Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electronic Commerce Research and Applications

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

Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure

and scales
Francisco J. Martínez-López a,b,⇑, Cintia Pla-García c, Juan Carlos Gázquez-Abad d, Inma Rodríguez-Ardura e
a
Dept. of Business Administration, University of Granada, Spain
b
Marketing Group, Open University of Catalonia, Spain
c
Open University of Catalonia, Spain
d
University of Almería, Spain
e
Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, Open University of Catalonia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To date, the utilitarian benefits of online consumption have only been partially investigated. This study
Received 31 May 2013 undertakes an exhaustive approach to fully delimit the dimensional structure related to the utilitarian
Received in revised form 31 January 2014 motivations for online consumption. First, an in-depth literature review is carried out, in order to allow
Accepted 22 February 2014
the proposal of an aprioristic base structure of eleven categories of utilitarian motivations. Next, qualitative
Available online xxxx
analyses (focus groups and personal interviews) are applied to assess and eventually refine the structure of
utilitarian motivations proposed after the literature review, their labels and respective measurement
Keywords:
scales. Finally, this qualitative phase concludes with ten motivational categories and 46 items. Then,
Online consumption
Utilitarian motivations
quantitative analyses (exploratory and detailed confirmatory factor analyses) are applied, based on a ques-
Full dimensional structure tionnaire administered to a sample of 667 Internet users, to keep refining and to eventually validate both
Measurement scales the dimensional structure of motivations and the related measurement scales. Finally, a structure of 9
Validation utilitarian motivations (and corresponding set of 36 items) is established, with the following labels: assort-
ment, economy, convenience, availability of information, adaptability/customization, desire for control,
payment services, anonymity, and absence of social interaction. The nomological validity of this structure
is satisfactorily tested using a second-order factor model. The article finishes by discussing some implica-
tions for practitioners.
Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction E-commerce companies experienced an annual increase of 31%

In this era of the information society, in which technological
development is on the rise and globalized access to the Internet
is ubiquitous, consumers are dedicating more time and resources
to online consumption and, particularly, to shopping. Currently,
ICT-related sectors have demonstrated greater resistance during
the economic crisis than other key sectors of the economy (OECD
2012). The production data for ICT services shows how, despite
the crisis, a number of countries experienced positive growth for
almost the entire period of 2008–2012, with South Korea being just
one example. Furthermore, the magnitude of the fluctuations in
growth rate has been significant.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Dept. of Business Administration, Business School,
Granada 18011, Spain. Tel.: +34 958249595.
E-mail addresses: fjmlopez@ugr.es (F.J. Martínez-López), cplag@uoc.edu
(C. Pla-García), jcgazque@ual.es (J.C. Gázquez-Abad), irodriguez@uoc.edu
(I. Rodríguez-Ardura).
in average revenues over the period 2000–2011 (OECD 2012). In
addition, the number of target customers is growing, with more
than 30% of the people living in the OECD purchasing goods and
services over the Internet. In the United Kingdom, nearly 64% of
the population has carried out e-commerce-based transactions.
Countries whose numbers approach those of the UK include Aus-
tralia, Denmark, Germany, Korea, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nor-
way and Sweden, with ratios of over 50%. As more consumers
operate online, the size of the B2C electronic markets grows, and,
consequently, there is an increase in business volume. EU countries
such as the UK and France exceeded 30 billion Euros in B2C e-com-
merce sales in just one year (Ystats 2011). China, on the other
hand, enjoyed an increase of over 130% in online transactions com-
pared to the previous year. In general, the global volume of B2C
e-commerce comes to approximately 1 trillion US dollars (IMRG
2012).
In this context, it becomes necessary to understand the benefits
that consumers look for when they forego physical environments

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
1567-4223/Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
2 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

and use the Internet as an alternative means of consumption. In motivational categories with their scales (36 items in total). To
other words, companies should be aware of the motivations behind the best of our knowledge, this is the most exhaustive delimitation
the individual’s use of the Internet in his or her consumption pro- of the utilitarian motivations in online consumption published so
cesses. Motivations are an important component among the as- far. To finish, some concluding remarks and practical implications
pects which define people’s behaviours. They stem from unmet are indicated.
needs and represent, through concrete actions, the benefits which
people hope to achieve (Schiffman 2005, Pieters 1993). In online
2. Background
consumption, there are two large categories of motivations
(Martínez-López et al. 2006): utilitarian and hedonic. Utilitarian
2.1. A brief overview of the dichotomy in online consumption
motivations are related to functional, economic, rational, practical,
motivations
or extrinsic benefits, while hedonic motivations have more to do
with emotional or experiential aspects which make the shopping
Two significant lines of investigation into Web-based consump-
experience and eventual purchase agreeable and pleasant. In this
tion motivations exist. One line focuses on the way in which con-
study, we focus on the utilitarian aspects of online consumption.
sumer motivations may influence a commercial website’s
Within the context of physical markets, utilitarian motivations
particular attributes and vice versa. Research in this area demon-
have been studied extensively, using partial and complete ap-
strates the predictive importance of different perceptions of value
proaches. However, they have not been completely defined within
of the online media in consumers’ motivations to shop online (Alba
the context of electronic markets yet. One of the first of a few
et al. 1997, Childers et al. 2001, Foucault and Scheufele 2002,
remarkable attempts was made by Childers et al. (2001), who
Swaminathan et al. 1999, Teo et al. 1999, To et al. 2007, Verhoef
based on the Technology of Acceptance Model (TAM) to approach
and Langerak 2001). The distinguishing characteristic of the second
the utilitarian and hedonic factors explaining consumers’ attitude
line of research, on the other hand, is the development of a typol-
towards online shopping. Nevertheless, rather than a delimitation
ogy of online shoppers (Donthu and García 1999, Moe 2003, Par-
and empirical analysis of motivations, the authors focused on the
sons 2002, Rohm and Swaminathan 2004, Wolfinbarger and Gilly
role played by a few instrumental utilitarian (and hedonic) factors
2001). This group of studies aims to profile different shopping
related to the adoption of a technology in more utilitarian vs. more
types in terms of their underlying motivations.
hedonic web-based forms of interactive shopping. The study by
Most of the points of view found in the reviewed literature have
Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001) is really the first to focus on delim-
been inspired by studies into the motivations of consumers in
iting motivations in online shopping. They mainly based on a qual-
physical markets, and most of these studies acknowledge and ana-
itative research (focus groups), to establish four categories for
lyze the duality of said motivations (e.g. Bridges and Florsheim
utilitarian online shopping: convenience, selection, information
2008, Childers et al. 2001, Moe 2003, Parsons 2002, To et al.
availability and lack of sociality. Years later, To et al. (2007) took
2007, Wang et al. 2007, Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2001). A number
this four-motivation structure as a base and proposed adding
of significant, major classifications of consumption motivations
two more (cost saving and customization of product/service),
originate in the following areas of research: (1) studies on motiva-
which turned out to be non-significant in a structural model pre-
tions in human behaviour: intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations (e.g.
dicting the effects of consumers’ motivations in their search and
Csikszentmihalyi and Nakamura 1989, Eiser 1986, Malone and
purchase intention in internet shopping. However, though all these
Lepper 1987); (2) studies on motivations in the consumer behav-
studies are meritorious, they failed to start with a thorough theo-
iour discipline: functional vs. non-functional motivations (e.g. Sheth
retical delimitation of the utilitarian motivational categories in
1981, Eastlick and Feinberg 1999); economic vs. recreational (Bel-
(online) consumption; this limits the completeness of the proposed
lenger and Korgaonkar 1980); (3) analyses of one or both of the
dimensional structures. Neither do they specifically focus on the
meta-dimensions (i.e., utilitarian and hedonic) of consumption
utilitarian motivations in online consumption, nor propose, evalu-
motivations in physical markets (e.g. Arnold and Reynolds 2003,
ate and validate a full dimensional structure with its respective
Babin et al. 1994, Bhuian 2001, Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000, Don-
measurement scales.
thu and Gilliland 1996, Fiore and Kim 2007, Hirschman and Hol-
Therefore, we are presented with a clear opportunity to investi-
brook 1982, Voss et al. 2003).
gate this topic more thoroughly. In this regard, our aim has been to
In conclusion, the above classifications can be grouped accord-
provide an exhaustive delimitation of the dimensional structure
ing to the following dichotomy in online consumption: motiva-
which defines the utilitarian motivations for online consumption.
tions of an extrinsic, functional type, driven by purely economic
To this end, we have made use of the protocol proposed initially
and rational criteria, which in the case of online consumption
by Churchill (1979) and later expanded upon by other authors,
may be summarized as utilitarian motivations; and motivations of
including: Anderson and Gerbing 1988, Bagozzi 1980, Bentler
an intrinsic, non-functional and emotional type, which may be
and Bonett 1980, Churchill 1979, Nunnally and Bernstein 1994,
summarized as hedonic motivations (see Martínez-López et al.
Peter 1981. First, and based on an extensive review of the litera-
2006).
ture, an a priori dimensional structure of 11 categories is proposed
for the utilitarian motivations in online consumption, along with
the corresponding measurement scales. Following this initial 2.2. The importance of utilitarian motivations in online consumption
phase, a qualitative study (focus groups and personal interviews
of experts) is conducted. At this point, both the dimensional The first studies on motivations in online consumption focused
structure and the measurement scales are evaluated and refined their attention mainly on the utilitarian aspects of online shopping.
(Section 4), concluding with a motivational structure of ten dimen- In Table 1, we provide a summary, in chronological order, of the
sions and a total of 46 items for their measurement scales. In Sec- most noteworthy contributions made early on in this regard.
tion 5, an exploratory factor analysis is first conducted in order to In addition to the studies indicated above, a number of research
analyze the previous dimensional structure and the scales; this papers on consumer perceived value have contributed to the study
analysis, in turn, facilitates another subsequent refinement. Then, of motivations in online consumption. In this regard, particularly
confirmatory factor analyses are applied in order to validate the relevant contributions are made by Blake et al. (2005) and Keeney
dimensional structure defining the utilitarian motivations of online (1999), who point to the influence which certain values, mainly
consumption. We end up with a structure of 9 utilitarian utilitarian, have upon electronic commerce. Likewise, Bridges and

Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1
Earliest significant attempts to understand online (usually shopping/purchasing) consumption motivations.

