Information & Management 48 (2011) 192–200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

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

Repurchase intention in B2C e-commerce—A relationship quality perspective§

Yixiang Zhang a,b, Yulin Fang c,*, Kwok-Kee Wei c, Elaine Ramsey d, Patrick McCole e, Huaping Chen f
a
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, PR China
b
Center for Energy & Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, PR China
c
Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
d
School of Business, Retail and Financial Services, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK
e
Queen’s University Management School, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
f
School of Computer Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Information systems professionals must pay attention to online customer retention. Drawing on the
Received 19 September 2008 relationship marketing literature, we formulated and tested a model to explain B2C user repurchase
Received in revised form 17 November 2010 intention from the perspective of relationship quality. The model was empirically tested through a
Accepted 30 December 2010
survey conducted in Northern Ireland. Results showed that online relationship quality and perceived
Available online 19 May 2011
website usability positively impacted customer repurchase intention. Moreover, online relationship
quality was positively influenced by perceived vendor expertise in order fulfillment, perceived vendor
Keywords:
reputation, and perceived website usability, whereas distrust in vendor behavior negatively influenced
Repurchase intention
online relationship quality. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Online relationship quality
Business-to-customer e-commerce ß 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Trust
Distrust
Satisfaction

1. Introduction lens though relationship quality is regarded as an important

In general, online buying behavior can be understood in two
stages: the first stage is primarily concerned with encouraging
people to purchase online and the second is to encourage them
to repurchase, which is critical if the e-commerce vendor is to
succeed. It costs more time and effort to acquire new customers
than to retain existing ones. Indeed, customer retention is often
seen as a means to gaining competitive advantage [24].
However, only about 1% of online visitors return to carry out
repeated purchases [10]. It is therefore important to delve into
the drivers of online customer repurchase behavior [20].
Repurchase intention is a manifestation of customer loyalty.
Although the literature identifies other dimensions of customer
loyalty [12], repurchase behavior has a more direct effect on the
vendor’s profit. Careful scrutiny of the literature indicates that it
is only relatively recently that studies have considered online
customer repurchase behavior [14]. Indeed, few studies have
examined repurchase intention through a relationship quality
§
This work was partially supported by Strategic Research Grant at City
University of Hong Kong, China (No. CityU 7002521), and the National Nature
Science Foundation of China (No. 70773008).
* Corresponding author at: P7722, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong,
China. Tel.: +852 27887492; fax: +852 34420370.
E-mail address: ylfang@cityu.edu.hk (Y. Fang).
factor in the relationship marketing literature. We therefore
decided to examine antecedents of relationship quality and
understand how it relates to customer repurchase behavior in an
online context.
Much of the relationship marketing literature looks at ways
of sustaining buyer–seller relationships in traditional business
situations. It focuses on buyer satisfaction and trust in the
vendor by considering these two factors as key dimensions of
relationship quality. It asserts that both are indispensable in
maintaining a good buyer-seller relationship. Satisfaction
reflects a state resulting from the buyer’s evaluation of the
vendor’s past performance, while trust reflects the buyer’s
confidence in the vendor’s future performance. Thus a buyer-
seller relationship is of high quality only if both the vendor’s
past and future performance are perceived to be favorable. It is
posited that the relationship quality construct may play a
significant role in retaining buyers and increasing buyer loyalty
in business context [19].
We focused on the relationship quality in online customer’s
repurchase intention in the B2C context (the online relationship
quality) and examined several key antecedents of online
relationship quality: vendor characteristics (perceived website
usability, perceived expertise in order fulfillment and perceived
reputation) and vendor behavior factor (distrust in vendor
behavior). We therefore posed two questions: (1) to what extent

