Perceived risk & trust in online shopping among youth in Nagpur and Pune cities

Dr. Vinay Kumar1

Abstract: The final purchase decision is the outcome of interplay between perceived risk &
trust in online shopping as well as traditional shopping for different products. An attempt has
been made in this paper to study the interplay between the perceived risk and trust among
youth belongs to Nagpur and Pune. Filled structured questionnaire were received from 312
shoppers. T Test has been used to analyze the data. There was no difference found in case of
perceived risk and trust between online shoppers of Nagpur and Pune.

Introduction:
Perceived risk & Consumer buying process
Generally, perceived risk is conceptualized as a typical influence that is addressed
during the early stages of the consumer buying process (e.g., (Rich, 1964); (Staelin, 1994).
The consumer buying process is often described as a five-stage linear process- R. D.
Blackwell, 2001: stage one -- need recognition, stage two -- information search, stage three --
alternatives evaluation, stage four -- purchase decision, and stage five -- post-purchase
behavior.
In the need recognition stage, consumers first perceive risk when they recognize the
need for a product or service. In the presence of uncomfortable levels of perceived risk,
consumers apply risk reduction strategies during the second and third stages, such as reliance
on personal recommendations-Cunningham, 1967; seeking additional information about a
product or service-Rich, 1964; a preference for national brands and the security of warranties-
Bettman, 1973; Rich, 1964; Staelin, 1994. It is generally assumed that these practices are
sufficient for mitigating risk, and risk is seldom studied beyond the information search stage-
Dr. Lawrence F. Cunningham, 2004.

Perceived Risk: Concept

While making a purchase decision and immediately after having made a purchase, consumers
experience a state of uneasiness and tension. The purchase process results in a state of
anxiety and tension with respect to the negative consequences that could result from product
usage. This state known as “perceived risk”; it refers to a feeling of uncertainty that
arises within an individual when he fails to predict the consequences of product choice, usage
and resultant experience. This feeling arises because the consumer cannot judge with
certainty the consequences of their purchase decision. The circumstance that led to
1
Associate Professor at Thakur Institute of Management Studies and Research, Mumbai
such a state is lack of information, newness of the product/service offering, complexity
of the offering, high price, etc.(Sahney, 2012)
The notion of perceived risk was originally introduced by Bauer (1960, 67) as a
psychological, subjective construct to explicate phenomena’s such as information seeking
and brand loyalty. Perceived risk is the nature and amount of uncertainty or consequences
experienced by the consumer in contemplating a particular purchase decision (Rich, 1964).
Perceived risk is the consumer’s perception of the uncertainty and concomitant adverse
consequences of buying a product or service (Dowling and Staelin, 1994). Consumer
behavior involves risk in the sense that any action of a consumer will produce consequences
that he or she views with some degree of uncertainty(Linda C. Ueltschy, 2004). Michel
Laroche (2004) takes perceived risk as the uncertainty and consequences of the decision.
Perceived risk is defined as “the amount that would be lost if the consequences of an act were
not favorable, and the individual’s subjective feeling of certainty that the consequences will
be unfavorable (Adobor, 2005). Staelin (1994) had defined the Perceived risk as “the
consumer’s perception of the uncertainty and concomitant adverse consequences of buying a
product or service. In the psychology literature, perceived risk has been described as
consisting of a set of possibly interrelated components: financial, performance, physical,
psychological, social, and time and convenience, yielding a separate measure of overall
perceived risk. (Linda C. Ueltschy, 2004). There is not much literature available which
differentiate perceived risk and online perceived risk but A M Hassan defined online
perceived risk as “the expectations of any loss or any negative consequences as a result of
online shopping”.

Perceived risk: Traditional and online shopping

The majority of research on perceived risk is focused on traditional purchasing situations.
If a purchase is perceived as risky, consumers will employ strategies to reduce the perceived
risk until it is below their level of acceptance risk, or if they are unable to do so, withdraw
from the purchase (Staelin, 1994). Within this context, risk is distinguished between inherent
and handled risk (Bettman, 1973). The former refers to the risk before and the latter to the
risk after the consumer has applied risk –reduction strategies. Thus, inherent risk is a
determinant of risk, whereas handled risk is the result thereof. In a physical store, consumers
can see, smell, touch, taste and evaluate quality of a specific product. In online shopping all
this is absent. So, it becomes very difficult for consumer to judge a product without
inspection. In case of apparel shopping, there may be problem related to fiber content, fit and
color as their inability to inspect or try on the garment physically (Stoel, 2005).
However, online shopping 2 is much different than shopping in stores. Internet shopping
technologies are essentially self-service technologies that offer the benefits of round-the-
clock convenience, ubiquitous availability, time and money savings, and a reduction in the
anxiety caused by judgmental service representatives (Bitner, 2000). There are disadvantages
tooof online shopping as per Dr. Cunningham (2004) such as system complications, computer
phobia, and loss of pleasure and social interaction.

