3, __ Research Methodology 3.1, Sampling and data collection ‘The research hypotheses. were empirically tested — against. «the ~— data collected using a survey questionnaire. The main field study was conducted among e-commerce customers. Consequently, a sample size of 400 respondents was taken from the population of Amman - the capital and most populous city of Jordan- between July and September 2014, Customer names and addresses were obtained from marketing information collected by a marketing company. The respondents were invited to participate in the survey and they were then given a copy of the questionnaire (either electronically or in hardcopy) and were asked to complete the questions as instructed at a time convenient to them. Among the 400 questionnaires sent out, we reevived back 210 of them, However, 6 questionnaires were discarded because they had an unacceptable amount of missing data (Hair et al, 2014), Therefore, 204 were usable questionnaires and accepted for data analysis, The usable responses represented a 51% response rate, which is acceptable for this type of study’ Male participants represented a slightly higher percentage of the completed sample (approximately 53%) compared to female participants (approximately 47%). The majority of the participants were aged 35-45 years (approximately 61%), The completed sample was composed of well-educated individuals; approximately 58% of them were university or post-graduate educated. Approximately 71% of the participants had more than 5 years’ experience in using computers, The majority of the participants (96%) had used e-commerce services for more than 3 years. 95% of the participants accessed the Internet daily 3.2. Consiruct measurement To increase the validity and reliability of the results of this study, all the items except perceived relevance, have been adapted from previously validated studies (Hair et al, 2014), Any changes required to fit the instruments inthe e-commerce coniext were appropriately performed. There is a total of four different constructs used in this study. The items used for all these constructs help to address the research questions as they are designed. Most ofthe scales that used in this study have been previously validated in the IS or marketing fields. Thus, it is valid to assume that using the scales and items with some contextual changes can help to address the research questions of this study. Also, all the constructs used for this study have multiple items,Each of the items has a 5 point Likert scale that ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree’” to indicate the respondent's level of agreement and disagreement towards the given. statement, with one representing total disagreement and five representing total agreement Items for perceived personalization were adapted and refined from Zhang et al. (2014), while items for Privacy were adapted and refined from Corbitt etal (2003) and Bart etal. (2005). which were reported fo have high reliability. Items for trust were adapted from Bansal, et al. (2004), Items for interactivity were adapted from Liu and Shrum, (2002). tems for commitment were ‘adapted from Fullerton (2005). To measure customer satisfaction, a four-item scale was adopted ‘and refined from instruments used by Hunter & Garnefeld (2008). The loyalty construct was ‘measured by using items from Alshibly (2006) Afier the measurement variables were developed. the face validity of these variables was tested. Four information systems scholars and three marketing scholar reviewed the measurement variables and provided feedback on the length and clarity of each item and ease of completion, and they also assist in the translation and validating the Arabic version of the survey. Based on their feedback, minor modifications were made to improve the comprehensiveness and wser-friendliness ‘ofthe measurement items. Table | presents the research constructs and related survey items used for measurement of each of these constructs, Table 1: Measurement items Construct Survey questions Source Perceived Piz The online store I transact with understands my specific needs | Zhang e& personalization | P2: The online store I transact with stores all my preferences and | al. (2014) offers me extra_—services based =oon—my preferences. P3: The online store I transact with does a pretty good job guessing what kinds of things, might’ want and making suggestions. rivacy Prvl: The online store I transact with address my concerns as a | Bart et al, customer about privacy 2005 Prv2: The online store I transact with makes it clear what | Corbitt et information the company collect about customers al (2003) Prv3: The online store I transact with explains why itis collecting personal information Prv4: The online store I transact with explains how the company uses the information