0378-7206/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2011.05.003
 Y. Zhang et al. / Information & Management 48 (2011) 192–200
does online relationship quality influence customers’ online
repurchase intention; and (2) what factors influence online
relationship quality?
2. Conceptual background
Recently, we have seen an explosive growth of relationship
marketing research in the traditional business context [11]. The
area has considered all activities that establish, develop, and
maintain relational exchange in order to generate long-term
customer relationships. Sanchez-Franco et al. [22] investigated
relationship quality between customers and service providers and
found that it positively influenced loyalty towards the service
provider. Lages et al. [16] developed a scale (RELQUAL) to measure
relationship quality in the export market. Similarly, Rauyruen and
Miller [21] studied relationship quality in the B2B context and
found that it positively influenced business customer loyalty. Most
prior studies were performed in the traditional marketing context.
We focused on the impact of online relationship quality on
repurchase intention in a B2C e-commerce context.
Although earlier research in relationship marketing investigated
and tested relationship quality in various contexts, the definitions
and conceptualization remained subtly different. Johnson et al.’s
conceptualization of relationship quality focused on trust, commit-
ment, and relationship stability [13], but it has been considered to
also include satisfaction, commitment, and service quality. Howev-
er, despite inconsistencies, most of the literature agrees that
satisfaction and trust are the key sub-constructs of relationship
quality. Prior work has argued that a good relationship is developed
only when buyers feel satisfied and have trust in their relationship
with the vendor. Extending this definition, we view online
Vendor Characteristics
Perceived
Website
Usability
H3
Perceived
Expertise in
H4
Order Fulfillment
H5
Perceived
Reputation
H6
Vendor Behavior
Distrust in
Vendor
Behavior
Fig. 1. Research model.
193
relationship quality as a second-order construct composed of a
customer’s trust on and satisfaction with an online vendor.
Two categories of factors are usually considered to be
antecedents of relationship quality: salesperson characteristics
(qualities such as domain expertise) and behavior. However, in the
B2C e-commerce context, it is the website, that represents the
vendor, not a salesperson. To build an online relationship quality in
B2C e-commerce, a well-designed, highly usable website becomes
the equivalent of a competent salesperson. Hence, we included
website usability as a major factor influencing online relationship
quality.
In the online context, fulfilling an order is completed by the
online vendor either through the website (if the product is digital)
or by offline means. Vendor expertise in fulfilling the order is
critical in both instances. We therefore included this expertise as
part of our model.
In the traditional business context, salespeople promote
relationship quality by demonstrating certain behaviors includ-
ing relational selling behavior, service recovery, relationship
investment, social support, communication and relationship
management. We focused on customer’s distrust in vendor
behavior (e.g., promising to do something but not doing it); this
can severely damage a vendor’s relationship quality with its
customers. Distrust is, of course, an important and distinct factor
that can influences online customer’s behavior [6]. Most prior
research has focused only on positive factors, such as trust,
familiarity, service level, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease
of use. By including this important yet ignored negative factor, we
hoped to help develop a more comprehensive understanding of
the effect of online relationship quality and how to avoid
destroying it.
H2
Online H1 Online
Relationship Repurchase
Quality Intention
Control variables:
Gender; Income; education
Expertise in using internet
Familiarity with the vendor
Privacy concern
194 Y. Zhang et al. / Information & Management 48 (2011) 192–200
3. Research model and hypotheses
Fig. 1 shows the research model for our study. It is intended to
explain customer repurchase intention in B2C e-commerce.
Relationship quality and perceived website usability are consid-
ered to be the main predictors of repurchase intention. Factors
relating to vendor characteristics (perceived expertise in order
fulfillment, perceived website usability, and perceived reputation)
and vendor behavior (distrust in vendor behavior) are the assumed
antecedents of relationship quality.
3.1. Online relationship quality
A buyer–seller relationship is considered high quality only
when previous interaction with the vendor has been positive and
future interactions with the seller are expected. A good relation-
ship is developed only when buyers feel satisfied and have trust in
their relationship with the vendor. We thus hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1. Online relationship quality is positively related to
customer online repurchase intention.
3.2. Online vendor characteristics
3.2.1. Website usability
Consumers use a website to find product information, make