In case of traditional shopping there is only one component of perceived risks and that is
about the vendor but in case of online shopping there are two components of perceived risks-
one, is about the vendor and second is about the computer & internet system. The actual
purchase is done after reducing the amount of perceived risk in both the components; hence
the amount of perceived risk is more in case of online shopping as compared to traditional
shopping.
Perceived risk and purchasing behavior
Internet is an open environment. As a result, online applications or technology is exposed to
security threats such as worms, crackers, viruses, spoofing and password sniffing, theft of
funds, breaches of personal privacy and attacks by hackers (H. P. Lu, 2005). Consequently
personal security may be threatened when people use online applications. Intangible nature of
online environment also adds to perceived risk. Intangibility is defined as “lack of physical
evidence and the degree to which a product or service cannot provide a clear concrete image”
(M. Laroche, 2003). Consumers are thought to have “an inherent predisposition to avoid risk
in purchasing situations” (Pavlou, 2003). Perceived risk influences every stage of the
consumer decision-making process (Mitchell, 1992). It is theorized that when perceived risk
falls below an individual’s acceptance value, it has little effect on intended behavior and is
essentially ignored (Greatorex& Mitchell 1993). On the other hand, an extremely high level
of perceived risk can cause a consumer to postpone or avoid a purchase entirely. Consumer
decision making process due to perceived risk will depend on how frequently he visits and
exposure to the online shopping cite. The extent of the exposure depends on the importance
or magnitude of the goal, the seriousness of the penalty for not attaining the goal, and the
amount of means committed to achieving the goal (Rich, 1964, Staelin 1994 & Dr.
Cunningham 2004).

2
Internet shopping, e shopping and online shopping all are used interchanging in literature
Types of Perceived Risk in context of Online Shopping

Sr. No. Risks Researchers&Years

1 financial, Kaplan (1974), Szybillo and Jacoby (1993), Michel Laroche (2004)
Kaplan (1974), Fatma A. Mohamed (2011), Szybillo and Jacoby
2 performance,
(1993), Michel Laroche (2004)
3 physical, Kaplan (1974), Szybillo and Jacoby (1993), Michel Laroche (2004)
Kaplan (1974), Fatma A. Mohamed (2011), Szybillo and Jacoby
4 social,
(1993), Michel Laroche (2004)
convenience/ Kaplan (1974), Roselius 1971, Fatma A. Mohamed (2011), Michel
5
time Laroche (2004)
Kaplan (1974), Szybillo and Jacoby (1993), Mitchell and Greatorex
6 psychological,
(1993), Fatma A. Mohamed (2011), Michel Laroche (2004)
source
7 Kaplan (1974), McKorkle (1990), Fatma A. Mohamed (2011)
credibility
8 privacy Kaplan (1974)

According to different researchers description of Perceived Risk are as follows- Financial

Risk, Performance Risk, Physical Risk, Psychological Risk, Social Risk, Time Loss Risk,
Source Risk, and Privacy Risk