it collects about customers, Trust ‘Ti: [feel that I can trust the online store I transact with Bansal, ot ‘T2: the online store I transact with is truly sincere in its promises. | al. (2004) "TS: the online store I transact with is honest and truthful with me, ‘Té: the online store I transact with treats me fairly and justly Interactivity | I1: I was in control of my navigation through the online store I | Liu and transact with. Shrum, 12: | was in control of the information that I was shown on the | 2002 conline store I transact with IB: I could eesily get any additional information I needed about the ‘company or its products 4: I could communicate electronically with other customers who shared my interest in a product category. IS: Interacting with The online store is like having a conversation with a knowledgeable and warm representative from the company I6: Overall, The online store T transact with has very good interactivityConstruct ‘Survey questions Source Com: ‘Cini: I Teel vary high degree of association with the online store I | Fullerton transact with (2005) m2: the online store I transact with has a great deal of personal meaning for me. Cdr it would be very hard for me to leave the online store transact with right now, even I wanted to, m4: Even I could, I would not leave my curent online store: I like having a relationship with it St: The online store T transact completely meets with my | Hunter & expectations Gamefeld 2: The online store I transact completely meets my needs. (2008) 3: All my experiences with The online store I transact have been satisfactory J: My decision to purchase from The online store I transact was a Loyalty Li: I consider the online store I transact with to be miy first choice | Alshibly when buying productsiservices that [ need (2006) 12: [will recommend the online store I transact with a friend L3: I would say positive things to others about the online store transact with. TA: I am likely to shop from this the online store [transact with again. 4. Research Results 4.1, Data analysis using Structural Equation Modeling Approach PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares-Structural Bquation Modelling) was used for data analysis and hypotheses testing using smartPLS software version 3.1.7 (Ringle, et al, 2014). PLS-SEM is a structured equation modelling technique that can analyse structural equation models involving, ‘multiple-tem constructs, with direct and indirect paths. PLS-SEM works by extracting successive linear combinations of the predictors and is effective in explaining both response and predictor variation (Davcik, 2014). PLS-SEM can simultaneously evaluate the measurement model (the relationships between constructs and their corresponding indicators), and the structural model (the relationship between constructs) with the aim to minimize error variance (Chin, 2010; Hair et al, 2014). It generates loadings between reflective constructs and their indicators, weight between formative constructs, ‘and their indicators, standardize repression coefficients between constructs, and coefficients of ‘multiple determination (R®) for dependent variable (Davcik, 2014), PLS-SEM is a powerful tool for analysing models because of the minimal demands on measurement scales, sample size, and residual distributions. A PLS-SEM analysis involves two stages (Chin,, 2010): (1) the assessment of the measurement model, including the individual item reliability, intemal consistency, and discriminant validity of the measures, and (2) the assessment, of the structural model. The measurement model describes how each construct is measured by corresponding manifest indicators, The structural model shows how the latent variables are related. to cach other, it shows the constructs and the path relationships between them in the structural model‘This research study chose PLS-SEM as the primary data analysis technique because of its minimal requirements regarding sample size, it does not assume multivariate normality, and it takes into account the measurement error when assessing the structural model. This study applied PLS-SEM to validate the study constructs and ta test the hypotheses. The study applied PLS-SEM path ‘modelling with a path-weighting scheme for the inside approximation (Chin, 2010). Then, we applied the non-parametric bootstrapping approximation with S00 resampling to obtain the SSandard errors ofthe estimates (Hair et al, 2014). 