online payments, and complete purchases. Thus a website should
provide the consumer with rich product information [25]. In
addition, a well-designed website with high usability (e.g., ease of
navigation) can improve a consumer’s online buying experience
and their perception of the vendor [4,7]. Cyr [5] found that
consumer loyalty was positively related to website usability
design. Other research has highlighted a significant relationship
between loyalty and website usability when consumers are
familiar with the website [3]. Similarly, we expected a positive
relationship between website usability and online repurchase
behavior and hypothesized:
Hypothesis 2. Perceived website usability is positively related to
online repurchase intention.
Perceived website usability influences online customer percep-
tions towards the website. Yoon found that certain properties of a
website (e.g., adequacy of product description and width of
product selections) significantly influenced customer trust and
that navigation functionality was a significant antecedent of
customer satisfaction. Zviran et al. [26] studied the effect of
website usability and user-based design on customer satisfaction
and found that website usability influenced user satisfaction.
Flavian et al. found that perceived website usability influenced
customer satisfaction and trust positively. Casaló et al. also found
that perceived website usability positively influenced customer
satisfaction. Therefore, we expected a significant relationship
between perceived website usability and online relationship
quality and hypothesized:
Hypothesis 3. Perceived website usability is positively related to
online relationship quality.
3.2.2. Vendor expertise in order fulfillment
There seems to be a significant relationship between salesperson
expertise and relationship quality. In B2C e-commerce, order
fulfillment is an important characteristic of the online vendor [2].
We therefore studied vendor expertise in order fulfillment as
perceived by online customers. Customer perceptions of order
processing is important in influencing e-commerce success [23]. It is
also important for online customers to receive the product for which
they have paid in a timely, efficient, and safe manner. When a
customer’s perception of online vendor expertise in order fulfillment
is high, the customer believes that the vendor has the ability and
relevant competencies associated with order fulfillment and is
confident that he/she will obtain the product on time. This, in turn,
increases his/her satisfaction and trust. Therefore, customers tend to
develop long-term relationships when they perceive high vendor
expertise in order fulfillment. Thus we hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4. Perceived vendor expertise in order fulfillment is
positively related to online relationship quality.
3.2.3. Vendor reputation
Vendor reputation involves customer perceptions of the vendor’s
public image, innovativeness, quality of product and service, and
commitment to customer satisfaction [15]. Customers can deter-
mine vendor reputation based on an evaluation of the vendor’s past
performance and behavior. Reputation is associated with brand
equity and firm credibility; it is also viewed as a sign of
trustworthiness. It is, however, difficult to build, but easy to lose.
This requires the vendor to stay motivated to maintain a good
reputation once it is established. Furthermore, customers tend to
trust vendors with a high reputation because they believe that such
firms will not risk their reputation by acting opportunistically.
Empirical research has shown that reputation is an important trust-
building factor for online vendors and is significantly related to trust.
Therefore:
Hypothesis 5. Perceived vendor reputation is positively related to
online relationship quality.
3.3. Distrust in vendor behavior
Increasing research efforts are being paid to studying the
concept of distrust [6]. We studied the effect of online customers’
distrust of a vendor’s behavior on relationship quality. When
customers have distrust in vendor behavior, they believe that the
vendor will not keep their promises. Distrust also implies
violations of customer expectations. For example, an online vendor
may deliver low quality products. Accordingly, we posit a negative
relationship between distrust in vendor behavior and online
relationship quality:
Hypothesis 6. Distrust in vendor behavior is negatively related to
online relationship quality.
3.4. Control variables
Several control variables were included in our model to rule out
the possibility that empirical results were due to covariance with
other variables. Some variables have been found to influence
online customers directly or indirectly, such as gender, levels of
income and education, expertise in using the Internet, and
familiarity with the vendor. We therefore included these factors
as control variables.
4. Research methods and analyses
4.1. Measurement development
Most of our constructs have been established in prior literature
and we drew on and adapted these measures to enhance the
validity of our study. Appendix A lists the items for each measure
and provides the sources of our measures. Individual meetings
 Y. Zhang et al. / Information & Management 48 (2011) 192–200 195

