PERCEIVED RISKS TOWARD ONLINE i i i

SHOPPING
i

ABSTRACT

In ithe ihastily iconverting itime iand ispecifically iin iIndia iwhere iservice iarea iis iwitnessing
i exponential iincrease; ithe ion-line imarketing iand iadvertising isector iis iall iset ito iwitness ivibrant
i destiny ibeforehand. iThe iprogressed iuse iof iinternet iin iIndia ioffers imore ipotentialities ifor ion iline
i buying. iDespite iof ithis iaccelerated iuse iof inet, ithere iare inumerous ifactors iaffecting iIndian
i consumer’s ion iline ishopping ifor ibehaviour. iAnd iif ithe iinternet istores imake iconscious ithemselves
i about ithese ifactors ithey icould iin iaddition iboom itheir iprospects iand iconverts iability iclients iinto
i active iones. iIn ithis istudies ipaper ian istrive ihas ibeen imade ito ifind iout ithe iperceived idangers iof
i Indian iclients iclose ito ion iline ipurchasing. iThe irisk iin ion iline ibuying iis iin iparticular iconcerned
i with ithe imisuse iof icredit iscore iplaying icards, ileakage iof iemployees iinformation, iproduct irisk iand
i hazard iof iconvenience.

I. INTRODUCTION
i

In ithe iearly idays, ithe iInternet iend iup iin igeneral iused iby iacademicians, istudies iscientists iand
i students ifor iinstructional imotive; ibut idue ito ithe ieffect iof iGlobalization ia imotion iof icommercial
i enterprise ifor iincorporating ithe iWorld iWide iWeb iinto itheir ipromotional icampaigns ihas itaken
i vicinity, iand ibegan ioffering ithe iability iof ion iline ibuying. iHence, ithe inet ihas ibeen iadvanced iright
i right iinto ia iworldwide iavailable imarketplace ifor ichanging icommercial iinformation iand iis ialso
i used ifor ipersonal ibuying iwith ithe iaid iof ithe iweb icustomers.

Despite ithe igrowing ipopulation ifor ion-line ipurchasing, ia imassive ipercent iof iInternet icustomers
i find ion-line ishopping ias ia isource iof irisk iand iuncertainty. iFor ion iline iConsumers’ iperceived irisk iis
i taken iinto iconsideration ias ia iessential isubject iof ichoice imaking iprocedure iat isome istage iin ionline
i buying iin iwhich iPerceived idanger iis idefined ias ithe idegree ito iwhich ia iperson iexpresses
i uncertainty iabout ia iprovider ior iproper. iIn ian iinternet ishopping isurroundings, iin iassessment ito ia
i existing iphysical ione, imore ithreat iand iless ibelieve iare ianticipated idue ito ithe ireality ithat ithere iis
i huge iproblem iin icomparing ia iproduct ias ithere iare ino iseen ior itangible iindications iassociated iwith
i the inotable iof ithe iproduct inor iface-to-face iinterplay iwith iincome ipersonnel, iand ithe iacquisition iis
i suffering ifrom iprotection iand iprivateness iproblems i(Laroche iet ial., i2005). iTherefore, iit's ifar
i assumed ithat ihuman ibeings imay ialso iexperience ia icertain idiploma iof ihazard iwhile ibuying ia
i product ithrough ithe iInternet. iFor iinstance, icustomers iare iinvolved ithat ithe iInternet inevertheless
i has ivery ilittle iprotection isituation iwith irespect ito iusing itheir icredit iscore irating igambling icards
i and idisclosing inon-public iinformation ior iworried iapproximately ibuying ia iproduct ifrom isellers
i without ibodily iinspecting ithe imerchandise i(Pallab, i1996). iThere iwere iextensive istudies iregarding
i on-line ipurchasing iattitudes iand ibehavior iin ilatest iyears. iMost iof ithem ihave iattempted ito iturn iout
i to ibe iconscious iof ithings iinfluencing ion-line ibuying iattitudes iand ibehavior. iThese iresearch ihave
i all imade iimportant icontributions ito iour irecords iof ithe idynamics iof ion-line ishopping idiscipline.

