Received: 3 April 2022 Revised: 13 December 2022 Accepted: 10 January 2023

DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12899

REVIEW PAPER

Online consumer shopping behaviour: A review and

research agenda

Kandarp Singh | Rituparna Basu

International Management Institute, Kolkata,

India
Correspondence
Kandarp Singh, International Management
Institute, 2/4C, Judges Court Road, Alipore,
Kolkata, West-Bengal, 700027, India.
Email: kandarp.singh@imi-k.edu.in;
kandarp48@gmail.com
Abstract
Over the last two decades, motivated by the continuous evolution of the
technology-driven retail environment, researchers have studied various aspects of
online consumer behaviour. This article attempts to take stock of this environment to
critically assess the research gaps in the domain and provide future research direc-
tions. Applying a well-grounded systematic methodology following the TCCM (the-
ory, context, characteristics and methodology) framework, 197 online consumer
shopping behaviour articles were reviewed. The findings reveal that the application
of theories remains limited in the current pool of literature that focuses more on
developed nations. While studies have primarily considered categories such as
apparel and grocery, in terms of methodology experimental and survey-based studies
were most common. Additionally, the article suggests some future research direc-
tions. The use of combined theories to better understand technology acceptance by
consumers of online-shopping is recommended. Similarly, studies across other cate-
gories like online experiential luxury, luxury services, or second-hand products that
then link to novel constructs reflecting issues with payment methods, online service
quality, and online store atmosphere are portrayed as meaningful avenues that will
advance research in the domain.

KEYWORDS
consumer behaviour, e-commerce, internet shopping, online-shopping, systematic literature
review, TCCM framework

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N Mishra, 2022; Shobeiri et al., 2015). However, many researchers have

Advancement in technology is fast transforming consumers and the
ways they shop (Pappas, 2018; Singh & Söderlund, 2020). Consumers
often shop to feel good and satisfy their emotional needs (J. Xu, Ben-
basat, & Cenfetelli, 2020; X. Xu, Wu, & Li, 2020), meaning shopping is
considered more than just a utilitarian activity. Greater access to the
internet and evolving lifestyles reinforces consumers' intent to shop
online (Agag & El-Masry, 2016; Melis et al., 2016). The enjoyment
derived from a website environment contributes to a positive online-
shopping experience (Shobeiri et al., 2015; Singh, 2019). Research
examining online-shopping often discusses the size and potential of
the phenomenon or indicates issues associated with it (Mahapatra &
noted the absence of in-depth research on consumer motivation and
other aspects of consumer behaviour to shop online (L. Y. S. Lo
et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2018; Sramova & Pavelka, 2019).
The use of the internet for retail purchasing has broadened
exceptionally in recent years and had an extensive impact
on the consumer purchasing process (Pappas, 2018; Singh &
Söderlund, 2020). The internet functions as a unique retail medium,
wherein items can be searched, inspected, and purchased directly
(De Los Santos, 2018; Fu et al., 2020). This unique ability has chan-
ged the social and spatial facets of buying across categories of retail
including ones like groceries that were traditionally bought offline
(Bezirgani & Lachapelle, 2021; De Magalhães, 2021).

Int J Consum Stud. 2023;1–37. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1

2 SINGH AND BASU
TABLE 1 Online-shopping and m-shopping definition: Evolution
Author (year) Definitions
Yoo and Donthu Internet shopping sites are web retail sites in
(2001) which customers can browse, evaluate,
order and purchase a product or service
y Monsuwé et al. Internet shopping or online shopping is the
(2004) use of online stores by consumers up until
the transactional stage of purchasing and
logistics
J. H. Wu & M-shopping is a subset of m-commerce and
Wang, 2006; Ko broadly refers to monetary transactions
et al. (2009) conducted over a wireless
telecommunication network
Aldás-Manzano The purchasing of products or services online
et al. (2009) using the mobile device medium
Holmes et al. Mobile shopping is not restricted to
(2014) purchases; m-shopping also includes
activities such as checking prices,
comparing products, gathering product
information and reading user reviews
R. J. H. Wang et al. Mobile shopping includes transactional
(2015) purchases using mobile devices as well as
using them to plan pre-shopping activities,
such as finding directions and store hours
Jaller and Pahwa Online shopping is all of the shopping
(2020) activities performed at any place other
than the grocery store, other stores/mall,
post office, restaurant or bar, and other
places
Le et al. (2021) Online shopping is a purchase made by a
consumer from a business through an
online channel, otherwise known as B2C
One more essential attribute of online-shopping is promoting
online information searches, product consideration, and evaluation by
customers (refer to Table 1). For example, the product purchase
procedure is enhanced by enabling consumers to access many
comprehensive details regarding product relative pricing, attributes,
availability, and an overall value proposition, precisely when online-
shopping is used in conjunction with traditional retail channels (Hult
et al., 2019; Huyghe et al., 2017; Zhuang et al., 2018). Such a crucial
means of retail patronage needs in-depth understanding, given its sig-
nificantly prevalent usage in several facets of the shopping process.
Although the internet has ended up being a common medium for
shopping, numerous shoppers are still reluctant to make online pur-
chases (Huyghe et al., 2017; Rasty et al., 2021; Zhuang et al., 2018).
Internet shoppers abandon their buying carts because of need uncer-
tainty (Ek Styvén et al., 2017). Internet shopping is much more high-
risk than standard shopping because the online retail atmosphere
lacks the richness of cues readily available in offline retail settings,
such as feeling or trying the products (De Canio & Fuentes-
Blasco, 2021; Rasty et al., 2021; San-Martín et al., 2017; Van
Kerrebroeck et al., 2017). This limits online sellers' capacity to impact
and convenience customers with vibrant details. Shopping for apparel
online is risky because the qualities necessary for customer decision-
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
making, such as colour, fit, and quality, are tough to provide on an on-
screen display (Jai et al., 2021). Product descriptions are usually not
enough for assessment (J. Xu, Benbasat, & Cenfetelli, 2020; X. Xu,
Wu, & Li, 2020). The latest technologies such as augmented reality
and virtual 3D have addressed such limitations (Mann & Liu-
Thompkins, 2019).
For grocery stores, which still operate offline, online buying is a
new reality—a smooth, yet pleasurable purchasing experience has
become a game-changer (Driediger & Bhatiasevi, 2019; Van Ewijk
et al., 2020). The improved demand for online retail during the
COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the lack of stock, influenced the
customer's perception of risk and vulnerability, resulting in a non-
optimal purchase experience (Billore & Anisimova, 2021; Kitz
et al., 2022; Sadiq et al., 2021). As countries are now easing their
restrictions, online retailers should improve their technology-driven
purchases to prevent customers from shifting to traditional shopping
methods (Kursan Milakovi
c, 2021).
Our research is inspired by numerous limitations of existing litera-
ture. Online consumer behaviour has been discussed by many
researchers in different contexts, and limited literature reviews, espe-
cially those published in the last decade, justify the need for this pre-
sent article (Groß, 2015; Kawaf & Tagg, 2012; Monsuwé et al., 2004).
The existing reviews on this topic are limited in terms of the depth of
its context and scope. The literature review by y Monsuwé et al.
(2004) has considered factors relating to TAM (Technology Adoption
Model) as a basis for the review with the objective to explain con-
sumer's attitude towards online-shopping. Another study by Kawaf
and Tagg (2012), is based on Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R)
framework for understanding the online fashion shopping environ-
ment. Both the studies are limited to a specific theory that have been
applied for understanding online-shopping behaviour and falls short
of giving a comprehensive understanding on the gamut of theories
that could actually help researchers with a relevant choice set of theo-
ries while planning future research. Moreover, both have taken
online-shopping as synonymous with website shopping where the
growing scope of mobile shopping remains unattended. The only
study that has been able to cover existing literature on online-
shopping including those done through mobile devices (Marriott
et al., 2017) has also been limited in its scope as it focused more on
the acceptance and reaction of consumers. This claim can be further
strengthened by citing the contextual narrowness of other recent
reviews that considered online-shopping specific to travel demand
only (Le et al., 2021; Suel & Polak, 2018). The absence of a framework
based review that clearly highlight review insights specific to theory,
context, characteristics and methodology (TCCM) can be identified as
a gap that calls for immediate academic attention.
The scope of online retail has been increasing with the inclusion
of mobile apps (Fulgoni & Lipsman, 2016). Therefore, the boundary
and understanding of online retail are continuously evolving. On this
basis, our Systematic Literature Review (SLR) extends and comple-
ments prior reviews by offering the first framework-based review of
studies on online consumer shopping behaviour and laying out a
future research agenda to sustain the advancement of this research