Table 1 in the magnitude of coefficients. The final questionnaire was

Demographic information of respondents.
emailed to 170 randomly chosen university staff. A printed
Measure Items Frequency Percent questionnaire was distributed to a sample of 695 students
Gender Female 251 69.7 attending business courses at the university. We received 360
usable responses, yielding a response rate of 42%. Table 1 shows
Age 19–25 200 55.6
the respondents’ demographic information. Our sample covered
26–35 74 20.5
36–45 40 11.1 a broad collection of online vendors, with the four most
>45 46 12.8 frequently cited vendors being (1) easyJet (21%; n = 77); (2)
Amazon (16%; n = 58); (3) eBay (6%; n = 23); and (4) Play.com
Occupation University student 205 56.9
Staff 155 43.1 (6%; n = 23).
A non-response bias check was performed by comparing the
Income <20 k 141 39.2
first and last 10% of the responses on all the main constructs using a
20–40 k 114 31.7
>40 k 105 29.1 Mann–Whitney U-test. None of the tests were statistically
significant, indicating that non-response bias was not a problem.

were held with two colleagues to discuss: the appropriateness of
the questionnaire items; whether there was any ambiguity
surrounding the questionnaire items; and the appearance and
layout of the instrument. Based on this, a revised questionnaire
was developed and sent to the same individuals for a second
review. Some additional suggestions were made and minor
revisions resulted. The revised questionnaire was then piloted
among 10 staff and 12 students in a large university before being
accepted as the final version.
4.2. Data collection
To test the model, we conducted a survey based on respondents’
retrospective online purchasing experience. This is appropriate
because online purchase behaviors are memorable events that can
be recalled by customers [9]. The participants were instructed to
complete the survey questionnaire only if they had online buying
experience, and the product was for personal use. This solved the
problem of respondents answering questions related to purchases
they had carried out on behalf of the university. We asked
respondents to ‘‘please think of a vendor you have purchased from
recently via the Internet.’’ They were asked to write down the
vendor’s name and website address before answering survey
questions.
The survey data was collected from a sample of students and
staff at a university located in Northern Ireland. We are
confident that the study can be generalized to the population
in Northern Ireland in terms of the age and socio-economic
profiles of online consumers represented by our sample. The
feasibility of using a student sample has been demonstrated in
prior studies [8]; a large portion of them have online shopping
experience. We re-analyzed the sample by splitting it into
Student (sample size 155) and University Staff (sample size
205). Overall results for the two sub-samples showed that the
significance level remained the same and no substantial
differences were found in the inferences between the student
sub-sample and the staff sub-sample, despite slight differences
4.3. Data analysis
We used a two-stage analytical procedure to analyze the data.
First, a confirmatory factor analysis was done to assess the
measurement model. Second, the structural model was examined.
We used SmartPLS to conduct the analysis. Bootstrapping with 500
re-samples and 360 cases per sample was used to assess the path
significance.
4.3.1. Measurement model
We first checked for reliability and construct validity. Online
relationship quality was conceptualized as a second-order factor
containing satisfaction and trust. We used the factor score of the
first-order construct as items of online relationship quality.
The construct loadings were examined, with values greater
than 0.7 being retained and items with loadings lower than 0.7
being dropped. The model was then re-examined. All of the
remaining items loaded sufficiently on the relevant construct
(P < 0.01). Table 2 shows the number of items, composite
reliability, and average variance extracted in the final measure-
ment. The composite reliability was then checked: the lowest value
was 0.84, which is larger than the recommended value of 0.7,
showing good reliability.
Convergent validity was assessed by examining average
variance extracted (AVE) from the measures; it ranged from
0.61 to 0.78, well above the recommended value of 0.5, thus
showing convergent validity. In Table 3, the square root of the AVE
for each construct was larger than the correlation of any specific
construct with any of the other constructs, showing that we had
discriminant validity. As shown in Appendix B, all the items
loaded significantly on their target construct, and the loadings
were larger than the cross loadings, which also confirmed
construct validity.
In order to address any possible common method bias, we
followed the procedure suggested by Liang et al. [17]. We
calculated each indicator’s variance, as explained by their
construct and by this method. As shown in Appendix C, the

Table 2
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct Number of items Composite reliability Average variance extracted

Perceived expertise in order fulfillment 3 0.89 0.73

Online relationship quality 2 0.84 0.72
Satisfaction 3 0.92 0.78
Trust 8 0.95 0.69
Perceived reputation 6 0.90 0.61
Perceived website usability 8 0.94 0.65
Distrust in vendor behavior 4 0.90 0.69
Online repurchase intention 3 0.84 0.64
Customer expertise in using Internet 4 0.93 0.77
196 Y. Zhang et al. / Information & Management 48 (2011) 192–200

Table 3
Correlation between constructs.

Mean, SD PEOF SAT TRU ORI PR DIST PWU CEUI

PEOF 5.68, 1.02 0.85

SAT 5.85, 1.08 0.41 0.88
TRU 5.45, 1.02 0.66 0.46 0.83
ORI 5.94, 1.06 0.45 0.40 0.49 0.80
PR 5.55, 0.96 0.47 0.50 0.55 0.29 0.78
DIST 3.70, 1.43 0.24 0.37 0.47 0.26 0.40 0.83
PWU 6.03, 0.88 0.52 0.43 0.55 0.49 0.43 0.32 0.81
CEUI 4.71, 1.34 0.20 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.13 0.28 0.88

Note: SD, standard deviation; PEOF, perceived expertise in order fulfillment; SAT, satisfaction; TRU, trust; PR, Perceived reputation; DIST, distrust in vendor behavior; PWU,
perceived website usability; CEUI, customer expertise in using Internet; Values in the diagonal row are square roots of the average variance extracted. The other cells contain
the correlations between constructs.

average substantively explained by variance of the indicators was
0.67, the average method explained by variance was 0.01, and the
ratio was 67:1. In addition, all the method factor loadings were not
significant. Thus common method bias was not a major concern in
our study.
4.3.2. Structural model
After checking the validity, we tested our hypotheses with PLS.
Fig. 2 shows the results of the structural model, including the path
coefficients and their significance, along with the R2. We found that
our model explained 34% of the variance of online repurchase
intention and 62% of the variance of online relationship quality.
Hypothesis 1 posited that online relationship quality positively
influences repurchase intention. The path coefficient of 0.34
(p < 0.001), supporting this hypothesis. The influence of perceived
website usability on online repurchase intention was positive and
significant (coefficient of 0.24, p < 0.001), providing support for
Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 posited that perceived website
usability positively influenced online relationship quality. This
was supported by the significant path coefficient of 0.20
(p < 0.001). The positive impact of perceived vendor expertise in
order fulfillment on relationship quality was also confirmed
(coefficient of 0.36, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 4. Our data
also supported Hypothesis 5 (coefficient of 0.26, p < 0.001). Our
result also showed a negative influence of distrust in vendor
behavior on online relationship quality (coefficient of 0.24,
p < 0.001), which confirmed Hypothesis 6. We did not find any
significant relationship between the control variables and online
repurchase intention.
5. Discussion, implications, and limitations
5.1. Research implications
Most prior research on online repurchase studied satisfaction
and trust separately. We have shown why they should be
examined together when studying online repurchase intention.
Using the second-order construct of relationship quality, we