2.REVIEW OF LITERATURE
i i

Compare with the in-keep shopping, the net purchasing has greater risks throughout the
buying process. As online purchasing is one of the non-save shopping formats, others which
include mail order (Spence, 1970), telephone purchasing (Cox and Rich, 1964), catalogue
(Reynolds, 1974) and so on, that have proved via latest research proven that consumers
understand a higher level of Even although the net affords many practical advantages, however it
still have a few perceived dangers related consisting of hazard of privacy, product chance and
convenience risks.

3. PRIVACY RISK
i i

Privacy ithreat iis imental ihazard iand idisappointment iof ibuying ionline, ithat iis ispecially
i because iof ithe iprivacy istatistics imisplaced. iOn ithe iInternet, ithe iprivacy idata ican ibe itracked iand
i collected, iafter iwhich iit imay ibe iused ito isharing iwith i1/3 ievents, iin iorder ito ideliver idirect imail
i mails ior iemails. iThe iFederal iTrade iCommission i(FTC) ihas istatutory iauthority ito irestrict ithe inet
i internet isite ito icollect ifacts iwith ithe iaid iof iunfair. iPrivacy ithreat imoreover iincludes ithe
i unauthorized iacquisition iof ipersonal istatistics iin ithe icourse iof iInternet iuse ior ithe isupply iof
i personal irecords iamassed iby imeans iof imanner iof igroups ito i0.33 iPerceived iprivacy ichance icauses
i consumers ito ibe ireluctant iin iexchanging iprivate ifacts iwith iWeb ivendors i(Hoffman iet ial., i1999).
i The iwriter imoreover iindicates ithat iwith igrowing iprivacy iworries, ithe iprobability iof ipurchasing
i on-line idecreases. iSimilarly, iGeorge i(2002) idiscovered ithat ia iperception iwithin ithe iprivacy iof
i private istatistics ibecame iassociated iwith iawful iattitudes iin ithe idirection iof ionline ishopping.
i Product iRisk.

On reading the have an effect on of perceived threat in on line shopping for, Pires at al.
(2004) stated that there's negative association with the perceived chance of supposed purchases.
Product threat is the danger of creating a horrible or beside the point purchase choice. Aspects
involving product threat may be an incapability to assess costs, being not able to return a
product, now not receiving a product paid for and product no longer acting as anticipated
(Bhatnagar et al . , 2000; Jarvenpaa and Todd, 1997; Tan, 1999;Vijayasarathy and Jones,
2000).Bhatnagar et al . (2000) suggest that the likelihood of buying on the Internet decreases
with will boom in product chance.

4.CONVENIENCE RISK i

Convenience irisk iis ithe iperception ithat itime ior iattempt ican ibe iwasted iwhilst ia iproduct ibought iis
i repaired ior ichanged iHanjun iet ial., i(2004). iPotential iloss iof idelivery irelated ito igoods imisplaced,
i items ibroken iand idispatched ito ithe iincorrect ivicinity iafter ibuying i(Dan iet ial., i2007). iConsumers
i fear ithat ishipping imay ibe idelayed idue ito inumerous iinstances; ithe ishipping icorporation igained’t
i deliver iwithin ithe itime ibody iagreed iwith iclients, ior icustomers ifear ithat ithe iproducts ican ibe ibroken
i while idealt iwith iand itransported, ior ino iright ipackaging iand idealing iwith iat isome istage iin
i transportation(Claudia, i2012).

5.RESEARCH METHODOLOGYi

Hypothesis iIt ibecame ihypothesized ithat ithere's ino iperceived ichance iin iOnline iShopping
i for ion iline icustomers. iSample ilength: iSample isize iused iinside ithe ipresent istudies iconsists iof ifour
i hundred iRespondents. iOut iof ithem, i200 ihad ibeen imale iand i200 iwere ifemale. iThe iage iinstitution
i of irespondents ichanged iinto i18 iyears iand iabove. iData icollection: iThe irecords iwas iaccrued
i through iself ioptimistic iquestionnaire iwhich iwas iadministered ion ithe iselected isample iby ie-mails,
i or ivia iposting ia ilink ion iinternet isite iand isocial inetworks. iTool i/ iTechnique iused ifor iData
i evaluation iBinomial iDistribution iturned iinto iused ito ibecome iaware iof ithe iperceived idangers
i related ito ion-line ipurchasing itechnique isuch ias iprivacy, iproduct iproblems iand icomfort itroubles.
Privacy iRisk: i

