A study on perceived risk & trust in online shopping: a comparative study

among various demographic groups of Pune shoppers

Vinay Kumar1 & Dr. Anurag Asawa2

Abstract

The online shopping is in very nascent stage in India. In western countries as well as in China it
is older than in India. The online shopping is very meagre in size (around 2 percent) as
compared to organised retailing (which is at around 8 percent) and the traditional retailing
(around 90 percent). What could be the reasons of less penetration of online retailing? As per the
review of literature one of the main reasons is perceived risk towards online retailing among the
online shoppers in India. Does all the age groups of online shoppers are equally affected by the
perceived risks regarding shopping online? If we see another scenario although online shopping
is very new to India but since beginning it has reached up to two percent in very less time if we
compare it with organised offline retailing. The CAGR of online retailing is around 40 percent as
compared to its offline retailing which is around twenty percent. So it is catching very fast. What
could be the reasons? As per the review of literature one of the main reasons is trust of the
shoppers in online retailing. The online vendors were successfully established their brands in the
minds of the online shoppers. The question arises does males and females equally having the
trust in online shopping? In current paper the researchers studied perceived risks as well as trusts
of the respondents of Pune city in online shopping. The respondents are youth having the age
between 18- 35 years. The privacy risk, which is one element of perceived risk, has been tested
among the three different age groups of the respondents tested through one way anova (analysis
of variance) and the result shows that there is a significant difference of privacy risk among all
the three respondents group of Pune shoppers. The five elements of trust, found as per review of
literature, have been tested among the independent samples of males and females through
independent sample t-test. The result shows that there is no difference of trust between the male
and female shoppers of Pune.

1
Asst. Professor at S. B. Patil Institute of Management, Pune,
Mail ID- vinaykumar.sbpim@gmail.com
2
Asst. Professor at Gokhale Institute of Politics & Economics, Pune,
Mail ID- asawaanurag@yahoo.co.in

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2820655

Key words: perceived risks, trust online shopping, Pune, online shoppers.

Introduction
According to Turban (2006), e-Retailing is defined as retailing conducted online, over the
internet. (Arora, 2013). E-tailing is a subset of e-commerce, which encapsulates all “commerce”
conducted via the Internet. It refers to that part of e-commerce which entails the sale of product
merchandise and does not include sale of services viz. Railway tickets, airlines tickets, job
portals, etc. (Technopak, 2013). The vocabulary electronic retailing that used in internet
discussions as early as 1995, the term look like an almost in evitable addition to e-mail, e-
business and e-Commerce, etc.
The user who have used internet at least once a month is referred to as active user (Technopak,
2013). The numbers of internet users is 213 Million (21.3 Crore)
(http://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com, 2014), 164.81 Million (TRAI, 1st August, 2013).
According to (Technopak, 2013) there are estimated 200+ active e-tailing sites available in India.
E-retailing is 0.6 billion dollar (0.1% of total retail & 6% of E- Commerce) (Forrester, 2012).
(Technopak, 2013). Growth rate of E-Retailing is 70% (Technopak, 2013).

Age wise demographic distribution of internet users or online shoppers in India

75% of population of India is between the age group of 15-34. 35% is between age group of 15-
24 & 40% (which comprise of 50% e-retailing consumers) are between the age group of 25-34.
35% of regular shoppers are in 18-25 age group, 55% in 26-35, 8% in 36-45 and 2% in the age
group of 45-60. (http://www.assocham.org, 2013). 65% of Online Shoppers are male as against
35% female. (http://www.assocham.org, 2013).

Table 1: Age wise demographic distribution of internet users or online shoppers in India

Age groups (in years) Percentage

55+ 3%
45-54 6%
35-44 16%
25-34 40% (50% population of E-tailing)
15-24 35%
Total 100%
Source: (Technopak, 2012)

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2820655

Online Perceived Risk: Definition
Perceived risk has two components: uncertainty (the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes) and
consequences (the importance of a loss) (Bauer 1960). – (Michel Laroche, 2004). The notion of
perceived risk was originally introduced by Bauer as a psychological, subjective construct to
explicate phenomena’s such as information seeking and brand loyalty (Bauer, 1967). Perceived
risk is defined as “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). Bauer (1960) in his seminal work on risk taking,
set forth the idea that 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). Perceived risk, the uncertainty and consequences of the decision – (Michel
Laroche, 2004). 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). Perceived risk is also defined as “the
consumer’s perception of the uncertainty and concomitant adverse consequences of buying a
product or service (Staelin, 1994). In context of online shopping, perceived risk is defined as “the
expectations of any loss or any negative consequences as a result of online shopping” (A. M.
Hassan, 2006). 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)