Vendor Characteristics

Perceived
Website
Usability

H3 (0.20***) H2 (0.24***)

Perceived
Expertise in H4 (0.36***) Online Online
Order Relationship H1 (0.34***) Repurchase
Fulfillment Quality Intention
(R2=0.62) (R2=0.34)
H5 (0.26***)
Perceived
Reputation

H6 (-0.24***)
Vendor Behavior
*p≤0.05,**p≤0.01;***p≤0.001
Distrust in
Vendor
Behavior

Fig. 2. Results of PLS analysis.

 Y. Zhang et al. / Information & Management 48 (2011) 192–200 197

obtained a more parsimonious model with the same predictive
power as with the two separate models; indeed, when we broke
the relationship quality into two first-order constructs (satisfac-
tion and trust) and re-examined the model, we found that the first-
order model explained the same variance of repurchase intention
as did the higher order model. Marketing research has posited a
paradigm shift from transactional marketing to relationship
marketing and has called for more focus on buyer–seller relation-
ships; this was true for e-commerce in our study.
Our study identified and synthesized several important ante-
cedents of online relationship quality: vendor characteristics
(website usability, expertise in order fulfillment and reputation)
and vendor behavior (distrust in vendor behavior). Also online
relationship quality was positively influenced by all three vendor
characteristics and negatively influenced by perceived malevolent
vendor behavior.
Website usability depends on product information presentation
and ease of conducting transactions. Order fulfillment should focus
on post-purchase service. The empirical data showed that perceived
vendor expertise in order fulfillment had a greater impact on online
relationship quality than perceived website usability. This is
important. There have been very few studies on B2C e-commerce
retention that have focused on the post-purchase stage of order
fulfillment. We showed the importance of considering the post-
purchase stage of order fulfillment. Furthermore, the greater impact
of order fulfillment implies that vendor post-purchase expertise is
more important for online relationship quality than expertise in
online activities. Product delivery is important.
We also studied another vendor characteristic: perceived vendor
reputation. This was not included as an antecedent of relationship
quality but is considered very important. Prior research on B2C e-
commerce found that vendor reputation was important as it can
influence customer. Our study revealed that perceived reputation
was important: it positively impacts online relationship quality,
extending the original offline relationship quality model.
The study also revealed the negative influence of distrust in
vendor behavior on online relationship quality. We empirically
demonstrated its detrimental role on online relationship quality.
5.2. Managerial implications
Our study poses certain implications for the management. It
suggests that online vendors should adopt a relationship-oriented
view when conducting business online and evaluate ongoing
attempts to do so by using the concept of online relationship
quality in the pursuit of customer loyalty.
Website usability was found to positively influence both
relationship quality and repurchase intention, showing that
online vendors should be more considerate of the role of the
website and work to improve user experience by providing rich
product information, improving website navigation functions,
and making online purchasing easier.
Expertise in order fulfillment was found to be an important
antecedent of relationship quality, showing that online vendors
should demonstrate their expertise in order to increase
customer loyalty and retention. For example, they could provide
professional testimonies and publish on-time delivery statistics.
Mangers of e-commerce website can also improve online
relationship quality by establishing and sustaining a good
reputation thus promoting customer loyalty and retention.
5.3. Limitations
Our research had certain limitations. First, our data were
collected only in Northern Ireland, UK. Caution must therefore be
exercised when attempting to generalize our results to other
locations. Also, since the respondents self-selected the online
vendor from whom they had purchased material in order to
answer the questionnaire, social desirability bias may be present –
although it may be observed that the data had enough variability to
make model testing possible.
6. Conclusion
Our study developed and tested a model explaining B2C e-
commerce customer repurchase intention from a relationship
quality perspective. By including vendor characteristics (per-
ceived website usability, perceived expertise in order fulfillment
and perceived reputation) and vendor behavior (distrust in
vendor behavior), our model explained the importance of online
relationship quality to online re-purchase intention. To a certain
degree, our study demonstrated the value of using relationship
marketing theory to account for online customer repurchasing
behavior. Its results should provide useful implications for e-
commerce practitioners.