Trust
Trust is considered as an expression of confidence between the partners in an exchange or a
relationship of some kind, a belief that no partner to the exchange will exploit the other’s
vulnerability, the willingness to rely on the other party (C. Y. Nicholson, 2001). Trust is a
multidimensional concept that has been discovered to contain confidence, predictability,
ability, competence, expertness, intentions or motives, benevolence, business sense and
judgment, altruism, loyalty, integrity, congruence, consistency, fairness, character, openness
of management, liking, respect, faith, acceptance and security (Svensson, 2001).
(Bromiley, 2005) define trust as an individual’s belief or a common belief among a group of
individuals that another individual or group (a) makes good faith efforts to behave in
accordance with any commitments both explicit and implicit, (b) is honest in whatever
negotiations preceded such commitments, and (c) does not take excessive advantage of
another even when the opportunity is available.In the marketing field, trust is defined as
psychological state comprising intention to accept vulnerability based on one’s positive
expectation of the intentions or behaviours of another (Deshmukh, 2000) or willingness to
rely on an exchange partner (Ganeshan, 1994) .
Trust in Online Transaction
In context of online shopping, trust is defined as the belief that an Internet shopper has in an
Internet merchant and is willing to engage in an Internet shopping transaction, even with the
possibility of loss, based on the expectation that the merchant will engage in generally
acceptable practices, and will be able to deliver the promised products or services (K. H. Lim,
2006). Trust has been conceptualized as a set of beliefs about an Internet vendor in electronic
commerce research (Bhattacharjee, 2002).Trust is significant in adoption of new technologies
including the Web and e-commerce.Due to the inherent uncertainty created by the need to
depend upon others in many types of commerce transactions and the resulting possibility of
facing opportunistic behaviour or behaving in an unpredictable manner, trust becomes
significant aspect in e-commerce (Straub, 2003).
Interrelation between trust and risk
Trust and risk are closely interrelated (R. C. Mayer, 1995). Trust is vital factor under
conditions of uncertainty and risk (Turban M. K., 2001).An interesting implication is the
directionality of the causal relationship between trust and perceived risk is an interesting
factor. The research suggests that the directionality of the causal relationship flows from trust
to perceived risk. Trust also acts indirectly on intention to transact through the mediating
effect of perceived risk, on which it has a direct effect. The customers could be attracted or
promoted to do their first online purchasing rather than just surfing the Internet, they would
tend to have a higher e-trust level. Further, with a higher e-trust level, these customers will be
more willing to purchase and spend more money online. (Chuan Pang, 2007). In an electronic
store, perceived size and perceived reputation were found to determine trust which impacted
the attitude, risk perception and which in turn influenced the willingness to buy in an
electronic store (S. L. Jarvenpaa, 2000)
Lack of trust on online shopping has been conceived as the basic barrier to the adoption of
online shopping. Same would be one of the major handicaps for further development and
growth of B2C e-commerce. Intensity of risk perception has resulted in a parallel line of
research – to develop a construct which can be used by the marketers to overcome the
perceived risk is ‘online trust’. Various studies have taken place to understand the nature of
online trust and its element.

Empirical Evidences
The importance of internet has been increased significantly and now it plays vital role
in the growth of selling as well as buying products. Despite the phenomenal growth of the
Internet over the past few years, the vast potential of conducting business over the Internet
remains largely untapped. An attempt has been made in this paper to understand the role of
perceived risk and trust in online buying behaviour of youth in Pune and Nagpur.Primary
data on predefined parameters like frequency of shopping online, amount spend on online
transaction, mode of payment; willingness to share the personal and financial information
etcis collected from the youth of Pune and Nagpur with the help of a structured questionnaire.
Information about age, gender, income, marital status, education etc is also collected as all
these also have impact on online shopping behaviour.

We take the hypothesis that there is no difference between the shoppers of Pune and Nagpur
in terms of perceived risk & trust. Likert scale and T test has been used to check our
hypothesis.

Characteristics Categories Pune Nagpur Total

City Pune & Nagpur 267 (66) 140 (34) 407 (100)
Gender Male 169 (42) 84 (21) 253 (62)
Female 98 (24) 56 (14) 154 (38)
Age Group 18-25 years 149 (37) 51 (13) 200 (49)
26-30 years 75 (18) 53 (13) 128 (31)
31-35 years 43 (11) 36 (9) 79 (19)
Marital Status Married 89 (22) 65 (16) 154 (38)
Unmarried 178 (44) 75 (18) 253 (62)
Education Above Post Graduate 15 (4) 19 (5) 34 (8)
Post Graduate 178 (44) 80 (20) 258 (63)
Graduate 47 (12) 31 (8) 78 (19)
Professional 27 (7) 10 (2) 37 (9)
Occupation Company employee 58 (14) 31 (8) 89 (22)
Self employed 15 (4) 13 (3) 28 (7)
Service holders 101 (25) 59 (14) 160 (39)
Student 93 (23) 37 (9) 130 (32)
Monthly Income (in Rs.) Less than 10000 92 (23) 41 (10) 133 (33)
10001- 30000 89 (22) 60 (15) 149 (37)
30001-50000 64 (16) 29 (7) 93 (23)
50001 & above 22 (5) 10 (2) 32 (8)

The majority (66 percent) of respondents are from Pune. In case of gender, the major
respondents are male (62 percent), the review of literature suggests that women have fear of
technology as compared to males. Age wise, major respondents are from 18-25 years age
group (49 percent), review of literature reveals that young age group are major constituents of
buyers as compared to their other age group counterparts. In case of marital status, unmarried
are more (62 percent), the unmarried spend more time with mobile as compared to the
married ones, so the unmarried spend more on online shopping than married people.
Education wise post graduate are major respondents (63 percent), educated people are more
confident in online shopping, the less educated people find online shopping riskier, hence
shop less. Occupation wise, service holders are (39 percent), students have less money to
shop, where as service holders may shop from their respective offices. Monthly income wise,
10k-30k are majority (37 percent), low income group are majorly having younger in age and
hence shop more online.