1. iRisk iof imisuse iof icredit icard

Group i1: iAgreed ithat ithere iis imisuse iof icredit iscore icards iin ion iline ishopping i

Group i2: iDisagreed ithat ithere imay ibe imisuse iof icredit iscore icards iin ionline ibuying i

When irequested iapproximately idanger irelated ito ion iline ibuying, iit ibecame idetermined ithat
i misuse iof icredit/debit icard iturned iinto iperceived ias ichance ithrough i62% irespondents. i38%
i respondents idon't ihave iany isuch iperceived ithreat. iRespondents iwere idivided ion ithe ibasis iof ithe
i statement iwhether ithey ibelieved ithat ithere ibecome irisk irelated ito imisuse iof icredit iscore iplaying
i cards iregarding inon-public iinformation ilike ipasswords iand iconfidential idata.

It ihas ibeen ilocated iout ithat ithere imay ibe ia imassive idifference ibetween ifolks ithat iagreed
i that ithere imay ibe iuse iof icredit iscore iplaying icards iand ipeople iwho idid inot. iThe inull ihypothesis
i stands irejected iin iterms iof ithe isame. iIt iis iobserved iin ianalysis ithat irespondents iperceived idanger
i at ithe isame itime ias ithe iusage iof icredit icards ithat icredit-card idetails ican ibe icompromised iand
i misused iin ipurchasing ion-line iand ithere iis ipossibility iof icyber itheft. i

2. iRisk iof ileakage iof ipersonal ifacts

Group i1: iAgreed ithat ithere imay ibe idanger iof iLeakage iof iprivate iInformation iin ion-line ishopping i

Group i2: iDisagreed ithat ithere's ithreat iof iLeakage iof ipersonal iInformation iin ionline ibuying i
 65% irespondents ihad iperceived idanger iof ileakage iof itheir iprivate iinformation iwhile i35%
i respondents idisagreed ito iThe inull ihypothesis ithat ithere imay ibe ino idistinction iamong ifolks iwho
i agreed iand iwho idid ino ilonger iagree ithat ithere iwill ibe imisuse iof ipersonal istatistics. iThere iare
i many inon-public idata iwhich iare irequired iat ithe isame itime ias iputting ian iorder ion iline ilike iaddress,
i phone inumber, ie-mail iid, iand isome iwebsites ieven iask ifor ipassword. iThere iusually iexists ipressure
i that ithis idata ican ialso iget ileaked. iIt iturned iinto iobserved iwithin ithe istatistical ibinomial ievaluation
i that irespondents ifelt ivolatile ithat ithe inon-public idata igiven ifor itransaction ito ithe iretailer ican ibe
i compromised ito i0. i33 ibirthday icelebration iand imisused. iProduct ithreat: i

3. iRisk iof ivariation iof iproduct iobtained

Group i1: iAgreed ithat ithe iobtained iproduct ican ibe ispecial ifrom ithat iordered i

Group i2: iDid ino ilonger iagreed ithat ithe iacquired iproduct ican ibe idistinctive ifrom ithat iordered i

61% irespondents iagreed ithat ithey'd ia iproduct idanger ithat ithey'll iacquire iproduct iapart
i from iordered iIt iturned iinto idisagreed iwith ithe iaid iof i39% irespondents. iIt ichanged iinto
i hypothesized ithat ithere's ino idistinction iamong ipeople iwho ibelieved ithat ithe iacquired iproduct imay
i be iexclusive ifrom ithat iordered iand ithose iwho idid inow inot iaccept ias itrue iwith iwithin ithe isame.
i The inull ihypothesis istands irejected iand itrade ihypothesis iis iaccepted. iIt ibecome idetermined iin ithe
i evaluation ithat ithe irespondents ihave ia iproduct ichance iin ion-line ipurchasing ithat ithey iwon't
i receive ithe iproduct ithey iordered ion iline. iThe iproducts imay ibe ispecific ithat ithe ivisible iphoto ias
i displayed. iThere iadditionally imay ibe ideviations iin ispecifications iof icolor, isize, iappearance ietc.
i There iare isevera icases iin iapparel iand ifootwear iin iwhich iproduct iobtained iisn't ialways ias iin iline
i with ithe inecessities iof ithe icustomer. i