Appendix A. Measurement items

Construct Items Source

Online repurchase intention Likelihood/probability that you will purchase online from the [20]
same vendor. . .
In the medium term
In the long term
I will never purchase from the same vendor again

Satisfaction Overall extremely dissatisfied/overall extremely satisfied [20]

Overall extremely displeased/overall extremely pleased
My expectations were not met at all/my expectations were
exceeded

Trust I believe that this vendor is consistent in quality and service [20]
I believe that this vendor is keen to fulfill my needs and wants
I believe that this vendor is honest
I believe that this vendor wants to be known as one that keeps
promises and commitments
I believe that this vendor has my best interests in mind
I believe that this vendor is trustworthy
I believe that this vendor has high integrity
I believe that this vendor is dependable
198 Y. Zhang et al. / Information & Management 48 (2011) 192–200

Appendix A (Continued )

Construct Items Source

Perceived expertise in order fulfillment
I believe that this vendor has knowledge and expertise in [20]
distribution (i.e. how to deliver products/services)
I believe that this vendor has efficiently integrated all necessary
departments/systems that are needed to deliver products or
services
I believe that this vendor has an efficient system for processing
orders received

Perceived reputation Poor/excellent public image [20]

Not/extremely committed to customer satisfaction
Not innovative at all/extremely innovative
Products and/or services are extremely poor/excellent
Has an extremely poor/excellent reputation.
Extremely unreliable/reliable

Distrust in vendor behavior I believe that this vendor could sometimes fail to deliver product/ Developed
service as and when promised based on [8,23]
I believe this vendor is sometimes unable to deliver what they
promise to
I believe that this vendor is sometimes unable to meet
expectations
I believe that this vendor sometimes promises more than they can
deliver

Perceived website usability Extremely difficult/easy to use [1,4,25]

Extremely unprofessional/professional
Extremely poorly organised/well organised
Extremely poor/excellent breadth of product/service selection
Extremely poor/excellent description of product/service selection
Extremely difficult/easy to navigate
Extremely difficult/easy to find information that I want
Extremely difficult/easy to conduct online shopping

Customer expertise in using I know a lot about conducting purchases via the Internet [18]
internet to conduct tractions I am experienced in conducting purchases via the Internet
I am informed about conducting purchases via the Internet
I am an expert buyer of products/services via the Internet

Appendix B. Item loadings and cross loadings

# Construct Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Perceived expertise in order fulfillment PEOF1 0.86 0.17 0.33 0.34 0.52 0.44 0.39 0.13
PEOF2 0.86 0.24 0.36 0.31 0.50 0.38 0.38 0.19
PEOF3 0.85 0.20 0.46 0.38 0.66 0.39 0.54 0.19

2 Distrust in vendor behavior DIST1 0.16 0.78 0.15 0.22 0.32 0.27 0.26 0.04
DIST2 0.20 0.87 0.25 0.30 0.37 0.35 0.25 0.16
DIST3 0.23 0.86 0.17 0.33 0.38 0.38 0.24 0.13
DIST4 0.20 0.81 0.29 0.35 0.46 0.33 0.31 0.11

3 repurchase intention ORI1 0.31 0.19 0.78 0.33 0.34 0.13 0.38 0.14
ORI2 0.43 0.24 0.89 0.40 0.48 0.33 0.47 0.20
ORI3 0.34 0.21 0.71 0.20 0.34 0.22 0.31 0.11

4 Satisfaction SAT1 0.41 0.31 0.38 0.89 0.44 0.47 0.40 0.25
SAT2 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.91 0.38 0.48 0.36 0.25
SAT3 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.86 0.38 0.35 0.37 0.27

5 Trust TRU1 0.60 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.85 0.59 0.50 0.18
TRU2 0.59 0.33 0.46 0.33 0.83 0.45 0.45 0.12
TRU3 0.57 0.40 0.37 0.32 0.83 0.43 0.47 0.19
TRU4 0.54 0.29 0.44 0.39 0.78 0.42 0.50 0.14
TRU5 0.35 0.35 0.24 0.32 0.72 0.31 0.33 0.17
TRU6 0.56 0.38 0.39 0.33 0.84 0.39 0.38 0.11
TRU7 0.57 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.87 0.46 0.47 0.14
TRU8 0.55 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.88 0.53 0.47 0.18

6 Perceived reputation PR1 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.36 0.39 0.70 0.29 0.30
PR2 0.38 0.36 0.23 0.39 0.48 0.82 0.41 0.15
PR3 0.34 0.19 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.72 0.31 0.21
PR4 0.43 0.39 0.29 0.43 0.46 0.84 0.39 0.22
PR5 0.35 0.29 0.15 0.39 0.41 0.83 0.28 0.16
PR6 0.41 0.35 0.29 0.45 0.47 0.75 0.32 0.15
 Y. Zhang et al. / Information & Management 48 (2011) 192–200 199

Appendix B (Continued )