SINGH AND BASU
field. We apply the TCCM framework (Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019),
which has been said to produce more insightful and informative data
compared to various other techniques (Paul & Criado, 2020). Researchers
have considered TCCM to be a robust framework for conducting SLR
(Billore & Anisimova, 2021; Hentzen et al., 2021). Therefore, this SLR
seeks to address the following questions: what theories are applied to
study online consumer shopping behaviour? In what context (e.g., origin
of study, studies focused on which categories) was prior research con-
ducted? What characteristics (e.g., dependent, independent, moderating,
and mediating variables) were studied in previous research work? Finally,
what are the most frequently used methods and data analysis techniques
used by previous researchers while studying online consumer behaviour?
Also, what are promising opportunities for future research that develop
from a systematic review of extant literature?
Hence given the existing gaps in review literature, the present
study attempts to present a holistic account of contemporary research
on online consumer behaviour as an integrated domain of academic
inquiry. Therefore, the study has been undertaken with the following
three objectives:
i. Provide a comprehensive overview of online consumer shopping
behaviour through a structured literature review.
ii. Highlight critical perspectives on the evolution of online con-
sumer shopping behaviour-related research over the last two
decades and identify gaps in the domain.
iii. Examine theories, contexts, characteristics, and methodologies
(TCCM) adopted by researchers to understand online consumer
shopping behaviour following a structured framework based
review of literature and suggest directions for future research.
Based on the TCCM framework, our research finds that the major-
ity of the articles followed a data-driven study and less about theories.
It was observed that Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and S-O-R
theories have been used by researchers across both decades, whereas
in the last decade theories like Information Processing Theory and Mid-
range Theory evolved. Most of the studies were conducted in devel-
oped nations but there was a change in the last decade where a few
studies were conducted in developing and under-developed nations,
too. These studies focused primarily on technology-driven user behav-
iour. Purchase intention is widely studied as a dependent variable by
the researchers, whereas perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness,
and entertainment were some of the common independent variables
used for studying online consumer behaviour. Data were collected
mostly via experimental methods and surveys and the analytical tool,
analysis of variance (ANOVA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and
structural equation modelling (SEM) was used mostly.
Thus, the remainder of this article is organized as follows: In
Section 2, we present the evolving definition and scope of online-
shopping behaviour, where we try to understand the evolution of
online-shopping as a broader concept covering website and mobile
shopping. This is followed by Section 3 showcasing the review meth-
odology adopted for this review article. In Section 4, a summary of
review on online consumer shopping behaviour research is provided
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
based on the TCCM framework. Here we reviewed the theoretical
viewpoints, the context in which these studies have been conducted,
characteristics of the study, and the methodology adopted to discuss
online-shopping phenomena and enumerate the key findings to
address the first part of the third research question. In Section 5, we
suggest future research agenda that would help in advancing online
consumer shopping behaviour research. Lastly, Section 6 concludes
the study.
2 | O N LI NE - S H O P P I N G : E V O L V I N G
DE F I N I T I O N S A N D S C O P E
The very first internet retail purchase happened on August 11, 1994,
and since then the internet has been constantly improving the way
we do shopping (Lewis, 1994). A decade ago, online-shopping was a
relatively unknown term but now it has become an essential part of
our day-to-day lives (Jaller & Pahwa, 2020). The term online-shopping
has been interchangeably used with internet shopping as seen in the
definition by y Monsuwé et al. (2004). Likewise, the term internet
shopping has also been used interchangeably with the term web shop-
ping (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). Hence, we see that the term online-
shopping is fragmented into web shopping and internet shopping.
Similarly, for mobile shopping, we see that researchers have inter-
changeably used m-shopping. If we see the definition of online-
shopping and m-shopping (refer to Table 1), we can determine that
this refers to the customer experience that consumers use for their
shopping, but the only part that distinguishes them is the channel that
they choose. Also, we see that m-shopping is a subset of m-commerce
(Ko et al., 2009; J. H. Wu & Wang, 2006) that gained research interest
in the post-2005 period. However, recent researchers have somewhat
clarified that online-shopping is a broader concept that includes
mobile shopping (Fulgoni & Lipsman, 2016; Jaller & Pahwa, 2020; Lee
and Ko, 2021). Hence, we take into account both online and mobile
shopping articles for this review article.
To add, we can see that the functionality of both online and
mobile shopping is common. The only difference is the medium and
the mobility that changes. Although online and mobile shopping is pri-
marily used for online purchases (Aldás-Manzano et al., 2009; Le
et al., 2021; R. J. H. Wang et al., 2015), there are a few other func-
tions, too. They can also be used for pre-purchase planning like
browsing, evaluating, checking prices, comparing products, gathering
product information, reading user reviews, and finding directions and
store hours (Holmes et al., 2014; R. J. H. Wang et al., 2015; Yoo &
Donthu, 2001). They can be a common medium used for transaction
purposes as well as online purchases (Ko et al., 2009; J. H. Wu &
Wang, 2006; y Monsuwé et al., 2004).
3 | REVIEW STRUCTURE AND APPROACH
A systematic literature review (SLR) calls for qualified standards to
consider when it comes to journal selection to identify articles

4 SINGH AND BASU
(Y. Chen et al., 2021; Littell et al., 2008). Therefore, we have adopted
a well-grounded methodological approach from the previous review
papers (Y. Chen et al., 2021; De Keyser & Kunz, 2022; Hassan
et al., 2022; Paul & Criado, 2020; Paul & Feliciano-Cestero, 2021;
Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019; Paul et al., 2017). For gathering data,
this study adopts and applies the scientific procedures and rationale
for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol (refer to
Figure 1), which includes three significant phases, namely assembling,
arranging, and assessing articles (Paul et al., 2021).
3.1 | Assembling
The first stage of our systematic review is assembling, that includes
the identification and acquisition of literature that have not been syn-
thesized (Paul et al., 2021). To assemble the articles on online con-
sumer behaviour, this study identified a set of keywords that were
used for finding the relevant articles. These keywords were chosen
based on ‘Online Shopping’ articles that were reviewed. Since online-
shopping can be used differently, we tried to cover all equivalent
terms and related terms for our search depending upon the context.
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
F I G U R E 1 Systematic review
procedure using the SPAR-4-SLR
protocol
Therefore, we used a large pool of 11 keywords for our search apart
from ‘Online Shopping’, which included ‘Online Purchase’, ‘Online
Buying’, ‘Internet Shopping’, ‘Internet Purchase’, ‘Internet Buying’,
‘Web Shopping’, ‘Web Purchase’, ‘Web Buying’, ‘Mobile Shopping’,
and ‘M-Shopping’.
3.2 | Arranging
The second stage of SPAR-4-SLR is arranging, which results in sorting
the literature by applying organizing codes and purification of the
materials (Paul et al., 2021). For this, first we considered the Associa-
tion of Business Schools (ABS) 2021 list for the systematic literature
review in the marketing domain. Then, we chose all the marketing
journals based on their cite score. Finally, we selected only those jour-
nals in marketing with cite score (2021) 5 and above. The search result
was limited only to the post-millennium phase (2000–2021) because
there were only a limited number of articles that discussed the shop-
ping experience to understand the product and the consumer suited
to this new channel (Cheeseborough & Teece, 1996; Resnick, 1995;
Rowley, 1998), whereas most of the articles discussed the challenges
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU 5

TABLE 2 Sampled publications on online consumer behaviour

Journal Impact factor (2021) No. of articles Articles

Journal of Retailing 10.972 71 Kvalsvik (2022); Ruan and Mezei (2022); Erjavec and Manfreda (2022); Hallikainen
and Consumer et al. (2022); Gulfraz et al. (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, Lim, Leong, and Choo (2022);
Services S. Wang, Cheah, and Lim (2022); Akram et al. (2021); Dominici et al. (2021);
Ketron and Spears (2021); Pantano et al. (2021); Kapoor and Vij (2021); Rausch
et al. (2021); Fernandes et al. (2021); Hou and Elliott (2021); Jebarajakirthy et al.
(2021); Abbes et al. (2020); Duarte and e Silva (2020); Dabbous and Barakat
(2020); Barari et al. (2020); Van Droogenbroeck and Van Hove (2020); Lin et al.
(2020); Septianto et al. (2020); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020;
Bandara et al. (2020); Pelet et al. (2020); Brand et al. (2020); Guo et al. (2020);
Kawaf and Istanbulluoglu (2019); Ramkumar and Jin (2019); Ladhari et al.
(2019); Driediger and Bhatiasevi (2019); W. H. Huang et al. (2019); Sheehan
et al. (2019); Padmavathy et al. (2019); Bashir et al. (2018); Duarte et al. (2018);
Ilyuk (2018); Heng et al. (2018); Oghazi et al. (2018); Beckers et al. (2018); Y. M.
Chen et al. (2018); Díaz et al. (2017); Pénard and Perrigot (2017); Davis et al.
(2017); Ozkara et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017); Thaichon (2017); Jung and Seock
(2017); Natarajan et al. (2017); Faqih (2016); Pereira et al. (2016); Gohary et al.
(2016); Lissitsa and Kol (2016); Tontini (2016); Beuckels and Hudders (2016);
Bhatnagar and Papatla (2016); González-Benito et al. (2015); Schultz and Block
(2015); Clemes et al. (2014); Scarpi et al. (2014); Pandey and Chawla (2014);
Trevinal and Stenger (2014); Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012); Papatla (2011);
Liu and Forsythe (2011); E. J. Lee and Park (2009); M. Y. Lee et al. (2009); D. G.
Soopramanien and Robertson (2007); Weltevreden (2007); J. Kim et al. (2007);
Shiu and Dawson (2004)
International 7.096 23 Mahapatra and Mishra (2022); Johnson et al. (2022); Hu et al. (2022); S. Wang,
Journal of Cheah, Lim, Leong, and Choo (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, and Lim (2022);
Consumer Cavalinhos et al. (2021); Rasty et al. (2021); Shobeiri et al. (2015); S. Kim and
Studies Martinez (2013); S. Lee and Cude (2012); H. Y. Ha (2012); L. Wu et al. (2011); D.
Soopramanien (2011); H. H. Lee et al. (2011); Jones and Kim (2010); Jacobs and
De Klerk (2010); Seock and Bailey (2008); H. Ha and Coghill (2008); Hansen
(2008); Seock and Chen-Yu (2007); Hui and Wan (2007); McKinney (2004);
Kolsaker et al. (2004); Lokken et al. (2003)
Psychology & 5.507 21 Hwang et al. (2020); Fazeli et al. (2020); Dai et al. (2019); C. J. Lo et al. (2019); M.
Marketing Mishra (2018); S. Chung et al. (2018); Pappas et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017);
Anaza (2014); Shih (2012); M. L. Chang and Wu (2012); Martin et al. (2011);
Demangeot and Broderick (2010); Darley (2010); Y. Ha and Lennon (2010); M.
Kim and Lennon (2008); Lennon et al. (2007); E. T. Wang et al. (2006); Swinyard
and Smith (2003); Yoh et al. (2003); Eroglu et al. (2003)
Journal of 12.333 17 B. Huang et al. (2021); Jai et al. (2021); Hsieh et al. (2018); Campo and
Interactive Breugelmans (2015); Ashraf and Thongpapanl (2015); Jiménez and Mendoza
Marketing (2013); Drechsler and Natter (2011); Punj (2011); C. Chang (2011); Chu et al.
(2010); C. Park and Lee (2009); J. Kim and Forsythe (2008); Forsythe et al.
(2006); Holloway et al. (2005); Biswas and Biswas (2004); Cao and Gruca
(2004); Yoon (2002)
European Journal 5.035 11 Singh and Söderlund (2020); K. K. Kim et al. (2019); Mann and Liu-Thompkins
of Marketing (2019); Pappas (2018); M. Y. Lee et al. (2013); S. Liao and Chu (2013); J. Kim and
Forsythe (2009); Hand et al. (2009); Hansen and Jensen (2009); E. Y. Kim and
Kim (2004); Brown et al. (2003)
Journal of Retailing 11.190 10 Hult et al. (2019); J. Y. Lee et al. (2018); Zhuang et al. (2018); C. H. Park (2017); J.
Ma (2016); J. Li et al. (2015); Y. J. Wang et al. (2011); Ganesh et al. (2010); Xu
and Kim (2008); Childers et al. (2001)
Marketing Science 6.137 8 Narang and Shankar (2019); Ursu (2018); C. H. Park and Park (2016); Rao (2015);
Liaukonyte et al. (2015); Shi and Zhang (2014); Mintz et al. (2013); Häubl and
Trifts (2000)
Electronic Markets 6.017 8 Hossain et al. (2021); Esmeli et al. (2021); Furner and Zinko (2017); J. Li et al.
(2017); Albert et al. (2014); San Martín and Jiménez (2011); C. Liao et al. (2010);
Keating et al. (2009)
Journal of 17.741 7 Reich and Maglio (2020); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; De
Marketing Haan et al. (2018); Y. Zhang et al. (2017); Mallapragada et al. (2016); Holzwarth
et al. (2006); Schlosser et al. (2006)

(Continues)
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 SINGH AND BASU

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Journal Impact factor (2021) No. of articles Articles