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),
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).
Although the impact of perceived risk on the consumer buying process for services is less
studied than for products, the effect of perceived risk is believed to have a greater effect on the
consumer for services Murray & Schlacter, 1990). Services are generally intangible, non-
standardized, usually sold without guarantees, and often need to be experienced before they can
be assessed (A. Parasuraman, 1985). Consumers find themselves trying to evaluate virtually
indistinguishable service alternatives and providers. These characteristics make services more
difficult to evaluate than goods. As a result, service purchasers rely less on brand loyalty and
more heavily upon personal information sources and recommendations during the pre-purchase
interval. (Dr. Lawrence F. Cunningham, 2004).

i. Financial risk
Financial risk pertains to the loss of money in the case of a poor product/ service choice-Linda C.
Ueltschy, 2004. Financial risk is the potential loss of money associated with the item purchase,
and performance risk is the potential loss due to item failure after purchase- Michel Laroche,
2004. Financial risk: Related to the loss of money in the case of a bad purchase- Cases, 2002.
ÇENGEL, 2012 defines financial risk as the perceived financial concern resulting from a
shopping activity.

ii. Product performance risk

Product performance risk is defined as the loss incurred when a product or brand does not
perform as expected- Linda C. Ueltschy, 2004. Performance risk: Related to the functional
aspects of the product- Cases, 2002. ÇENGEL, 2012 defines performance risk as the risk of not
meeting the expected performance standards.

iii. Physical risk

Physical risk relates to the safety and health of the individual- Linda C. Ueltschy, 2004. Physical
risk: Related to safety or health- Cases, 2002. ÇENGEL, 2012 defines physical risks as the risks
related with the usage of the products or services and its safety such as health and security
concerns.
iv. Psychological risk
Psychological risk reflects an individual’s disappointment in him/her in case of a poor
product/service choice- Linda C. Ueltschy, 2004. Psychological risk is the potential loss of
selfimage or self-concept as the result of the item purchase- Michel Laroche, 2004.
Psychological risk reflects an individual’s disappointment in him/herself- Cases, 2002.
Psychological risks are the risks that are undertaken by the consumers as a result of the product
not being identified by them in terms of their personal image- ÇENGEL, 2012.

v. Social risk
Social risk reflects the disappointment in the individual by his friends in case of a poor
product/service choice- Linda C. Ueltschy, 2004. Michel Laroche, 2004 defined social risk as the
potential loss of esteem, respect, and/or friendship offered to the consumer by other individuals.
While according to Cases, 2002, social risk reflects disappointment in the individual among
friends. Clear definition comes from ÇENGEL, 2012 as social risk is the risk undertaken by the
different members of the society in terms of positive or negative perception.

vi. Time/ convenience risk

Time/ convenience risk relates to the time spent for the purchase of a product and the time
wasted in case of a poor product/service choice- Linda C. Ueltschy, 2004. According to Cases,
2002, time risk is the risk which is related to the time spent for the purchase of a product and the
time wasted in the case of a bad purchase- Michel Laroche, 2004.

vii. Source Risk

Source risk is also called as, source credibility risk. It is a risk associated with the source of
product or services from where a consumer buys, such as a physical outlet like a shop, mall,
through a door to door salesman, by a salesman on a train, bus etc. through television, over
telephone, through web portals – Fatma A. Mohamed, 2011.