# Construct Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 Perceived website usability PWU1 0.46 0.20 0.46 0.37 0.41 0.25 0.79 0.18
PWU2 0.43 0.24 0.36 0.37 0.50 0.46 0.81 0.18
PWU3 0.43 0.29 0.41 0.41 0.48 0.46 0.85 0.21
PWU4 0.41 0.22 0.34 0.32 0.44 0.40 0.78 0.24
PWU5 0.34 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.41 0.36 0.75 0.29
PWU6 0.47 0.27 0.43 0.33 0.46 0.29 0.87 0.27
PWU7 0.34 0.27 0.42 0.30 0.37 0.28 0.82 0.20
PWU8 0.43 0.27 0.43 0.31 0.44 0.28 0.78 0.23

8 Customer expertise in using internet CEUI1 0.16 0.10 0.19 0.27 0.14 0.22 0.25 0.91
CEUI2 0.19 0.12 0.20 0.26 0.17 0.23 0.26 0.93
CEUI3 0.21 0.11 0.14 0.30 0.19 0.29 0.28 0.87
CEUI4 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.79

Appendix C. Common method bias analysis

Construct Item Substantive factor loading (R1) R12 Method factor loading (R2) R12

Perceived expertise in order fulfillment PEOF1 0.686 0.471 0.181 0.033

PEOF2 0.947 0.897 0.098 0.010
PEOF3 0.930 0.865 0.077 0.006

Relationship quality RQ1 0.982 0.964 0.182 0.033

RQ2 0.736 0.542 0.164 0.027

Online ORI1 0.824 0.679 0.064 0.004

repurchase intention ORI2 0.816 0.666 0.096 0.009
ORI3 0.769 0.591 0.048 0.002

Perceived website usability PWU1 0.825 0.681 0.049 0.002

PWU2 0.685 0.469 0.141 0.020
PWU3 0.717 0.514 0.144 0.021
PWU4 0.750 0.563 0.041 0.002
PWU5 0.739 0.546 0.021 0.000
PWU6 0.963 0.927 0.107 0.011
PWU7 0.981 0.962 0.177 0.031
PWU8 0.786 0.618 0.01 0.000

Perceived reputation PR1 0.739 0.546 0.042 0.002

PR2 0.769 0.591 0.074 0.005
PR3 0.801 0.642 0.084 0.007
PR4 0.777 0.604 0.086 0.007
PR5 0.952 0.906 0.155 0.024
PR6 0.640 0.410 0.117 0.014

Distrust in vendor behavior DIST1 0.835 0.697 0.051 0.003

DIST2 0.896 0.803 0.023 0.001
DIST3 0.876 0.767 0.015 0.000
DIST4 0.718 0.516 0.095 0.009

Average 0.813 0.671 0.001 0.011

References
[1] G. Balabanis, N.L. Reynolds, Consumer attitudes towards multi-chennel retailers’
web sites: the role of involvement, brand attitude, internet knowledge and visit
duration, Journal of Business Strategies 18 (2), 2001, pp. 105–131.
[2] Y. Cao, T.S. Gruca, B.R. Klemz, Internet pricing, price satisfaction, and customer
satisfaction, International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8 (2), 2003, pp. 31–50.
[3] L. Casaló, C. Flavián, M. Guinalı́u, The role of perceived usability, reputation,
satisfaction and consumer familiarity on the website loyalty formation process,
Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2), 2008, pp. 325–345.
[4] G. Chakraborty, V. Lala, D. Warren, An empirical investigation of antecedents of B2B
websites’ effectiveness, Journal of Interactive Marketing 16 (4), 2002, pp. 51–72.
[5] D. Cyr, Modeling web site design across cultures: relationships to trust, satisfaction,
and E-loyalty, Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (4), 2008, pp. 47–72.
[6] A. Dimoka, What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? evidence from a
functional neuroimaging study MIS Quarterly 34 (2), 2010, pp. A373–A377.
[7] C. Flavian, M. Guinaliu, R. Gurrea, The role played by perceived usability, satis-
faction and consumer trust on website loyalty, Information & Management 43 (1),
2006, pp. 1–14.
[8] D. Gefen, Customer loyalty on e-commerce, Journal of the Association for Infor-
mation Systems 3, 2002, pp. 27–51.
[9] Y. Grégoire, R. Fisher, The effects of relationship quality on customer retaliation,
Marketing Letters 17 (1), 2006, pp. 31–46.
[10] S. Gupta, K. Hee-Woong, The moderating effect of transaction experience on the
decision calculus in on-line repurchase, International Journal of Electronic Com-
merce 12 (1), 2007, pp. 127–158.
[11] M.J. Harker, J. Egan, The past, present and future of relationship marketing, Journal
of Marketing Management 22 (1–2), 2006, pp. 215–242.
[12] L.C. Harris, M.M.H. Goode, The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a
study of online service dynamics, Journal of Retailing 80 (2), 2004, pp. 139–158.
[13] J.L. Johnson, R.S. Sohi, R. Grewal, The role of relational knowledge stores in
interfirm partnering, Journal of Marketing 68 (3), 2004, pp. 21–36.
[14] M. Khalifa, V. Liu, Online consumer retention: contingent effects of online
shopping habit and online shopping experience, European Journal of Information
Systems 16 (6), 2007, pp. 780–792.
[15] M. Koufaris, W. Hampton-Sosa, The development of initial trust in an online
company by new customers, Information & Management 41 (3), 2004, pp. 377–397.
[16] C. Lages, C.R. Lages, L.F. Lages, The RELQUAL scale: a measure of relationship quality
in export market ventures, Journal of Business Research 58 (8), 2005, pp. 1040–
1048.
[17] H. Liang, N. Saraf, Q. Hu, Y. Xue, Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of
institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management, MIS Quarterly
31 (1), 2007, pp. 59–87.
[18] P. McCole, E. Ramsey, J. Williams, Trust considerations on attitudes towards
online purchasing: the moderating effect of privacy and security concerns, Journal
of Business Research 63 (9–10), 2010, pp. 1018–1024.
200 Y. Zhang et al. / Information & Management 48 (2011) 192–200