Journal of 8.638 4 Ngwe et al. (2019); Huyghe et al. (2017); Bhargave et al. (2016); Sismeiro and
Marketing Bucklin (2004)
Research
Journal of the 17.993 4 Zanjani et al. (2016); Badrinarayanan et al. (2012); Kukar-Kinney and Close (2010);
Academy of Reibstein (2002)
Marketing
Science
International 8.047 3 De Haan et al. (2016); Saini and Lynch (2016); Kukar-Kinney and Carlson (2015)
Journal of
Research in
Marketing
Journal of 5.989 3 Moe (2003); Chiang and Dholakia (2003); Xia and Sudharshan (2002)
Consumer
Psychology
Journal of Services 5.246 3 Mannan et al. (2019); Riley et al. (2009); Rajamma et al. (2007)
Marketing
Journal of 7.208 2 Van Ewijk et al. (2020); Ashraf et al. (2014)
International
Marketing
Industrial 8.89 1 Rodrigues et al. (2021)
Marketing
Management
Journal of 9.717 1 Becker et al. (2017)
Advertising
Total 197

faced by this channel (Booker, 1995; Lynch & Lundquist, 1996;
Mitchell, 1995). Hence taking the year 2000 as a benchmark for
this search, as the evolution of online consumer shopping behav-
iour was studied by many researchers after this period. The search
criteria included only articles and review papers, excluding book
reviews, case studies, and conference papers. Articles were
sourced using the 11 search terms through Web of Science and
Scopus databases following recent papers by Paul et al., 2021;
Basu et al., 2022, and so forth. Advanced search with the key-
words in titles for papers written in English was undertaken.
Therefore, this approach yielded a total of 197 papers from
17 journals.
3.3 | Assessing
The last stage of assessing covered the analysis and reporting of
reviewed literature (Paul et al., 2021). In this literature review, all the
articles were analysed using content analysis. Content analysis was
used to address the themes of the TCCM framework. Using the
TCCM framework as an organizing structure for the assessment and
evaluation of the content of literature, the reliability of the outcome
was enhanced. A future research agenda is also to be developed
based on the TCCM framework, showcasing the need based on
literature gaps.
3.4 | Publication trend for online consumer
behaviour
The resulting list of journals: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Psychology & Marketing,
European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Marketing Science,
Electronic Markets, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Ser-
vices Marketing, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management and Journal of Advertising.
The largest percentage of articles were from Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services with 36%, followed by International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies at 12% (refer to Table 2). There is only one paper from a
business to business (B2B) journal (Industrial Marketing Management)
and advertising journal (Journal of Advertising). This shows that there
is a significant gap in online-shopping behaviour research relating to
B2B and advertising contexts that can be considered by future
researchers.
Table 3 shows the classification of the 197 articles based on their
Academic Journal Guide (AJG) ranking and journal-title under the
ranking. AJG 2021 ranks three journals under the marketing field and
accounts for 61% of the articles under it. This is followed by 26% of
articles under the 4* AJG 2021 ranking. Lastly, 13% of articles are
under the 4 AJG 2021 rank. The journals under AJG 4* and 4 rankings
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU 7

TABLE 3 Distribution of sampled publications as per journal are examined in previous studies? What are the commonly applied
ranking research methods (M) in prior studies?
Ranking No. of % of
(AJG 2021) Journal title papers papers
4* Journal of Marketing 7 13 4.1 | Theory
Journal of Consumer Psychology 3
Journal of Marketing Research 4 The study of online consumer behaviour outlines numerous theoreti-

Journal of the Academy of 4 cal frameworks and paradigms to explain relevant effects. Further-
Marketing Science more, the theory is described as a systematically associated and
Marketing Science 8 empirically testable statement (Hunt, 2002; Rudner, 1966). Therefore,

4 International Journal of research 3 7 in an applied context, theories can be comprehended as reasoned

in Marketing propositions on how a collection of pertinent constructs associate
Journal of Retailing 10 with each other to describe and/or predict empirical phenomena
3 European Journal of marketing 11 27 (Y. Chen et al., 2021; Paul & Feliciano-Cestero, 2021; Paul & Rosado-

Industrial Marketing 1 Serrano, 2019). Table 4 gives a summary of the most frequently used
Management theories in online consumer shopping behaviour research. Our study
Journal of Advertising 1 reveals that researchers have used multiple theories to describe the

Journal of International 2 mechanism associated with online consumer behaviour.

Marketing For online consumer behaviour studies, many different theories
Journal of Interactive Marketing 17 have been applied. One of the widely used theories was TAM. For the
Psychology & Marketing 21 past few years, there has been a rise in interest among marketing

2 Journal of Retailing and 71 53
Consumer Services
International Journal of 23
Consumer Studies
Electronic Markets 8 Y. M. Chen et al., 2018; Childers et al., 2001; Driediger &
Journal of Services Marketing 3 Bhatiasevi, 2019; Faqih, 2016; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008; Sohn, 2017),
are A* journals, the highest-rated journals under the Australian Busi-
ness Deal Council (ABDC) 2019. Even some of the journals under AJG
(2021) 3 rank are A* Journals under ABDC, whereas the rest of them
were A-ranked journals under the ABDC ranking (2019).
4 | SUMMARY OF REVIEW FINDINGS
For the purpose of summarizing the findings of a systematic literature
review, researchers use various kinds of framework, which includes
bibliometric review (Krishen et al., 2021; Randhawa et al., 2016),
framework-based review (Paul & Benito, 2018), review of theories
and constructs (Canabal & White, 2008; Kahiya, 2018; Paul & Feli-
ciano-Cestero, 2021; Paul & Singh, 2017; Rosado et al., 2018), hybrid-
narrative (Dabic et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2019; Paul et al., 2017;
Vlači
c et al., 2021) and those aiming for model development (Paul,
2019; Paul & Mas, 2019). To address our research questions we have
carried out a framework-based review, using the TCCM framework,
pioneered by Paul and Rosado-Serrano (2019). Therefore, the follow-
ing four sub-sections of findings has been sequentially structured to
address the following concerns: what theories (T) have been used by
the previous researchers to understand online-shopping behaviour? In
what context (C), that is, countries where they have been studied did
previous studies take place? What characteristics (C), that is, variables
researchers in comprehending individual behaviour and product tech-
nology adoption in emerging Asian markets (Calantone et al., 2018;
Sultan et al., 2009). The TAM framework helps us understand the
acceptability of the new channel by consumers (Ashraf et al., 2014;
especially for consumers shifting from brick-and-mortar stores to
online. Online-shopping is based on new technology rather than the
traditional way of shopping. Therefore, the use of TAM is the most
suitable theory for studying online consumer behaviour. Perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness are the two constructs of the
TAM that are used to understand consumer intention to shop online
(Abbes et al., 2020; Ashraf et al., 2014; Y. M. Chen et al., 2018;
Faqih, 2016; Hou & Elliott, 2021; Natarajan et al., 2017). Another
study on the TAM used the Electronic Technology Acceptance Model
(e-TAM) to help understand online shoppers' adoption of virtual try-
on for online-shopping (J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008). Different variables
were added to TAM theory including enjoyment (Davis et al., 1992;
Van der Heijden, 2004), perceived usefulness, and enjoyment in the
context of the website (Heijden, 2000), which is also known as the e-
TAM (Childers et al., 2001). Although TAM has its limitations, it does
not properly explain how users accept technology and it therefore
needs an extension (Davis, 1989). The model does not measure all of
the external factors influenced only through the perceived usefulness
construct and not through the perceived ease of use construct, show-
ing more existing relationships (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). We believe
that a single theoretical perspective is unlikely to account for the com-
plexity of online consumer shopping behaviour. Therefore, TAM can
be applied alongside the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), giving
more clarity to the outcome of the behaviour. TRA explains the rela-
tionship between the attitude and behaviour of the individual. There-
fore, future researchers can incorporate TRA in their studies along

8 SINGH AND BASU
TABLE 4 Theories used in online consumer behaviour studies
Theory
No guiding theories
Other theories (theory of planned
behaviour, signalling theory, social
response theory, triangulation theory,
social cognitive theory, information
state transition, socialization theory,
justice theory, theory of acceptance
and use of technology, transaction cost
economics, expectancy disconfirmation
theory, uncertainty reduction theory,
regulatory focus theory, personal
construct theory, theory of perceived
risk, social learning theory, complexity
theory, means-end-chain theory,
innovation diffusion theory, theory of
buyer behaviour, etc.)
More than one theory
Technology acceptance model
S-O-R theory
Information processing theory
Mid-range theory
Adaptation-level theory
The generational cohort theory,
Total
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
% of
studies Exemplary studies
53 S. Wang, Cheah, Lim, Leong, and Choo (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, and Lim (2022); Cavalinhos
et al. (2021); Hallikainen et al. (2022); Ruan and Mezei (2022); Kvalsvik (2022); Gulfraz et al.
(2022); Johnson et al. (2022); B. Huang et al. (2021); Jebarajakirthy et al. (2021); Dominici
et al. (2021); Esmeli et al. (2021); Rausch et al. (2021); Ketron and Spears (2021); Pantano
et al. (2021); Septianto et al. (2020); Van Ewijk et al. (2020); Van Droogenbroeck and Van
Hove (2020); Abbes et al. (2020); Duarte and e Silva (2020); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li,
Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Abbes et al. (2020); Reich and Maglio (2020); Dai et al. (2019); Mannan
et al. (2019); Padmavathy et al. (2019); W. H. Huang et al. (2019); C. J. Lo et al. (2019); Ngwe
et al. (2019); Hult et al. (2019); Narang and Shankar (2019); Sheehan et al. (2019); Bashir
et al. (2018); De Haan et al. (2018); Duarte et al. (2018); Heng et al. (2018); Pénard and
Perrigot (2017); Bhatnagar and Papatla (2016); Pereira et al. (2016); Beckers et al. (2018); J.
Y. Lee et al. (2018); S. Chung et al. (2018); Huyghe et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017); J. Li et al.
(2017); Y. Zhang et al. (2017); C. H. Park (2017); Díaz et al. (2017); Davis et al. (2017);
Beuckels and Hudders (2016); De Haan et al. (2016); Tontini (2016); Bhargave et al. (2016);
Bhatnagar and Papatla (2016); Zanjani et al. (2016); Saini and Lynch (2016); Mallapragada
et al. (2016); J. Ma (2016); J. Li et al. (2015); González-Benito et al. (2015); Campo and
Breugelmans (2015); Liaukonyte et al. (2015); Anaza (2014); Scarpi et al. (2014); Albert et al.
(2014); Pandey and Chawla (2014); Clemes et al. (2014); Trevinal and Stenger (2014);
Jiménez and Mendoza (2013); S. Kim and Martinez (2013); M. Y. Lee et al. (2013); Shih
(2012); S. Lee and Cude (2012); M. L. Chang and Wu (2012); Punj (2011); Papatla (2011); C.
Chang (2011); Chu et al. (2010); Darley (2010); Riley et al. (2009); Hansen and Jensen
(2009); C. Park and Lee (2009); Keating et al. (2009); M. Y. Lee et al. (2009); H. Ha and
Coghill (2008); Rajamma et al. (2007); Weltevreden (2007); Hui and Wan (2007); Schlosser
et al. (2006); Forsythe et al. (2006); Holloway et al. (2005); Sismeiro and Bucklin (2004); Cao
and Gruca (2004); Shiu and Dawson (2004); Chiang and Dholakia (2003); Moe (2003); Brown
et al. (2003); Swinyard and Smith (2003); Reibstein (2002); Xia and Sudharshan (2002); Yoon
(2002); Häubl and Trifts (2000)
24 Rasty et al. (2021); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Fazeli et al. (2020); Singh
and Söderlund (2020); Guo et al. (2020); Akram et al. (2021); Bandara et al. (2020); Pelet
et al. (2020); Barari et al. (2020); Lin et al. (2020); Kawaf and Istanbulluoglu (2019); Pappas
(2018); M. Mishra (2018); Oghazi et al. (2018); Ilyuk (2018); Ursu (2018); Zhuang et al.
(2018); Jung and Seock (2017); Ozkara et al. (2017); Furner and Zinko (2017); Thaichon
(2017); C. H. Park and Park (2016); Rao (2015); Shi and Zhang (2014); Aghekyan-Simonian
et al. (2012); Drechsler and Natter (2011); H. H. Lee et al. (2011); San Martín and Jiménez
(2011); Liu and Forsythe (2011); Ganesh et al. (2010); Jones and Kim (2010); C. Liao et al.
(2010); Kukar-Kinney and Close (2010); Demangeot and Broderick (2010); Hand et al.
(2009); E. J. Lee and Park (2009); M. Kim and Lennon (2008); Hansen (2008); Lennon et al.
(2007); D. G. Soopramanien and Robertson (2007); E. T. Wang et al. (2006); Holzwarth et al.
(2006); Biswas and Biswas (2004); Kolsaker et al. (2004); Lokken et al. (2003)
12 Hu et al. (2022); Mahapatra and Mishra (2022); Erjavec and Manfreda (2022); Fernandes et al.
(2021); Hou and Elliott (2021); Kapoor and Vij (2021); Brand et al. (2020); Hwang et al.
(2020); K. K. Kim et al. (2019); Ramkumar and Jin (2019); Natarajan et al. (2017); Gohary
et al. (2016); Ashraf and Thongpapanl (2015); S. Liao and Chu (2013); Mintz et al. (2013);
Badrinarayanan et al. (2012); Martin et al. (2011); Y. J. Wang et al. (2011); D. Soopramanien
(2011); L. Wu et al. (2011); Jacobs and De Klerk (2010); Yoh et al. (2003)
4 Driediger and Bhatiasevi (2019); Y. M. Chen et al. (2018); Sohn et al. (2017); Faqih (2016);
Ashraf et al. (2014); J. Kim and Forsythe (2009); J. Kim and Forsythe (2008); Childers et al.
(2001)
3 S. Wang, Cheah, Lim, Leong, and Choo (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, and Lim (2022); Jai et al.
(2021); Dabbous and Barakat (2020); Y. Ha and Lennon (2010); J. Kim et al. (2007);
McKinney (2004); Eroglu et al. (2003)
1 Mann and Liu-Thompkins (2019); Pappas et al. (2017)
1 Rodrigues et al. (2021); Becker et al. (2017)
1 Hsieh et al. (2018); Kukar-Kinney and Carlson (2015)
1 Ladhari et al. (2019); Lissitsa and Kol (2016)
100

