAM has been criticised for ignoring a number of inﬂuences on e-consumer behaviour. 2003). Davis et al..
2007). visuals. Trust in an e-retailer will be positively inﬂuenced by e-interactivity. 1999). 2002). (2009) summarise the current state of knowledge on web atmospherics in e-retailing in this issue. A favourable perception of e-interactivity is likely to be inﬂuenced by ease of use of a website (Merrilees and Fry. 2005. organization. video and 3D displays are among the most common stimuli.e. Thus: P12.9/10 1128 entertainment (Martineau. In theory. Richard and Chandra. Studies include. More generally. Many studies in the bricks-and-mortar world have used an environmental psychology framework to demonstrate that cues in the retail “atmosphere” or environment can affect consumers’ emotions. 2005). interactivity has been found to be a major determinant of consumer attitudes (Fiore et al. (2003) demonstrated that the same type of “web atmospherics” model can be applied to e-consumer behaviour. and creating visual images of clothing combinations (Fiore et al. the high task-relevant cues impacted attitude. audio. product presentation at different levels of resolution.. Kim and Forsythe. Tauber. Merrilees and Fry (2002) found that overall interactivity was the most important determinant of consumer attitudes to a particular e-retailer and interactivity could inﬂuence both trust and attitudes to the e-retailer. effectiveness and navigational). although odour simulation systems have yet to achieve widespread adoption) (Chicksand and Knowles. Summarising: . 2009). atmospherics can also include touch (which can be simulated using a vibrating touch pad) and aroma (which might be incorporated by offering to send samples. for example spending (rather than “avoidance”). Navigability is a key aspect. 1958. Therefore: P10. i. informativeness. which in turn should lead to more “approach” behaviour. In the e-shopping context. high task-relevant ones (including structure. Consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo. illustrated schematically in their Figures 2 and 3 (Manganari et al. 2005. 1972). 2002). experience and enjoyment derive from e-consumers’ interactions with an e-retail site. E-consumer attitudes towards an e-retailer will be positively inﬂuenced by e-interactivity. P11. Dailey (2004) and Eroglu et al.EJM 43. which we refer to as “e-interactivity”. Elements that replicate the ofﬂine experience lead to loyal. E-interactivity encompasses the equivalent of salesperson-customer interaction as well as visual merchandising and indeed the impact of all senses on consumer behaviour. Graphics. 2009). 1986). The importance of this S-O-R model (Mehrabian and Russell. satisﬁed customers (Goode and Harris. 1974) is that the stimulus cues such as colour. for example. Both high and low task-relevant cues had a secondary impact on exploratory purchase intention. the ability of the user to ﬁnd their way around a site and keep track of where they are (Richard and Chandra. and a single peripheral. which in turn can inﬂuence behaviour. low task-relevant one (entertainment). Empirically. personalising greeting cards (Wu.. E-consumers’ perceptions of e-interactivity will be positively inﬂuenced by ease of navigation. music or aroma can be manipulated by marketers to increase shoppers’ pleasure and arousal. Richard (2005) divided atmospheric cues into central. Manganari et al. colour.. 2005).
Wakeﬁeld and Baker. e-Retailers differentiate themselves by emphasising convenience (Jayawardhena. Overby and Lee. 2005). Evans et al. Alba et al.P13.. gender. Consumer traits In the interests of parsimony. (2001) found that experienced internet users were more likely to participate in virtual communities for informational reasons. Jayawardhena and Wright found that emotional considerations are one of the main inﬂuences on attitudes towards e-shopping (Jayawardhena and Wright. Many studies suggest that web atmospherics are akin to the physical retail environment (e. whereas novice users were more likely to participate for social interaction.. for example a reduction of search costs when the consumer is under time pressure (Bakos. need for cognition (NFC) and optimum stimulation level (OSL) (Richard and Chandra. individual factors such as having a baby (Hand et al.amazon. E-consumer emotional states will be positively inﬂuenced by web atmospherics. Retailing literature suggests that shopping frequency may inﬂuence purchase intentions. 2001). Convenience in e-shopping therefore increases search efﬁciency by eliminating travel costs and associated frustrations (psychological costs). helping in the customer information search process to reduce search costs and time. frequency of purchase and speciﬁc individual circumstances. 1997. For example. Amazon have allowed customers to review products. 2000. 1991. in this issue. www..e. In sum: P16. education.. Childers et al. P15. Variety of products is a related aspect of online shopping that also reduces search costs (Evanschitzky et al. 1998). Consumer attitude towards an e-retailer will be inﬂuenced by situational factors such as convenience. E-consumer perceptions of e-interactivity will be positively inﬂuenced by web atmospherics. 2004). Kim et al. 2006). in this issue. draw attention to the inﬂuence of speciﬁc. found that convenience was one of the main inﬂuences on e-satisfaction (Kim et al. 1998. enhancing the quantity and quality of product information for potential customers. 2009). For example. Grewal et al. and this emotional impact generally guides the subsequent relations within the environment (Machleit and Eroglu. 2009). Situational factors One of the most signiﬁcant attractions of e-shopping is perceptions of convenience (Evanschitzky et al. In this issue. 2000). Therefore: P14. 2004.com allows regular customers to complete the purchase process with “one click”... 2009). The moderating effect of gender can be explained by drawing on social role theory and evolutionary psychology (Dennis and E-consumer behaviour 1129 . 1987). Similarly. Beatty and Smith. we concentrate on four of the most commonly examined a priori consumer traits – i.e.g. E-shopping becomes more routine as e-shoppers gain experience of an e-retailer’s site (Liang and Huang. Environmental psychology suggests that people’s initial response to any environment is affective.. Szymanski and Hise. income and age – plus two post hoc ones relevant to e-attitudes – i. 2004).. variety. Hand et al. E-consumer attitude towards an e-retailer will be positively inﬂuenced by emotional states.. 2004.