Objectives:
1. To find out the level of perceived risk and compare it between the online shoppers of
Pune & Nagpur
2. To find out the level of trust and compare it between the online shoppers of Pune &
Nagpur

Analysis of perceived risks and trust among Shoppers

The level of perceived risk and trust of shoppers have been measured by the help of
seven- point Likert scale. The shoppers’ responses (see attachment) were recorded on 1 to 7
point scale separately for questions related to Perceived risk (11 question) and Trust (10
question). Literature review suggests that Trust and perceived risk is a common phenomenon
and it does not vary with place to place. The level of responses may be changing as per the
local environment as well as demographic parameters. As table suggest that number of
respondent from Pune and Nagpur is not same.

To conclude the discussion, two hypothesis have been framed and t statistics is used to test
the same and results are shown in table no -----.

Hypothesis
(a) H0: There is no difference in the level of perceived risk between the shoppers of Pune
and Nagpur
H1: Otherwise
(b) H0: There is no difference in the level of Trust between the shoppers of Pune and
Nagpur.
H1: Otherwise
 T-test has been used to test Hypothesis 1 & 2, whether there are different perceptions
with respect to perceive risk and trust.

Table: T-Test Results of Shoppers from Nagpur & Pune (Perceived Risk)
Null Hypothesis: diff = mean(Nagpur) - mean(Pune)
Ho: diff = 0

Q Mean values Mean Equal Variance Unequal Variance

ue Differen
s Nagpu Pune ce Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff != 0
no r Test value Result Test value Result

1 4.52 4.8731 -0.35 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Rejected Pr(|T| > |t|) Rejected
0.0348 = 0.0348

2 3.40 3.8439 -0.43 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Rejected Pr(|T| > |t|) Rejected
0.0380 = 0.0323

3 4.26 4.3073 -0.04 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.8293 Rejected = 0.8264 Rejected

4 3.96 3.9365 0.02 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.9040 Rejected = 0.9051 Rejected

5 5.0754 5.0754 0.05108 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.8050 Rejected = 0.8062 Rejected

6 4.7547 4.8536 -0.09894 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.6548 Rejected = 0.6466 Rejected

7 6.0283 6.0243 0.00391 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.9793 Rejected = 0.9790 Rejected

8 4.7169 4.8243 -0.1074 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.6244 Rejected = 0.6336 Rejected

9 4.1509 4.4243 -0.2734 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.1656 Rejected = 0.1637 Rejected

10 5.2169 5.2243 -0.0074 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.9690 Rejected = 0.9694 Rejected

11 3.7264 3.7951 -0.0687 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.7464 Rejected = 0.7473 Rejected

There is no change in the result of equal and unequal Variance. The null hypothesis is not
rejected (Except question no. 1 and 2), so there is no difference between the shoppers of
Nagpur and Pune in terms of perceived risk.
Table: T-Test Results of Shoppers from Nagpur & Pune (Trust)

Ques. Mean values Mean Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff != 0

No. Nagpur Pune Difference (two tail test ) (two tail test )
Test value Result Test value Result
12 4.6226 4.7658 -0.1432 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.3482 Rejected = 0.3347 Rejected
13 4.5566 4.7024 -0.14583 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.3763 Rejected = 0.3820 Rejected
14 4.5 4.7902 -0.2902 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.1101 Rejected = 0.1119 Rejected
15 4.6037 4.6487 -0.045 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.7809 Rejected = 0.7787 Rejected
16 5 5.117 -0.117 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.4707 Rejected = 0.4945 Rejected
17 5.4622 5.556 -0.09383 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.5493 Rejected = 0.5592 Rejected
18 5.8207 5.9121 -0.0914 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.5333 Rejected = 0.5296 Rejected
19 5.3301 5.1658 0.1643 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.3933 Rejected = 0.3705 Rejected
20 5.1981 5.1121 0.0859 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.6168 Rejected = 0.6023 Rejected
21 5.7641 5.839 -0.07487 Pr(|T| > |t|) = Not Pr(|T| > |t|) Not
0.6177 Rejected = 0.6211 Rejected

There is no change in the result of equal and unequal Variance. The null hypothesis is not
rejected, so there is no difference between the shoppers of Nagpur and Pune in terms of trust.
Table: Shoppers Likert Analysis
Q G
Cities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
s Total