SINGH AND BASU
with the constructs of TAM to give a holistic view of online consumer
shopping behaviour.
Another popular theory used for online-shopping was the S-O-R
framework, which was pioneered by Mehrabian and Russell (1974).
This framework describes the impact of environmental factors (scents,
background music, and crowdedness) on individuals (Eroglu
et al., 2005; Madzharov et al., 2015; Pons & Laroche, 2007). This the-
ory is used by online marketing researchers to understand online cues
like verbal and visual information (M. Kim & Lennon, 2008), product
attributes and buying intention, and interactivity of the product pre-
sentation (J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008). Moreover, S-O-R helps the
retailer understand how an online retail store creates a positive atmo-
sphere to impact shoppers (Eroglu et al., 2003). Eroglu et al. (2001)
proposed the role of S-O-R in the online store setting. The online
store atmosphere is comprised of low and high task-relevant cues.
These task-relevant cues impact the shopper's internal states, which
ultimately affects the behavioural responses.
High task-relevant cues include visual and pictorial information that
appears on the screen, which assists in attaining consumer shopping
goals. Low task-relevant cues are background patterns, animations,
fonts, and so forth, namely those not directly related to shopping goals.
This framework has been used in the online consumer behaviour con-
text (Dabbous & Barakat, 2020; Eroglu et al., 2003; Y. Ha &
Lennon, 2010; Jai et al., 2021; J. Kim et al., 2007; M. Kim &
Lennon, 2008; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008; McKinney, 2004). Although
S-O-R captures the online retail atmosphere setting, it has been applied
in very few studies (Eroglu et al., 2003; Y. Ha & Lennon, 2010; Jai
et al., 2021). Just like S-O-R, there is one more theory based on stimuli
and that is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) theory. Future
researchers can use ELM to understand online consumer behaviour as
it aims to explain multiple ways of processing stimuli, why they have
been used, and their outcomes on attitude change.
The other theories in the table represent those theories that have
not been repeated in other studies. Hence, they have been used only
once. Some research (a) uses specialized theories since they concen-
trate on particular phenomena, or (b) sometimes utilizes even more
generic theories. For example, M. Mishra (2018) used the Theory of
Planned Behaviour (TPB) to understand the e-service quality dimen-
sion impacting shoppers' loyalty intention and store patronization
behaviour in a paper. Signalling theory helps consumers rely upon
online signals concerning quality and risk perception. Sellers would
take on a specific task to send an ideal signal to the recipient cus-
tomer (Biswas & Biswas, 2004). Social response theory helps to
understand the impact of an avatar as a company representative on a
commercial website (Holzwarth et al., 2006). Other theories include
Triangulation Theory (Singh & Söderlund, 2020), Social Cognitive
Theory (Hand et al., 2009), Complexity Theory (Pappas, 2018),
Means-End-Chain (MEC) Theory (E. T. Wang et al., 2006), and Innova-
tion Diffusion Theory (Lennon et al., 2007).
The findings suggest that the papers reviewed for this study are
divided between theory-driven research and data-driven research.
Many studies do not have any theoretical base; some are discussion
papers, conceptual papers, scale development papers, and replication
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
9
studies, but the majority of the articles were based on a data-driven
study. Studies that do not state any kind of theories or use any theo-
retical elements to conceptualize their study are known as data-driven
studies (Hentzen et al., 2021). In a data-driven study, researchers
adopt the exploratory method using analytical techniques and modes
of reasoning to evaluate data and acquire scientifically relevant
insights (Maass et al., 2018). Generally, the papers without theories
have discussed the attributes of their topic via literature review and
then measured those attributes through qualitative or quantitative
analysis, analysed the results, and finally concluded the study (Brown
et al., 2003; De Haan et al., 2016; Hansen & Jensen, 2009; E. Y.
Kim & Kim, 2004; M. Y. Lee et al., 2013). Our findings on theory were
in similar alignment with the study by Hentzen et al. (2021) literature
review on artificial intelligence showing review articles were mostly
data-driven and less theory-based.
We compared the evolution of theories in two decades and we see
that in the last decade (2011–2021) there was maximum use of dual
theory (Ashraf & Thongpapanl, 2015; Badrinarayanan et al., 2012;
Erjavec & Manfreda, 2022; Hu et al., 2022; Hwang et al., 2020; K. K.
Kim et al., 2019; S. Liao & Chu, 2013; Mahapatra & Mishra, 2022;
Martin et al., 2011; Mintz et al., 2013; Y. J. Wang et al., 2011) compared
to the previous decade (2000–2010) where only one article had used
dual theory (Yoh et al., 2003). Authors have not only used theories to
understand consumer psychology but also to understand the cost and
risk associated to enter the online market. In the articles selected for
the review of this study in the decade 2011–2022, it was observed that
authors have used diverse theories like active bidder theory, complexity
theory, mid-range theory, and so forth. Whereas we can see that in the
decade from 2000 to 2010 there was a repetition of theories like the
S-O-R theory (Eroglu et al., 2003; Y. Ha & Lennon, 2010; J. Kim
et al., 2007; McKinney, 2004) and innovation diffusion theory (J. Kim &
Forsythe, 2009; Lennon et al., 2007), and the theories used in this
decade mostly covered the psychological aspect of consumers for
example, social response theory, theory of acceptance model (TAM),
and theory of buyer behaviour (Kukar-Kinney & Close, 2010).
4.2 | Context
Table 5 sums up findings relating to the context studied in online con-
sumer behaviour. These reported results are based on 197 review
articles. Some of the studies cover multiple countries, whereas others
did not report any country. The majority of the studies have been car-
ried out in the United States (25% of the comprehensive studies).
There was no particular reason for this dominance. Still, it can be said
that due to the advancement of technology and the widespread use
of the internet, the United States had an advantage over other coun-
tries. Therefore, most of the studies were conducted there. European
countries accounted for the second most researched area (19%).
However, some European countries were not mentioned. The sample
showed that the study was conducted in some European colleges or
with some European participants. Some studies were conducted in
more than one country, as most of these studies examined the
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 SINGH AND BASU