4. iRisk iabout iTangibility

Group i1: iAgreed ithat ithere iare itangibility iissues iin ibuying ion iline. i

Group i2: iDisagreed ithat ithere iare ino itangibility iissues iin ipurchasing ion-line. i

Examination iof itangible iproducts icases iin ion-line ishopping ichanged iinto iagreed iupon iby
i way iof i74% irespondents. i26% irespondents idisagreed ito iit. iAs iIndian imarkets iget iprepared ito
i welcome ion-line ishopping itrends, ithere inevertheless iexists ia imarked idistinction ibetween
i individuals iwho isaw iexamination iof itangible imerchandise ias ia imajor iproblem iand ithose iwho idid
i no ilonger. iIn ithe itable iabove iit ibecome ilocated ithat iin ion-line ipurchasing ibodily iexamination iof
i product iceases ithat ihave ia igood isized iimpact ion irespondents. i

Convenience ihazard: i

1. iRisk iof iLong iDelivery iPeriod iof iproduct

Group i1 i: iAgreed ithat ithere imay ibe ihazard iof ilong itransport ilength. i

Group i2: iDisagreed ithat ithere iis ichance iof ilong ishipping iduration. i

74% irespondents ilocated ito iagree iupon ithat ithat ithey ihad icomfort ichance iof ilong ishipping
i length iwhereas i26% irespondents idisagreed ito iit. iIt iturned iinto iexamined iamong ithe irespondents
i whether ior inot iconvenience ithreat iand ilong itransport ilength ias ia iissue iin idifferentiating ithe
i respondents. iIt ibecame idetermined ithat ithere's ia ifull-size idistinction ibetween irespondents iwho
i agreed ithat ithere iexisted ia irisk iof ilong idelivery iduration iand ipeople iwho idid ino ilonger itrust iin iit.
i The icalculated ifee icomes iout ito ibe i0.00 iwhich iis ilesser ithan ithe ivalue iof ialpha iat i0.05.
In ithe istatistical idesk iabove iit ican ibe iseen ithat ithe itime iperiod iof itransport iof ia iproduct ias ia
i convenience ihave ia iextensive ieffect iin ionline ishopping iof irespondents ias ithey imight iought ito
i wait ifor ilonger ilength iin ishopping ion-line ias ievaluate ito iother ipurchasing imethods. iThere ihave
i additionally ibeen icases iof iconsignments igetting imisplaced ior ilost. iIn imetropolitan icities, ithe
i distances iare iextra iand ihence, ithere iis iimplied idanger iof ishipping iperiod ibeing ilong. iOn ithe
i alternative ihand, iin icase iof ifaraway icities, ian ieffective idistribution isystem iwon't ibe ipresent.
i Thereby iincreasing itransport iperiod.

2. iRisk iof iinability ito icancel iorders i

Group i1: iAgreed ithat ithere iare iorder icancellation itroubles. i

Group i2: iDisagreed ithat ithere iare iorder icancellation itroubles. i

69% irespondents iagreed ithat iduring ion-line ishopping iorder icancellation idifficulty
i turned iinto ithere. i31% irespondents ifound ino isuch iproblems irelated ias icomfort irisk. iIt
i changed iinto ihypothesized ithat ithere's ino idistinction ibetween ithose iwho iagreed ithat
i during ion-line ishopping ithere iare iorder icancellation iissues iand ithose iwho idid inot. iThere iis
i a ibig idifference iamong ithose iindividuals iwho iagreed ithat iduring ion-line ipurchasing iorder
i cancellation itrouble ichanged iinto ithere iand ithose irespondents idetermined ino isuch itroubles
i related ias icomfort ithreat. iIn imaximum iof ithe iinstances, ithere iare ilimited iprovisions iof
i cancellation iof iorder ithat ihas ibeen ilocated ithrough ion iline ishopping. iIn icontrast ito ithis, iin
i physical isearching ifor ia iproduct ithere iis ialways iscope iof icancelling ithe iorder iplaced. iThe
i confined iorder icancellation iservices ifurnished iare iadditionally icomplex iand iprice iclosely
i in icase iof ionline ibuying. iThe icancellation iproblems iare ifound ito ihave iimpact ion ionline
i buying, ibecause ithe irespondents ifound iit itough ito icancel ithe iorders ias ian iessential ithing iof
i their ionline ipurchasing ibehavior. i

3. iRisk iof iproduct iReturn

Group i1 i: iAgreed ithat ithere iare iproduct ireturning ipolicy iproblems.