2 8 12 31 25 23 107
Nagpur 6 (1.92)
(0.64) (2.56) (3.85) (9.94) (8.01) (7.37) (34.29)

3 27 33 57 57 20 205
1 Pune 8 (2.56)
(0.96) (8.65) (10.58) (18.27) (18.27) (6.41) (65.71)

5 16 39 64 82 80 26 312
G Total
(1.60) (5.13) (12.50) (20.51) (26.28) (25.64) (8.33) (100)

15 24 14 23 20 2 107
Nagpur 9 (2.88)
(4.81) (7.69) (4.49) (7.37) (6.41) (0.64) (34.29)

29 27 3 37 38 31 13 205
2 Pune
(9.29) (8.65) (9.62) (11.86) (12.18) (9.94) (4.17) (65.71)

44 51 44 60 58 40 15 312
G Total
(14.10) (16.35) (14.10) (19.23) (18.59) (12.82) (4.81) (100)

8 7 18 22 27 18 7 107
Nagpur
(2.56) (2.24) (5.77) (7.05) (8.65) (5.77) (2.24) (34.29)

17 18 24 46 46 34 20 205
3 Pune
(5.45) (5.77) (7.69) (14.74) (14.74) (10.90) (6.41) (65.71)

25 25 42 68 73 52 27 312
G Total
(8.01) (8.01) (13.46) (21.79) (23.40) (16.67) (8.65) (100)

11 17 15 20 20 14 10 107
Nagpur
(3.53) (5.45) (4.81) (6.41) (6.41) (4.49) (3.21) (34.29)

24 27 28 40 45 14 205
4 Pune 27(8.65)
(7.69) (8.65) (8.97) (12.82) (14.42) (4.49) (65.71)

35 44 43 60 65 41 24 312
G Total
(11.22) (14.10) (13.78) (19.23) (20.83) (13.14) (7.69) (100)

6 5 26 15 19 31 107
Nagpur 5 (1.60)
(1.92) (1.60) (8.33) (4.81) (6.09) (9.94) (34.29)
5
14 14 47 28 40 55 205
Pune 7 (2.24)
(4.49) (4.49) (15.06) (8.97) (12.82) (17.63) (65.71)
 12 20 19 73 43 59 86 312
G Total
(3.85) (6.41) (6.09) (23.40) (13.78) (18.91) (27.56) (100)

5 9 13 15 24 21 20 107
Nagpur
(1.60) (2.88) (4.17) 4.81) (7.69) (6.37) (6.41) (34.29)

13 24 12 24 40 42 50 205
6 Pune
(4.17) (7.69) (3.85) 7.69) (12.82) (13.46) (16.03) (65.71)

18 33 25 39 64 63 70 312
G Total
(5.77) 0.58) (8.01) 2.50) (20.51) 20.19) (22.44) (100)

1 5 9 13 28 51 107
Nagpur 0 (0)
(0.32) (1.60) (2.88) (4.17) (8.97) (16.35) (34.29)

1 4 4 20 24 50 102 205
7 Pune
(0.32) (1.28) (1.28) (6.41) (7.69) (16.03) (32.69) (65.71)

5 9 29 37 78 153(49. 312
G Total 1 (0.32)
(1.60) (2.88) (9.29) (11.68) (25.00) 04) (100)

13 13 9 14 31 20 107
Nagpur 7 (2.24)
(4.17) (4.17) (2.88) (4.49) (9.94) (6.41) (34.29)

10 22 14 30 41 48 40 205
8 Pune
(3.21) (7.05) (4.49) (9.62) (13.14) (15.38) (12.82) (65.71)

17 35 27 39 55 79 60 312
G Total
(5.45) (11.22) (8.65) (12.50) (17.63) (25.32) (19.23) (100)

7 12 14 31 19 16 107
Nagpur 8 (2.56)
(2.24) (3.85) (4.49) (9.94) (6.09) (5.13) (34.29)

9 25 21 48 40 41 21 205
9 Pune
(2.88) (8.01) (6.73) (15.38) (12.82) (13.14) (6.73) (65.71)

16 37 35 79 59 57 29 312
G Total
(5.13) (11.86) (11.22) (25.32) (18.91) (18.27) (9.29) (100)
 3 5 7 22 14 27 29 107
Nagpur
(0.96) (1.60) (2.24) (7.05) (4.49) (8.65) (9.29) (34.29)

1 7 10 14 22 37 76 39 205
Pune
0 (2.24) (3.21) (4.49) (7.05) (11.86) (24.36) (12.50) (65.71)