TABLE 5 Countries investigated in studies on online consumer behaviour

Country % Exemplary studies

United States 29 Jai et al. (2021); Hou and Elliott (2021); Jebarajakirthy et al. (2021); Reich and Maglio (2020); J. Li,
Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Barari et al. (2020); Ngwe et al. (2019); Ramkumar and Jin
(2019); K. K. Kim et al. (2019); C. J. Lo et al. (2019); Narang and Shankar (2019); Hult et al. (2019); S.
Chung et al. (2018); Jung and Seock (2017); C. H. Park (2017); Furner and Zinko (2017); Zanjani et al.
(2016); De Haan et al. (2016); J. Ma (2016); Rao (2015); Shi and Zhang (2014); Anaza (2014); Albert
et al. (2014); M. Y. Lee et al. (2013); S. Kim and Martinez (2013); Jiménez and Mendoza (2013); S. Lee
and Cude (2012); Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012); Y. J. Wang et al. (2011); Punj (2011); H. H. Lee
et al. (2011); Liu and Forsythe (2011); Y. Ha and Lennon (2010); Kukar-Kinney and Close (2010); Jones
and Kim (2010); E. J. Lee and Park (2009); J. Kim and Forsythe (2009); M. Kim and Lennon (2008); J.
Kim et al. (2007); Lennon et al. (2007); Rajamma et al. (2007); Wang et al. (2006); Holloway et al.
(2005); Sismeiro and Bucklin (2004); McKinney (2004); E. Y. Kim and Kim (2004); Brown et al. (2003);
Yoh et al. (2003); Swinyard and Smith (2003); Chiang and Dholakia (2003); Lokken et al. (2003);
Childers et al. (2001)
Brazil Tontini (2016)
United Kingdom 19 Rodrigues et al. (2021); Pantano et al. (2021); Brand et al. (2020); Singh and Söderlund (2020); Fazeli
et al. (2020); Kawaf and Istanbulluoglu (2019); D. Soopramanien (2011); Demangeot and Broderick
(2010); Hand et al. (2009); D. G. Soopramanien and Robertson (2007)
Germany Rausch et al. (2021); Esmeli et al. (2021); Sohn et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017); Holzwarth et al. (2006)
Other European countries Hallikainen et al. (2022); Kvalsvik (2022); Dominici et al. (2021); Van Droogenbroeck and Van Hove
(2020); Pelet et al. (2020); Duarte et al. (2018); Beckers et al. (2018); Oghazi et al. (2018); Pappas et al.
(2017); Pénard and Perrigot (2017); Díaz et al. (2017); Pereira et al. (2016); Campo and Breugelmans
(2015); González-Benito et al. (2015); Scarpi et al. (2014); Martin et al. (2011); San Martín and Jiménez
(2011); Chu et al. (2010); Hansen and Jensen (2009); Hansen (2008); Weltevreden (2007)
East Asia (China, Hong Kong, 18 Gulfraz et al. (2022); Ruan and Mezei (2022); Hossain et al. (2021); Van Ewijk et al. (2020); Akram et al.
Taiwan, South Korea, (2021); Guo et al. (2020); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Lin et al. (2020); Driediger
Malaysia, Thiland) and Bhatiasevi (2019); Dai et al. (2019); Y. M. Chen et al. (2018); Bashir et al. (2018); J. Y. Lee et al.
(2018); C. H. Park and Park (2016); Clemes et al. (2014); S. Liao and Chu (2013); Shih (2012); C. Liao
et al. (2010); C. Chang (2011); L. Wu et al. (2011); Hui and Wan (2007); Kolsaker et al. (2004); Yoon
(2002)
India Mahapatra and Mishra (2022); Kapoor and Vij (2021); M. Mishra (2018); Natarajan et al. (2017); Pandey
and Chawla (2014)
Other Asian countries (Jordan, Mannan et al. (2019); Ozkara et al. (2017); Gohary et al. (2016); Lissitsa and Kol (2016); Faqih (2016)
Israel, Iran, Bangladesh)
Australia 3 Bandara et al. (2020); Davis et al. (2017); Thaichon (2017); Ashraf and Thongpapanl (2015); Keating et al.
(2009); H. Ha and Coghill (2008)
South Africa 1 Saini and Lynch (2016); Jacobs and De Klerk (2010)
More than one or cross- 5 Hu et al. (2022); Duarte and e Silva (2020); Ladhari et al. (2019); Bhargave et al. (2016); Ashraf et al.
country (2014); Badrinarayanan et al. (2012); C. Park and Lee (2009); Riley et al. (2009); Shiu and Dawson
(2004)
Country not reported 25 S. Wang, Cheah, Lim, Leong, and Choo (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, and Lim (2022); Erjavec and Manfreda
(2022); Johnson et al. (2022); B. Huang et al. (2021); Fernandes et al. (2021); Cavalinhos et al. (2021);
Ketron and Spears (2021); Abbes et al. (2020); Dabbous and Barakat (2020); Septianto et al. (2020);
Mann and Liu-Thompkins (2019); Padmavathy et al. (2019); W. H. Huang et al. (2019); Hsieh et al.
(2018); De Haan et al. (2018); Zhuang et al. (2018); Ursu (2018); Heng et al. (2018); Pappas (2018);
Ilyuk (2018); Y. Zhang et al. (2017); J. Li et al. (2017); Huyghe et al. (2017); Bhatnagar and Papatla
(2016); Mallapragada et al. (2016); Kukar-Kinney and Carlson (2015); J. Li et al. (2015); Liaukonyte
et al. (2015); Trevinal and Stenger (2014); Mintz et al. (2013); M. L. Chang and Wu (2012); Drechsler
and Natter (2011); Papatla (2011); Ganesh et al. (2010); Darley (2010); M. Y. Lee et al. (2009); Xu and
Kim (2008); J. Kim and Forsythe (2008); Forsythe et al. (2006); Schlosser et al. (2006); Biswas and
Biswas (2004); Cao and Gruca (2004); Moe (2003); Eroglu et al. (2003); Xia and Sudharshan (2002);
Reibstein (2002); Häubl and Trifts (2000)
Total 100

consumers' cross-culture behaviour. On the other hand, many The online consumer behaviour review was primarily conducted
research studies did not report any country (25%) due to the database in the context of online apparel retailing (Aghekyan-Simonian
they referred to for their analysis. et al., 2012; Beuckels & Hudders, 2016; Dominici et al., 2021; Y. Ha &

SINGH AND BASU
Lennon, 2010; Hansen & Jensen, 2009; Jacobs & De Klerk, 2010; Jai
et al., 2021; Jebarajakirthy et al., 2021; Jones & Kim, 2010; Kawaf &
Istanbulluoglu, 2019; J. Kim et al., 2007; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008;
J. Kim & Forsythe, 2009; E. Y. Kim & Kim, 2004; M. Kim &
Lennon, 2008; S. Kim & Martinez, 2013; Ladhari et al., 2019; H. H.
Lee et al., 2011; Lennon et al., 2007; Rausch et al., 2021; Aghekyan-
Simonian et al., 2012; Yoh et al., 2003). Another central area of study
was cross-channel/multi-channel retailing (Aghekyan-Simonian
et al., 2012; Badrinarayanan et al., 2012; Becker et al., 2017; Campo &
Breugelmans, 2015; Chu et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2017; De Haan
et al., 2016; Hallikainen et al., 2022; Ilyuk, 2018; S. Lee & Cude, 2012;
J. Ma, 2016; Rajamma et al., 2007; Scarpi et al., 2014; Van Droogen-
broeck & Van Hove, 2020). There were few studies addressing online
grocery shopping (Brand et al., 2020; Campo & Breugelmans, 2015;
Chu et al., 2010; Driediger & Bhatiasevi, 2019; Hallikainen et al., 2022;
Hand et al., 2009; Hansen, 2008; Heng et al., 2018; Huyghe
et al., 2017; Ilyuk, 2018; Kvalsvik, 2022; Sheehan et al., 2019; Singh &
Söderlund, 2020; Van Droogenbroeck & Van Hove, 2020; Van Ewijk
et al., 2020). Many other domains are yet to be explored in the online
consumer behaviour context. For example, studies do not compare
website and mobile shopping behaviour or how the attitude or adoption
level differs across channels. Also, only a few online-shopping studies
were conducted to examine the adoption across cultures (Ashraf
et al., 2014), gender difference attitudes (Dai et al., 2019; Hou &
Elliott, 2021; San Martín & Jiménez, 2011), a study of the impact inter-
face (S. Chung et al., 2018), consumption of luxury goods (Beuckels &
Hudders, 2016; M. Chung et al., 2020; Fazeli et al., 2020), and second-
hand apparel shopping (C. J. Lo et al., 2019). These domains can be
explored more extensively by future researchers. There are still many
sectors to examine, especially where there is a significant investment or
there are products produced by heavy industries such as machines,
tools, or equipment. Consumers prefer to physically examine the prod-
uct before purchasing. It will be interesting to explore those areas to
know consumers' perceptions and how this can be changed.
Online consumer behaviour can be studied in different develop-
ing or under-developed nations to see the adaptability rate or issues
they face. Most of the studies were conducted in the United States
and few studies in Asian countries. Culture influences individual
values and affects behaviour in e-commerce adoption (Ashraf
et al., 2014; Srite & Karahanna, 2006). Therefore, a cross-culture
study between a developed and under-developed nation would be
great to examine the attitude, adoption, and ease of use of online con-
sumer behaviour. In a survey by Ashraf et al. (2014), a developing
nation like Pakistan was still in the trial-and-error phase of adoption
compared to Canada.
It was observed that majority of the studies conducted in the
decade from 2000 to 2010 were only in the U.S. context whereas few
of the studies did not report any country. This clearly shows that the
earlier studies were conducted only in the most developed nation of
that time; the primary reason could be that it was easier for the
researcher to study the developed nations as the internet acceptabil-
ity is higher in developed nations with the given infrastructure, and
also, they are the first mover in new technology acceptance. Although,
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
11
this scenario has changed post-2010. The study of online consumer
behaviour gradually spread across nations covering both developed
and developing nations. Countries like India, South Africa, Taiwan,
Belgium, Netherland, Australia, and others were studied in the last
decade. The major reasons could be internet penetration and the
growing rate of smartphone adoption in developing countries in
recent times.
In our review papers it was observed that online consumer behav-
iour studies were broadly classified into five categories (refer to
Table 6). Researchers in their studies were mostly focused on user
behaviour. Here user behaviour includes purchase intention, actual
purchase, attitude towards the purchase, shopping experience, adop-
tion behaviour, online time spent by consumers, and consumer deci-
sion making. Another area where researchers have focused on was
technology intervention. Since the topic is related to technology, it is
common to find such studies. Here researchers have tried to under-
stand how these advanced technologies adopted by retailers make an
impact on online consumer behaviour. Technology intervention stud-
ies included virtual try-on, website atmosphere, change of device,
online avatars, online versus brick and mortar; web aesthetics, and
online personalization. There were few studies on price and discount
which tried to showcase how different prices and discounts offered
by online retailer's impact consumer behaviour. Customers evaluated
different websites in order to get the best offers. Advertisement stud-
ies analysed the influence of television ads on consumers prior to pur-
chase and chose the channel with better reach to consumers. Studies
on perceived risk and benefits showed the risk and benefits associ-
ated with online-shopping and also a comparative study between
online and in-store risk and benefits.
4.3 | Characteristics
This section investigates the antecedents and consequences of online
consumer behaviour. Authors have discovered a range of variables
related to online-shopping. Our review showed some of the common
and widely used independent variables (IDV) used to study online con-
sumer behaviour are attitude (Ashraf et al., 2014; Childers et al., 2001;
H. Ha & Coghill, 2008; Hansen, 2008; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008;
J. Kim & Forsythe, 2009; S. Kim & Martinez, 2013; Kukar-Kinney &
Close, 2010), perceived ease of use (Abbes et al., 2020; Ashraf
et al., 2014; Y. M. Chen et al., 2018; Childers et al., 2001; Faqih, 2016;
Hou & Elliott, 2021; Hu et al., 2022; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008; J. Kim &
Forsythe, 2009; Kukar-Kinney & Close, 2010; Natarajan et al., 2017),
perceived usefulness (Abbes et al., 2020; Ashraf et al., 2014; Y. M. Chen
et al., 2018; Childers et al., 2001; Faqih, 2016; Hou & Elliott, 2021;
J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2009; Kukar-Kinney &
Close, 2010; C. Liao et al., 2010; Natarajan et al., 2017), entertainment/
fun value (Abbes et al., 2020; Ashraf et al., 2014; Childers et al., 2001;
Hansen & Jensen, 2009; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008; J. Kim &
Forsythe, 2009; Kukar-Kinney & Close, 2010; Li et al., 2020), experi-
ence (Childers et al., 2001; Pappas, 2018; C. Park & Lee, 2009; Singh &
Söderlund, 2020), trust (Ashraf et al., 2014; Badrinarayanan
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 SINGH AND BASU