tend to use “landmark” navigation because gathering was carried out over a smaller area close to the home base. 2009). 2003). Men tend to be more task-orientated (Minton and Schneider. Stenstrom et al. Stenstrom et al. 1997). Psychology research over many years has identiﬁed numerous gender differences that are potentially relevant to e-consumer behaviour. socially. in line with the systems-orientation difference (Felter. We expect. relying on fewer decision criteria. the effects of these differences in e-consumer behaviour have received little research attention to date. This is because. that better educated and wealthier consumers seek alternative information about a particular e-retailer. Age moderates the links between satisfaction with the product . On the other hand. males tend to use an “internal map” style of navigation because hunting required accurate navigation over long distances. 1974). 2005) to e-shopping. for example in spatial navigation. In a parallel to Dennis and McCall’s (2005) “hunter-gatherer” approach to shopping behaviour. (2008) use an evolutionary perspective to study sex differences in website preferences and navigation. Extending gender differences previously reported for “bricks” shopping (Dennis and McCall. 2005. 1964). In contrast to people with lower educational attainments. and relying on. on the other hand.EJM 43. A body of research suggests that income is related to e-consumer behaviour (Li et al. perception and styles of communication. 2000). These results suggest that masculine and feminine segmented web sites might be more successful in satisfying e-consumers. 1985). Venkatesh and Morris (2000) found that men’s decisions to use a computer system were more inﬂuenced by the perceived usefulness than were women’s. 1966). objects and landmarks in a manner similar to physical navigation. poorer consumers see satisfaction as an information cue on which to base their purchase decision. as people with higher income have usually achieved higher levels of education (Farley. whereas younger consumers seek alternative information. Gender moderates the relationship between various aspects of behavioural outcomes (Cyr and Bonanni. 2005). Saad and Gill. E-navigation is analogous because users must navigate in order to travel through pages.. In this interpretation.’s (2008) results demonstrate that extended hierarchical levels of an e-shopping web site are more easily navigated by males than by females. 2005. Claxton et al. therefore.. In this issue. systems-orientated (Baron-Cohen. This is expected. 1980). 2001). In line with the task-orientation difference. whereas less well educated. 1980. whereas less well educated people rely more on fewer information cues (Capon and Burke. Females. 1982. Hansen and Jensen ﬁnd that men tend to be “quick shoppers” whereas women are more “shopping for fun” (Hansen and Jensen. Older consumers are less likely to seek new information (Moskovitch. apart from their satisfaction level. new information (Homburg and Giering. The role of education in e-shopping has been given little research attention. Nevertheless. people are expected to behave in these ways (social role theory) and because this adaptive behaviour has given people with particular traits advantages in the process of natural selection (evolutionary psychology). Swinyard and Smith. 2000). 1999. Yang and Lester. Wells and Gubar. 2004) and more willing to take risks than are women (Powell and Ansic.9/10 1130 McCall. women’s decisions were more inﬂuenced by the ease of use of the system (Venkatesh and Morris. It is argued that people with higher levels of education usually engage more in information gathering and processing and use more information prior to decision making. it is postulated that better educated consumers feel more comfortable when dealing with.