4.2 The measurement model assessment ‘The measurement model was assessed! by reliability, convergent and discriminant validity Reliability was tested by Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR), Both Cronbach's alpha ‘and CR provide an estimate of the reliability based on the inter-correlations of the observed indicator variables. According to Hair et al. 2014), items have acceptable reliability if the Cronbach's alpha (a) and CR values is greater than 0.70. As shown in Table 2, the Cronbach’ alpha a and CR values for each of the seven constructs: loyalty, satisfaction Commitment, perceived personalization, privacy, trust, and Interactivity ranged from to 0,709 to 0.870, which ‘were above the suggested threshold of 0.7. Thus, the scale can be considered reliable. Next we proceeded to test the convergent validity, which is the degree to which multiple items ‘measuring the same concept are in agreement, As suggested by Chin et al, (2010) we used the factor loadings and the average variance extracted (AVE) to assess convergent validity. The loadings for all items exceeded the recommended value of 0.5 (Hair et al, 2014), The average Variance extracted, which reflects the overall amount of variance in the indicators accounted for by the latent construct, were in the range of 0.513 and 0,682 which exceeded the recommended value of 05 (Hair et al, 3014), Table 2. The measurement model was tested for reliability and validity Trem Toading | Alpha cR AVE Pr Deas eure ae Ebina PE Da50 | 0.768 side personalization BS 0778 Prd D708 Prt DIS osos asi Privacy —— 0,709 Pra DIs8 Prv D701 TT O70 T D782 | 0.753 0375 ‘Trust ose TS O76 Te D733 TT 7S 2 0707 | 0.821 B 07S osm — | asa i 07S B D760 16 DID Cm TsO aso Commitment . mz D159 o3s4Trem Loading | Alpha R AVE Gms OTs Cm DT SI D730 Ras Customer Ss 800 | 0.760 0.583 satisfaction SF D716 St D804 Tot Ts Das2 0.733 Tod 1.805 os 0559) Loyalty Lod 0824 Lot 0.790 ‘The square root of AVE should be greater than the correlations among the constructs; that is, the amount of variance shared between @ latent variable and its block of indicators should be greater than the shared variance between the latent variables. Table 3 shows the inter-correlations of the constructs and variance shared between the latent variables and their indicators. The diagonal elements in Table 3 are the square root of the AVE. Tis showed that the square roots of each AVE, value were greater than the off-diagonal elements. The measurement model, thus, had a reasonable degree of diseriminant validity among all of the constructs ‘Table 3: Discriminate validity: average variance extracted and squared correlations, o OTe [oe] oo () Perceived personalization 0.826 © Privacy, 0.465 | O76 @ Tat 0504 | 0504 | 0788 @ Interactivity 0.603 | 0.525 | 0594 | 0.727 © Commitment O58T | 0.552 | 0654 | 0.606 | O.TTE (© Customer satisfaction 0.498 | 0.566 | 0.654 | 0.600 | 0.693 Loyalty 0532 | 0486 | 0585 [O71 | 0.693 0.748 4.3 Structural model assessment ‘The PLS method was also used to confirm the hypothesized relations between constructs in the proposed model. The significance of the paths included in the proposed model was tested using a bootstrap resample procedure. In assessing the PLS model, the squared multiple correlations (R*) for each endogenous latent variable were initially examined and the significance of the structural paths was evaluated, The proposed relationships are considered to be supported if the corresponding path coefficients had the proposed sign and were significant. The results of [hypothesis testing using PLS are summarized in Table and shown in Fig. 2 ‘Two measures were used to assess the structural model: the statistical significance (t-tests) of the estimated path coefficients, and the ability of the model to explain the variance in the dependent Variables, coefficient of determination (R2). R® results represent the amount of variance in the construct in question that is explained by the model (Chin, 2010), Ré attempts to measure the explained variance of the dependent variable relative to its total variance. Values of approximately 0.35 are considered substantial, values around 0.333 moderate, and values of approximately 0.190‘weak (Chin, 2010) To test the significance of the hypotheses, the rule proposed by Martinez-Ruiz and Aluja- Banet (2008) was followed. The t-value >1.65 is significant atthe 0.05 level, and the t- value > 2 is significant at the 0.01 level. The statistical significance of each path was estimated. using a PLS-SEM bootstrapping method utilizing 200 resamples to obtain t-values (Chin, 2010) ‘The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4 and Figure 2. The findings provide support for Hl, which predicted positive relationships between customer commitment and loyalty. Customer commitment had significant effects on loyalty (B = 0.499, p< 0.05), and the tests are significant (p < 005) for customer commitment (t ~ 6.162); therefore, a commitment is making significant contributions in explaining the variance in Loyalty ‘The results also provide support for H2. Customer satisfaction is found to have significant positive influences on loyalty (B = 0.279, P < 0.05), the t-tests are significant (P < 0.01) for customer satisfaction (¢ = 3.327); therefore, customer satisfaction is making significant contributions in explaining the variance in loyalty. The R? value was used to assess the proportion of variance in the endogenous constructs that could be explained by the antecedent constructs. Approximately 5 satisfaction. ‘Table 4, Results of Structural Equation Model Analysis % of the variance in loyalty was explained by the two variables commitment and customer Higpateae | Ratu Ta ng [tam [ame [2 aT Conmioment > Toyalty | 0499 6162 [0000 _| Yes ; Customer saistaetion = - sel oe 0520 HR a 027 3327 [ooo | Yes Customer satisfaction > - 13 cana 0.286 3996 | 0000 | Yes Perceived personalization = |, 1 5 Ha deat 0.133 tos [oss fro |, Ta Privacy = Commitment | 0077 1399 [ 0162 [No Ha Tras > Commitment O18 za9 [000s | Yes Wa Tneractivagy = Commitment | 0254 36H [0000 | Yes Perceived personalization = 7 Hab rer 0.078 ron [o312 | xo Hb Privacy ~ Customer oz 2999 [ooos | Yes satisfaction osse Heb ee ee 0369 3.986 | 0.000 | Yes satisfaction HTD Interactivity > Customer] 9 >44 2490 [oos | Yes satisfaction Hoe Privacy = Trt O54 Gis [0000 [Yes [0275 Interms of commitment related variables, the conventional belief that satisfaction has a significant relationship with commitment was also confirmed in our rescarch settings (P ~ 0.286, P < 0.05), (996) (H3 was supported). However, perceived personalization and privacy was not significantly related to commitment Accordingly, Ha and Ha are not supported. The results also provide support for Ha and H7a. ‘Trust is found to have significant positive influences on commitment (B = 0.186, P = 0.05), the t= tests are significant (P < 0.05) for customer satisfaction (t the (tests are significant (P < 0.01) for customer satisfaction (¢ = significant pos 2.890), Interactivity is found to have influences on commitment (B ~ 0.294, P<0.05), the t-tests are significant (P <0,05) for customer satisfaction (t= 3.648), Among customer satisfaction constructs, privacy, trast, and interactivity were significantly related to satisfaction, thus F15b, H6b and I{7b were supported, While the relationship between perceived personalization and customer satisfaction was not significant (H4b was rejected). In addition, Privacy was significantly related to the Trust (B = 0524, P< 0.05), the t-tests are significant P< 0.05) (t= 6.153) (H6c was supported), Figure 2: Measurement and Structural Model Results =. en Ses ea = Se de oe yt ce oe ca = = = = ee gem MRSS ae 3 ee ee = ER oemncvey ra 5. Discussion, Implications, Limitations, and Future Research Several key findings can be derived from this study. Firstly, as hypothesized, the result supports thatthe customer commitment and satisfaction had significant effets on loyalty. In terms of the R® value for each endogenous variable, the two variables explained 52% of the variance in loyalty While our research confirms the finding of the limited mumber of previous studies that have tested similar relationships (e.2, Anderson & Srinivasan, 2003 and Luarn & Lin, 2003), our results show commitment has more impact than satisfaction on loyalty. It shows that high customer ‘commitment will result in the improvement on customer loyalty: this finding is in resemblance. with Afsar et al. (2010) which shows that customer commitment positively and significantly influences customer loyalty This finding supports the relationship concept between trust and loyalty stated by Morgan and Hunt (1994) which considered that trust as one of the two crucial factors that define sustainable relationship and loyalty. The second conclusion relates to the impact of customer satisfaction, trust, and interactivity on commitment. The results indicate that customer satisfaction positively influence customer commitment. This study's overall results show that meeting. customer's expectations and needs influences the development of customer commitment to the online store. For some scholars, trust is a core component in creating customer commitment (Morgan & Hunt 1994}, Our research confirmed this picture, as trust was found to have a direct, positive and significant impact on customer commitment. That is, customers who have a sense of trust toward online store are more likely to feel very high degree of association with the online store and they like having a relationship with it. Therefore, this research makes @ contribution to the current literature by adding to the knowledge about Web-facilitated relationship through testing. the recognised linkage between trust and customer commitment in the e-commerce contest, From a theoretical perspective, our results lend additional support for the trust construet and its importance as actiterion for eustomer commitment‘The sense of commitment is also increased by interactivity which allows real