Source (chronological Main conclusions

order)
Alba et al. (1997) A primary incentive to shop online lies in the variety of merchandise
Ghosh (1998) Convenience, personalization and interaction could make the Internet channel very compelling for customers
Swaminathan et al. Convenience acts as a primary motivator of shopping, though the consumers’ need for social interaction could act as a disincentive
(1999)
Donthu and García Variety and convenience are key features that a Web site should offer to Internet shoppers
(1999)
Morganosky and Cude Convenience and saving time are primary motivations for buying groceries online
(2000)
Verhoef and Langerak Perceptions of relative advantage and compatibility of electronic grocery shopping positively influence consumers’ intention to buy
(2001) groceries using this channel
Shim et al. (2001) Search intention, attitude towards Internet shopping, perceived behavioural control and previous Internet purchase experience are the
strongest predictors of Internet purchase intention
Teo (2001) Consumer’s perception of the usefulness of the Internet is a motivational variable associated with online purchasing
Foucault and Scheufele Previous experience, social support, information and availability are important predictors of an online purchase
(2002)
Moe (2003) What motivates consumers to buy on the Internet depends on the adopted shopping strategy. In direct buying, availability and pricing
information are of primary importance; in search and deliberation strategy, the main focus is on the consideration set and relevant
information; in hedonic browsing, a wide assortment of products and categories may trigger impulse buying; in knowledge building,
availability of useful information may influence future purchasing decisions
Rohm and Swaminathan Motivations for buying differ among shopping types. Depending on the shopping type, varying importance is attached to convenience,
(2004) information, variety and physical store orientation

Florsheim (2008) support the idea that online stores should be
equipped, fundamentally, with characteristics which would con-
tribute to the consumer achieving utilitarian ends, by making the
online consumption experience more positive.
Nonetheless, few studies have dealt, to a greater or lesser ex-
tent, with the motivations of a utilitarian nature which are suscep-
tible to influencing online consumption processes (e.g., Donthu and
García 1999, Childers et al. 2001, To et al. 2007, Wolfinbarger and
Gilly 2001). Wang et al. (2007) point out the fundamental role of
utilitarian and hedonic values in the prediction of consumers’
intentions on a commercial website. Bridges and Florsheim
(2008), however, suggest that utilitarian values are more impor-
tant to online consumption behaviours than hedonic values. In fact,
it has been demonstrated that the e-vendors who promote the util-
itarian values of their websites achieve greater levels of satisfac-
tion among their users and greater volumes of sales (Bridges and
Florsheim 2008, To et al. 2007). The predominance of utilitarian
motives is in line with earlier research, which suggested that most
users of the medium orient their consumption experiences to-
wards achieving objectives.
However, in spite of the importance utilitarian motivations take
on with respect to online consumption, the studies published to
date have only partially tackled their analysis (e.g., Rohm and
Swaminathan 2004, To et al. 2007, Ganesh et al. 2010). Hence,
studies that exhaustively analyze and delimit the utilitarian moti-
vations for online consumption are necessary. With this aim in
mind, we go onto present an initial dimensional structure proposal
for utilitarian motivations, based on an extensive literature review.
Later on, it will be rigorously refined and validated by qualitative
and, finally, quantitative confirmatory analyses.
3. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: an a priori
theoretical-based dimensional proposal
Here, eleven particular categories of utilitarian motivations are
presented and defined. These have been identified and grouped
according to the criteria for content homogeneity. To accomplish
this, we have considered, based on an in-depth literature review,
the diverse motivational aspects which have been linked to online
consumption and which are utilitarian or functional in nature. It
should be pointed out, however, that the sources reviewed offered
partial and incomplete information regarding the full set of
utilitarian motivations for consumption; furthermore, these
sources focused either on physical markets or electronic markets.
Consequently, the approach and exhaustive theoretical proposal
of this paper already represent an interesting contribution to the
study of utilitarian motivations in online consumption.
In Table 2, we present a selection of papers which have paid
special attention to the utilitarian motivations in online consump-
tion which, even though they were eventually treated in parallel
with its hedonic aspects, amount to a proposal of motivational cat-
egories. All of them focus on the online context, except the study
by Eastlick and Feinberg (1999), which examines mail catalog
shopping, though its proximity to online shopping and interesting-
ness for our study mean that it deserves to be considered here. Two
fields of information are provided in this table: whether the study
bases its theoretic proposal on qualitative or quantitative empirical
analyses; and the categories of utilitarian motivations proposed.
Likewise, we should note that many other contributions, used be-
low as a base to justify our theoretic-based motivational structure,
are not in this table. The reason is that, though they might discuss
useful questions related to this topic, they focused on the off-line
context and/or no motivational structure was used or proposed.
3.1. Desire for control
This motivation is related to the consumer’s perception regard-
ing her capacity to control the online consumption environment
and anticipate the result of the online consumption processes that
she intends to carry out. In keeping with the principles of social
learning theory, the desire for control refers to the consumer’s
interest in having direct control over the immediate environment
(that is, the browsing environment). It is the degree to which peo-
ple can manipulate the length of time, the content, and the se-
quence of the information presented (Bezjian-Avery et al. 1998,
Ariely 2000), thus providing them with higher levels of power in
order to determine the result of the browsing processes (Hoffman
et al. 2003). When individuals perceive that they have a high de-
gree of control, they are more likely to bring enthusiasm, interest
and sustained attention to the task in question; the opposite hap-
pens if the online shopping process does not conclude successfully
or forces the consumer to go backwards in the online shopping
process (Kamis et al. 2010).
This utilitarian dimension has to do with the online consumer’s
interest in assuming control of the applications and the browsing

Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
4 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Table 2
Main studies proposing and/or analysing utilitarian online consumption motivations.
Study (chronologically ordered) Empirical analysis?
Donthu and García (1999) Quantitative
Eastlick and Feinberg (1999) Quantitative
Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001) Qualitative
Rohm and Swaminathan (2004) Quantitative
To et al. (2007) Quantitative
Ganesh et al. (2010) Qualitative and quantitative
a
To homogenize this review and make it easy to read, we have used the theoretic structure of motivations based on our literature review to classify studies. The motivation
labels used by authors are indicated in brackets. When a label is eventually related to several categories of motivations in our study it is because in the authors’ study that
label encompassed several facets that we have treated separately.
environment, thereby gaining greater levels of authority and status
in the consumption process (see To et al. 2007). Assuming control
in this way is an important factor in order to manage the eventual
risks associated with online shopping (Cheshire et al. 2010). Fur-
thermore, the perception of control over the shopping process pos-
itively influences the consumers’ attitude and commercial
intentions (Domina 2012). According to Wu and Lin (2012), a high
degree of control leads to greater decision making in the online
shopping process and to a more positive valuation of the result.
In contrast, a lack of perceived control over browsing may result
in an abandonment of the online shopping process on a particular
commercial website (Kamis et al. 2010).
3.2. Autonomy
The second category considered reflects the interest online con-
sumers have in finding themselves in situations which favour their
freedom of choice. In the field of psychology, this is defined as the
behavioural tendency which begins and regulates itself according
to the internal interests of the individual, once he or she has re-
ceived and interpreted information from the environment (Deci
and Ryan 1985). This is congruent with the idea that online pur-
chasing, by allowing the individual to interrupt and/or recover
the purchase decision process with greater ease, with no pressure
from shop assistants or sellers, subjects the consumer to less pres-
sure and offers him or her greater freedom (see Wolfinbarger and
Gilly 2001). This aspect is positively valued by consumers. On the
one hand, consumers prefer to carry out purchases freely and with
no external nuisances; on the other hand, they tend to have reser-
vations concerning the suggestions made by sales personnel
regarding product selection (Heiskanen et al. 2007). Furthermore,
the possibility of being able to shop from anywhere offers greater
autonomy to consumers with physical or spatial limitations which
prevent them from getting out and shopping at physical stores;
Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
The main utilitarian motivations treateda (in brackets, the original labels used in studies)
Shopping convenience/accessibility/efficiency (importance of convenience)
Home environment (importance of convenience)
Good value for money/economic utility (price consciousness)
Broad selection and availability/merchandise assortment motive (variety-seeking propensity)
Shopping convenience/accessibility/efficiency (convenience, order services)
Good value for money/economic utility (perceived value, economic utility)
Information availability (information services)
Home environment (home environment)
Broad selection and availability/merchandise assortment motive (merchandise assortment)
Desire of control (freedom and control)
Shopping convenience/accessibility/efficiency (convenience and accessibility)
Information availability (availability of information)
Lack of sociability (lack of sociability)
Shopping convenience/accessibility/efficiency (shopping convenience)
Information availability (information seeking)
Broad selection and availability/merchandise assortment motive (variety seeking)
Good value for money/economic utility (cost saving)
Shopping convenience/accessibility/efficiency (convenience)
Broad selection and availability/merchandise assortment motive (selection)
Information availability (information availability)
Lack of sociability (lack of sociability)
Customized products or service/co-production (customized products or services)
Home environment (web shopping convenience)
Shopping convenience/accessibility/efficiency (web shopping convenience)
Good value for money/economic utility (online bidding/haggling)
Customized products or service/co-production (personalized services)
this group of consumers especially appreciates this benefit
(Trocchia and Janda 2000).
3.3. Shopping convenience/accessibility/efficiency
This category of motivations deals with the interest consumers
have in saving time and energy by shopping online. This category
has received considerable attention in the field of consumer behav-
iour in the physical markets, and numerous studies have high-
lighted its relevance to the choice of establishment (e.g., Bellenger
and Korgaonkar 1980, Darden and Ashton 1974, Eastlick and Fein-
berg 1999, Gehrt and Shim 1998, Williams et al. 1978). At the same
time, it has been highlighted as a key motor in purchase decisions in
the electronic markets (e.g.: Bhatnagar et al. 2000, Chiang and
Dholakia 2003, Forsythe et al. 2006, Morganosky and Cude 2000,
Srinivasan et al. 2002, Thomas 2002). In this context, these
sought-after benefits are important: online consumers can save
considerable time and energy by eliminating the need to physically
travel in order to make the purchase, thus also avoiding frustrations
associated with taking the car, such as running into traffic or not
being able to find parking (Childers et al. 2001); furthermore, they
do not have to contend with having to wait, stand in long lines or
deal with a shop packed with people (e.g., Ganesh et al. 2010, Rohm
and Swaminathan 2004). And so, it should come as no surprise that
previous studies (e.g. To et al. 2007, Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2001)
have highlighted the aspects of convenience when studying the util-
itarian motivations in online shopping. In summary, consumption
processes carried out online can clearly be more efficient than those
carried out in physical markets, especially when consumers know
their product/s of interest (Hung 2011).
3.4. Broad selection and availability/merchandise assortment motive
This dimension reflects the consumer’s interest in having a wide
and varied offering of goods and services within reach when he or
 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
she carries out online consumption processes. This interest in hav-
ing a broad selection is related to the principles of economy of
information (Hauser and Wernerfelt 1990, Ratchford 1980, Stigler
1961) and to the consideration that the utility of the consumers in-
creases as the number of purchase alternatives (brands, products,
retailers) to which they have easy access increases. Likewise, the
extent of an assortment would be in keeping with the utilitarian
motivation referred to as ‘‘selection’’ by Wolfinbarger and Gilly
(2001), Srinivasan et al. (2002), and To et al. (2007). These authors
have described its positive influence on online shopping.
On-line stores are able to offer a much greater selection than
physical stores, because they are free of restrictions such as inven-
tory or storage, unlike physical stores, which tend to have part of
their installations dedicated for those purposes (Alba et al. 1997).
At first, the merchandise presentation at the e-vendor’s websites
could have been improved (see Jarvenpaa and Todd 1996, 1997),
though that is not a problem anymore. A paradigmatic example of
this fact is the phenomenal Long Tail-based model of companies
such as Amazon or Netflix (see Anderson 2006). This is positive
for consumers, given that their satisfaction tends to be greater
when they are able to choose from among a wide selection without
getting lost (e.g., Endo et al. 2012, Herrero Crespo and Rodríguez del
Bosque 2010). Thus, it would also be in the interest of commercial
websites to be equipped with tools (e.g., recommendation systems)
which would allow an adequate number of products and items rel-
evant to their search interests to be displayed. This, furthermore,
would help the consumer avoid eventual problems associated with
an excess of information during the online consumption process
(i.e. the information paradox) (see Chen et al. 2009).
3.5. Good value for money/economic utility
This category relates to the search for competitive prices,
including the consumer’s interest in obtaining the best value for
the price paid as well as her interest in taking advantage of promo-
tions and sales. The economic motivation in online consumption
has been documented since the beginnings of the online markets
(e.g., Anders 1998, Jarvenpaa and Todd 1997, Korgaonkar and Wo-
lin 1999, Mathwick et al. 2002). In fact, this motivation is consid-
ered to be especially important in explaining online consumption
(Sajjad et al. 2011). Because the electronic markets are commercial
environments which are highly rich in information, consumers are
able to identify alternatives which offer considerable savings (Bry-
njolfsson and Smith 2000, Clemons et al. 2002, Lee and Gosain
2002, Strader and Shaw 1999, Zettelmeyer et al. 2006). On the
other hand, the companies which operate in electronic markets
have greater advantages over those that operate in physical mar-
kets when it comes to transaction costs. This, in addition to savings
in storefront rental and personnel, allows these companies to offer
consumers better prices than those found in the physical markets
(Strader and Shaw 1999).
The search for better value/economic utility leaves the on-line
consumers feeling more satisfied when they obtain better prices
for the products acquired over the Internet (Herrero Crespo and
Rodríguez del Bosque 2010, Mathwick et al. 2002). In this regard,
several articles (e.g.: Arnold and Reynolds 2003, Parsons 2002, To
et al. 2007) have considered, in particular, the motivational aspects
involved in finding good deals and discounts; these aspects are also
proved to positively influence the consumer’s satisfaction in fulfill-
ing a personal achievement.
3.6. Availability of information
This refers to the benefits sought out in obtaining useful infor-
mation which allows the consumer to carry out online consump-
tion processes. The role of motivations relating to the consumer’s
Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
5
capacity to obtain information in retail establishments had already
been contemplated in physical shopping environments (see, e.g.,
Bellenger and Korgaonkar 1980). However, these sought-after
benefits are even more relevant for the online environment
(Korgaonkar and Wolin 1999), extremely rich in information and
equipped with instruments which notably reduce the costs in-
volved in seeking out and evaluating the alternatives available to
consumers (Bakos 1997, Brynjolfsson and Smith 2000, Chen et al.
2009, Lynch and Ariely 2000). This is one factor which allows con-
sumers to easily compare prices for a great number of purchase op-
tions which respond to their search interests (Bakos 1991, Smith
et al. 1999).
There are various sources of empirical evidence relating to the
role of information availability as a utilitarian motivation for online
shopping (e.g., To et al. 2007, Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2001). The
importance of information availability derives from the quantity
of information which can be obtained in comparison to the limited
amount of information a vendor provides in a physical establish-
ment (Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2001).
3.7. Customized product or service/co-production
This dimension describes consumers’ interests in the personal-
ization of their inquiries in a way which meets their own needs and
preferences. Various studies have analyzed the implications of the
personalization processes in electronic markets, as well as the role
and principal consequences of said processes in the value and
experience as perceived by the consumer (e.g., Ansari and Mela
2003, Miceli 2007, Randall et al. 2005, Vesanen and Raulas 2006,
Wind and Rangaswamy 2001). It has been observed, for example,
that the advanced forms of personalization allowed for by e-com-
merce technologies favour the predisposition to shop and consume
online (Srinivasan et al. 2002, Wind and Rangaswamy 2001).
Likewise, the possibilities for personalization are directly re-
lated to the co-creation of value during the online consumption
process. Personalization allows consumers to express their prefer-
ences and identity more efficiently than the alternatives offered by
the physical markets. Therefore, the e-vendors whose commercial
websites offer better personalized experiences will favour more
purchases than those vendors who do not offer comparable per-
sonalization experiences (Bertini and Wathieu 2012). Finally, a
company’s capacity to adequately satisfy this type of consumer
motivation will positively influence its competitive position and
eventual competitive advantage in the electronic markets (Gilmore
and Pine 1997, Pine and Davis 1999, Pine 2010, Levav et al. 2010).
3.8. Ease of payment
This motivation reflects the online consumers’ interest in hav-
ing a variety of payment alternatives available which is wide en-
ough and which addresses their preferences. Although the
benefits sought after with regards to payment methods have not
usually been considered within the context of distance selling,
Eastlick and Feinberg (1999) have already documented their
importance as a motivational factor. On the other hand, the litera-
ture on innovation adoption within the context of electronic com-
merce has devoted a great deal of attention to online payment
systems, concentrating on questions relating to security and the
consumer’s perception of the risks inherent to online payment
(Bhatnagar et al. 2000, Liebermann and Stashevsky 2002, McKnight
et al. 2002, Swaminathan et al. 1999, among others). One can see
that the way in which an e-vendor’s payment system is perceived
has a significant effect upon the level of trust extended to that
commercial website (Abrazhevich 2004, Dai and Grundy 2007,
Guan and Hua 2003, Kim et al. 2010, Lawrence 2002). Therefore,
ease of payment plays an important role in electronic commerce;
6 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
it has become one of the most critical factors in online business
success (Peha and Khamitov 2005, Stroborn et al. 2004, Linck
et al. 2006, Cotteleer et al. 2007, Kousaridas et al. 2008).
3.9. Home environment
This refers to the consumer’s interest in carrying out online con-
sumption processes in an agreeable and relaxed environment,
which we relate to the consumer’s home in this study. This re-
sponds to a more traditional approach to e-commerce, which bases
on the current leading role of the wired, desktop-based e-com-
merce over mobile commerce purchases. Nevertheless, it should
also be noted that as Internet technologies and electronic mobile
devices evolve and are taken up on a huge scale, with the subse-
quent rise in mobile commerce purchases, this motivation might
be less relevant in online consumption1; although, part of the pur-
chases using mobile devices could be made at home too.