10 15 21 44 51 103 68 312
G Total
(3.21) (4.81) (6.73) (14.10) (16.35) (33.01) (21.79) (100)

15 15 18 22 16 15 6 107
Nagpur
(4.81) (4.81) (5.77) (7.05) (5.13) (4.81) (1.92) (34.29)

1 25 34 29 38 40 27 12 205
Pune
1 (8.01) (10.90) (9.29) (12.18) (12.82) (8.65) (3.85) (65.71)

40 49 47 60 56 42 18 312
G Total
(12.82) (15.71) (15.06) (19.23) (17.95) (13.46) (5.77) (100)

Question related to trust

1 4 10 37 26 26 107
Nagpur 3 (0.96)
(0.32) (1.28) (3.21) (11.86) (8.33) (8.33) (34.29)

1 10 23 49 58 47 17 205
1 Pune
(0.32) (3.21) (7.37) (15.71) (18.59) (15.06) (5.45) (65.71)

14 33 86 84 73 20 312
G Total 2 (0.64)
(4.49) (10.58) (27.56) (26.92) (23.40) (6.41) (100)

19 28 21 24 107
Nagpur 1 (0.32) 6 (1.92) 8 (2.56)
(6.09) (8.97) (6.73) (7.69) (34.29)

2 11 24 51 57 41 19 205
2 Pune
(0.64) (3.53) (7.69) (16.35) (18.27) (13.14) (6.09) (65.71)

17 43 79 78 65 27 312
G Total 3 (0.96)
(5.45) (13.78) (25.32) (25.00) (20.83) (8.65) (100)

3 Nagpur 5 (1.60) 8 (2.56) 8 32 25 20 9 (2.88) 107

 (2.56) (10.26) (8.01) (6.41) (34.29)

12 21 47 44 50 26 205
Pune 5 (1.60)
(3.85) (6.73) (15.06) (14.10) (16.03) (8.33) (65.71)

10 20 29 79 69 70 35 312
G Total
(3.21) (6.41) (9.29) (25.32) (22.12) (22.44) (11.22) (100)

13 30 29 21 107
Nagpur 1 (0.32) 6 (1.92) 7 (2.24)
(4.17) (9.62) (9.29) (6.73) (34.29)

30 45 61 41 16 205
4 Pune 4 (1.28) 8 (2.56)
(9.62) (14.42) (19.55) (13.14) (5.13) (65.71)

14 43 75 90 62 23 312
G Total 5 (1.60)
(4.49) (13.78) (24.04) (28.85) (19.87) (7.37) (100)

10 25 18 28 19 107
Nagpur 1 (0.32) 6 (1.92)
(3.21) (8.01) (5.77) (8.97) (6.09) (34.29)

11 38 60 62 25 205
5 Pune 1 (0.32) 8 (2.56)
(3.53) (12.18) (19.23) (19.87) (8.01) (65.71)

14 21 63 78 90 44 312
G Total 2 (0.64)
(4.49) (6.73) (20.19) (25.00) (28.85) (14.10) (100)

5 12 25 34 26 107
Nagpur 1 (0.32) 4 (1.28)
(1.60) (3.85) (8.01) (10.90) (8.33) (34.29)

7 35 34 70 54 205
6 Pune 0 (0) 5 (1.60)
(2.24) (11.22) (10.90) (22.44) (17.31) (65.71)

12 47 59 104 80 312
G Total 1 (0.32) 9 (2.88)
(3.85) (15.06) (18.91) (33.33) (25.64) (100)

2 14 16 36 37 107
Nagpur 0 (0) 2 (0.64)
(0.64) (4.49) (5.13) (11.54) (11.86) (34.29)
7

1 (0.32) 3 (0.96) 16 72 205

Pune 8 25 80
(5.13) (23.08) (65.71)
 (2.56) (8.01) (25.64)

10 30 41 108 117 312

G Total 1 (0.32) 5 (1.60)
(3.21) (9.62) (13.14) (34.62) (37.50) (100)

5 15 22 35 23 107
Nagpur 1 (0.32) 6 (1.92)
(1.60) (4.81) (7.05) (11.22) (7.37) (34.29)

10 10 38 32 53 53 205
8 Pune 9 (2.88)
(3.21) (3.21) (12.18) (10.26) (16.99) (16.99) (65.71)

11 15 15 53 54 88 76 312
G Total
(3.53) (4.81) (4.81) (16.99) (17.31) (28.21) (24.36) (100)