viii. Privacy Risk

Privacy is related to the identity of the buyer, the contact details of him or her, the credit/debit
card number & its password, the mail id & its passwords, the product or services he or she buys
or consumes etc. The privacy risk is the risk associated to disclosure of the information of above
mentioned items – Fatma A. Mohamed, 2011.
Table 2 : Types of Perceived Risk in context of Online Shopping
Sr. No. Risks Researchers & Years
1 Financial Risk Kaplan (1974), Szybillo and Jacoby (1993), Michel Laroche (2004)
Performance Kaplan (1974), Fatma A. Mohamed (2011), Szybillo and Jacoby
2
Risk (1993), Michel Laroche (2004)
3 Physical Risk Kaplan (1974), Szybillo and Jacoby (1993), Michel Laroche (2004)
Kaplan (1974), Fatma A. Mohamed (2011), Szybillo and Jacoby
4 Social Risk
(1993), Michel Laroche (2004)
Convenience/ Kaplan (1974), Roselius 1971, Fatma A. Mohamed (2011), Michel
5
time Risk Laroche (2004)
Psychological Kaplan (1974), Szybillo and Jacoby (1993), Mitchell and Greatorex
6
Risk (1993), Fatma A. Mohamed (2011), Michel Laroche (2004)
Source
7 Kaplan (1974), McKorkle (1990), Fatma A. Mohamed (2011)
credibility Risk
8 Privacy Risk Kaplan (1974)
Source: Review of literature

Definition of Trust in Online Transaction

The Oxford English Dictionary defines trust as
Confidence in or reliance on some quality or attribute of a person or things, or the truth of
a statement.
Accepting or giving credit to without investigation or evidence
Giving credence to , believing (a statement) relying upon the veracity or evidence of (a
person, etc)
Confident expectations of something and
The quality of being trustworthy, fidelity, reliability, loyalty, trustiness.

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 party- Deshmukh, 2000, or willingness to rely on an exchange partner- Ganeshan, 1994.
Trust has been conceptualized as a set of beliefs about an Internet vendor in electronic commerce
research- Bhattacharjee, 2002.
 Authors 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.

Initial studies on trust in online shopping

Initially in the empirical research in conceptualizations of the trust construct were
conflicting. After due diligence according to Bhattacharjee, 2002, the trust is known to have
following three key dimensions: trustee's ability, benevolence, and integrity. According to
Patricia Beatty, 2011, too trust is having three elements, benevolence, competence & integrity.
‘Competence’ in the study done by Patricia Beatty, 2011 & ‘ability’ in the study done by
Bhattacharjee, 2002, are same. So it has been shown that the trust is a multidimensional construct
whose underlying dimension includes reliability/credibility, emotional comfort, quality and
benevolence- Venkatesh Shankar, 2002. C. Y. Nicholson, 2001 in his study found that the trust is
basically- (1) an expression of confidence between the partners in an exchange or a relationship
of some kind (2) a belief that no partner to the exchange will exploit the other’s vulnerability and
(3) the willingness to rely on the other party. Turban M. K., 2001 extends this study of finding
constructs or elements of trust to the next level that is the elements of trust in online shopping
medium. According to his findings consumer trust can be built in e-commerce by following four
groups of antecedents- trustworthiness of the Internet merchant, trustworthiness of the Internet
shopping medium, infrastructural (contextual) factors, and other factors. Venkatesh Shankar,
2002 also maintained Turban’s line of study. According to him the determinants of online trust
include Web-site characteristics, customer characteristics, and other factors. The consequences
include intention to act, stakeholder satisfaction, loyalty, traffic, price, revenues, profitability,
and shareholder value.

Developing initial trust in potential shoppers

Kai H. Lim, 2006 proposed two specific processes of developing initial trust in the minds
of potential shoppers- unit grouping and reputation categorization. According to him unit
grouping might be stronger than reputation categorization as an initial trust forming strategy in
the online environment. A new dimension has been added by Chuan Pang, 2007, that the online
shoppers are having different e-trust levels and that is based on their past online purchasing
experience and income. In his study in China he found that the online shoppers in China with
higher e-trust levels are more likely to have higher purchasing power. He proposed that if they
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. Charles Comegys M. H., 2009 studied
the pattern of trust regarding online shopping on youth. He found in his study that university
students generally have a good knowledge about new technology, and therefore should already
be well aware of the risks involved in e-shopping, although marketers may be able to build trust
towards a brand, shop or a payment method, the perceived risk is a somewhat personal trait for
every individual customer and so with the trust.
From the above studies it is found that the trust plays very important role while shopping
online.