Group i2: iDisagreed ithat ithere iare iproduct ireturning ipolicy itroubles.

It ibecame ihypothesized ithat ithere imay ibe ino itremendous idifference iamong ifolks iwho iagreed ithat
i there iare iissues iin ireturning ia iproduct iand ithose iwho idid inow inot iagree iwith ithat ithere iare
i problems iin ireturning ia iproduct. iIt ibecome idetermined iin ilook iat ithat i79% irespondents iobserved
i convenience idanger iof ireturning ia iproduct isold irelated ito ionline ipurchasing iwhile i21% idisagreed
i to iit. iIn ithe istatistical idesk iabove iit ibecome idiscovered ithat iproduct ireturning itechnique ihave ia
i considerable iimpact ion ion-line ibuying ibecause ithe irespondents iwill ihave iproblem iin ireturning
i product ithey ibought ionline i(they iwill ineed ito isend ithe iproduct iback ithru ia ifew ishipper iand iwait ito
i see iif ithe iretailer iaccepts iit iwith inone ihassle). i

6. CONCLUSION
i

Thus iit's imiles iobvious ifrom iabove ianalysis ithat ithere's igrowing ifast ifocus iamongst
i Indians iapproximately ion-line ibuying. iThe iresearch iadditionally iproved ithat ihumans iare ithough
i facing irisks iin ithe idigital iform iof iretail. iHence, ithe ispeculation istands irejected ias ithe ithere ican ibe
i perceived idanger iin iOnline iShopping ifor iIndian iclients.

REFERENCES i

[1] iAlkailani, iM. iand iKumar, iR. i(2011), i“Investigating iUncertainty iAvoidance iand iPerceived
i Risk ifor iImpacting iInternet iBuying: iA iStudy iin iThree iNational iCultures”, iInternational
i Journal iof iBusiness iand iManagement, i6(5), i76-92. i

[2] iAlmousa, iM. i(2011), i“Perceived iRisk iin iApparel iOnline iShopping: iA iMulti iDimensional
i Perspective”, iCanadian iSocial iScience, i7(2), i23-31. i

[3] iBarnes, iS., iBauer, iH., iNeumann, iM. iand iHuber, iF. i(2007), i“Segmenting icyberspace: ia
i customer itypology ifor ithe iinternet”, iEuropean iJournal iof iMarketing, i41(1/2), i71-93. i
[4] iBhatnagar, iA., iMisra, iS., i& iRao, iH.R. i(2000), i“On iRisk, iConvenience, iand iInternet iShopping
i Behavior. iAssociation ifor iComputing iMachinery”, iCommunications iof ithe iACM, i43(11),
i 98–110. i

[5] iChang, iH., iChen, iS. i(2008), i“The iimpact iof ionline istore ienvironment icues ion ipurchase
i intention: iTrust iand iperceived irisk ias ia imediator”, iOnline. iInfo. iRev., i32(6), i818 i– i841. i

[6] iClaudia, iI. i(2012), i“Perceived iRisk iwhen iBuying ionline”, iEconomics iSeries, i22(2), i63-73. i[7]
i Dan, iY., iTaihai, iD., iand iRuiming, iL., i(2007), i“Study iof iTypes, iResources iand iTheir
i Influential iFactors iof iPerceived iRisks iin iPurchase iOnline”, iJournal iof iDalian iUniversity iof
i Technology, i28 i(2), i13-19. i

[8] iJarvenpaa, iS. iand iTodd, iP. i(1997). iConsumer ireactions ito ielectronic ishopping ion ithe iWorld
i Wide iWeb. iInternational iJournal iof iElectronic iCommerce, i1 i(2), i59-88. i

[9] iJarvenpaa, iS., iTractinsky, iN.,and iVitale, iM. i(1999). iConsumer itrust iin ian iinternet istore.
i Information iTechnology iand iManagement i, i1 i(1/2), i45-72. i

[10] iLee, iM. iK.-O. iand iTurban, iE. i(2001). iA itrust imodel ifor iconsumer iinternet ishopping.
i International iJournal iof iElectronic iCommerce i, i6 i(1), i75-91.