We enhance our model by examining the antecedents of attitude and trust. To explain consumer emotional states we rely on Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974). Fishbein and Ajzen. First. who found that consumer innovativeness was associated with greater use of 3D rotational views. Furthermore. P17M3. we indicate that situational factors inﬂuence behaviour. a principle supported by Kim and Forsythe (2009). we acknowledge that our proposed model may not incorporate all the variables or links between them that potentially affect e-consumer E-consumer behaviour 1131 . individuals with a personality high on NFC engage in more search activities that lead to greater e-interactivity (Richard and Chandra. and intentions towards performing that behaviour. This is followed by the development of further propositions for our model.and loyalty such that these links will be stronger for older consumers (Homburg and Giering. In contrast. It is acknowledged that building a complex conceptual model “from the ground up” can pose as many questions as it answers. We developed a dynamic model to explain e-consumer behaviour in two stages. The relationship between e-interactivity and attitude toward e-retailer will be moderated by consumer traits. This paper attempts to ﬁll this gap by conducting an analysis of the literature and presenting a uniﬁed model that explains e-consumer behaviour that is founded on a sound theoretical underpinning. simpliﬁed and illustrated schematically in Figure 2. our framework forms a basis to explore holistically the factors affecting e-consumer behaviour. Nevertheless. and we identify fruitful directions for future research. 2005). 1980. Similarly. P17M2. drawing attention to e-consumer emotional states and e-interactivity along with social factors and consumer traits. 1975) family of theories. A signiﬁcant contribution that our model makes is the appreciation of the image construct and its inﬂuence on e-consumer decision-making process. We argue that attitudes drive e-consumer behavioural intentions which lead into actual purchases. Discussion and conclusion There is a substantial body of literature examining e-consumer behaviour in both academia and in practitioner publications. underpinned by the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein. Both strands agree that many factors inﬂuence e-shopping. 2001). The various consumer traits will not necessarily have the same moderating effects but in line with space limitations. 2005). These moderators complete our integrated model. motivated more by emotion than cognition (Richard and Chandra. The relationship between social factors and attitude towards an e-retailer will be moderated by consumer traits. high OSL people have a higher need for environmental stimulation and are more likely to browse. S-O-R model and reason that the stimulus cues such as web atmospherics and navigation are directly related e-consumer emotional states. there are signiﬁcant gaps in our understanding of e-consumer behaviour. Second. attitudes. we summarise the main expectations as: P17M1. The relationship between emotion and attitude toward e-retailer will be moderated by consumer traits. which postulate that that people’s behaviour is governed by their beliefs.
Weitz. 69 No. Vol. “Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?”. Baron-Cohen. MA. E-shopping is still growing fast at a time when traditional shopping is struggling to maintain any growth at all. this paper has explored the conceptual development of an integrated model of e-consumer behaviour. R.W. References Agarwal. pp. Penguin. Vol. 83-95. (1979). September.EJM 43. “Interactive home shopping: consumer. R. (2004). 50. The Essential Difference: Men. MIS Quarterly. S. I. “A strategic analysis of electronic marketplaces”. Vol. In conclusion. 38-53. University of Michigan. I. 30 No.. We believe that our conceptual model is an ideal framework for such purposes for academic researchers.M. “The theory of planned behaviour”. research is needed into how various constructs might be in play (or not) depending upon the prior shopping. The time is therefore opportune to further explore the propositions elicited in this paper towards a better understanding of e-consumer behaviour. S. and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces”. site familiarity and/or site purchasing experience of consumers.Y. 3. “The components of department store image: a theoretical and empirical analysis”. (1991). G. Berry. Addison-Wesley. e-retailers. Ann Arbor. 14. pp. Boulding.. Sultan. Vol. Shankar. Third. 1. Prentice-Hall. Vol. Bhatnagar. Fourth. Journal of Retailing. 15. Bart. Journal of Retailing. London. Y. Ajzen. Babakus.. retailer. 221-8. Ajzen. policy-makers and practitioners. Sambamurthy. J. 3-20. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. (1992). A. (2004).L. pp..E. (1969). Vol. R. Information System Research. 2. and Fishbein. Lynch. 418-30. 2008). (1956). 4. and Urban. V. G. pp. pp. 295-310. Reading.. “Research report: the evolving relationship between general and speciﬁc computer self-efﬁcacy – an empirical assessment”. pp. S. Journal of Consumer Research. Agarwal. K. (1999). Bakos. 45 No. and Stair. J. NJ. 80 No. and Smith. Vol. Alba. B. . and Prasad. Women and the Extreme Male Brain. Journal of Marketing. Beatty. (1980). J. pp. Vol. and Janiszewski. (2000). Englewood Cliffs. pp. Vol. C. and Boller. M. (1997). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Decision Sciences.L. 361-91. we observe that a large number of studies appear to concentrate on single countries.A. “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale”.R. (1991). 24. “Online information search termination patterns across product categories and consumer demographics”. “Are the drivers and role of online trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study”. and Ghose. Organisational Behaviours and Human Decision Processes. June. The Image. 61 No. 253-68. (2005). 179-211. pp.9/10 1132 behaviour and invite researchers to examine more inﬂuences. S. J. Vol. 11 No. 4. pp. Journal of Business Research.. F. E. V. 3. “External search effort: an investigation across several product categories”. (1987). whereas consumer responses have been demonstrated to vary between cultures (Davis et al. L. Bettman. Journal of Marketing. MI. 133-51. J.