Types of trust found

i. Integrity
ii. Benevolence (intention/ willingness)
iii. Familiarity
iv. Predictability
v. Competency

Research methodology
Samples were collected through structured questionnaire as data collection tool. In the
questionnaire the questions were asked on 7 point likert scale, where 1 indicates ‘highly
disagree’ & 7 indicates ‘highly agree’. Following question was the part of the questionnaire to
assess the Privacy risk- ‘I shop only from reputed online retailers’. The samples were collected
between the age group of 18- 35 years as per the definition of youth by the Youth and Sports
Ministry, Government of India and they are divided among following groups 18- 25 years (109),
26 -30 years (58), 31- 35 years (38). The research tool to test the difference among the above age
groups, one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been used. Male respondents were 137 &
female respondents were 68. Sample size was 205. Sampling technique used was simple random
sampling of probability sampling. Independent sample t-test was used as testing tool to assess
whether any difference exists between male and female respondents in terms of their trust in the
online shopping. Following questions were the part of the questionnaire to assess five elements
of trusts- ‘I am confident that the e-retailers will be complete transparent in the transaction’
(integrity), ‘I rely on the information provided on the site/s by the e-retailer’ (Benevolence which
means intention or willingness), ‘I believe that the online retailer will keep me updated about new
offers’ (Predictability), ‘I prefer to buy from familiar websites’ (Familiarity), and ‘I only shop from
the website which is convenient to browse’ (Competency). To check the consistency of 8 items of
perceived risk, regarding perceived risk, in the questionnaire consistency test is done. The
Cronbach's Alpha score is .692, the Cronbach's Alpha value more than .7 is considered good.
Hence the score is near to .7 hence the consistency is said as good. The Cronbach's Alpha score
of five items of trust came to .715, which is a better score.

Table 3: Personal profile of the respondents

Gender Percent
Female 33.2
Male 66.8
Total 100
Age Group
18- 25 years 53.2
26 -30 years 28.3
31- 35 years 18.5
Total 100
Marital Status
Married 35.1
Single/Never Married 64.9
Total 100
Education
Above Postgraduate Degree 6.3
Bachelor Degree 14.6
Postgraduate Degree 67.8
Professional Degree 11.2
Total 100
Occupation
Company Employee 22
Self-employed 7.3
Service 39.5
Student 31.2
Total 100
Monthly Income
0- 10000 29.8
10001-30000 32.7
30001-50000 27.3
50001 & above 10.2
Total 100
Source: Primary Data
By observing the table no.-3, we can find out that the male respondents are more than the female
respondents. Unmarried respondents are more than the married respondents. Respondents having
the age group of 18- 25 years are more as compared to the respondents of other age groups. In
terms of education postgraduate respondents are the majority among the respondents. In case of
occupation maximum respondents are the service holders. The major respondents having the
monthly income in the range of Rs. 10001-30000.
By looking into above observations we are interested in finding whether there is same or
different level of risk among all the three age groups of the respondents. We are also interested to
find out whether the level of trust is same or different in the male respondents and the female
respondents. To find out above we need to design to objectives as follows-

Objectives:
1. To find out the difference of privacy risk among different age groups of shoppers of
Pune.
2. To find out the difference of trusts between male and female shoppers of Pune.

Hypotheses:
(a) H0: There is no difference in the level of Privacy risk among the various age groups of
shoppers of Pune.

Table 4: Descriptive

95% Confidence Interval

for Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
18-25 109 4.7339 1.55541 .14898 4.4386 5.0293
26-30 58 5.2069 1.97136 .25885 4.6886 5.7252
31-35 38 5.5789 1.60458 .26030 5.0515 6.1064
Total 205 5.0244 1.71624 .11987 4.7881 5.2607
Source: Data Analysis
The question asked, regarding the privacy risk, was ‘I shop only from reputed online retailers’.
By observing the table no. 4, we find out that the mean value 4.73 of group 1 (18-25 years age
group) moving towards ‘highly disagree’. It means the Group 1, (18 to 25 years) is less
concerned in shopping goods from reputed vendors as compared to Group 3 (31 to 35 years)
which mean score is 5.20 inclining towards ‘highly agree’.

The Table no. 5 is the output of ‘Test of Homogeneity of Variances’. The test of Homogeneity is
the prerequisite for anova test. This test is done to see whether the variances of different groups
under test are same or different. The null hypothesis of test of Homogeneity of Variances
happens to be as- equal variance; means there is no differences in the groups. As per the result of
the test is .018, which is less than .05, hence null hypothesis rejected, means there is difference
of variances among the groups.