time conversations, with other customers or which makes interacting with the online store website more like having a conversation with a friendly expert. Our results suggest that an interactive e-commerce website gives customers an aciditional channel by which to communicate directly with the firm and also gives them more control over the nature and frequency of interactions with the firm. The sense of commitment is increased by supplying customers with a real time conversation with other customers, and by providing interaction that mimics that of dealing with a friendly expert. From a theoretical perspective, these results lend additional support for the interactivity construct and its importance as a factor in the development of customer commitment, ‘The third set of conclusions concems the combined effects of privacy, trust, and interactivity on ‘customer satisfaction. The analysis result demonstrates that the level of perceived personalization does not significantly influence the level of commitment and satisfaction; meanwhile, privacy affects the level of customer satisfaction, Translated into our conceptualisation of privacy, our findings indicate that customer satisfaction is driven in part by the extent to which the online store site informs customers what, why and how information is collected about them by the firm, and also informs them how the company uses the information it collects about customers. Our findings are consistent with the view of Liu et al (2005) and Bart et al (2005), in showing that having a privacy policy may lead to more repeat visits and more purchases. Our research contributed to current knowledge by providing empirical evidences that satisfaction with an online store is positively associated with privacy, which again is a widely accepted conclusion that has been supported by little previous empirical evidence. Our overall results revealed evidence of a relationship between trust and customer satisfaction. The finding from this research has supported the work of Curtis et al, (2012), that satisfaction is positively associated with trust and Our findings adds to the literature implementing privacy policies will build trust. ‘Our findings suggest that interactivity helps satisfies customers’ needs and wants, Interactivity, allows firms to better understand their customers because there is two-way information flow. Overall, the positive relationship between interactivity and sotisfaction should further motivate managers to consider adding additional interactive features to their sites. This finding also demonstrates that the relationship between interactivity and satisfaction is significantly stronger under high levels of customers’ perceptions that they are in control when navigating through a the ‘online store website, in control of the information that they are presented, and in control of the ‘extent to which they can get alditional information needled about the firm or its products. That is, an interactive the online store site gives customers the perception they ate in control over the ‘mature and frequency of interaction/communication with the firm. This is an important finding, as it shows that control leads to a closer match of customer needs to online store offerings, and helps customers feel they have chosen what they Want, on their own terms, Therefore, this research ‘made contributions to the current knowledge, providing empirical evidences that satisfaction on the online store is positively associated with interactivity (Gur study results also have e-commerce design implications, suggesting that in order to effectively deploy e-commerce -related strategies that foster customers’ loyalty, designers should consider the impact of both customer commitment and satisfaction practices. An initial focus on customer ‘commitment may motivate designers to consider adding additional features to their sites. Another implication of our work is that firms need to design into their online store website strategy aspects, that build trust with customers, Specifically, IS managers must find a way to provide cues to indicate that an online store website is trustworthy, The findings may enable better use of defensive strategies such as customer relationship management aimed at building customer trust, instead of offensive activities such as advertising Which competitors also use. Interactivity features such as chat rooms that allow customers to directly converse ate also suggested. Although this study makes significant contributions to both academia and practice, it was limited in some ways, and therefore some future research avenues are suggested, First, the data were gathered from a sample size of 204 is relatively small. Perhaps, the results would be more informative if the sample size is lange. Second, Future studies ean extend the current study bystudying the relationships in the current conceptual model in other sectors of the economy. Future research could investigate whether constructs such as privacy or trust prevent some people from ‘buying online or from becoming loyal References Afr, B, Rehman, Z., Qureshi, J. A & Shahjehan, A. (2010). Determinants of customer loyalty in the banking sector: The case of Pakistan. 