Vol. C. available at: www. S. 795-803. L. Vol. 3 No. Deloitte. NY. (2005). Vol. 7. 13 No.. Vol.L. Bagozzi. and task-related factors in consumer information processing”. “A taxonomy of prepurchase information gathering patterns”. 314-30.W. Claxton. and Bonanni. Journal of Consumer Research. 1109-30. N. 19 No. “Enticing online consumers: an extended technology acceptance perspective”. 22 No. “Perceived usefulness. Y. 60-71. pp..P. Pope. Information Systems Research. 8. Cyr. Vol. S. 1.org. F. Journal of Consumer Research. “Measuring switching costs and the determinants of customer retention in internet enabled businesses: a study of online brokerage industry”. Wang. 61. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organisations. Vol. 2. 189-211. E-consumer behaviour 1133 .. 705-19. J. Journal of Business Research. F. Gillenson. Davis. 3.. 6. 3 No. C. “Buying or browsing? An exploration of shopping orientations and online purchase intention”. L. M. P. 10/11. K. Vol. Chen. (2001). T. M. (2003).. Vol.uk posted (accessed 9 December 2008). Vol. D. (2002). “Initial trust and online buyer behaviour”. L. product class. and McCall. 7 No. (2004). Vol. 319-40. “Computer self-efﬁcacy: development of a measure and initial test”. A. and Burke. (1980). N. C. Palgrave. and Barnes. C. C. pp. B. (1989). 57 No. Objects of Desire: Consumer Behaviour in Shopping Centre Choice. “Overcoming the difﬁculties of selling ‘look and feel’ goods online: implications for web site design”.M. Vol. 12-16. Davis. J. pp. (2007). 255-74. pp. (2005). 4. “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behaviour”. M. and Higgins. 3..D. “Gender and web site design in e-business”. Journal of Business Research. Dennis. British Retail Consortium. pp. Dennis. S. Chen.D. 1 No. Fenech. “Culture inﬂuences on emotional responses to on-line store atmospheric cues”. (2002). Peck. L. MIS Quarterly. Information and Management. 511-35. (2005). P.British Retail Consortium (2008). “Navigational web atmospherics: explaining the inﬂuence of restrictive navigation cues”. D. and Sherrell. Brown.. 3. Routledge. and Portis.. Capon. pp. perceived ease of use. Chan. (1974). pp. pp. “Individual. A. and user acceptance of information technology”. pp.R. T. Deloitte (2007). and Carson. Chicksand. R. “A critical review of online consumer behaviour: empirical research”. L. and Voges. 77 No. Childers. 9 December. Dennis. 107 No. M. Davis. Fry. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 21-36. J. London. London. and Merrilees. 13 No. pp. Cheung. (1995). and Lindridge. Vol.N. Carr.L.L. and Hitt. Vol. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 3.D. C. (2005). 1-19. MIS Quarterly. 806-12. Compeau.K. pp. (1992). (2008). Vol. pp. (2004). 16 No. pp. and Limayem. Chen. 1666-84.. “All things bright and digital: shopping online and demand for high-tech items sees huge lift”. “BRC-KPMG Retail Sales Monitor November 2008”. 37 No. and Knowles. 3.-H. pp. London. “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace”. D. Business Strategy Review. 35-42.brc. Vol. “The savannah hypothesis of shopping”. 14. pp. C. and Warshaw. B. G. 4. E-retailing. Dailey. 39 No. R.L. (2002).W. European Journal of Marketing. Abingdon and New York. Journal of Retailing. International Journal of Electronic Business.