[19] R.W. Palmatier, R.P. Dant, D. Grewal, K.R. Evans, Factors influencing the effective- Kwok-Kee Wei is Chair Professor in the Department of
ness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis, Journal of Marketing 70 (4), Information Systems at the City University of Hong
2006, pp. 136–153. Kong. He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of York
[20] I. Qureshi, Y. Fang, E. Ramsey, P. McCole, P. Ibbotson, D. Compeau, Understanding and B.S. from Nanyang University. His research focuses
online customer repurchasing intention and the mediating role of trust—an on human–computer interaction, innovation adoption
empirical investigation in two developed countries, European Journal of Infor-
and management, electronic commerce, and knowl-
mation Systems 18 (3), 2009, pp. 205–222.
edge management. He has published widely in the
[21] P. Rauyruen, K.E. Miller, Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer
loyalty, Journal of Business Research 60 (1), 2007, pp. 21–31. information systems field with articles appearing in
[22] M.J. Sanchez-Franco, A.F.V. Ramos, F.A.M. Velicia, The moderating effect of gender many international journals.
on relationship quality and loyalty toward Internet service providers, Information
& Management 46 (3), 2009, pp. 196–202.
[23] G. Torkzadeh, G. Dhillon, Measuring factors that influence the success of Internet
commerce, Information Systems Research 13 (2), 2002, pp. 187–204.
[24] H.-T. Tsai, H.-C. Huang, Determinants of e-repurchase intentions: an integrative Dr. Elaine Ramsey is a Senior Lecturer in the
model of quadruple retention drivers, Information & Management 44 (3), 2007, department of Business, Retail and Financial Services,
pp. 231–239. University of Ulster (UU). She received her Ph.D. in SME
[25] S.-J. Yoon, The antecedents and consequences of trust in online-purchase deci- E-Marketing from UU in 2005. Her main research
sions, Journal of Interactive Marketing 16 (2), 2002, pp. 47–63. interests relate to the adoption and diffusion of IT
[26] M. Zviran, C. Glezer, I. Avni, User satisfaction from commercial web sites: the among SMEs, and the inherent issues relative to e-
effect of design and use, Information & Management 43 (2), 2006, pp. 157–178. commerce deployment. She has published in the
European Journal of Information Systems, Journal of
Yixiang Zhang is an Assistant Professor in the School of Business Research, Journal of Marketing Management,
Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Tech- International Journal of Innovation Management, Service
nology. He received his Ph.D. from City University of Industries Journal, and others.
Hong Kong and University of Science and Technology of
China. His current research is focused on knowledge
management, and electronic commerce. He has pub- Patrick McCole is a Lecturer in Management at Queen’s
lished papers in International Journal of Information University Management School, Queen’s University
Management. Belfast. He received his BA (Hons) and PhD degrees
from the University of Ulster. His main research
interests include the role of trust in e-commerce,
new media and customer-connectivity, as well as
empirical evidence relating to the Service-Dominant
Logic.

Yulin Fang is an Assistant Professor in the Department

of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong.
He earned his Ph.D. at Richard Ivey School of Business,
University of Western Ontario. His current research is
focused on knowledge management, virtual teams, and
open source software projects. He has published papers
in major journals such as the Strategic Management Huaping Chen is a Professor in School of Computer
Journal, Journal of Management Information Systems, Science and Technology at University of Science and
Journal of Management Studies, Organizational Research Technology of China. His research interests include
Methods, Journal of the Association for Information information strategies, business intelligence and appli-
Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Journal cation.
of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, Information & Management, among others. He has won the 2009 Senior
Scholars Best IS Publication Award, and was the Samsung Best Paper Award Finalist
and the Carolyn Dexter Award Finalist at the 2008 Academy of Management
Conference.