TABLE 6 Summary of context-based studies on online-shopping behaviour categories

% of
Context studies Authors
User behaviour 47 Erjavec and Manfreda (2022); Hu et al. (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, Lim, Leong, and Choo (2022); S. Wang,
Cheah, and Lim (2022); Kvalsvik (2022); B. Huang et al. (2021); Hossain et al. (2021); Jebarajakirthy et al.
(2021); Rausch et al. (2021); Dominici et al. (2021); Hou and Elliott (2021); Kapoor and Vij (2021);
Fernandes et al. (2021); Reich and Maglio (2020); Fazeli et al. (2020); Barari et al. (2020); Pelet et al.
(2020); Dabbous and Barakat (2020); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Singh and
Söderlund (2020); Bandara et al. (2020); Hwang et al. (2020); K. K. Kim et al. (2019); Ramkumar and Jin
(2019); Driediger and Bhatiasevi (2019); Kawaf and Istanbulluoglu (2019); Padmavathy et al. (2019);
Sheehan et al. (2019); Dai et al. (2019); Lissitsa and Kol (2016); Ladhari et al. (2019); C. J. Lo et al. (2019);
Y. M. Chen et al. (2018); Pappas (2018); Oghazi et al. (2018); Heng et al. (2018); M. Mishra (2018); Ilyuk
(2018); Duarte et al. (2018); Ozkara et al. (2017); Pappas et al. (2017); Thaichon (2017); Pénard and
Perrigot (2017); Faqih (2016); Saini and Lynch (2016); C. H. Park and Park (2016); Gohary et al. (2016);
Bhatnagar and Papatla (2016); Mallapragada et al. (2016); Zanjani et al. (2016); Ashraf and Thongpapanl
(2015); J. Li et al. (2015); Anaza (2014); S. Kim and Martinez (2013); M. Y. Lee et al. (2013); Jiménez and
Mendoza (2013); S. Liao and Chu (2013); Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012); Punj (2011); D. Soopramanien
(2011); C. Chang (2011); H. H. Lee et al. (2011); San Martín and Jiménez (2011); Liu and Forsythe (2011);
Kukar-Kinney and Close (2010); Darley (2010); Ganesh et al. (2010); Chu et al. (2010); Hand et al. (2009);
E. J. Lee and Park (2009); Hansen and Jensen (2009); M. Y. Lee et al. (2009); C. Park and Lee (2009);
Hansen, 2008; Xu and Kim (2008); Hui and Wan (2007); D. G. Soopramanien and Robertson (2007);
Wang et al. (2006); Holloway et al. (2005); Swinyard and Smith (2003); Brown et al. (2003); Lokken et al.
(2003)
Technology 39 Gulfraz et al. (2022); Ruan and Mezei (2022); Hallikainen et al. (2022); Mahapatra and Mishra (2022);
intervention Johnson et al. (2022); Esmeli et al. (2021); Akram et al. (2021); Jai et al. (2021); Ketron and Spears (2021);
J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Septianto et al. (2020); Duarte and e Silva (2020);
Pantano et al. (2021); Brand et al. (2020); Abbes et al. (2020); Van Droogenbroeck and Van Hove (2020);
Guo et al. (2020); Mann and Liu-Thompkins (2019); Narang and Shankar (2019); Mannan et al. (2019); W.
H. Huang et al. (2019); Hsieh et al. (2018); S. Chung et al. (2018); Zhuang et al. (2018); De Haan et al.
(2018); Bashir et al. (2018); Natarajan et al. (2017); Díaz et al. (2017); Jung and Seock (2017); Davis et al.
(2017); Sohn et al. (2017); Y. Zhang et al. (2017); Huyghe et al. (2017); Furner and Zinko (2017); J. Li et al.
(2017); Sohn et al. (2017); C. H. Park (2017); Pereira et al. (2016); Bhargave et al. (2016); J. Ma (2016);
Tontini (2016); González-Benito et al. (2015); Ashraf et al. (2014); Albert et al. (2014); Shi and Zhang
(2014); Trevinal and Stenger (2014); Clemes et al. (2014); Scarpi et al. (2014); S. Lee and Cude (2012);
Martin et al. (2011); Y. J. Wang et al. (2011); L. Wu et al. (2011); Papatla (2011); C. Liao et al. (2010); Y. Ha
and Lennon (2010); Jones and Kim (2010); Jacobs and De Klerk (2010); Demangeot and Broderick (2010);
Riley et al. (2009); Keating et al. (2009); J. Kim and Forsythe (2009); M. Kim and Lennon (2008); J. Kim
and Forsythe (2008); Weltevreden (2007); J. Kim et al. (2007); Rajamma et al. (2007); Schlosser et al.
(2006); Holzwarth et al. (2006); Sismeiro and Bucklin (2004); Shiu and Dawson (2004); McKinney (2004);
Eroglu et al. (2003); Childers et al. (2001)
Price and discounts 6 Lin et al. (2020); Ngwe et al. (2019); Rao (2015); Kukar-Kinney and Carlson (2015); Campo and Breugelmans
(2015); Drechsler and Natter (2011); Cao and Gruca (2004); Chiang and Dholakia (2003); Reibstein (2002)
Advertising and 3 J. Y. Lee et al. (2018); Becker et al. (2017); De Haan et al. (2016); Liaukonyte et al. (2015)
promotion
Perceived benefits 5 Rasty et al. (2021); M. L. Chang and Wu (2012); Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012); H. Ha and Coghill (2008);
and risks Lennon et al. (2007); Forsythe et al. (2006); Biswas and Biswas (2004); Kolsaker et al. (2004)

et al., 2012; Bandara et al., 2020; Bashir et al., 2018; Faqih, 2016;
Furner & Zinko, 2017; Gulfraz et al., 2022; Hossain et al., 2021;
Jones & Kim, 2010; Oghazi et al., 2018; Pappas, 2018; Ramkumar &
Jin, 2019; Rasty et al., 2021), privacy and security concerns (Bandara
et al., 2020; Faqih, 2016; Hui & Wan, 2007; Kukar-Kinney &
Close, 2010; Pappas, 2018; San Martín & Jiménez, 2011; Schlosser
et al., 2006), perceived risk (Bashir et al., 2018; Clemes et al., 2014;
Driediger & Bhatiasevi, 2019; Kolsaker et al., 2004; Natarajan
et al., 2017; D. Soopramanien, 2011; D. G. Soopramanien &
Robertson, 2007), perceived benefits (Bandara et al.,
D. Soopramanien, 2011; D. G. Soopramanien & Robertson, 2007), social
influence (Erjavec & Manfreda, 2022; Faqih, 2016) and high and low
task-relevant cues (Eroglu et al., 2003; Y. Ha & Lennon, 2010).
Some mediating variables used to study online consumer behav-
iour are satisfaction (Abbes et al., 2020; Anaza, 2014; Holloway
et al., 2005; Hult et al., 2019; C. Liao et al., 2010; Natarajan
et al., 2017; Pereira et al., 2016; San Martín & Jiménez, 2011; Singh &
Söderlund, 2020; Sohn et al., 2017; Y. J. Wang et al., 2011;
Yoon, 2002) and attitude (Ashraf et al., 2014; M. L. Chang &
Wu, 2012; M. Kim & Lennon, 2008; D. Soopramanien, 2011; Yoh
2020; et al., 2003). In addition, some of the moderating variables like tech-
nology anxiety, innovativeness (Ashraf et al., 2014; Childers
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU 13

TABLE 7 Summary of online shopper characteristics

What do they buy?
How do they buy?
Why do they buy?
Where do they buy it?
Apparel shopping (Aghekyan-Simonian et al., 2012; Beuckels & Hudders, 2016; Dominici et al., 2021; Y. Ha &
Lennon, 2010; Hansen & Jensen, 2009; Jacobs & De Klerk, 2010; Jai et al., 2021; Jebarajakirthy et al., 2021; Jones
& Kim, 2010; Kawaf & Istanbulluoglu, 2019; Kim et al., 2007; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2009; E.
Y. Kim & Kim, 2004; M. Kim & Lennon, 2008; S. Kim & Martinez, 2013; Ladhari et al., 2019; H. H. Lee et al., 2011;
Lennon et al., 2007; Rausch et al., 2021; Aghekyan-Simonian et al., 2012; Yoh et al., 2003); Online auction (Kim
et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2009; M. Y. Lee et al., 2013; J. Li et al., 2017; C. J. Lo et al., 2019); Grocery shopping (Brand
et al., 2020; Campo & Breugelmans, 2015; Chu et al., 2010; Driediger & Bhatiasevi, 2019; Hallikainen et al., 2022;
Hand et al., 2009; Hansen, 2008; Heng et al., 2018; Huyghe et al., 2017; Ilyuk, 2018; Kvalsvik, 2022; Sheehan
et al., 2019; Singh & Söderlund, 2020; Van Droogenbroeck & Van Hove, 2020; Van Ewijk et al., 2020); Food
(Dominici et al., 2021; Heng et al., 2018; Huyghe et al., 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2021; Sheehan et al., 2019);
Service (Albert et al., 2014; Gohary et al., 2016; Keating et al., 2009; Mannan et al., 2019; Rajamma et al., 2007;
Riley et al., 2009; Ruan & Mezei, 2022)
Imagination (Mann & Liu-Thompkins, 2019); Experience (C. Chang, 2011; Hansen, 2008; Holloway et al., 2005; Jacobs
& De Klerk, 2010; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008; Pappas, 2018); Word-of-mouth (Akram et al., 2021; Barari et al., 2020;
Duarte et al., 2018; Furner & Zinko, 2017; Gohary et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2022; Jung & Seock, 2017;
Mannan et al., 2019; Park & Lee, 2009; Scarpi et al., 2014); Reviews (Furner & Zinko, 2017; Heng et al., 2018;
Jiménez & Mendoza, 2013; Kawaf & Istanbulluoglu, 2019; Reich & Maglio, 2020; Septianto et al., 2020);
Advertisement (De Haan et al., 2016; J. Y. Lee et al., 2018; Liaukonyte et al., 2015); Gender (Hou & Elliott, 2021; San
Martín & Jiménez, 2011)
Entertainment (Abbes et al., 2020; Akram et al., 2021; Díaz et al., 2017; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2009; J. Li et al., 2017);
Recreational and Emotional (Eroglu et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2019; M. Y. Lee et al., 2013; Pappas et al., 2017;
Swinyard & Smith, 2003); Self-gratification (Akram et al., 2021; Cao & Gruca, 2004; Hult et al., 2019; Martin
et al., 2011; Singh & Söderlund, 2020; Sohn et al., 2017); Discount (Esmeli et al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2022; Kukar-
Kinney & Carlson, 2015; Ngwe et al., 2019; Sheehan et al., 2019); Loyalty (Abbes et al., 2020; Chu et al., 2010;
Gohary et al., 2016; Hult et al., 2019; M. Mishra, 2018); Price dispersion (Cao & Gruca, 2004; Clemes et al., 2014;
Faqih, 2016; Hallikainen et al., 2022; Hsieh et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2022; Kolsaker et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2009;
Lin et al., 2020; Natarajan et al., 2017; Rao, 2015; Scarpi et al., 2014; Zhuang et al., 2018); Satisfaction (Jung &
Seock, 2017)
Online (J. Kim & Forsythe, 2009; Pappas et al., 2017; Singh & Söderlund, 2020; Swinyard & Smith, 2003); Multi-
channel (Aghekyan-Simonian et al., 2012; Badrinarayanan et al., 2012; Becker et al., 2017; Campo &
Breugelmans, 2015; Chu et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2017; De Haan et al., 2016; Hallikainen et al., 2022; Ilyuk, 2018; S.
Lee & Cude, 2012; J. Ma, 2016; Rajamma et al., 2007; Scarpi et al., 2014; Van Droogenbroeck & Van Hove, 2020);
Mobile app (Y. M. Chen et al., 2018; De Haan et al., 2018; Furner & Zinko, 2017; Hu et al., 2022; Ladhari et al., 2019;
J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Narang & Shankar, 2019; Natarajan et al., 2017; Sohn, 2017; Sohn
et al., 2017)