(2005). and Davis. “Tesco’s the world’s largest e-grocer”. N..R. L. Psychology & Marketing. European Journal of Marketing. W. 150-9.U. 43 No. Belief. pp. M. Journal of Business Research. NY. S. Journal of Advertising Research. Journal of Retailing.. Devaraj. (1964). 8th ed. T. 8. (1999). Eroglu. Dennis.M. NY.H. 4. and Ajzen. C. Farley. 3. 2nd ed. G. “Sex differences on the California statewide assessment of computer literacy”.L. 57 No. M. (2007). Macleit. Singh. “Online behavioural intentions: an empirical investigation of antecedents and moderators”. L. P. Marsland. Vol. 316-33. 9/10. “Shopping orientation and online clothing purchases: the role of gender and purchase situation”. Grewal. 1154-70. Eurofood. N. pp. Sex Roles.A. Vol. “The internet shopper”. Vol. Abingdon and New York. pp.. D. T. Vol. “Consumer interaction in the virtual era: some qualitative insights”. “E-satisfaction: a re-examination”. Routledge. R. and Jensen. and Sandhu. Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. C.R. (2001). and Garcia. H.. 52-8. 41 No. L. 39 No. “Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses”. Evanschitzky. J. Evans. 4. P. W. pp. C. and Kohli. “Why does brand loyalty vary over products?”. Dholakia. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. Vol. Harris. (1975).. (2004). Kollatt. D. 3. (2009).. “Introduction to special issue: emerging issues in electronic marketing: thinking outside the square”. Dryden Press. “Measuring image: shopping centre case studies”. C. (2002b). 3. Marketing the e-Business. 13. J. pp. pp. (2008). G. Qualitative Market Research... and Kim. 181-92. Journal of Marketing. European Journal of Marketing. and Dholakia. and Levy. Vol. Vol. 623-7. 6 July. Ralston. 1 No. pp. 7. M. Harris. Fan. R.C.A. J. Donthu. Addison-Wesley. Consumer Behavior. H. “Online grocery shopping: the inﬂuence of situational factors”. (1993). Vol. J. Murphy. 703-13.. S. 281-90. New York. limiters and market consequences”. and Novak. MA. (2002). 5 No. Dall’Olmo Riley. Jin. F. (1985). Vol. J. pp. Psychology and Marketing.. Vol. 2. M. K.R. 512-36. Attitude. pp.... pp. 22 No. Vol.R. (2003). 12 No. Engel. International Review of Retail. 669-94. I.. Hand. 239-47. . Cockett. 4. Distribution and Consumer Research. 3. 5/6. Journal of Business Research. 55 No.P. “Internet retailing: enablers. A. Reading. and Ahlert. and Rettie. Vol. 3. 1205-19. “From bricks to clicks: understanding the e-consumer”. Vol. J. pp. 8. Hesse. and Blackwell. Iyer.. 139-50.EJM 43. R. Eurofood (2000). Hoffman. and van t’Hul. 20 No. 13 No. and Dennis. 60 No. Fishbein. M.. 43 No. J. D. pp. pp. pp. pp.M.M. L. D. S. (1996). T. A. (2002). “For fun and proﬁt: hedonic value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store”. Information Systems Research. M. Fiore.. Vol. and Harris. (2002a). D. “Antecedents of B2C channel satisfaction and preference: validating e-commerce metrics”.. 50-68. Vol. “Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations”.M. Hansen. 4 No. Harris. (2009). 80 No.. pp. B. Vol. Goode. L. 9-14.9/10 1134 Dennis. Felter. (2004). D. Iyer. Wedande. Journal of Marketing Research. and Patel. European Journal of Marketing. Fortin. 353-73. 9/10.
Bellman. 14 No. Vol. 75-91. 1. W. L. and Wright. University of Westminster. Y. 2. in Peterson. A. 40-50. Kuehn. 43-70. and Bergeron. pp. European Journal of Marketing. Journal of Advertising Research. IMRG/Capgemini (2008). “Consumers online: intentions. European Journal of Marketing. 1. 127-42. Fader.. and Vijayasarathy. (2004). 322-30.K. J. “Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty – an empirical analysis”. 3. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management..W. Vol. G. Vol. “Marketing communications and customer attitudes towards SSTs in banking”. Jayawardhena. pp. and Turban. Vol.. Jayawardhena. pp. K. McDougall. (1999). 1. pp. Kolsaker.. Vol. 6. 10-17. “Is there a future for retailing on the internet?”. 39 No. 515-26. M.K.L. Jones. pp. Johnson.A. Sage Publications. Vol. pp.A. Vol. 1171-87. L. S. (2004). (2001). Journal of Retailing. and Wolin. (2009).org (accessed 3 December 2008). orientations and segmentation”. L. pp. 54-7. pp. 18 No.M. 3. London. Kooli. Researching Online Buying’s Ofﬂine Impact. P. C. Vol. M. C. International Journal of Consumer Studies.J. “A trust model for consumer internet shopping”. Electronic Marketing and the Consumer. Vol. Vol.D. CA. “A multivariate analysis of web usage”. (2009). Academy of Marketing 21st Service Workshop Proceedings. L. Vol. and Dubinsky. CACI.S. (2007). 50 No. Internet Research. Vol.A. 1188-204. (2009). London. 2. Z.-Y. E. Kim. “An empirical investigation into e-shopping excitement: antecedents and effects”. and Chen. 28 No. A. Lee. International Journal of Electronic Commerce.J.-T. 19 November. Jayawardhena. (2001). and Lohse. 