The Internet allows consumers to comfortably shop online from
their homes without having to worry about how they are dressed.
Furthermore, online processes offer consumers a comfortable, cosy
environment in their own home (e.g., Ganesh et al. 2010,
Vijayasarathy and Jones 2000, Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2001). In
this way, consumers who do not have much free time still have
the chance to do their shopping from the comfort of their own
home (Monsuwé et al. 2004). Likewise, when consumers are faced
with difficulties such as not having their own car (Avery 1996), or
being ill or physically unable to shop at physical establishments
(Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2001), a partial solution is home shopping
(Monsuwé et al. 2004). One of the advantages of being able to shop
from home rather than in physical establishments is that one can
complete a more exhaustive product search, with greater speed
and convenience (Alba et al. 1997). This comfort and convenience
allows consumers to shop from a relaxed environment and to carry
out their shopping with a minimum of mental burden and without
having to go out. This explains the growing increase in elderly on-
line shoppers (Kuo et al. 2011, 2012).
3.10. Lack of sociability
Lack of sociability is associated with the benefit of avoiding so-
cial interaction with other people (whether they are consumers or
sales people) and of consuming online free from shyness or embar-
rassment. This motivation has been indicated in a number of ear-
lier studies (see: To et al. 2007, Joerding and Meissner 1998,
Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2001). Joerding and Meissner (1998) indi-
cate that consumers who shop over the Internet prefer to browse
by visualizing products of interest, without being bothered; this
type of consumer, in general, prefers to avoid interaction with sales
people while doing his or her shopping. When the online consump-
tion process is free of sales people, companions, or strangers, con-
sumers need not worry about negotiating with sales people, about
whether their companions are bored, or about other people who
may be nearby (Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2001). Therefore, while
the explanation for consumer behaviour and choice of retail format
in off-line shopping environments includes a social interaction
component, its role in the online context in some cases is reduced
or non-existent (see Alba et al. 1997). In this regard, Forsythe et al.
(2006) point to the absence of sociability as a perceived benefit in
online shopping.
3.11. Anonymity
Anonymity has to do with the consumer’s interest in protecting
his or her privacy while carrying out online consumption
1
We thank one of the reviewers for this suggestion.
Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
processes. This benefit had already been shown to be a motiva-
tional dimension relevant to traditional home-shopping formats
in the years before online shopping came to the fore (Culnan
1993, Eastlick and Feinberg 1999). On the Internet, however, con-
sumers have an even greater interest in maintaining their anonym-
ity (Hoffman et al. 1999a, 1999b; Korgaonkar and Wolin 1999).
This is due to the ease with which companies can gather, transmit,
and make use of information about consumers, for commercial
purposes; it is also due to the potential derived from the combined
use of the Internet with marketing and CRM intelligence systems.
In this way, adapting ideas from earlier studies (Goodwin 1991,
Marshall 1974) to the electronic context, equipping forms of inter-
action between companies and consumers which facilitate ano-
nymity turns out to be an especially valuable strategy; i.e. it
allows for the protection of the online shopper’s privacy (Hoffman
et al. 1999b). It is a way for consumers to have control over the
quantity of transactional information shared with the e-vendor.
4. Qualitative analyses
Focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted to eval-
uate and eventually refine the utilitarian motives gathered from
the previous literature review stage; in addition, these qualitative
analyses were used to develop and refine their associated measure-
ment scales.
4.1. Focus groups
Seven people participated in each of the group dynamics, all of
them regular Internet users between the ages of 25 and 45. Previ-
ously, steps were taken to ensure that the panel of participants
was made up of people of different backgrounds and points of view,
as well as distinct levels of experience (though none were null) in
the undertaking of online shopping activities. While the seven
members of one of the group dynamics all had a high level of expe-
rience as online shoppers, the second group dynamic was composed
of three consumers with a low or moderate level of experience and
four with a high level of experience in online shopping. In this way,
we aimed at controlling the level of online shopping experience of
the members of the groups. Based on Holloway et al. (2005), four cri-
teria had to be taken into consideration to determine the level of
experience: that the minimum purchase frequency was one pur-
chase every three months, that a minimum of four items were pur-
chased, that the average minimum amount of money spent per trip
was 60 €, and that the total amount of money spent in the last six
months was between 200 € and 250 € (see Table 3). With these four
criteria in mind, the participants who were selected had to meet at
least three of the four criteria in order to be considered for inclusion
in the group of the ‘highly-experienced’.
For the group dynamics, we prepared a script structured in two
differentiated and successive parts. The first time block of the dy-
namic (approximately 20 min in length) was dedicated to having
the participants reflect openly and freely on the utilitarian motiva-
tions for online consumption (understood in its widest sense, and
not only in the strict sense of online shopping behaviours), thereby
clarifying the composition of this type of motivations. The second
block of the dynamic (30 min in length, approximately) focused
on the generation of opinions regarding the reasonableness of each
of the eleven dimensions which had been identified following the
review of the literature. The opinions expressed regarding the
dimensions, posed sequentially, served to later develop a number
of measurement items, proving especially useful in those cases in
which difficulties were detected in adapting already existing scales.
After the group dynamics were conducted, a document was pre-
pared which presented the eleven dimensions proposed after the
 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Table 3
Principal characteristics of the respondents.
Age (years) Gender
18–20 29.10% Male
21–24 50.90% Female
25–34 14.80%
35–44 4.20%
45–54 0.90%
55–64 0.10%
Number of online purchases during Number of online purchases during the
the last year last 6 months
None 15.80% None
1–5 55.80% 1–5
6–10 17.70% 6–10
11–15 3.30% 11–20
16–20 3.80% 21–30
Over 20 3.60% Over 30
review of the literature and which included their description and
respective initial multi-item scales. The information gathered in
the document was prepared based on the knowledge accumulated
with respect to online utilitarian motivations and, when applica-
ble, on the adaptation of scales validated by previous studies. How-
ever, when the above was not possible, items were prepared which
took into consideration the results obtained from the group
dynamics.
4.2. Personal interviews
Next, using the qualitative method of the personal interview, this
proposal of dimension and scales was submitted for evaluation by
five experts: two e-commerce industry professionals (an Internet
entrepreneur and business strategy consultant in the fields of inno-
vation, founder of an online community and co-founder of several
Internet innovation platforms; a manager of 5 successful compa-
nies, some of them merging technology, tourism and real estate,
and a holder of several top worldwide awards in the tourism sector)
and three marketing scholars with extensive experience in con-
sumer behaviour. Furthermore, the suggestions of a U.S. professor
with specific expertise in online shopping motivations proved use-
ful to our refinement of the dimensional structure, with regards to
labelling dimensions and purifying the multi-item measurement
scales (i.e. in certain cases a number of items were removed, in other
cases their statements were rewritten). These interviews led to an-
other refinement of the dimensional structure, in number – i.e. from
eleven to ten dimensions, with the integration of the benefit of con-
sumption from the home environment into the motivation related
to the absence of social interaction, to avoid an eventual problem-
atic overlap between both – and in denomination or labelling. In
particular, that was the case in five categories: ‘shopping conve-
nience/accessibility/efficiency’ (which turned into ‘convenience’),
‘broad selection and availability/merchandise assortment motive’
(now ‘assortment’), ‘consumption for better value/economic utility’
(‘economy’), ‘customized product or service/co-production’ (‘adapt-
ability/customization’), ‘order services motives’ (‘payment ser-
vices’), and ‘lack of sociability’ (‘absence of social interaction’).
Also, a few items which were considered problematic for eventual
overlapping with other motivations were removed from the starting
set of items (e.g. the starting scale for ‘Availability of information’
had 9 items, from which two were removed; two were also removed
from ‘Desire for control’, passing from 8 to 6) and some other items’
statements were improved (e.g., one item in the scale for ‘Desire for
control’, two items for ‘Autonomy’, or 3 items for ‘Economy’, among
others).
Definitively, this qualitative phase of the investigation led us to
work finally with 10 dimensions and 46 items (see Appendix A).
Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
7
Years using the internet
34.50% 1–4 7.50%
65.50% 4–9 53.10%
10–14 35.60%
More than 15 3.80%
Overall amount of purchases over the Internet
during the last year
34.60% None 15.80%
56.40% 1–50 € 15.40%
6.10% 51–100 € 17.30%
2.10% 101–500 € 34.90%
0.30% 501–1000 € 9.60%
0.50% Over 1000 € 6%
Specifically, the dimensions have been named in the following
manner: ‘‘desire for control’’, ‘‘autonomy’’, ‘‘convenience’’, ‘‘assort-
ment’’, ‘‘economy’’, ‘‘availability of information’’, ‘‘adaptability/cus-
tomization’’, ‘‘payment services’’, ‘‘absence of social interaction’’,
and ‘‘anonymity’’.
5. Quantitative study
At this stage we pursued two main objectives: (1) the empirical
evaluation of the origin of the 10 motivational dimensions pro-
posed, following the review of the specific literature and their pos-
terior refinement using qualitative techniques (as described in the
previous section); (2) the analysis of the multi-item scales pro-
posed in each case, considering the relationship between the item
and the underlying motivational dimension, as well as the item’s
consistency with the rest of the items of its corresponding scale.
The information obtained will be very useful as a starting point
for its future validation using confirmatory methods.
The most relevant information associated with the quantitative
phase of the study has been structured in three subsections: the
methodological aspects of the field work, the exploratory factor
analysis and, finally, the confirmatory analyses and validation of
the dimensional structure proposed for utilitarian consumption
motivations on the Web as well as their measurement scales.
5.1. Methodology
5.1.1. Sample
The fundamental characteristic we looked for in the respon-
dents was that they were regular Internet users, regardless of
whether they used it, to a greater or lesser extent, to make online
purchases. For the sake of convenience, the sample was obtained
from among university students. Although samples of this type
only partially represent the Internet population, they are consid-
ered to be quite valid for use in studies such as this one; further-
more, the results provided by samples with these characteristics
approach the results which samples obtained using probabilistic
methods would provide (see Chuan-Chuan Lin and Lu 2000, Peter-
son 2001).
The survey was conducted over the months of March and April
of 2010 at several university schools in the city of Barcelona
(Spain). Participants had to be Internet users who would have al-
ready had experience in online shopping. Total number of ques-
tionnaires collected was 679 (valid sample = 669). While the age
range of the sample was between 18 and 64, 97.8% of the cases
were university students between the ages of 18 and 34. The
respondents demonstrated a high degree of experience using the
8 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Internet, with 92.5% of them indicating an average of more than
four years experience. 84.2% of the respondents claimed to have
made an online purchase in the last year, with 65.4% stating they
had made an online purchase in the last 6 months. Only 15.8% of
the respondents had not spent any money in the past year on the
Internet (for more details, see Table 3).
5.1.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was prepared based on the information pre-
sented in Appendix A, which gathers the multi-item scales associ-
ated with the utilitarian motivations initially considered, after first
conducting the theoretical review and subsequent evaluation and
depuration of dimensions and scales in the qualitative phase. Items
were measured according to 7-point Likert-type scales (1: com-
pletely disagree – 7: completely agree). The right column reports
the sources of original, validated scales taken as a base and adapted
to this study. The heterogeneity in the number of items forming
the measurement scales for each motivation is due to the differ-
ences in number of items considered by such original scales. Fur-
thermore, as indicated, qualitative studies have been used as a
complement in many cases, in such a way that: one or several of
the items of the adapted scale might have been removed and/or
their statements refined based on the qualitative studies (usually
the personal interviews); or a new item or items have been added
to the scale, based on the qualitative studies (usually the focus
groups). In particular, for the case of ‘‘payment services’’, no previ-
ous validated scale was found for that motivation, so we opted to
work with two items based on the focus group participants’ state-
ments when talking about this motivational category.
The survey was self-administered, in paper format. The authors
themselves supervised its preparation, along with assistance from
other scholars who collaborated in this phase of the study. The
questionnaire began with a few brief explanatory notes, necessary
in order to focus the attention of the respondents and to improve
their understanding, as well as to facilitate the precision of their
answers. Furthermore, and in order to ensure that the respondents
had a general understanding of these explanatory notes, the con-
tent of these notes was explained to the groups of respondents be-
fore they proceeded to fill out the questionnaire. It is especially
important to highlight the emphasis placed on clarifying the
researchers’ interest in obtaining information regarding the moti-
vations behind online consumption experiences as a whole; this