et al., 2001; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2009),
involvement (M. L. Chang & Wu, 2012; Eroglu et al., 2003; Y. Ha &
Lennon, 2010; Hwang et al., 2020), and perceived risk (De Haan
et al., 2018; Schlosser et al., 2006) were used to predict online con-
sumer behaviour.
The findings on the dependent variable included purchase
intention (Aghekyan-Simonian et al., 2012; Albert et al., 2014;
Ashraf et al., 2014; Badrinarayanan et al., 2012; Bashir et al., 2018;
M. L. Chang & Wu, 2012; Y. M. Chen et al., 2018; Chiang &
Dholakia, 2003; S. Chung et al., 2018; Dabbous & Barakat, 2020;
Driediger & Bhatiasevi, 2019; Fazeli et al., 2020; Furner &
Zinko, 2017; Y. Ha & Lennon, 2010; Hossain et al., 2021; Hwang
et al., 2020; E. Y. Kim & Kim, 2004; E. J. Lee & Park, 2009; Liu &
Forsythe, 2011; Mann & Liu-Thompkins, 2019; Mannan et al., 2019;
Ozkara et al., 2017; Pappas, 2018; Pappas et al., 2017; Pelet
et al., 2020; Schlosser et al., 2006; Shih, 2012; Aghekyan-Simonian
et al., 2012; D. Soopramanien, 2011; Yoon, 2002), purchase
(Hansen & Jensen, 2009; Y. J. Wang et al., 2011; Zanjani et al., 2016),
and satisfaction (Eroglu et al., 2003; Y. Ha & Lennon, 2010; Hu
et al., 2022).
Our review shows that no particular construct has been used to
define online consumer behaviour. Instead, different studies have
used other constructs to establish their objective. The construct is
chosen based on the theory the researcher applies to their research.
For example, some papers used the TAM, S-O-R theory, and informa-
tion processing theory to show the experiences of online consumer
behaviour. In addition, researchers can use the constructs of different
theories together, for example, TRA and TPP. According to the above
findings, independent variable constructs like attitude, perceived ease
of use, entertainment/fun value, experience, trust, perceived risk and
perceived usefulness were repeatedly used by the researchers. The
findings show that independent variables lack service constructs asso-
ciated with online consumer behaviour.
The majority of the dependent variables included purchase inten-
tion and purchase behaviour. Future researchers can focus on vari-
ables of post-purchase behaviour in their studies as a dependent
variable. The mediating and moderating variables focus more on con-
sumer behaviour constructs and less on technology-based constructs
like innovation or comparison between the website and mobile app
variables.
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 SINGH AND BASU

TABLE 8 Factors influencing online-shopping behaviour

Factors % of studies Exemplary studies

Internal factors (motivation,
enjoyment, fear, convenience, trust,
belief, expectation, satisfaction,
attitude, values, convenience,
education, lifestyle and trust)
External (site design, transaction cost,
social influence, high price,
information presentation format,
time pressure, innovativeness,
technology anxiety, website
atmosphere/aesthetic, online
reviews, product recommendations,
price discount, website security,
reviews and cultural differences)
Both
36 Kvalsvik (2022); Hu et al. (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, Lim, Leong, and Choo (2022); S.
Wang, Cheah, and Lim (2022); Hou and Elliott (2021); Rasty et al. (2021); Hossain
et al. (2021); Jebarajakirthy et al. (2021); Akram et al. (2021); Bandara et al. (2020);
Barari et al. (2020); Brand et al. (2020); Singh and Söderlund (2020); Ladhari et al.
(2019); Padmavathy et al. (2019); K. K. Kim et al. (2019); Driediger and Bhatiasevi
(2019); C. J. Lo et al. (2019); Hult et al. (2019); M. Mishra (2018); Y. M. Chen et al.
(2018); Díaz et al. (2017); Davis et al. (2017); Pappas et al. (2017); Ozkara et al.
(2017); Sohn et al. (2017); J. Li et al. (2017); González-Benito et al. (2015); Pandey
and Chawla (2014); M. Y. Lee et al. (2013); C. Liao et al. (2010); Martin et al. (2011);
D. Soopramanien (2011); L. Wu et al. (2011); Jacobs and De Klerk (2010); Ganesh
et al. (2010); Keating et al. (2009); M. Y. Lee et al. (2009); M. Kim and Lennon
(2008); Hansen (2008); Xu and Kim (2008); D. G. Soopramanien and Robertson
(2007); Schlosser et al. (2006); Kolsaker et al. (2004); Chiang and Dholakia (2003);
Eroglu et al. (2003); Childers et al. (2001)
57 Erjavec and Manfreda (2022); Johnson et al. (2022); Hallikainen et al. (2022); Esmeli
et al. (2021); Dominici et al. (2021); Ketron and Spears (2021); Rodrigues et al.
(2021); Kapoor and Vij (2021); Jai et al. (2021); Pantano et al. (2021); Reich and
Maglio (2020); Lin et al. (2020); Duarte and e Silva (2020); Pelet et al. (2020);
Septianto et al. (2020); Guo et al. (2020); Dabbous and Barakat (2020); Mann and
Liu-Thompkins (2019); Kawaf and Istanbulluoglu (2019); Mannan et al. (2019);
Sheehan et al. (2019); W. H. Huang et al. (2019); Narang and Shankar (2019); Ngwe
et al. (2019); Hsieh et al. (2018); Heng et al., 2018; Oghazi et al. (2018); Duarte et al.
(2018); Bashir et al. (2018); S. Chung et al. (2018); Zhuang et al. (2018); J. Y. Lee
et al. (2018); Becker et al. (2017); Jung and Seock (2017); Sohn et al. (2017); Furner
and Zinko (2017); C. H. Park (2017); Thaichon (2017); Pénard and Perrigot (2017);
Bhargave et al. (2016); Faqih (2016); Bhatnagar and Papatla (2016); Pereira et al.
(2016); Tontini (2016); Beuckels and Hudders (2016); Ashraf et al. (2014); Trevinal
and Stenger (2014); Shi and Zhang (2014); Jiménez and Mendoza (2013); S. Kim and
Martinez (2013); S. Lee and Cude (2012); Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012); Y. J.
Wang et al. (2011); H. H. Lee et al. (2011); Papatla (2011); San Martín and Jiménez
(2011); Kukar-Kinney and Close (2010); Jones and Kim (2010); J. Kim and Forsythe
(2009); Hand et al. (2009); E. J. Lee and Park (2009); J. Kim and Forsythe (2008); H.
Ha and Coghill (2008); Lennon et al. (2007); Rajamma et al. (2007); J. Kim et al.
(2007); Hui and Wan (2007); Wang et al. (2006); E. Y. Kim and Kim (2004); Lokken
et al. (2003); Xia and Sudharshan (2002); Yoon (2002)
7 Ruan and Mezei (2022); Gulfraz et al. (2022); Abbes et al. (2020); Ramkumar and Jin
(2019); Pappas (2018); Natarajan et al. (2017); Gohary et al. (2016); Clemes et al.
(2014); Scarpi et al. (2014); S. Liao and Chu (2013); Liu and Forsythe (2011); C. Park
and Lee (2009); McKinney (2004)

Table 7 below shows the characteristics of online consumer
behaviour. If we categorize the consumer's behaviour in online pur-
chases, we see that the primary attraction is towards apparel followed
by groceries. In clothing shopping, visual presentation, product
description, and sensory-enabled technologies like 3D rotation view
or virtual try-on were more effective (J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008;
J. Kim & Forsythe, 2009; M. Kim & Lennon, 2008). For grocery shop-
ping, consumers consider the product, price, and multi-channel deliv-
ery to be more impactful (Campo & Breugelmans, 2015; Hand
et al., 2009; Huyghe et al., 2017; Van Ewijk et al., 2020). Hence, we
see that consumers mostly indulge in the purchase of necessary goods
like groceries and food or normal goods like apparel. Therefore, future
researchers need to explore the purchase intention of luxury goods
and the risk associated with them. While shopping online, consumers
used their previous experiences and reviews about the product mostly
(Hult et al., 2019; M. Kim & Lennon, 2008; J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020;
X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Reich & Maglio, 2020; Shi & Zhang, 2014;
Sismeiro & Bucklin, 2004). We have only considered the first few
review papers on online-shopping in the ‘where do they buy it’
section since most articles consist of online purchases. Therefore, it
was not possible to include all of them in the table; therefore, the full
list of online purchases has been added in Appendix B.
Consumer behaviour is quite subjective as the consumer
decision-making process is affected by several factors. The most sig-
nificant personal influences that impact online consumer behaviour
can be classified into two categories: internal factors and external fac-
tors (refer to Table 8). In our review study, it was observed that online
consumer behaviour is mostly influenced by external factors. Here
external factors were site design, transaction cost, social influence,
high price, information presentation format, time pressure, innovative-
ness, technology anxiety, website atmosphere/aesthetic, product rec-
ommendations, price discount, website security, reviews, online
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU 15