6 No. E-consumer behaviour 1135 . London. pp. Kim. E. “Consumer brand choice – a learning process?”. pp. K. “Internet versus bricks and mortar retailers: an investigation into intangibility and its consequences”. 295-309. pp. (1962). A. pp.T. S. 35 No. Wright. 299-309. W. G. 56 No. European Journal of Marketing. Yang. 4.L. and Todd. C. pp. available at www. (2001). (2004).-H. 9/10. Wright. Journal of Business Research. S. Schrank.O. 9/10. Management Science. Broderick. 2. Lee-Kelley. (2007). Kim. 251-67. J. and Kandampully. L. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy. J. “The hierarchical inﬂuence of personal values on e-shopping attitude and behaviour”. pp. “IMRG Capgemini Sales Index: November 2008”. (1998).S. 1101-20. and Choy. H... P. (2007). Laroche.H. Psychology & Marketing. (1997).. 43 No.-T. Vol.T..Homburg. A. 4 No. “On the depth and dynamics of online search behaviour”..C. Moe. Huang. 9/10. 53-68. “Internet consumer catalog shopping: ﬁndings from an exploratory study and directions for future research”. 43 No.J. “Adoption of sensory enabling technology for online apparel shopping”. “Buying environment characteristics in the context of e-service”. and Tan.R. 11. J. IMRG Capgemini. M. Jarvenpaa. 8 No. and Dennis. C. and Giering. J. (2005). Journal of Advertising Research.-L.. P. pp. S. C. A. Thousand Oaks. 4. (Ed. P. Vol. pp. C. Lee. R.imrg. Vol. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. L. “Effect of brand name on consumers’ risk perceptions of online shopping”. “E-retailing versus physical retailing: a theoretical model and empirical test of consumer choice”. 43 No.).. (2003). and Forsythe. Kimber. “The reluctant Hong Kong consumer: purchasing travel online”. 877-85.G. 81 No. Korgaonkar.
(1974). Vol. Vol. S. 36 No. 50 No. pp. 43 No. (Eds). “Describing and measuring emotional response to shopping experience”. Oxford Internet Institute (2005). McKinney.W. Journal of Business Research. J.W. 13 No. An Approach to Environmental Psychology.I. New York. and Cheung. pp. Vol.J. and Goodhue. J. 2002 Marketing Educators’ Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications. 13. pp. Corporate Reputation Review.. (1974). Information and Management.. 38 No. . 116. F. and Trehum. 12-40. Martineau. “The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: an expectation and disconﬁrmation approach”. Loiacono. (2001). Vol. Vol. F. “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”. 22-42. Oxford. 4. and Huang. pp.EJM 43. 49. Mehrabian. and Beck. J. V. 101-11. M. A.-G. Aging and Cognitive Processes. 47-55.L. MIT Press. M. and Fry. Novak.T. design. 2/3. R.E. L. “Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context”. 1160-6. Differential Psychology. D.D. pp. 1. Yoon. NY. Prospect Heights. pp. Journal of Retailing. J. “An empirical study on consumer acceptance of products in electronic markets: a transaction cost model”. 432-7. Information Systems Research. Vol..W. and Zahedi. Watson. Decision Support Systems. Information Systems Research. pp. K. Moskovitch. Siomkos. Parasuraman. 4. and Russell. Liao.L. Oxford Internet Institute. and Yung. S. and Berry. “Internet-based e-banking and consumer attitudes: an empirical study”. Oxford Internet Survey: Results of a Nationwide Survey of Britons aged 14 and Older.. “Corporate branding: a framework for e-retailers”. E. J. Y. Vol. M. Harvard Business Review. Machleit. and Kim. K. (2002). 19 No.C. Journal of International Business Studies. pp. “Meaning of image: a survey of empirical and hypothetical evidence”. (1998). J. “Measuring the customer experience in online environments: a structural modeling approach”.P. Waveland Press. (2002).P. 2. (1980). 1. 4. (2002). 287-301.T. “WEBQUAL: a measure of web site quality”. pp.A. A. Palmer. (2001).T. Lynch. “Web site usability. 1. pp. and Schneider. Vol. 296-315. (1988). Vol. pp. Z.A. (2000). Information and Management. in Evans. 5 No. Vol. in Craik. 4. and Lee. K. 32 No. Y. (2006). Plenum Press. “Proﬁles of internet buyers in 20 countries: evidence for region-speciﬁc strategies”. Marketing Science. D. E. F. 29-43. 29-38. (1982). 1140-53. “Store atmosphere in web retailing”. H. G. 3. Journal of Retailing. Cambridge. Manganari. and Vrechopoulos.-J. pp. T. L. Merrilees. (2002). Moon.9/10 1136 Liang. 59 No. Vol. and performance metrics”. 39 No.L. Minton. pp. J. (2009). pp.W.A. pp. V. Vol. 64 No. pp. 213-27. “Neuropsychological approach to perception and memory in normal and pathological aging”.S. and Eroglu. B. E. P. 1. and Scheer. Lindquist. A. 9/10. Zeithaml. (Eds). Vol. Vol. Overby. 217-30.P.M. 24 No. “The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and intentions”. 151-67. 55-78. Journal of Business Research. 13 No. P. MA. (1958). Vol. “The personality of the retail store”.D. (2002).A. IL. 725-48. 10/11. T.. (2000). European Journal of Marketing. Hoffman.