Table 4
Lambda loadings and reliability.

Desire for Convenience Assortment Economy Availability of Adaptability/ Payment Absence of social Anonymity
control information customization services interaction
Desire for control (1) .679
Desire for control (2) .841
Desire for control (3) .890
Convenience (1) .780
Convenience (2) .700
Convenience (3) .778
Convenience (4) .824
Convenience (5) .709
Convenience (6) .713
Assortment (1) .768
Assortment (2) .779
Assortment (3) .843
Assortment (4) .777
Economy (1) .804
Economy (2) .800
Economy (3) .793
Economy (4) .758
Economy (5) .667
Avail. of info. (1) .648
Avail. of info. (2) .623
Avail. of info. (3) .692
Avail. of info. (4) .699
Avail. of info. (5) .704
Avail. of info. (6) .754
Avail. of info. (7) .611
Adapt./custom. (1) .699
Adapt./custom. (2) .696
Adapt./custom. (3) .783
Adapt./custom. (4) .830
Payment serv. (1) .867
Payment serv. (2) .763
Absence of social .676
interaction (1)
Absence of social .967
interaction (2)
Anonymity (1) .864
Anonymity (2) .856
Anonymity (3) .788
Cronbach’s alpha .83 .89 .87 .88 .86 .83 .89 .87 .88
Composite .848 .886 .871 .876 .855 .834 .800 .827 .875
reliability
Variance extracted .653 .566 .628 .587 .459 .558 .667 .710 .700
(AVE)

Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 9

Table 5
Discriminant validity. Methods of Chi square difference tests and square roots of AVEs vs. correlations.

Desire for Convenience Assortment Economy Availability of Payment Absence Anonymity Adaptability/
control information services of social customization
interaction
Desire for control 0.642 (0.808)
Convenience 75.641 (24) 0.749 (0.752)
569.349 (25)
0.620
Assortment 74.700 (13) 122.457 (32) 0.749 (0.792)
634.231 (14) 482.91 (33)
0.585 0.749
Economy 58.568 (18) 93.528 (40) 122.909 (25) 0.737 (0.766)
601.095 (19) 513.065 (41) 499.563 (26)
0.588 0.719 0.737
Availability of 141.372 (32) 193.501 (60) 171.693 (41) 2042.314 0.682 (0.677)
information (104)
570.078 (33) 685.098 (61) 710.687 (42) 2448.957
(105)
0. 642 0.654 0.624 0.682
Payment services 17.052 (4) 52.62 (17) 34.626 (8) 44.222 (12) 118.237 (24) 0.604 (0.817)
321.239 (5) 355.981 (18) 283.466 (9) 313.998 (13) 1052.765 (25)
0.441 0.446 0.570 0.236 0.434
Absence of social 4.27 (4) 39.153 (17) 32.886 (8) 20.754 (12) 106.447 (24) 4.571 (1) 0.477 (0.844)
interaction
391.534 (5) 421.993 (18) 415.791 (9) 402.802 (13) 425.029 (25) 364.331 (2)
0.200 0.232 0.226 0.635 0.182 0.234
Anonymity 18.759 (8) 78.178 (24) 55.507 (13) 35.438 (18) 118.237 (32) 7.7 (4) 10.368 (4) 0.403 (0.837)
837.955 (9) 916.656 (25) 901.624 (14) 907.707 (19) 1052.765 (33) 325.18 (5) 325.123 (5)
0.286 0.334 0.400 0.368 0.271 0.410 0.477
Adaptability/ 67.543 (12) 141.625 (31) 86.083 (18) 60.334 (24) 208.668 (40) 44.891 (7) 17.56 (7) 35.968 (12) 0.643 (0.748)
customization
528.568 (13) 597.347 (32) 446.712 (19) 425.865 (25) 615.416 (41) 270.192 (8) 393.006 (8) 635.133 (13)
0.552 0.543 0.643 0.525 0.575 0.604 0.254 0.403

– Diagonal shows the higher correlation between one construct and the others, which should be lower than the square root of the AVE of said construct (in brackets).
– Cells off the diagonal contain the following information: v2(d.f.) value of the model fit letting free the correlation between a pair of constructs; v2(d.f.) value of the model
when said correlation is set to 1; and, finally, the correlation between said constructs.
– All Chi square difference tests (d.f. = 1) are significant at a p-level <0.001.

approach expands the usual focus on the particular case of shop-
ping motivations on the Web. Therefore, it was explained to the
respondents that the concept of consumption goes beyond the pur-
chase itself and that it encompasses the diverse behaviours an indi-
vidual may develop with respect to the consumption of goods and
services (such as obtaining information and seeking special offers),
independently of whether or not they finally make a purchase.
Although the possibility of distributing the questionnaire online
was considered, in the end this option was rejected. The principal
motives that justified this decision had to do, on the one hand, with
the high levels of abandonment and the low rates of response ob-
tained in online surveys with long questionnaires (such as the one
used in this study). On the other hand, there was also an interest in
providing personal support (see Evans and Mathur 2005) in order
to clarify the researcher’s interests and focus the respondents on
the task of providing information regarding their total online con-
sumption experiences.
5.2. Exploratory factorial analysis and Cronbach’s alpha
The data base created on the basis of the survey was reduced
from 679 to 669 entries, once the questionnaires which were only
partially filled out were eliminated. In addition, the inconvenience
of occasionally missing data on the questionnaires was resolved
using the imputation method of mean substitution (Hair et al. 2005).
The second refined version of the dimensional structure and its
respective scales was generated following an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA). Previously, with the aim of evaluating its conve-
nience, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin indicator (KMO) was observed to
have a value of 0.947, clearly above the recommended threshold
of 0.5 (see Hair et al. 2005). The EFA was carried out by means of
the analysis of principal components with varimax rotation
(DeVellis 2003, Netemeyer et al. 2003), and the dimensions and
their respective measurement scales were obtained after conduct-
ing the theoretical revision and qualitative study.
To analyse the significance of the items’ factor loadings, we
have applied the restrictive criteria of a cut-off value of 0.5 (see
Hair et al. 2005). After studying the case of the items that did not
load significantly, we proceeded when applicable, one by one, to
eliminate them and to recalculate the rotated component matrix
(see Netemeyer et al. 2003, Pett et al. 2003). Next, an iterative anal-
ysis was carried out of all the relationships between the items and
the components, that is, the underlying dimensions. In this stage,
we discarded the dimension ‘‘autonomy’’, as its two items had
non-significant loadings. Next, the extraction of the principal ro-
tated components was once again carried out. The number of
dimensions theoretically underlying the items under consideration
was nine, which is coherent with the elimination of the items asso-
ciated with one of the ten dimensions initially considered. Like-
wise, we went onto test whether all the items which a priori,
according to the theoretical basis and qualitative analyses carried
out in this study should load in one single dimension, actually
did so. This led us to discard those items which did not load in
the anticipated dimension; furthermore, these items lacked the
theoretical support to be associated with another dimension (see
Arnold and Reynolds 2003). This process concluded with the
elimination of items from the following dimensions: desire for
control (items 5 and 6), convenience (items 8 and 9) and absence

Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
10 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

of social interaction (items 3 and 4). Once the remaining items Table 7
were grouped with their respective factors, the loadings were ana- Structural coefficients between the utilitarian dimensions (first-order construct) and
the utilitarian meta-motivation (second-order construct). All coefficients are signif-
lyzed; all of them were above 0.5. In the end, 9 dimensions and 38 icant at a p < 0.001).
items were obtained. These new factors, all with eigen values
greater than 1, explain 67.37% of the variance of the data. Motivations Coefficient Construct’s R2

The analysis of the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the refined 1. Assortment 0.86 0.74
measurement scales, following the previous analyses, turned out 2. Economy 0.858 0.736
3. Convenience 0.823 0.677
to be very good for this exploratory stage, with all of them around 4. Availability of information 0.775 0.6
0.8 of higher (see Peterson 1994, Robinson et al. 1991). 5. Adaptability/customization 0.752 0.565
6. Desire for control 0.724 0.565
7. Payment services 0.641 0.411
8. Anonymity 0.459 0.211
5.3. Confirmatory factorial analysis
9. Absence of social interaction 0.304 0.093

To perform a rigorous evaluation of the validity of the dimen-

sional structure proposed in the previous exploratory stage, a con-
firmatory factor analysis was carried out using Lisrel 8.8. Taking
into account some of the deficiencies observed – for example, the
distribution of data (a non-normal distribution), as well as the type
of data (rating scales) – the use of a polychoric correlation matrix is
advised. These model conditions, along with the sample size (i.e.
large, within a structural equation modelling context), imply the
application of the robust weighted least squares estimation
method, recommended as the most adequate method for dealing
with these shortcomings and for providing proper solutions (see
Martínez López et al. 2013).
All the elements with lambda loadings (that is, the association
between a construct and its items) under 0.5 are excluded
iteratively from the measurement model. Each time an indicator
loaded below this threshold, it was extracted for the next iteration,
and item 7 of the dimension ‘‘convenience’’ and item 4 of the
dimension ‘‘desire for control’’ were thus eliminated. And so, hav-
ing started with an initial set of 38 items and 9 dimensions, we
ended up with 36 items and 9 dimensions. The results offer a good
adjustment of the model (v2/d.f.: 2.304; GFI: 0.901; CFI: 0.949;
NFI: 0.913; RMSEA: 0.044). With respect to convergent validity,
composite reliabilities (CR) and the average variance extracted
(AVE), all the values obtained were above the minimum cut-off
values established, that is, 0.7 and 0.4, respectively (see Martínez
López et al. 2013) (see Table 4).
On the other hand, the various tests (i.e. Chi square difference
tests; square roots of AVEs vs. Correlations; and confidence inter-
vals for correlations between constructs) which were carried out

Table 6
Discriminant validity. Correlations between constructs and 95% confidence.

Pair of constructs Correlations Confidence intervals

Desire for control () Convenience 0.62 0.560 0.680
Desire for control () Assortment 0.585 0.523 0.647
Desire for control () Availability of information 0.636 0.576 0.696
Desire for control () Anonymity 0.286 0.204 0.368
Desire for control () Absence of social interaction 0.2 0.110 0.290
Desire for control () Payment services 0.441 0.363 0.519
Desire for control () Adaptability/customization 0.552 0.484 0.620
Desire for control () Economy 0.588 0.526 0.650
Convenience () Assortment 0.749 0.703 0.795
Convenience () Availability of information 0.653 0.595 0.711
Convenience () Anonymity 0.334 0.254 0.414
Convenience () Absence of social interaction 0.232 0.142 0.322
Convenience () Payment services 0.446 0.368 0.524
Convenience () Adaptability/customization 0.543 0.475 0.611
Convenience () Economy 0.719 0.669 0.769
Assortment () Availability of information 0.627 0.567 0.678
Assortment () Anonymity 0.4 0.324 0.476
Assortment () Absence of social interaction 0.226 0.136 0.316
Assortment () Payment services 0.57 0.502 0.638
Assortment () Adaptability/customization 0.643 0.583 0.703
Assortment () Economy 0.737 0.689 0.785
Economy () Availability of information 0.682 0.628 0.736
Economy () Anonymity 0.368 0.290 0.446
Economy () Absence of social interaction 0.236 0.146 0.326
Economy () Payment services 0.525 0.453 0.597
Economy () Adaptability/customization 0.635 0.575 0.695
Availability of information () Anonymity 0.276 0.192 0.360
Availability of information () Absence of social interaction 0.189 0.097 0.281
Availability of information () Payment services 0.445 0.365 0.525
Availability of information () Adaptability/customization 0.582 0.516 0.648
Payment services () Anonymity 0.41 0.330 0.490
Payment services () Absence of social interaction 0.234 0.140 0.328
Payment services () Adaptability/customization 0.604 0.536 0.672
Absence of social interaction () Anonymity 0.477 0.401 0.553
Absence of social interaction () Adaptability/customization 0.254 0.164 0.344
Anonymity () Adaptability/customization 0.403 0.325 0.481

Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Table 8
Overview of the refinement process for the motivational structure and motivations measurement scales.
Labels based on the literature review Refined motivational structure and labels after qualitative study (number of
items of the related scales in brackets)
 Desire for control  Desire for control (6 items)
 Autonomy  Autonomy (2)
 Shopping convenience/accessibility/  Convenience (9)
efficiencya
 Broad selection and availability/  Assortment (4)
merchandise assortment motivea
 Good value for money/economic utilitya  Economy (5)
 Information  Availability of information (7)
 Customized product or service/co-  Adaptability/customization (4)
productiona
 Ease of paymenta  Payment services (2)
 Home environmenta  –
 Lack of sociabilitya  Absence of social interaction (4)
 Anonymity  Anonymity (3)
a
Motivational dimension label modified as a result of the qualitative studies.
in order to evaluate the discriminant validity of the constructs
proved satisfactory (see Tables 5 and 6).
Finally, the nomological validity was evaluated, using a second-
order construct. This methodological resource is based on the logic
that a general motivation or meta-utilitarian motivation exists re-
lated to the 9 utilitarian dimensions concluded upon earlier. Hence,
the meta-motivation is considered to be a multi-dimensional sec-
ond-order construct model. To specify this model, based on the
recommendations made by Jarvis et al. (2003), a reflective logic
is applied for both the first-order utilitarian dimensions and the
second-order construct model.
The results of the adjustment to the structural model are
acceptable (v2/d.f.: 2.545; GFI: 0.887; CFI: 0.937; NFI: 0.901; IFI:
0.937; RMSEA: 0.048). Ordered hierarchically, according to the
intensity of the relationship to the second-order construct,
utilitarian meta-motivation, they are shown in Table 7. As can be
seen, the most determinant motivations are ‘‘assortment’’ and
‘‘economy’’, followed by ‘‘convenience’’. On the other hand, ‘‘ab-
sence of social interaction’’ is the motivation with the least influ-
ence on utilitarian consumption behaviour.
6. Concluding remarks
This study has conducted an approach to, and exhaustive pro-
posal for, the dimensional structure of the utilitarian motivations
in online consumption. The final result is a validated structure of
nine dimensions and their respective measurement scales. These
are, in order of importance and according to the intensity of their
underlying relationship to a utilitarian meta-motivation created
using a second-order construct: assortment, economy, conve-
nience, availability of information, adaptability/customization, de-
sire for control, payment services, anonymity, and absence of social
interaction (see, also, Table 7).
The study was carried out by means of a literature review which
allowed us to prepare an exhaustive initial proposal of 11 utilitar-
ian motivations in online consumption. This is an original contri-
bution of this investigation. Furthermore, it was conducted from
the perspective of the general concept of online consumption,
surpassing the more restrictive approach, focused on online shop-
ping, used by earlier studies, of which there are only a few, on this
topic (e.g., To et al. 2007, Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2001). Next, we
made use of a qualitative investigation, conducted in two phases
(an initial phase involving two focus groups with Internet users,
followed by a second phase of interviews with experts) in order
to refine the dimensions considered and their respective measure-
ment scales. We arrived at 10 utilitarian dimensions and 49 items
Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
11
Refined motivational structure after
quantitative study
 Desire for control (3 items)
–
 Convenience (6)
 Assortment (4)
 Economy (5)
 Availability of information (7)
 Adaptability/customization (4)
 Payment services (2)
 –
 Absence of social interaction (2)
 Anonymity (2)
(see Appendix A). Finally, following the exploratory and confirma-
tory quantitative analysis of the dimensions and associated scales,
we concluded with a dimensional structure of 9 utilitarian motiva-
tions and 36 items (see Appendix B). In Table 8, we provide
synthetic information about the refinement of the dimensional
structure, motivation labels and their respective items.
This paper expands upon and completes the approach of earlier
papers on consumers’ utilitarian motivations, mostly focused on on-
line shopping. For example, the structure of six dimensions of To
et al. (2007): cost saving, convenience, selection, information avail-
ability, lack of sociability, and customized product or service; or the
structure proposed by Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001), who consid-
ered a scale of four utilitarian motivations in online consumption
behaviour: convenience and accessibility, selection, availability of
information, and lack of sociability. Regarding the importance of
the identified utilitarian benefits sought by consumers in online
markets, our results coincide with the four top utilitarian motiva-
tions which To et al. (2007) arrived at, although the two studies dif-
fer with respect to their hierarchical ordering of these four
motivations. To et al. (2007) consider the order to be: convenience,
cost saving (which corresponds to the motivation labelled ‘‘econ-
omy’’ in our study), information availability, and selection (assort-
ment). Our study concludes that assortment plays the most
important role, followed by economy, convenience, and availability
of information. In any event, the three top-ranked dimensions in our
study differ little in their respective degrees of influence.
To conclude this section, it is necessary to point out that, while
this study has focused on utilitarian motivations, these motiva-
tions represent only one side of the coin. As was described in the
background for this article, the integral vision of online consump-
tion motivations is not complete without a consideration of hedo-
nic motivations. These are of interest to us as well, especially
considering the increasing penetration of social media and the he-
donic benefits sought by consumers within (e.g. Chi 2011, Stavros
et al. in press). However, they transcend the objective of this study,
which is focused on delimitating and validating a full dimensional
structure for the utilitarian motivations of online consumption. On
the other hand, the analysis and presentation of the hedonic moti-
vations also need to be detailed and rigorous, which in itself merits
an independent article. Finally, it is reasonable to expect that the
evolution of social media will affect individuals’ online consump-
tion processes. With regards to their consumption motivations,
these are based on underlying benefits and needs sought by the
consumer. These tend to be stable for a long time regardless of
how they are to be fulfilled (see Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013),
which is where advances in the social media are expected to play
a significant role. Hence, when it comes to the utilitarian
12 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
motivations, as these are based on utilitarian benefits sought in on-
line consumption, an exhaustive dimensional structure like the one
discussed and validated here is expected to remain standing a long
time. Notwithstanding, advances in social media, and also in mo-
bile technologies, will allow consumers to reap those utilitarian
benefits in new and different ways. This might alter, for instance,
the importance that consumers give to each utilitarian motivation
(i.e. their hierarchy) of online consumption; the same idea would
apply to the hedonic motivations. Therefore, it would be interest-
ing to assess the adequacy of our structure of utilitarian motiva-
tions, its hierarchy and, eventually, to discuss how it can be
revised a couple of years from now.
7. Implications for practitioners
The relevancy and variety of utilitarian motivations in the expe-
riences of consumption online require that companies, particularly
those selling online and e-vendors, keep them in mind when
designing their websites. Next, we present some practical implica-
tions and reflections for the identified utilitarian motivations.
7.1. Assortment
Firms should provide the consumer with an adequate number
of products in response to their searches; an excessive number
can be irritating, and the same can be said for the implementation
of simplistic decision rules in order to reduce the field of alterna-
tives (Kahn 1998). Furthermore, companies should avoid having
the consumer spend too much time browsing among the assort-
ment. To accomplish this, companies can facilitate the search for
those products which interest the consumer. Some useful actions
that companies can develop in this regard are: working with user
profiles which save preferences or make associations with previous
purchases (Srinivasan et al. 2002); equipping the website with a
solid recommendation system which assists in searches (see
Martínez-López et al. 2010); or, in particular, providing a brief list
of the best options related to the search, accompanied by relevant
information associated with each one (Nadel 2000).
7.2. Economy
In order to promote this motivation, it is recommendable to
have competitive prices and to offer detailed, concrete product
promotions which may attract the attention of the consumer to
the website. With this aim in mind, the use of especially attractive
products which serve as a hook to get the consumer to visit the e-
seller’s website is especially interesting. For instance, the Spanish
department store El Corte Inglés has recently launched a special of-
fer at its website for the HP Envy x2 Tablet at a price which is 20%
lower than its usual retail price, even at the HP online store.
Likewise, a business may join up with companies which provide
discount coupons, such as, for example, Groupon or Lets Bonus.
These companies offer coupons for discounts of up to 70% on prod-
ucts. The functioning principle behind these companies is simple:
the consumer subscribes and receives coupons periodically, even
daily in some cases, which are related to the interests they have
declared in their user profile.
There are other websites focused on online comparison shop-
ping, known as shopping robots or shopbots, to which companies
should also pay attention in order to make it easier for their prod-
ucts to appear among price comparisons. Some examples of shop-
bot-like websites are Pricegrabber, Shopper.com, Google Product
Search and Bing Shopping (Moraga-González and Wildenbeest
2011).
Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
7.3. Convenience
Online consumption is implicitly linked to this benefit, as the
e-vendors’ platforms on the Web allow purchasing 24/7, without
it being necessary to go physically to any store. Nonetheless, con-
sidering the ever-increasing penetration of true-for-e-commerce
mobile devices in the last few years (i.e., smartphones and tablets),
e-vendors should pay attention to providing convenience through
their mobile websites too. Here, it would be interesting to allow
consumers to add to their shopping cart from these devices so that
they do not have to necessarily be in front of the computer to start,
continue or finish their purchase (Wang and Sie 2012). Also, it is
recommended that companies develop or participate in applica-
tions for smartphones which allow the user to create and save a
shopping list just by taking a photo of a product’s barcode. For
example, the SuperTruper application (developed in Spain,
www.supertruper.com) is designed to identify products and in-
forms the consumer regarding the sales price for a specific product
with different retailers. The consumer just takes a picture of the
product’s barcode, and the application, connected with various
retailers, gives him or her price information in real time. Further-
more, a shopping list of those products of interest to the consumer
can later be prepared, and the purchase can be made using the mo-
bile application.
7.4. Availability of information
Given that online consumers cannot physically touch or feel the
actual products, they make decisions based principally on the
information provided by the on-line store’s electronic media. To
this end, companies should provide, on their commercial websites,
access to product information which may be of interest to con-
sumers. To accomplish this, we suggest they complement the
information managed by the company itself with users’ commen-
taries or evaluations regarding the products. Furthermore, avail-
ability of information refers not only to the information about
the product or service, but also to the ease of access the consumer
has to the information of interest. Questions such as convenience
and search personalization possibilities may promote customer
loyalty with respect to future purchases (Park and Kim 2003).
Therefore, it may be of interest to provide the consumer with a
powerful and precise product search engine, which furthermore
takes into account his or her shopping history on the website.
Otherwise, search results which are fuzzy and not very selective
will have a negative impact on the valuation of the consumption
experience and, consequently, on the consumer’s satisfaction with
the online shopping process on the website (see Endo et al. 2012).
7.5. Adaptability/customization
It is recommendable to equip the e-vendor’s site with an appli-
cation which allows consumers to personalize their purchases,
provided the commercialized product/service is suitable, and pro-
vided that it is possible in terms of the company’s operations man-
agement. The idea is that the consumer can configure items and
obtain a customized and more exclusive product which meets his
or her tastes and needs. Here, the American company Dell stands
out for its remarkable ability to customize laptops based on its cus-
tomers’ choices on its website. Furthermore, they could develop
applications which allow the customization of products via mobile
devices. For example, the ‘‘my way’’ application (www.munichmy-
way.com), offered by the sport shoes’ company Munich (estab-
lished in Barcelona, Spain), allows a consumer to configure,
whether by iPad, iPhone or on their website, customized sneakers,
as well as to make the purchase using the very same application.
 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 13