4 24 24 33 17 107
Nagpur 0 (0) 5 (1.60)
(1.28) (7.69) (7.69) (10.58) (5.45) (34.29)

10 12 37 41 66 34 205
9 Pune 5 (1.60)
(3.21) (3.85) (11.86) (13.14) (21.15) (10.90) (65.71)

15 16 61 65 99 51 312
G Total 5 (1.60)
(4.81) (5.13) (19.55) (20.83) (31.73) (16.35) (100)

Nagpur 1 (0.32) 2 2 13 18 35 36 107

(0.64) (0.64) 4.17) (5.77) (11.22) (11.54) (34.29)
1
0 Pune 0 (0) 4 4 26 34 56 81 205
(1.28) (1.28) (8.33) (10.90) 17.95) (25.96) (65.71)

G Total 1 (0.32) 6 6 39 52 91 117(37. 312

(1.92) (1.92) (12.50) (16.67) (29.17) 50) (100)

Conclusions
According to review of literature there are eight varieties of perceived risks. While analyzing
the impact of perceived risk in online shopper we asked questions on separate perceived risks
while analysed the combined effect of theirs on the shoppers. The same thing is with trusts
also. The types of perceived risks may differ on the basis of types of shoppers, but in case of
current study we did not find the difference in risks and trust between the shoppers of Nagpur
and Pune. There is no difference between the shoppers of Nagpur and Pune in terms of
perceived risk. There is no difference between the shoppers of Nagpur and Pune in terms of
trust too.

Bibliography
A. M. Hassan, M. B. (2006). Conceptualization and measurement of perceived risk in online
shopping. Marketing Management Journal, 138-147.

A. Parasuraman, V. A. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications

for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 41-50.

Adobor, H. (2005). Trust as sensemaking: the microdynamics of trust in interfirm alliances.

Journal of Business Research., 330-337.

Bames, Y. H. (2007). Initial trust and online buyer behavior. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 21-36.

Bauer, R. A. (1967). Conceptualization and measurement of perceived risk in online

shopping. Marketing Management Journal., 138-147.

Bettman, J. R. (1973). Perceived risk and its components. Journal of Consumer Research,
184-190.

Bhattacharjee, A. (2002). Individual trust in online firms: scale development and initial test.
Journal of Management Information Systems., 211-241.

Bitner, V. A. (2000). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firms” in
Ueltschy L.C., Krampf R.F.and Yannopoulos P. (2004), “A Cross –National Study of
Perceived Consumption Risk Towards Online (Internet) Purchasing . The
Multinational Business Review, 59- 82.

Bromiley, L. L. (2005). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): development and

validation. Journal of Business Research, 330-337.

C. Y. Nicholson, L. D. (2001). The role of Interpersonal liking in building trust in long-term

channel relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 3-13.

Cases, A.-S. (2002). Perceived risk and riskreduction strategies in Internet shopping. Int. Rev.
of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 375–394.

ÇENGEL, F. Y. (2012). The Perceived Risk And Value Based Model Of Online Retailing.
Online Academic Journal of Information Technology.
Charles Comegys, M. H. (2006). Longitudinal comparison of Finnish and US online
shopping behaviour among university students: The five-stage buying decision
process.

Charles Comegys, M. H. (2009). Effects of Consumer Trust and Risk on Online Purchase
Decision-making: A Comparison of Finnish and United States Students.

Chaudhuri, A. (1998). Product class effects on perceived risk: The role of emotion. Intern. J.
of Research in Marketing, 157–168.

Chuan Pang, D. C. (2007). Exploring online shoppers' e- trust in China.

Cunningham, S. M. (1967). The Major Dimensions of Perceived Risk. In D. F. E. Cox (Ed.),

Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Boston: MA: Division
of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.

D. Gefen, E. K. (2003). Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS
Quarterly, 51-90.

David Gefen, E. K. (2003). TRUST AND TAM IN ONLINE SHOPPING: AN

INTEGRATED MODEL^. MIS Quarterly, 51-90.

David Gefen, I. B. (2008). A Research Agenda for Trust in Online Environments.

Deshmukh, J. S. (2000). Agency and Trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty
judgements. Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 150-167.

Dimoka, P. A. (2006). The Nature and Role of Feedback Text Comments in Online
Marketplaces: Implications for Trust Building, Price Premiums, and Seller
Differentiation. Information Systems Research, 392–414.

Dr. Lawrence F. Cunningham, D. J. (2004). ASSESSING PERCEIVED RISK OF

CONSUMERS IN INTERNET AIRLINE RESERVATIONS SERVICES. Journal of
Air Transportation.