pp. pp. (2004). 1. and Warshaw. 1. Richard. and Hise. Vol.-O.. Vol. 6. T. Journal of Business Research. pp. Vol. 7 No. 1005-34. Vol. Vol. “E-S-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality”. 2. E.J. B. 17 No. pp. pp.B. B. 1019-29. T. pp. A. V. Journal of Service Research.R. 43-55. (2000). 115-39. (2000). Lepkowska-White. Journal of Marketing. Journal of Business Research. R. Venkatesh.E. “Modeling the impact of internet atmospherics on surfer behavior”. 18 No. 20 No. Petty. MIS Quarterly.M. pp. “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion”. 58 No. 22. 567-97. 7. pp..M. Swinyard. 748-57. S. pp. and Cacioppo. W. E-consumer behaviour 1137 .G. (1999).H. B. (2005). pp. 57 No. October. and Stafford. Vol. 7. (Ed. “Browsers or buyers in cyberspace? An investigation of factors inﬂuencing electronic exchange”. 51 No. (2002). 605-28. pp. Swaminathan. D. Academic Press. social inﬂuence. Rohm. and Cheikhrouhou. R. Sheppard. Vol.). 2. M. Journal of Consumer Marketing. New York. Stern. pp. A. pp. (2000). Vol. E. and Chandra. J. intrinsic motivation and emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model: four longitudinal ﬁeld studies”.. pp. (2005). 46-59. 3. (2004). P. E.. (1988). 15. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Marketing. Parsons. D. “A typology of online shoppers based on shopping motivations”. 4. Vol.G.-O. S. 11 No.M. 3. “Gender differences in risk behaviour in ﬁnancial decision-making: an experimental analysis”. 5 No. “The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modiﬁcations and future research”. 123-205. January.A. R. and Smith. “Non-functional motives for online shoppers: why we click”. Vol. 380-92. and Malhotra. A. Zeithaml. V. pp. R. Psychology and Marketing. (2000). 76 No.T. 5. NY. Information System Research. L. Powell. Saad. Vol. Journal of Economic Psychology. G. (1972). pp.C. and Swaminathan. 342-65.K. M.P. (2003). Hartwick. K. “Why people (don’t) shop online: a lifestyle study of the internet consumer”. “Individual and social determinants of winning bids in online auctions”. 19 No. Vol. (1986). 309-22. 5 No. “Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: an assessment of a reassessment”.T. and de Ruyter. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 1632-42. 325-43. (1997). Vol. in Berkowitz. Tauber. Vol.Parasuraman. 213-33. A. J. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. B. G. “Why do people shop?”.D. 36. Vol. Vol. Stenstrom.. “Online hunting and gathering: an evolutionary perspective on sex differences in web site preferences and navigation”. International Journal of Service Industries Management. Journal of Retailing. 132-9. pp. (2008). “Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control. and their role in technology acceptance and usage behaviour”. “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender. Dellaert. V. 1. 1. Journal of Consumer Research. and Ansic. Vol.. pp. Saad. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication. Vol.R. 58. “What drives consumers to shop online? A literature review”. (1993). 12. 155-68. Psychology and Marketing. Journal of Business Research. V. Vol. 58. V. Teas. (2005). 102-21. 24 No. M. and Morris. Szymanski. “Applications of evolutionary psychology in marketing”. “A model of consumer web navigational behavior: conceptual development and application”. Richard. Stenstrom. M. (2006). ´ Perea y Monsuwe. 15 No. and Gill. P. Venkatesh. and Rao. “e-Satisfaction: an initial examination”. M.