Table 5: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Privacy Risk
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

4.098 2 202 .018

Source: Data Analysis

Table 6: ANOVA

Privacy Risk
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 22.813 2 11.407 3.986 .020

Within Groups 578.065 202 2.862

Total 600.878 204
Source: Data Analysis

As per the findings of Table no. 5, when there is difference of variances among the group, post
hoc test (Tucky) is performed. If we see the output of Table no. 7, we will find that there is
significant difference between Group 1 (18 to 25 years) and Group 3 (31 to 35 years).
Table 7: Multiple Comparisons (Post Hoc Tests)

Dependent Variable: Privacy Risk

Tukey HSD
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
(I) age Difference Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
(I-J) Bound Bound
26-30 -.47295 .27494 .200 -1.1221 .1762
18-25
31-35 -.84500* .31869 .023 -1.5975 -.0925
18-25 .47295 .27494 .200 -.1762 1.1221
26-30
31-35 -.37205 .35306 .544 -1.2057 .4616
18-25 .84500* .31869 .023 .0925 1.5975
31-35
26-30 .37205 .35306 .544 -.4616 1.2057
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Source: Data Analysis

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of age on
perceived risk regarding online shopping. Participants were divided into three groups according
to their age (Group 1: 18 to 25 years; Group 2: 26 to 30 years; Group 3: 31 to 35 years).

There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level in perceived risk scores for the
three age groups: F (2, 432) = 3.9, p = .020. Despite reaching statistical significance, the actual
difference in mean scores between the groups was quite small.

Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (M =
4.73, SD = 1.55) was significantly different from Group 3 (M = 5.57, SD = 1.60). Group 2 (M =
5.20, SD = 1.97) did not differ significantly from either Group 1 or 3.

To achieve the objective no. 2 (‘To find out the difference of trusts between male and female
shoppers of Pune’) we have created five hypotheses assessing the five elements of trust as found
by the review of literature (integrity, benevolence, predictability, familiarity and competency).
The five hypotheses are as follows-
(b) H0: There is no difference in the level of integrity between the male and female shoppers
of Pune.

H1: Otherwise

(c) H0: There is no difference in the level of benevolence between the male and female
shoppers of Pune.

H1: Otherwise

(d) H0: There is no difference in the level of predictability between the male and female
shoppers of Pune.

H1: Otherwise

(e) H0: There is no difference in the level of familiarity between the male and female
shoppers of Pune.

H1: Otherwise

(f) H0: There is no difference in the level of competency between the male and female
shoppers of Pune.

H1: Otherwise
Table 8: Group Statistics

Std. Std. Error

Gender N Mean
Deviation Mean
Male 137 4.8102 1.36948 .11700
Integrity
Female 68 4.4853 1.32138 .16024
Male 137 4.6277 1.32846 .11350
Benevolence
Female 68 4.6912 1.44818 .17562
Male 137 5.5620 1.27107 .10859
Predictability
Female 68 5.5441 1.28637 .15599
Male 137 5.8248 1.29987 .11106
Familiarity
Female 68 6.0882 1.08910 .13207
Male 137 5.2117 1.65579 .14146
Competency
Female 68 5.0735 1.74763 .21193
Source: Data Analysis

Table 9: Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of
Variances
95%
Confidence
Sig. Std.
Mean Interval of
(2- Error
F Sig. t df Differe the
taile Differe
nce Difference
d) nce
Low Upp
er er
-
Equal variances 1.61 .720
Integrity .015 .901 203 .107 .32492 .20082 .071
assumed 8 89
04
-
Benevol Equal variances - - .337
.278 .599 203 .755 .20310 .463
ence assumed .312 .06344 02
89
-
Predicta Equal variances .391
.042 .839 .095 203 .925 .01793 .18930 .355
bility assumed 18
33
- -
Familiari Equal variances 156.6 - .077
4.594 .033 1.52 .129 .17256 .604
ty not assumed 59 .26342 42
7 26
-
Compete Equal variances .631
.257 .613 .552 203 .581 .13815 .25020 .355
ncy assumed 47
18
Source: Data Analysis
Interpretation of Integrity
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the trust scores for males and females.
There was no significant difference in scores for males (M = 4.8102, SD = 1.36948) and females
(M = 4.48, SD = 1.32; t (205) = 1.618, p = .107, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in
the means (mean difference = .324, 95% CI: –.07 to .72) was very small. Hence, there is no
difference in the level of integrity between the male and female shoppers of Pune.