However, there are some situations which make it difficult for
companies to offer an optimal personalization. These cases worsen
the consumer’s perception of personalized experience and, conse-
quently, the provision of the sought-after benefits underlying this
motivation. Here we highlight two problematic scenarios. On the
one hand, sometimes the consumer does not know or cannot spec-
ify what he or she wants (Simonson 2005). In this case, it would be
of interest to e-vendors to provide consumers with the expression
of their preferences as well as with greater participation in the cus-
tomization of the products/services of interest to them (see Franke
et al. 2009). On the other hand, the online process surrounding the
personalization of a product can sometimes be overwhelming and
discouraging (Dellaert and Stremersch 2005). In order to avoid the
consumer becoming frustrated, the simplification of the personal-
ization processes is recommendable (see: Dellaert and Stremersch
2005, Randall et al. 2007, Valenzuela et al. 2009), as is offering a
product assortment which from the outset better fits the diverse
needs of the groups of consumers who visit the business (see:
Levav et al. 2010, Park et al. 2000, Wilcox and Song 2011).
7.6. Desire for control
In order to offer consumers greater control over browsing, it is
recommended that businesses equip their commercial websites
with usability, in a way which permits consumers to perceive the
freedom to comfortably browse the different pages of the website.
Also, it would be of further interest to equip the website with a
shopping cart which the consumer can recover at any given mo-
ment, and thus resume control of the shopping process whenever
he or she so wishes (Petitprez et al. 2012). In this way, the consumer
has the freedom to return to the purchase process and modify it at
any moment until at last finalizing the purchase; one successful
company which uses this shopping cart model is Amazon.
7.7. Payment services
and research and development, are payment systems via mobile
devices. One noteworthy example of this is the Square wallet
application, which allows credit and debit cards to be linked to
the telephone. However, beyond the technical innovation of pay-
ment via mobile device which this application permits, its true po-
tential is that it offers the consumer information regarding the
location of nearby businesses tied in with Square wallet, as well
as information regarding promotions, rewards, etc. One notewor-
thy company which recently began using this application with its
customers is Starbucks. At the end of 2012, Starbucks incorporated
this payment option in some 7000 stores as a way to improve their
customers’ payment experience.
7.8. Anonymity
It is recommendable that consumers be able to express them-
selves without necessarily having to identify themselves. To
achieve this, the company should permit the consumer to make
use of chat rooms, forums and other places found on their elec-
tronic platforms equipped for this purpose without being obliged
to reveal his or her identity. This contributes to the consumer being
able to protect his or her privacy.
Apart from the payment phase, during which the authentication
of the buyer/payer is necessary, consumers prefer to maintain their
anonymity in the phases previous to the purchase process. During
these phases, it may be of interest to allow consumers to operate
without identifying themselves if they so desire; alternatively, a
business can offer the possibility of browsing with a user account.
For example, eBay is aware of this type of sought-after benefit.
They allow consumers to navigate and browse all the products
without having to identify themselves until the moment of making
a purchase, bidding or adding a product to their shopping cart. Fur-
thermore, they include an option in which the user does not neces-
sarily log-in, but instead uses a guest account.

We recommend offering consumers different payment methods Appendix A

so that they have the freedom to choose from among them,
depending on their needs (e.g. COD, bank transfer, credit card, Pay- Utilitarian motivations and multi-item measurement scales, ob-
Pal, etc.). Currently, one of the most necessary applications to tained after the in-depth literature review and qualitative analyses
which payment companies such as PayPal are dedicating resources on which the questionnaire is based.

Dimensions Items (propositions) Sources used as a basis

D1: Desire for 1. By using price comparison tools I feel more in control of the entire buying To et al. (2007) and
control process qualitative study
2. I like to feel I have control over my online consumption process
3. The Web allows me to control my consumption visit
4. Opportunity to elaborate upon or participate in the Web content makes me
feel in control
5. I feel more confident when shopping online (as opposed to shopping in the
traditional way)
6. Being able to conduct multiple sessions/visits, I know I have control over my
shopping process

D2: Autonomy 1. When carrying out online consumption processes, I do not have to conform Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001)
to any social conventions and qualitative study
2. Online I have freedom over my shopping process: I can postpone it and
return to my online shopping cart anytime I want without explanations

(continued on next page)

Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
14 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Appendix A (continued)
Dimensions Items (propositions) Sources used as a basis
D3: Convenience 1. Shopping online saves me a lot of time Eastlick and Feinberg (1999),
2. Online shopping makes my life easier Mathwick et al. (2001, 2002),
3. The Internet is a convenient way of shopping Rohm and Swaminathan
4. Online shopping fits my schedule (2004), To et al. (2007)
5. Online, I can go shopping whenever I want
6. What I value a lot is the convenience of ordering over the Internet
7. On the Web, I find what I want in the least amount of time
8. I buy online because I don’t like to waste time on shopping
9. On the Web, I have access to products/services which for personal reasons I
don’t check out in the traditional settings

D4: Assortment 1. I buy online because there I can get what I want Eastlick and Feinberg (1999)
2. I buy online because it provides me with easy and quick access to products/ and qualitative study
services I do not have in my local area
3. I like to buy online because of the wide selection of products and services it
offers
4. The Internet provides me with a broad selection of niche products, and/or
products I would not otherwise look for

D5: Economy 1. Online, I can get good value for my money Eastlick and Feinberg (1999),
2. You can save a lot by shopping online To et al. (2007)
3. Thanks to comparison shopping tools, I know I get the best value for the
price I want to pay
4. On the Internet, I often come across real bargains and/or competitive prices
5. I go shopping online to take advantage of sales or special offers

D6: Availability of 1. What I value in online shopping is the availability of information – not only Rohm and Swaminathan
information from the retailer and manufacturer, but also from other customers (2004), To et al. (2007) and
2. Thanks to price comparison tools, I get quick and easy access to the qualitative study
information I need
3. Due to quick and easy access to large volumes of information, I feel more
empowered as an online consumer
4. When I plan my shopping I often use the information I find on the Internet
5. The Internet provides me with the kind of decision-making information that
was not available to me before
6. Online information availability helps me make better transactions in terms
of economic aspects
7. Even if I bought the product in a physical store, I turn to the Web for product
support information

D7: Adaptability/ 1. On the Internet, I can order products that are tailor-made for me Srinivasan et al. (2002), To
customization 2. On the Internet, I get products/services customized to my needs et al. 2007)
3. The customization approach to online shopping makes me feel as if I were a
unique customer
4. Purchase recommendations match my needs

D8: Payment 1. I choose to buy online because I have available to me a variety of payment Qualitative study
services options, such as credit card and payment on delivery that suit my needs
2. The offering of alternative electronic payment methods (e.g. Visa,
Mastercard, Paypal, etc.) facilitates my shopping

D9: Absence of social 1. Online shopping allows me to avoid social interaction with others To et al. (2007) and
interaction 2. Online shopping allows me to avoid salespeople qualitative study
3. I enjoy being alone with the product. I can choose to go wherever I want
without any interference from the salesperson
4. Online, I can buy things without embarrassment

D10: Anonymity 1. I highly value the anonymity of online shopping Culnan (1993) and qualitative
2. I like to shop in the privacy and comfort of wherever I am with my computer study
3. Online, I can enjoy a high degree of anonymity while shopping

Appendix B Desire for control

 By using price comparison tools I feel more in control of the

Utilitarian dimensions and measurement scales after the valida-
entire buying process.
tion process.
 I like to feel I have control over my online consumption process.

Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
 The Web allows me to control my consumption visit.
Convenience
 Shopping online saves me a lot of time.
 Online shopping makes my life easier.
 The Internet is a convenient way of shopping.
 Online shopping fits my schedule.
 Online, I can go shopping whenever I want.
 What I value a lot is the convenience of ordering over the
Internet.
Assortment
 I buy online because there I can get what I want.
 I buy online because it provides me with easy and quick access
to products/services I do not have in my local area.
 I like to buy online because of the wide selection of products
and services it offers.
 The Internet provides me with a broad selection of niche
products, and/or products I would not otherwise look for
Economy.
 Online, I can get good value for my money.
 You can save a lot by shopping online.
 Thanks to comparison shopping tools, I know I get the best
value for the price I want to pay.
 On the Internet, I often come across real bargains and/or com-
petitive prices.
 I go shopping online to take advantage of sales or special offers.
Availability of information
 What I value in online shopping is the availability of informa-
tion – not only from the retailer and manufacturer, but also
from other customers.
 Thanks to price comparison tools, I get quick and easy access to
the information I need.
 Due to quick and easy access to large volumes of information, I
feel more empowered as an online consumer.
 When I plan my shopping, I often use the information I find on
the Internet.
 The Internet provides me with the kind of decision-making
information that was not available to me before.
 Online information availability helps me make better transac-
tions in terms of economic aspects.
 Even if I bought the product in a physical store, I turn to the
Web for product support information.
Adaptability/customization
 On the Internet, I can order products that are tailor-made for
me.
 On the Internet, I get products/services customized to my needs.
 The customization approach to online shopping makes me feel
as if I were a unique customer.
 Purchase recommendations match my needs.
Payment services
 I choose to buy online because I have available to me a variety
of payment options, such as credit card and payment on deliv-
ery that suit my needs.
 The offering of alternative electronic payment methods (e.g.
Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, etc.) facilitates my shopping.
Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
15
Absence of social interaction
 Online shopping allows me to avoid social interaction with
others.
 Online shopping allows me to avoid salespeople.
Anonymity
 I highly value the anonymity of online shopping.
 I like to shop in the privacy and comfort of wherever I am with
my computer.
 Online, I can enjoy high degree of anonymity while shopping.
References
Abrazhevich, D., 2004. Electronic Payment Systems: A User-centered Perspective
and Interaction Design. Dennis Abrazhevich, Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven, Eindhoven, 24–26.
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., Wood, S., 1997.
Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to
participate in electronic marketplaces. Journal of Marketing 61 (3), 38–53.
Anders, G., 1998. Some big companies long to embrace web but settle for flirtation.
Wall Street Journal (November 4).
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),
411–423.
Anderson, C., 2006. The Long Tail. Hyperion, NY.
Ansari, A., Mela, C.F., 2003. E-customization. Journal of Marketing Research 40 (2),
131–145.
Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2003. Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of
Retailing 79 (2), 77–95.
Ariely, D., 2000. Controlling the information flow: effects on consumers’ decision
making and preferences. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (2), 233–248.
Avery, R.J., 1996. Determinants of search for nondurable goods: an empirical
assessment of the economics of information theory. Journal of Consumer Affairs
30 (2), 390–420.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. The Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4), 644–656.
Bagozzi, R.P., 1980. Causal Models in Marketing. Wiley, New York.
Bakos, J.Y., 1991. A strategic analysis of electronic marketplaces. MIS Quarterly 15
(September), 295–310.
Bakos, J.Y., 1997. Reducing buyer search costs: implications for electronic
marketplaces. Management Science 43 (12), 1676–1692.
Bellenger, D.N., Korgaonkar, P.K., 1980. Profiling the recreational shopper. Journal of
Retailing 56 (3), 77–92.
Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G., 1980. Psychological Bulletin 88 (3), 588–606.
Bertini, M., and Wathieu, L. Putting customer back into customization: a pricing
intervention, 2012. Available at Social Science Research Network, paper
2069755.
Bezjian-Avery, A., Calder, B., Iacobucci, D., 1998. New media interactive advertising
vs. traditional advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 38 (4), 23–32.
Bhatnagar, A., Misra, S., Rao, H.R., 2000. On risk, convenience, and internet shopping
behavior. Communications of the ACM 43 (11), 98–105.
Bhuian, S.N., 2001. Factors determining consumer interest in catalogs. Journal of
Marketing Channels 8 (3), 65–83.
Blake, B.F., Neuendorf, K.A., Valdiserri, C.M., 2005. Tailoring new websites to appeal
to those most likely to shop online. Technovation 25 (10), 1205–1214.
Bridges, E., Florsheim, R., 2008. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping goals: the online
experience. Journal of Business Research 61 (4), 309–314.
Brynjolfsson, E., Smith, M.D., 2000. Frictionless commerce? A comparison of
internet and conventional retailers. Management Science 46 (4), 563–585.
Chen, Y., Shang, R., Kao, C., 2009. The effects of information overload on consumers’
subjective state towards buying decision in the internet shopping environment.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 8 (1), 48–58.
Cheshire, C., Antin, J., Churchill, E., 2010. Behaviors, adverse events, and
dispositions: an empirical study of online discretion and information control.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (7),
1487–1501.
Chi, H.-H., 2011. Interactive digital advertising vs. virtual brand community:
exploratory study of user motivation and social media marketing responses in
Taiwan. Journal of Interactive Advertising 12 (1), 44–61.
Chiang, K.P., Dholakia, R.R., 2003. Factors driving consumer intention to shop online:
an empirical investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (1), 177–183.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C., Peckc, J., Carson, S., 2001. Hedonic and utilitarian motivations
for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing 77 (4), 511–535.
Chuan-Chuan Lin, J., Lu, H., 2000. Towards an understanding of the behavioural
intention to use a web site. International Journal of Information Management
20 (3), 197–208.
16 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Churchill Jr., G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1), 64–73.
Clemons, E.K., haven, I.H., Hitt, L.M., 2002. Price dispersion and differentiation in
online travel: an empirical investigation. Management Science 48 (4), 534–549.
Cotteleer, M.J., Cotteleer, C.A., Prochnow, A., 2007. Cutting checks: challenges and
choices in B2B e-payments. Communications of the ACM 50 (6), 56–61.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Nakamura, J., 1989. The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: a
study of adolescents. Research on Motivation in Education: Goals and
Cognitions 3, 45–71.
Culnan, M.J., 1993. How did they get my name? An exploratory investigation of
consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Quarterly 17 (3),
341–363.
Dai, X., Grundy, J., 2007. NetPay: an off-line, decentralized micro-payment system
for thin-client applications. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 6
(1), 91–101.
Darden, W.R., Ashton, D., 1974. Psychographic profiles of patronage preference
groups. Journal of Retailing 50 (4), 99–112.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human
Behavior. Plenum Press, New York.
Dellaert, B.G.C., Stremersch, S., 2005. Marketing mass-customized products: striking
a balance between utility and complexity. Journal of Marketing Research 42 (2),
219–227.
DeVellis, R.F., 2003. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage Publications
Inc..
Dhar, R., Wertenbroch, K., 2000. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian
goods. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (1), 60–71.
Domina, T., 2012. Understanding factors affecting consumer intention to shop in a
virtual world. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (6), 613–620.
Donthu, N., Gilliland, D., 1996. Observations: the infomercial shopper. Journal of
Advertising Research 36 (2), 69–76.
Donthu, N., García, A., 1999. The internet shopper. Journal of Advertising Research
39 (3), 52–58.
Eastlick, M.A., Feinberg, R.A., 1999. Shopping motives for mail catalog shopping.
Journal of Business Research 45 (3), 281–290.
Eiser, J.R., 1986. Social Psychology: Attitude, Cognition, and Social Behaviour.
Cambridge University Press.
Endo, S., Yang, J., Park, J.K., 2012. The investigation on dimensions of e-satisfaction for
online shoes retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 4, 398–405.
Evans, J.R., Mathur, A., 2005. The value of online surveys. Internet Research 15 (2),
195–219.
Fiore, A.M., Kim, J., 2007. An integrative framework capturing experiential and
utilitarian shopping experience. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management 35 (6), 421–442.
Forsythe, S., Liu, C., Shannon, D., Gardner, L.C., 2006. Development of a scale to
measure the perceived benefits and risks of online shopping. Journal of
Interactive Marketing 20 (2), 55–75.
Foucault, B.E., Scheufele, D.A., 2002. Web vs campus store? Why students buy
textbooks online. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 19 (5), 409–423.
Franke, N., Keinz, P., Steger, C.J., 2009. Testing the value of customization: when do
customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences? Journal of
Marketing 73 (5), 103–121.
Ganesh, J., Reynolds, K.E., Luckett, M., Pomirleanu, N., 2010. Online shopper
motivations, and e-store attributes: an examination of online patronage
behavior and shopper typologies. Journal of Retailing 86 (1), 106–115.
Gehrt, K.C., Shim, S., 1998. A shopping orientation segmentation of French
consumers: implications for catalog marketing. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 12 (4), 34–46.
Ghosh, S., 1998. Making business sense of the internet. Harvard Business Review 76
(2), 127–135.
Gilmore, J.H., Pine, B.J., 1997. The four faces of mass customization. Harvard
Business Review 75 (1), 91–101.
Goodwin, C., 1991. Privacy: recognition of a consumer right. Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing 10 (1), 149–166.
Griskevicius, V., Kenrick, D.T., 2013. Fundamental motives: how evolutionary needs
influence consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 23 (3), 372–386.
Guan, S.U., Hua, F., 2003. A multi-agent architecture for electronic payment.
International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making 2 (3),
497–522.
Hair, J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W., 2005. Analysis multivariante, 5th
edition. Prentice Hall, Madrid.
Hauser, J.R., Wernerfelt, B., 1990. An evaluation cost model of consideration sets.
Journal of Consumer Research 16 (4), 393–408.
Heiskanen, E., Hyvönen, K., Niva, M., Pantzar, M., Timonen, P., Varjonen, J., 2007.
User involvement in radical innovation: are consumers conservative? European
Journal of Innovation Management 10 (4), 489–509.
Herrero Crespo, A., Rodríguez del Bosque, I., 2010. The influence of the commercial
features of the Internet on the adoption of e-commerce by consumers.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9, 562–575.
Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. The Journal of Marketing 46 (3), 92–101.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., Peralta, M., 1999a. Building consumer trust online.
Communications of the ACM 42 (4), 80–85.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., Peralta, M.A., 1999b. Information privacy in the
marketspace: implications for the commercial uses of anonymity on the web.
The Information Society 15 (2), 129–139.
Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., Schlosser, A.E., 2003. Locus of control, web use, and
consumer attitudes toward internet regulation. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing 22 (1), 41–57.
Holloway, B.B., Wang, S., Parish, J.T., 2005. The role of cumulative online purchasing
experience in service recovery management. Journal of Interactive Marketing
19 (3), 54–66.
Hung, L.P., 2011. Discovering patterns of online purchasing behaviour and a new
product launch strategy. Expert Systems 29 (4), 411–425.
IMRG. B2C global e-commerce overview 2012. Interactive Media in Retail Group,
2012.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Todd, P.A., 1996. Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the
World Wide Web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 1 (2), 59–88.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Todd, P.A., 1997. Is there a future for retailing on the Internet? In:
Peterson, R.A. (Ed.), Electronic Marketing and the Consumer. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, pp. 139–154.
Jarvis, C.B., Mackenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., 2003. A critical review of constructs
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 30 (September), 199–218.
Joerding, T., Meissner, K., 1998. Intelligent multimedia presentations in the web:
fun without annoyance. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 30 (1–7), 649–
650.
Kahn, B.E., 1998. Dynamic relationships with customers: high-variety strategies.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26 (1), 45–53.
Kamis, A., Stern, T., Ladik, D.M., 2010. A flow-based model of web site intentions
when users customize products in business-to-consumer electronic commerce.
Information Systems Frontiers 12 (2), 157–168.
Keeney, R.L., 1999. The value of internet commerce to the customer. Management
Science 45 (4), 533–542.
Kim, C., Tao, W., Shin, N., Kim, K.S., 2010. An empirical study of customers’
perceptions of security and trust in e-payment systems. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications 9 (1), 84–95.
Korgaonkar, P.K., Wolin, L.D., 1999. A multivariate analysis of web usage. Journal of
Advertising Research 39 (2), 53–68.
Kousaridas, A., Parissis, G., Apostolopoulos, T., 2008. An open financial services
architecture based on the use of intelligent mobile devices. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications 7 (2), 232–246.
Kuo, H.M., Chen, C.W., Chen, C.W., 2011. A study of merchandise information and
interface design on B2C websites. Journal of Marine Science and Technology 19
(1), 15–22.
Kuo, H.M., Chen, C.W., Hsu, C.H., 2012. A study of a B2C supporting interface design
system for the elderly. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and
Service Industries 22 (6), 528–540.
Lawrence, E., 2002. Technology of Internet Business. John Wiley and Sons Australia,
Limited.
Lee, Z., Gosain, S., 2002. A longitudinal price comparison for music CDs in electronic
and brick-and-mortar markets: pricing strategies in emergent electronic
commerce. Journal of Business Strategies 19 (1), 55–71.
Levav, J., Heitmann, M., Hermann, A., Iyengar, S.S., 2010. Order in product
customization decisions: evidence from field experiments. Journal of Political
Economy 118 (2), 274–299.
Liebermann, Y., Stashevsky, S., 2002. Perceived risks as barriers to internet and e-
commerce usage. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 5 (4),
291–300.
Linck, K., Pousttchi, K., and Wiedemann, D. G. Security issues in mobile payment
from the customer viewpoint, 2006.
Lynch Jr., J.G., Ariely, D., 2000. Wine online: search costs affect competition on price,
quality, and distribution. Marketing Science 19 (1), 83–103.
Malone, T.W., Lepper, M.R., 1987. Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic
motivations for learning. In: Snow, R., Farr, M. (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and
Instruction: Conative and Affective Process Analyses, Vol. 3. Lawrence Elbaum
Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 223–253.
Marshall, N.J., 1974. Dimensions of privacy preferences. Multivariate Behavioral
Research 9 (3), 255–271.
Martínez López, F.J., Gázquez-Abad, J.C., Sousa, C., 2013. Structural equation
modelling in marketing and business research: critical issues and practical
recommendations. European Journal of Marketing 47 (1/2), 115–152.
Martínez-López, F.J., Luna-Huertas, P., Martinez, F.J., 2006. Motivations for
consumption behaviours on the web: a conceptual model based on a holistic
approach. International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing 1 (1), 3–
20.
Martínez-López, F.J., Rodríguez-Ardura, I., Gázquez-Abad, J.C., Sánchez-Franco, M.,
Cabal, C., 2010. Psychological elements explaining the consumer’s adoption and
use of a website recommendation system. Internet Research 20 (3),
316–341.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N.K., Rigdon, E., 2001. Experiential value:
conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and internet
shopping environment. Journal of Retailing 77 (1), 39.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N.K., Rigdon, E., 2002. The effect of dynamic retail
experiences on experiential perceptions of value: an internet and catalog
comparison. Journal of Retailing 78 (1), 51–60.
McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C., 2002. The impact of initial consumer
trust on intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems 11 (3–4), 297–323.
Miceli, G., 2007. Customizing customization: a conceptual framework for
interactive personalization. Journal of Interactive Marketing 21 (2), 6–25.
 F.J. Martínez-López et al. / Electronic Commerce Research and Applications xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Moe, W.W., 2003. Buying, searching, or browsing: differentiating between online
shoppers using in-store navigational clickstream. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 13 (1–2), 29–39.
Monsuwé, T.P., Dellaert, B., Ruyter, K., 2004. What drives consumers to shop online?
A literature review. International Journal of Service Industry Management 15
(1), 102–121.
Moraga-González, J., and Wildenbeest, M. R. Comparison sites. In M. Peitz and J.
Waldfogel (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Digital Economy, 2011.
Morganosky, M.A., Cude, B.J., 2000. Consumer response to online grocery shopping.
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 28 (1), 17–26.
Nadel, M., 2000. The consumer product selection process in an internet age:
obstacles to maximum effectiveness and policy options. Harvard Journal of Law
and Technology 14, 183.
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S., 2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and
Applications. Sage Publications, Inc..
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric Theory 1978. McGrew-Hill, New
York, NY.
OECD. OECD Internet Economy Outlook 2012. OECD Publishing, 2012. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264086463-en.
Park, C.W., Jun, S.Y., MacInnis, D.J., 2000. Choosing what I want versus rejecting
what I do not want: an application of decision framing to product option choice
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (2), 187–202.
Park, C.-H., Kim, Y.-G., 2003. Identifying key factors affecting consumer purchase
behavior in an online shopping context. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management 31 (1), 16–29.
Parsons, A.G., 2002. Non-functional motives for online shoppers: why we click. The
Journal of Consumer Marketing 19 (5), 380–392.
Peha, J.M., Khamitov, I.M., 2005. PayCash: a secure efficient internet payment
system. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3 (4), 381–388.
Peter, J.P., 1981. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (2), 133–145.
Peterson, R.A., 1994. A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of
Consumer Research 21 (2), 381–391.
Peterson, R.A., 2001. On the use of college students in social science research:
insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 28
(3), 450–461.
Petitprez, N., Rouvoy, R., and Duchien, L. Connecting your mobile shopping cart to
the internet-of-things. In 12th IFIP International Conference on Distributed
Applications and Interoperable Systems (DAIS’12) 7272, 2012, 236–243.
Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R., Sullivan, J.J., 2003. Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use
of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. Sage
Publications, Inc..
Pieters, R., 1993. A control view of the behaviour of consumers: turning the triangle.
European Journal of Marketing 27 (8), 17–27.
Pine, B.J., Davis, S., 1999. Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business
Competition. Harvard Business Press.
Pine, J.B., 2010. Do You Want to Keep Your Customers Forever? Harvard Business
Press.
Randall, T., Terwiesch, C., Ulrich, K.T., 2005. Principles for user design of customized
products. California Management Review 47 (4), 68–85.
Randall, T., Terwiesch, C., Ulrich, K.T., 2007. Research note—user design of
customized products. Marketing Science 26 (2), 268–280.
Ratchford, B.T., 1980. The value of information for selected appliances. Journal of
Marketing Research 17 (1), 14–25.
Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S., 1991. Measures of Personality and
Social Psychological Attitudes, 1st edition. Academic Press, London.
Rohm, A.J., Swaminathan, V., 2004. A typology of online shoppers based on
shopping motivations. Journal of Business Research 57 (7), 748–757.
Sajjad, S.I., Shafi, H., Akhtar, N., Tahir, M.B., Rehman, K.U., 2011. The influence of
product type on internet shopping behavior of consumers. World Applied
Sciences Journal 13 (5), 1141–1146.
Schiffman, K., 2005. Behavior del Consumer, 8th edition. Prentice Hall, México.
Sheth, J.N., 1981. An Integrative Theory of Patronage Preference and Behavior.
College of Commerce and Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Sherry, L., Warrington, P., 2001. An online prepurchase
intentions model: the role of intention to search. Journal of Retailing 77 (3),
397–416.
Please cite this article in press as: Martínez-López, F.J., et al. Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electron.
Comm. Res. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.002
17
Simonson, I., 2005. Determinants of customers’ responses to customized offers:
conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Marketing 69 (1),
32–45.
Smith, M., Bailey, J., Brynjolfsson, E., 1999. Understanding digital markets: review
and assessment. In: Brynjolfsson, E., Kahin, B. (Eds.), Understanding the Digital
Economy. MIT Press.
Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R., Ponnavolu, K., 2002. Customer loyalty in e-commerce:
an exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing 78 (1),
41–50.
Stavros, C., Meng, M.D., Westberg, K., Farrelly, F., in press. Understanding fan
motivation for interacting on social media. Sport Management Review (in
press).
Stigler, G.J., 1961. The economics of information. The Journal of Political Economy
69 (3), 213–225.
Strader, T.J., Shaw, M.J., 1999. Consumer cost differences for traditional and internet
markets. Internet Research 9 (2), 82–92.
Stroborn, K., Heitmann, A., Leibold, K., Frank, G., 2004. Internet payments in
Germany: a classificatory framework and empirical evidence. Journal of
Business Research 57 (12), 1431–1437.
Swaminathan, V., Lepkowska-White, E., Rao, B.P., 1999. Browsers or buyers in
cyberspace? An investigation of factors influencing electronic exchange. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication 5 (2), 1–19.
Teo, T.S.H., Lim, V., Lay, R., 1999. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in internet usage.
Omega: The International Journal of Management Science 27 (1), 25–37.
Teo, T.S.H., 2001. Demographic and motivation variables associated with internet
usage activities. Internet Research 11 (2), 125.
Thomas, M., 2002. Branching into home equity. Mortgage Banking 62 (8), 45–49.
To, P.L., Liao, C., Lin, T., 2007. Shopping motivations on internet: a study based on
utilitarian and hedonic value. Technovation 27 (12), 774–787.
Trocchia, P.J., Janda, S., 2000. A phenomenological investigation of internet usage
among older individuals. Journal of Consumer Marketing 17 (7), 605–616.
Valenzuela, A., Dhar, R., Zettelmeyer, F., 2009. Contingent response to self-
customization procedures: implications for decision satisfaction and choice.
Journal of Marketing Research 46 (6), 754–763.
Verhoef, P.C., Langerak, F., 2001. Possible determinants of consumers’ adoption of
electronic grocery shopping in the Netherlands. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 8 (5), 275–285.
Vesanen, J., Raulas, M., 2006. Building bridges for personalization: a process model
for marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing 20 (1), 5–20.
Vijayasarathy, L.R., Jones, J.M., 2000. Print and Internet catalog shopping: assessing
attitudes and intentions. Internet Research 10 (3), 191–202.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., 2003. Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research 40
(3), 310–320.
Wang, C. C., and Sie, C. C. A study of consumers’ trust in online shopping between
pick-up goods behavior in the convenience stores. Paper presented at the 26th
International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications
Workshops (WAINA), 2012, 381–386.
Wang, L.C., Baker, J., Wagner, J.A., Wakefield, K., 2007. Can a retail web site be
social? Journal of Marketing 71 (3), 143–157.
Wilcox, K., Song, S., 2011. Discrepant fluency in self-customization. Journal of
Marketing Research 48 (4), 729–740.
Williams, R.H., Painter, J.J., Nicholas, H.R., 1978. A policy-oriented typology of
grocery shoppers. Journal of Retailing 54 (1), 27–42.
Wind, J., Rangaswamy, A., 2001. Customerization: the next revolution in mass
customization. Journal of Interactive Marketing 15 (1), 13–32.
Wolfinbarger, M., Gilly, M.C., 2001. Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun.
California Management Review 43 (2), 34–55.
Wu, L., Lin, J., 2012. The match between information control and motivation in the
online context. Psychology and Marketing 29 (11), 822–835.
Ystats. Western Europe B2C e-commerce report 2011, 2011. Available at
yStats.com.
Zettelmeyer, F., Morton, F.S., Silva-Risso, J., 2006. How the internet lowers prices:
evidence from matched survey and automobile transaction data. Journal of
Marketing Research 43 (2), 168–181.