D. Zhang. L. pp.B. 9-33. 31-47. p. His publications include Marketing the e-Business (1st and 2nd editions) (joint-authored with Dr Lisa Harris).. (Ed. V. and Donthu. and Gilly. Yang. C. paper presented at the 1999 Annual Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. F. 8 No. Charles Dennis is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: charles. 4. (2007). Wu. and Lester. 3. Vol.G. Marketing Science Institute. NM. (2001). Elsevier. “Online shopping acceptance model – a critical survey of consumer factors in online shopping”. Vol.dennis@brunel. November. MA. (2002). (1981). 18. G. 156-69. M. The Marketing of Services. 355-63. Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce.E. 1. MIS Quarterly. in Baker. and George. Chicago. His research into shopping styles has received extensive coverage in the popular media. 27 No. 3. Wright..). N. 79 No.9/10 1138 Venkatesh. “. 2081-97. 6 No. in Donnolly. M. 3. Zhou. Dai. Zeithaml. Wolﬁnbarger. (2002). “Qualitative research”. and Gubar. Albuquerque. Applied Economics. “Perceived interactivity and attitude toward web site”.C. 2. “User expectations and rankings of quality factors in different web site domains”. IL. pp. Journal of Business Research (forthcoming). Journal of Marketing Research. and Dennis. “eTailQ: dimensionalizing. pp. measuring and predicting quality of the e-tail experience”. G. pp. 6th ed. L. The Marketing Textbook. 41-62. L. Vol. W. 2 No. (2003). (2009). (2005). 425-78. 183-98. “Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response”. (2008). Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. (1999). Davis.A.M. (2003). Morris. Journal of Retailing. (1966). “Gender differences in e-commerce”.ac. Vol. Yoo. Wells. Further reading Alsajjan.comQ: dimensionalizing. UK. M. J. W. About the authors Charles Dennis is a Senior Lecturer at Brunel University. 515. American Marketing Association. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Wolﬁnbarger. K.EJM 43. (1998). M. V. and Zhang. J. and Baker. 1. G. 37 No. (Eds). Vol. He is a Chartered Marketer and has been elected a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing for work helping to modernise the teaching of the discipline. 74 No. and Davis. Wakeﬁeld. measuring and predicting e-tail quality”. D. the research-based e-Retailing (joint-authored with Professor Bill Merrilees and Dr Tino Fenech) and the research monograph Objects of Desire: Consumer Behaviour in Shopping Centre Choice. M.uk . Journal of Retailing. G. “Life cycle concept in marketing research”. pp. 02-100. P. 186-90. London. and Von Dran. Vol. B.C. His teaching and research area is (e-)retail and consumer behaviour – the vital ﬁnal link of the marketing process – satisfying the end consumer. pp. pp. pp. M. Vol. B. Working Paper No. pp. Amsterdam. “The internet banking acceptance model”. “User acceptance of information technology: towards a uniﬁed view”..T. B. “Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an internet shopping site (SITEQUAL)”.L. “How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods and services”. and Gilly. Cambridge. Vol. D.. He was awarded the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Teaching Excellence for improving the interactive student learning experience.
He has a Bachelor of Commerce (Hons I) from the University of Newcastle. Canada. He has published more than 100 refereed journal articles or book chapters. E-consumer behaviour 1139 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. He is also associated with the Tourism. European Journal of Marketing. among others. Len Tiu Wright is Professor of Marketing and Research Professor at De Montfort University. Westpac. She has held full-time appointments and visiting appointments in the UK and overseas. He has consulted with companies like Shell. His work includes innovative scale development in the areas of e-interactivity.com/reprints . in American and European academic journals. e-strategy and e-trust. an Emerald publication. She is on the editorial boards of a number of leading marketing journals and is Editor of the Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. Journal of Marketing Management. Six of his articles have been in the e-commerce ﬁeld. Australia and an MA and PhD from the University of Toronto. Bill particularly enjoys conducting case research as it builds a bridge to the real world. Journal of General Management. down to middle-sized companies like accountants and even very small ﬁrms like ﬂorists. Her writings have appeared in books.emeraldinsight. He has won numerous research awards including two Best Paper Awards at the Academy of Marketing Conference in 2003 and 2004. including the Journal of Relationship Marketing. Jones Lang Lasalle at the large end. Leicester.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. UK. He has worked in both academia and the government.Bill Merrilees is Professor of Marketing and Deputy Head of the Department of Marketing at Grifﬁth Business School. Corporate Reputation Review and Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Previous publications have appeared (or forthcoming) in the Industrial Marketing Management. based on the Gold Coast campus. Sport and Service Innovation Research Centre. Journal of Internet Research and European Business Review. Chanaka Jayawardhena is Lecturer in Marketing at Loughborough University Business School. e-branding. and at conferences where some have gained best paper awards for overall best conference papers and best-in-track papers. Journal of Business Strategies.