4ffican Jounal of Business Management, 4 (6): \040- 1047. Agrawal, V., Arjona, L. D., & Lemmens, R. (2001), E-Performance: The Path to Rational Exuberance. The Mekinsey Quarterly, 1, 31-43 AlShibly, HH. (2006). Customer satisfaction and empowerment as the prerequisite for web-based electronic commerce system's success, University of Neweastle. Anderson, RE. & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003), E-Satisfuction and E-Loyalty: A Contingency Framework Psychology & Marketing, 20 (2), 123-38. Ariely, D. (2000), Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers’ Decision Making and Preferences. Jounal of Consumer Research, 26 (2). 233-48, ‘Au, N., Ngai E, & Cheng, E. (2002). A Critical Review of End-User Information System Satisfaction Research and A New Research Framework. Omega: The Intemational Journal of ‘Management Science. 30 (6), 451- 78. ‘Audrain-Pontevia, A. F,, N’Goala, G., & Poncin, 1. (2013). A good deal online: The Impacts of soquisition and transaction value on E-satisfaction and E-loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20 (5), 445-452. Awad, N. F. & Krishnan, M.S. (2006):The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and The Willingness to Be Profiled Online for Personalization. MIS Quarteriy, 30 (1), 13-28 Ballantine, P. W. (2005), Effects of Interactivity and Product Information. on Consumer Satisfaction in an Online Retail Setting, Intemational Joumal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33 (6), 461-11 Bansal, H., Irving, G. &Taylor, 8. (2004). A three-component model of customer commitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (3), 234-250. Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. 2005). Are the Drivers and Role of Online Trust the Same for All Web Sites and Consumers? A Large-Scale Exploratory Empirical Study. Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 133-52 Bressolles, G.. Durrieu, F, & Senecal, S. (2014). A consumer typology based on e-service quality ard e-satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(6), 889-896. Brown, G. H. (1952). Brand Loyalty—Fact or Fiction?” Advertising Age, 23 (June 9), 53-35 Carlson, J, & O'Cass, A (2010). Exploring the relationships between e-service quality, sstisfaction, attitudes and behaviours in contentdriven e-service web sites. Journal of services ‘marketing, 24(2), 112-127. Cater, B., & Zabkat, V. (2009), Antecedents and consequences of commitment in. marketing, research services: The client's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 785-197 Chakraborty, G., Lala, V., & Warren, D. (2003). What Do Customers Consider Important In B2B Websites?. Jounal of Advertising Research, 43 (1), 50-61 Changchien, S. W, Lee, C.-F., and Hsu, Y.-J. 2004), On-Line Personalized Sales Promotion in Electronic Commerce. Expert Systems with Applications, 27, pp. 35-52. Chen, M. H,, Tsai, K. M, Hsu, Y. C, & Lee, K. Y, (2013), B-service Quality Impact on Online Customer's Perceived Value andl Loyalty. China-US Business Review, 12(5), 473-485. Chin, W.W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Application, EspositoVingi, V. Chin, W.W.; Henseler, J Wang, H_ (Eds) Springer. Germany. 2010. pp. 645-689,Chung, K. H., & Shin, J. 1. (2010). The antecedents and consequents of relationship quality in intemet shopping. Asia Pacific Joumal of Marketing and Logistics, 22(4), 473-491 ‘Churchill, G. A” & Surprenant, C. (1982). An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction. Jounal of Marketing Research, 19 (4), 491-504. Coner, A. (2003). Personalization and Customization in Financial Portals. Journal af American Academy of Business, 2(2). pp. 498-504 Corbitt, BI, Thanasankit, T, & Yi, H_ (2003), Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumer perceptions. Electronic commerce research and applications, 2(3), 203-215. Cronin, J. J, Brady, M. K,, & Hult, G. T. (2000). Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioural Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 193-218 Calnan, M. & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Faimess and. Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation. Organization Science, 10 (January), 104-15, ‘Cunningham, R. M. (1956). Brand Loyalty — what, where, how much? Harvard Business Review. 34 (JaniFeb), 116-28 Canis, T., Abratt, R, Dion, P, & Rhoades, D. (2012). Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty and Repurchase: Some Evidence from Apparel Consumers. Review of Business. 