Eggert, A. (2006). Intangibility and Perceived Risk in Online Environments. Joumal of

Marketing Managetnent,, 553-572.

Fatma A. Mohamed, A. M. (2011). CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT OF

PERCEIVED RISK OF ONLINE EDUCATION. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal.

G. L. Urban, F. S. (2000). Placing trust at the centre of your internet strategy. Sloan
Management Review, 39-48.

Ganeshan, S. (1994). Determinants of Long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships.

Journal of Marketing, 1-19.

Gefen, D. (1999). E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 725-737.
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The Role of Familiarity and Trust. Omega, 725-737.

Gefen, P. A. (2004). Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust.

Information Systems Research, 37–59.

Glen L Urban, F. S. (2000). Placing Trust at the Center of Your Internet Strategy.

H. P. Lu, C. L. (2005). An empirical study of the effect of perceived risk upon intention to
use online applications. Information Management & Computer Security, 106-120.

H. P. Lu, C. L. (2005). An empirical study of the effect of perceived risk upon intention to
use online applications. Information Management & Computer Security, 106-120.

Han, B. S. (2003). The Impact of Customer Trust and Perception of Security Control on the
Acceptance of Electronic Commerce.

J. Alba, J. L. (1997). Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer

incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. The Journal of Marketing, 38-53.

K. H. Lim, C. L. (2006). Do I Trust You Online, and If So, Will I Buy? An Empirical Study
of Two Trust -Building Strategies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 233-
266.

Kaplan, J. J. (1994). "The components of perceived risk" in Somon S.M. and Victor
T.F.(1994), "Customer's risk perceptions of electronic payment systems" .
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 26-38.

Kaplan., J. J. (1972). “The Components of Perceived Risk” in Simon S.M. and Victor T. F.
(1994), "Customer's risk perceptions of electronic payment system". International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 26-38.

Keller, P. K. (2009). Marketing Management, 13th ed.

L. B. Kaplan, J. S. (1974). Components of perceived risk in product purchase. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 287-91.

Linda C. Ueltschy, R. F. (2004). A Cross-National Study Of Perceived Consumer Risk

Towards Online (Internet) Purchasing. The Multinational Business Review.

M. Laroche, J. B. (2003). How intangibility affects perceived risk: the moderating role of
knowledge and involvement. Journal of Service Marketing, 122-140.

Michel Laroche, G. H. (2004). Exploring How Intangibility Affects Perceived Risk. Journal
of Service Research.

Mitchell, V. W. (1992). Understanding consumers’ behavior: can perceive risk theory help?
Management Decision., 26-31.

Mohamed, F. A. (2011). Conceptualization and measurement of perceived risk of online

education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 1-16.
Patricia Beatty, I. R. (2011). Consumer Trust in E-Commerce Web Sites: A Meta-Study.
ACM Computing Surveys.

Pavlou. (2003). Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk
with the Technology Acceptance Model. 101-134.

R. Bhattacharya, T. D. (1998). A formula model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of

Management Review, 459-472.

R. C. Mayer, J. H. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of

Management Review, 709-734.

R. D. Blackwell, P. W. (2001). Consumer Behavior (9th Edition). Ohio: South Western: The
Dryden Press.

Rich, D. F. (1964). Perceived risk and consumer decision making-the case of telephone
shopping. Journal of Marketing Research., 32-49.

Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 56-
61.

S. L. Jarvenpaa, J. T. (2000). Consumer Trust in an Internet Store. Information Technology

and Management, 45-71.

Sahney, S. (2012). CONSUMER BEHAVIOR. Kharagpur: NPTEL.

Staelin, G. R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk –handling activity. Journal
of Consumer Research, 119-134.

Stoel, J. P. (2005). Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online apparel
purchase. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 148-160.

Straub, D. G. (2003). Managing User trust in B2C e-services. e-Service Journal, 7-25.

Straubb, D. G. (2004). Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social
presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega, 407 – 424.

Svensson, G. (2001). Extending trust and mutual trust in business relationships towards a
synchronized trust chain marketing channels. Management Decision, 431-440.

Turban, M. K. (2001). A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping. International Journal
of Electronic Commerce, 75-91.

Turban, M. K. (2001). A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping.

Venkatesh Shankar, G. L. (2002). Online trust: a stakeholder perspective, concepts,

implications and future directions. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 325–
344.
Yakov Bart, V. S. (2005). Are the Drivers and Role of Online Trust the Same for All Web
Sites and Consumers? A Large-Scale Exploratory Empirical Study.