Interpretation of Benevolence
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the trust scores for males and females.
There was no significant difference in scores for males (M = 4.62, SD = 1.32) and females (M =
4.69, SD = 1.44; t (205) = -.312, p = .755, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the
means (mean difference = .203, 95% CI: -.46 to .33) was very small. Hence, there is no
difference in the level of benevolence between the male and female shoppers of Pune.
Interpretation of Predictability
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the trust scores for males and females.
There was no significant difference in scores for males (M = 5.56, SD = 1.27) and females (M =
5.54, SD = 1.28; t (205) = .095, p = .925, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the
means (mean difference = .017, 95% CI: -.35 to .39) was very small. Hence, there is no
difference in the level of predictability between the male and female shoppers of Pune.
Interpretation of Familiarity
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the trust scores for males and females.
There was no significant difference in scores for males (M = 5.82, SD = 1.29) and females (M =
6.08, SD = 1.08; t (205) = -1.52, p = .129, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the
means (mean difference = -.263, 95% CI: -.60 to .07) was very small. Hence, there is no
difference in the level of familiarity between the male and female shoppers of Pune.

Interpretation of Competency
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the trust scores for males and females.
There was no significant difference in scores for males (M = 5.21, SD = 1.65 and females (M =
5.07, SD = 1.74; t (205) = .552, p = .581, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the
means (mean difference = .138, 95% CI: -.35 to .63) was very small. Hence, there is no
difference in the level of competency between the male and female shoppers of Pune.

Table 10: Results of hypotheses

Hypothesis no. Components Hypothesis Result
 b Integrity Not Rejected
c Benevolence Not Rejected
d Predictability Not Rejected
e Familiarity Not Rejected
f Competency Not Rejected
Source: Data Analysis

Findings, Conclusion, Limitations & Scope of future research

In current paper Privacy risk of perceived risks has been studied among the three respondent
groups- 18- 25 years, 26 -30 years and 31- 35 years. The null hypotheses is ‘rejected’ hence there
is difference in the level of privacy risk among the three respondent groups. Post-hoc test
indicated that Group 1 (18- 25 years) was significantly different from Group 3 (31- 35 years).
Group 2 (26 -30 years) did not differ significantly from either Group 1 (18- 25 years) or group 3
(31- 35 years). Hence we can conclude that older shoppers between the age group of 31- 35
years, are more concerned about their privacy while shopping online as compared to the younger
shoppers between the age group of 18- 25 years.
In case of trust, following elements of trust have been taken- Integrity, Benevolence,
Predictability, Familiarity and Competency. As the mean value of male shoppers and female
shoppers of Pune are nearly equal, at the same time all the null hypotheses are ‘not rejected’
hence we can safely say that the online male shoppers of Pune are equal to online female shopper
of pune in terms of Integrity, Benevolence, Predictability, Familiarity and Competency.
In current study only privacy risk has been taken into account for study. As per the review of
literature remaining perceived risks, Performance Risk, Time Loss Risk, Source credibility Risk,
Psychological Risk, Financial Risk, Social Risk & Physical Risk have not been studied in the
current study. These perceived risks can be studied further. In current study Integrity,
Benevolence, Predictability, Familiarity and Competency have been studied. As per the latest
review of literature some more elements of trust may be found out by the new researchers, those
elements have not been studied in the current study. These trusts can be studied further.
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.

Arora, J. (2013). Prospect of E- Retailing in India. IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering , 11-
15.

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.

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.

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

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

Forrester. (2012). Trends in India's e commerce market. Assocham's .

http://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com. ( 2014, January 30).

http://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com. Retrieved February 02 , 2014, from
http://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com: http://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/e-
commerce/e-tailing/india-to-have-243-million-internet-users-by-june-2014-
iamai/29594892?mailer_id=387&utm_source=Mailer&utm_medium=ET_batch&utm_campaign
=etretail_news_2014-01-31&email=vinaykumar.sbpim@gma
http://www.assocham.org. (2013, December 30). http://www.assocham.org. Retrieved January
31, 2014, from http://www.assocham.org:
http://www.assocham.org/prels/shownews.php?id=4315

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

Online (Internet) Purchasing. The Multinational Business Review .

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

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.

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

Technopak. (2013). E- tailing in India: Unlocking the Potential. Gurgaon: Technopak.

Technopak. (2012). E-retailing in India Unlocking the potential. Technopak.

TRAI. (1st August, 2013). The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators, January –
March, 2013. New Delhi: TRAI.