32(1), 47, Davcik, N.S. (2014). The use and misuse of structural equation modelling in management research: A review and critique, Journal of Adsances in Management Research, (1), 47-81 Day. G. S. (1969). A Two-Dimensioral Concept of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (September), 29-36 Delone, W. H. & Mclean, E, R_ (2004). Measuring E-Commerce Success: Applying the Delone & ‘Mclean Information Systems Success Model. Intemational Journal of Elecironic Commerce, 9 ),31-47. Dholakia, RZ, M, Dholakia, N., & Fortin, D, (2001), Interactivity and Revisits to Websites: A ‘Theoretical Framework. In 2001 AMA Winter Conference Vol. 12 Dick, A. S. & Basu, K. (1994), "Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 2), 99- 113, Dimitriades, Z. 8. (2006). Customer satisfaction, loyalty and commitment in service organizations: ‘some evidence from Greece. Management Research News, 29(12), 782-800. Duncan, T. & Moriarty, $. E, (1998). A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships. Journal af Marketing, 62 (April) 1-13. Drucker, P-F. (1954). the Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Row. Engel, JF. & Blackwell, RD. (1982), Consumer Behaviour, New York: The Dryden Press Farley, J. U. (1964), Why Does Brand Loyalty Vary Over Products? Journal of Marketing Research. 1, 9-14 Fullerton, G. (2003), When does commitment lead to loyalty? Jounal of service research, 5(4), 333.344 Fullerton, G. (2005). The service quality-toyalty relationship in retail services: does commitment matter? Joumal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(2), 99-111 Gefen, D. (2000)E-Commerce: the Role of Familiarity and Trust. Joumal of Management Science, 28 (6), 725-37 Gefen, D. & Straub, D. W, (2004) Consumer Trust in B2C E-Commerce and the Importance of Social Presence: Experiments in E-Products and E-Services. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 32, 407 - 24 Giese, JL. & Cote, JA’ (2000) Defining Consumer Satisfaction, deademy Of Marketing Science Review, 2000 (1), 1-30. Gillenson, M. L,, Sherrell, D, L., & Chen, L, (1999). Information Technology as the Enabler of ‘One-To-One Marketing. Communications of AIS, 208), pp. 1-4 Guest, L. (1964) Brand Loyalty Revisited: A Twenty Year Report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 93-99,Gustafsson, A, J, M.D. & Roos, 1. (2005). The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, andl triggers on customer retention. Journal of marketing, 69(4), 210 218 Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M, Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121 Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P, & Peralta, M. (1999).Building Consumer Trust Online, Communications of the ACM, 42 (4), 80-87. Homburg, C. & Giering, A. (2001). Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis. Psychology de Marketing, 18 ), 43 - 66, Hufiman, C. & Kahn, B. E, (1998). Variety for Sale: Mass Customization or Mass Confusion’? Journal of Retailing, 74 (4), 491-513 Hunter, G., & Garefeld, I (2008). When does Customer Empowerment Lead to Satisfied Customers? Some Mediating and Moderating Effects of the Empowerment-Satisfaction Link. Journal of Research for Customers, 15(1), pp.1-14 Jacoby, J. & Chestnut, R. W. (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management. New York: Wiley. Jones, M.A. & Suh, J. (2001),Transaction-Specific Satisfaction and Overall Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis. Joumal af Services Marketing. 14 (2), 147-59 Kiwon, K., & Kim, C. (2012), How to design personalization in a context of customer retention: Who personalizes what and to what extent? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11Q), 101-116. Lee, 1, Lee, Y., & Lee, Y. J. (2012). Do customization programs of e-commerce companies lead to better relationship with consumers? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11G3), 262-274 Lin, C. (2003). Critical Appraisal of Consumer Satisfaction and E-Commerce. Managerial Audbting Jounal, 18 (3), 202-12, Liu, C, Marchewka, J.'T., Lu. J, &Yu, C-S. (2005). Beyond Concem—A Privacy-Trust- Behavioural Intention Model Of Electronic Commerce. information & Management, 42 (1), 289- 304 Liu, Y. & Shrum, L. (2002),What is Interactivity and Is It Always Such a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising, Effectiveness, Joumal of Advertising, 31 (4), 53-64 Luam, P. & Lin, H, (2003).4 Customer Loyalty Model for E-Service Context. Joumal of Electronic Commerce Research, 4 (4), 156-67, ‘Meknight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar. C. (2002) Developing and Validating Trust Measures, for E-Commerce: An Integrative Typology. Information Systems Research, 13 (3), 334-59 Milne, G.R_ & Rohm, A. J. (3000), Consumer Privacy and Name Removal across. Direct ‘Marketing Channels: Exploring Opt-In and Opt-Out Alternatives. Journal of Public Poliey and Marketing, 19 (2), 238-49 Molla, A. & Licker, P, S. (2001). E-Commerce Systems Success: An Attempt to Extend) And Respecify The Delone and Melean Model of IS Success, Joumal of Electronic Commerce Research, 2(4), 131-41 ‘Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S. D, (1994)The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 20-38, Oliver, RL. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Joumal of Marketing Research, 17 (3), 460-69, Oliver, R-L. (1993). Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction. Joumal of Consumer Research, 20 (3), 418-30, Oliver, R. L. (1997), Satisfaction. A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. New York: ‘MeGraw-HillOstrom, A & Iacobucci, D. (1995), "Consumer Trade-Offs and the Evaluation of Services,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (1), 17-28. Pappas, 1. O., Kourouthanassis, P. ., Giannakos, M.N., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2014). Shiny happy people buying: the role of emotions on personalized e-shopping. Electronic Markets, 24(3), 193-206. Park, C. H., & Kim, YG. (2003). ldentfying key factors affecting consumer purchase behavior in ‘an online shopping context. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(1), 16-29, Park, J.-H. (2014). the Effeets of Personalization on User Continuance in Social Networking Sites. Information Processing & Management, 503), pp. 462-475, Pavlou, P. A. & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce ‘Adoption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. MIS Quarterly, 30 (1), 115-43, Rafaeli, 8. & Sudweeks, F. (2006), Networked Interactivity. Journal of Compuier-Mediated Communication, 2 (4), Article 1. Reichheld, F. F. & Schefter, P. (2000). E-Loyalty: Your Seeret Weapon on the Web. Harvard Business Review, 78 (4), 105-13. Ribbink, D., Van Riel, A.C. Liljander, V., & Streukens, S. (2004). Comfort your online customer: ‘quality, trust and loyalty on the internet. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 14(6), 446-456, Ringle, C. M, Wenge, 8, 8 Becker, J (2014). Smartpls 3. Hamburg: SmartPLS. Retrieved from snap /worw.smartpls. com), Ruyter, K. D, & Bloemer, J, (1999)Customer Loyalty. in Batended Service Settings: The. interaction between Satisfaction, Value Attainment and Positive Mood. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10 (3), 320-36 Shankar, V.. Smith, A K., & Rangaswamy, A, (2003), Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments, International journal of research in marketing, 20(2), 153-175, Sharma, A. & Sheth, J. (2004) Web-Based Marketing the Coming Revolution in. Marketing ‘Thought and Strategy. Journal of Business Research, 57 (1). 696-102. Simonson, 1. (2005). Determinants of Customers’ Responses to Customized Offers: Conceptual Framework & Reseatch Proposition. Journal of Marketing, 69 (January), 32-45, Srinivasan, S. S., Anderson, R., & Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Consumer Loyalty in E-Commerce: An Exploration of Its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Retailing, 78 (1), 41-50. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality’ Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication, 424), 73-93, Stewart, D. W. & Pavlou, P, A, (2002), From Consumer Response to Active Consumer: Measuring the Fffectiveness of Interactive Media. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 30 (4), 376-96 Szymanski, D. M, & Henard, D. H, (2001), Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Joumal of the academy of marketing science, 251), 1 Urban, G. (2004), The Emerging Era Of Customer Advocacy: As Customer Power Grows, Innovative Companies Are Moving Beyond Traditional Push Marketing and Customer Relationship Management to Become Full Proponents Of The Customer Agenda, MIT Sloan Management Review, 45 (2), 77-82. Van Dyke, T. P., Midha, V., & Nemati, H, (2007), The effect of consumer privacy empowerment ‘on trast and privacy concerns in e-commerce, Electronic Markets, 17(1), 68-81 Wolfinbarger, M. & Gilly. M. (2003). tail: Dimensionalizing, Measuring and Predicting, tail Quality. Journal of Retailing, 79 (3). 183-98. Yadav, M, S. & Varadarajan, R. (2005). Interactivity in the Electronic Marketplace: An Exposition ‘of the Concept and Implications for Research. Journal of the Academy Of Marketing Science, 33 4), 585-603. Zeithaml, VA, Bemy, LL, 8 Parasuraman, A. (1996), The behavioural consequences of service ‘uality, The Jounal of Marketing, 31-46. Zhang. H., Lu, Y., Gupta, S, & Zhao, L. (2014), What motivates customers to participate in social commerce? The impact of technological environments and virtual customer experiences, Information & Management, 51(8), 1017-1030,