TABLE 9 Stages of the consumer buying process

Stages of the
buying process % of studies Exemplary studies
Need recognition/ No studies
problem
recognition
Information search 30 Gulfraz et al. (2022); Johnson et al. (2022); Ruan and Mezei (2022); B. Huang et al. (2021); Hou and
Elliott (2021); Ketron and Spears (2021); Jebarajakirthy et al. (2021); Esmeli et al. (2021); Guo et al.
(2020); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, and Pu (2020); Septianto et al. (2020); Dabbous and
Barakat (2020); Hwang et al. (2020); Kawaf and Istanbulluoglu (2019); W. H. Huang et al. (2019); Hult
et al. (2019); Ngwe et al. (2019); Hsieh et al. (2018); Ursu (2018); Pénard and Perrigot (2017); Davis
et al. (2017); De Haan et al. (2018); J. Y. Lee et al. (2018); Becker et al. (2017); Y. Zhang et al. (2017);
Furner and Zinko (2017); Beuckels and Hudders (2016); Mallapragada et al. (2016); Bhargave et al.
(2016); Liaukonyte et al. (2015); Albert et al. (2014); M. Y. Lee et al. (2013); Y. J. Wang et al. (2011);
San Martín and Jiménez (2011); C. Chang (2011); Y. Ha and Lennon (2010); Chu et al. (2010); J. Kim
and Forsythe (2009); Xu and Kim (2008); J. Kim and Forsythe (2008); Lennon et al. (2007);
Weltevreden (2007); D. G. Soopramanien and Robertson (2007); Sismeiro and Bucklin (2004); Chiang
and Dholakia (2003); Moe (2003); Reibstein (2002); Xia and Sudharshan (2002)
Evaluation of 9 Pantano et al. (2021); Reich and Maglio (2020); Sohn et al. (2017); C. H. Park (2017); J. Ma (2016); Saini
alternatives and Lynch (2016); Bhatnagar and Papatla (2016); González-Benito et al. (2015); Scarpi et al. (2014); S.
Lee and Cude (2012); H. H. Lee et al. (2011); Kukar-Kinney and Close (2010); Rajamma et al. (2007); J.
Kim et al. (2007); Kolsaker et al. (2004)
Purchase decision 56 Erjavec and Manfreda (2022); Hallikainen et al. (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, Lim, Leong, and Choo (2022); S.
Wang, Cheah, and Lim (2022); Rasty et al. (2021); Hossain et al. (2021); Dominici et al. (2021); Rausch
et al. (2021); Kapoor and Vij (2021); Akram et al. (2021); Jai et al. (2021); Rodrigues et al. (2021); Singh
and Söderlund (2020); Barari et al. (2020); Bandara et al. (2020); Abbes et al. (2020); Pelet et al.
(2020); Brand et al. (2020); Duarte and e Silva (2020); Fazeli et al. (2020); Mann and Liu-Thompkins
(2019); Driediger and Bhatiasevi (2019); Mannan et al. (2019); Narang and Shankar (2019); Sheehan
et al. (2019); C. J. Lo et al. (2019); Padmavathy et al. (2019); Dai et al. (2019); Bashir et al. (2018); Y. M.
Chen et al. (2018); S. Chung et al. (2018); Heng et al. (2018); Ursu (2018); Duarte et al. (2018); M.
Mishra (2018); Pappas (2018); Pappas et al. (2017); Ozkara et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017); J. Li et al.
(2017); Thaichon (2017); Díaz et al. (2017); Huyghe et al. (2017); Lissitsa and Kol (2016); Zanjani et al.
(2016); Tontini (2016); Gohary et al. (2016); Pereira et al. (2016); C. H. Park and Park (2016); Ashraf
and Thongpapanl (2015); Rao (2015); J. Li et al. (2015); Ashraf et al. (2014); Clemes et al. (2014);
Anaza (2014); Shi and Zhang (2014); Pandey and Chawla (2014); Jiménez and Mendoza (2013); S. Liao
and Chu (2013); S. Kim and Martinez (2013); Badrinarayanan et al. (2012); M. L. Chang and Wu
(2012); L. Wu et al. (2011); Papatla (2011); Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012); Drechsler and Natter
(2011); Punj (2011); Martin et al. (2011); Liu and Forsythe (2011); C. Chang (2011); Darley (2010);
Jacobs and De Klerk (2010); Demangeot and Broderick (2010); Ganesh et al. (2010); M. Y. Lee et al.
(2009); E. J. Lee and Park (2009); Keating et al. (2009); Hand et al. (2009); Hui and Wan (2007);
Schlosser et al. (2006); Holzwarth et al. (2006); M. Kim and Lennon (2008); Wang et al. (2006); E. Y.
Kim and Kim (2004); Biswas and Biswas (2004); Swinyard and Smith (2003); Brown et al. (2003);
Eroglu et al. (2003); Brown et al. (2003); Yoon (2002); Childers et al. (2001)
Post-purchase 5 Mahapatra and Mishra (2022); Lin et al. (2020); K. K. Kim et al. (2019); Ramkumar and Jin (2019); Oghazi
decision et al. (2018); Jung and Seock (2017); C. Liao et al. (2010); Cao and Gruca (2004)

reviews, and cultural differences. Whereas internal factors included
motivation, convenience, trust, belief, expectation, satisfaction, enjoy-
ment, values, convenience, education, lifestyle, and attitude. There
were also a few studies which had both sets of factors involved in
online consumer behaviour. From the given table we can observe that
authors have used more external factors which are related to online
websites and technology to study online consumer behaviour com-
pared to internal factors.
A consumer goes through different stages of the online buying
process. There were no research papers focused on need/problem
recognition in online consumer behaviour (refer to Table 9). Large
number of studies are from the second stage of the buying process,
that is, information search. Information search includes the search for
discounts, search for advertisements impact, and characteristics of the
website which bring back customers. The third stage of the buying
process, evaluation of alternatives, shows that researchers have
focused on consumer evaluations and deciding between online and
offline stores, cart abandonment, visual attention influenced by other
products, and choice of reviews before purchase from one website to
another.
In our review, it was noticed that the majority of the articles have
focused on the second to last stage of the buying process, purchase
decisions. Here purchase decision includes the actual purchase, pur-
chase intention, and attitude towards purchase. The final stage of the
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
16 SINGH AND BASU

TABLE 10 Research approach and methods used in online consumer behaviour studies

Method % of studies Exemplary studies

Experimental study 28 Johnson et al. (2022); Jai et al. (2021); Jebarajakirthy et al. (2021); B. Huang et al. (2021); Ketron and
Spears (2021); Barari et al. (2020); Fazeli et al. (2020); Pelet et al. (2020); Guo et al. (2020); Septianto
et al. (2020); Hwang et al. (2020); Reich and Maglio (2020); Ngwe et al. (2019); Ramkumar and Jin
(2019); K. K. Kim et al. (2019); Mann and Liu-Thompkins (2019); W. H. Huang et al. (2019); Sheehan
et al. (2019); Ursu (2018); S. Chung et al. (2018); Hsieh et al. (2018); Huyghe et al. (2017); Y. Zhang
et al. (2017); Becker et al. (2017); Díaz et al. (2017); Furner and Zinko (2017); Bhargave et al. (2016);
Beuckels and Hudders (2016); Gohary et al. (2016); Saini and Lynch (2016); González-Benito et al.
(2015); Rao (2015); Kukar-Kinney and Carlson (2015); Ashraf and Thongpapanl (2015); Mintz et al.
(2013); S. Liao and Chu (2013); Jiménez and Mendoza (2013); S. Lee and Cude (2012); Y. J. Wang
et al. (2011); Drechsler and Natter (2011); C. Chang (2011); Y. Ha and Lennon (2010); Keating et al.
(2009); M. Kim and Lennon (2008); Schlosser et al. (2006); Holzwarth et al. (2006); Biswas and Biswas
(2004); Eroglu et al. (2003); Chiang and Dholakia (2003); Xia and Sudharshan (2002); Childers et al.
(2001); Häubl and Trifts (2000)
Survey method 50 Erjavec and Manfreda (2022); Hu et al. (2022); Gulfraz et al. (2022); Hallikainen et al. (2022); Mahapatra
and Mishra (2022); Rasty et al. (2021); Hou and Elliott (2021); Akram et al. (2021); Hossain et al.
(2021); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Lin et al. (2020); Abbes et al. (2020); Rausch
et al. (2021); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, & Pu, 2020; Dabbous and Barakat (2020); Brand
et al. (2020); Duarte and e Silva (2020); Hult et al. (2019); Padmavathy et al. (2019); Ladhari et al.
(2019); Dai et al. (2019); Mannan et al. (2019); Bashir et al. (2018); Duarte et al. (2018); Oghazi et al.
(2018); Ilyuk (2018); Beckers et al. (2018); De Haan et al. (2018); Y. M. Chen et al. (2018); M. Mishra
(2018); Pappas et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017); Jung and Seock (2017); Pénard and Perrigot (2017);
Davis et al. (2017); Díaz et al. (2017); Ozkara et al. (2017); Natarajan et al. (2017); Faqih (2016);
Tontini (2016); Pereira et al. (2016); Bhatnagar and Papatla (2016); De Haan et al. (2016);
Mallapragada et al. (2016); Zanjani et al. (2016); Ashraf et al. (2014); Pandey and Chawla (2014); Scarpi
et al. (2014); Anaza (2014); Clemes et al. (2014); M. Y. Lee et al. (2013); S. Kim and Martinez (2013);
M. L. Chang and Wu (2012); Badrinarayanan et al. (2012); Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012); Shih
(2012); Martin et al. (2011); San Martín and Jiménez (2011); Punj (2011); D. Soopramanien (2011);
H. H. Lee et al. (2011); Papatla (2011); Liu and Forsythe (2011); L. Wu et al. (2011); Kukar-Kinney and
Close (2010); C. Liao et al. (2010); Jones and Kim (2010); Jacobs and De Klerk (2010); C. Park and Lee
(2009); J. Kim and Forsythe (2009); E. J. Lee and Park (2009); M. Y. Lee et al. (2009); Hansen and
Jensen (2009); J. Kim and Forsythe (2008); Hansen (2008); H. Ha and Coghill (2008); Hui and Wan
(2007); D. G. Soopramanien and Robertson (2007); Weltevreden (2007); Rajamma et al. (2007); J. Kim
et al. (2007) Lennon et al. (2007); Wang et al. (2006); Holloway et al. (2005); McKinney (2004);
E. Y. Kim and Kim (2004); Shiu and Dawson (2004); Brown et al. (2003); Lokken et al. (2003); Swinyard
and Smith (2003); Yoh et al. (2003); Reibstein (2002); Yoon (2002)
Quantitative method 9 Kapoor and Vij (2021); Esmeli et al. (2021); Dominici et al. (2021); Narang and Shankar (2019); J. Li et al.
(2017); J. Y. Lee et al. (2018); Heng et al. (2018); Zhuang et al. (2018); C. H. Park (2017); J. Ma (2016);
C. H. Park and Park (2016); Lissitsa and Kol (2016); Campo and Breugelmans (2015); J. Li et al. (2015);
Chu et al. (2010); Y. C. Xu and Kim (2008); Cao and Gruca (2004); Sismeiro and Bucklin (2004)
Mixed-method 6 Kvalsvik (2022); Ruan and Mezei (2022); Rodrigues et al. (2021); Fernandes et al. (2021); Singh and
Söderlund (2020); Driediger and Bhatiasevi (2019); C. J. Lo et al. (2019); Sohn et al. (2017); Ganesh
et al. (2010); Hand et al. (2009); Forsythe et al. (2006)
Qualitative study 3 Pantano et al. (2021); Bandara et al. (2020); Van Droogenbroeck and Van Hove (2020); Kawaf and
Istanbulluoglu (2019); Thaichon (2017); Trevinal and Stenger (2014)
Others 4 Van Ewijk et al. (2020); Pappas (2018); Liaukonyte et al. (2015); Shi and Zhang (2014); Demangeot and
Broderick (2010); Darley (2010); Moe (2003)

buying process is still to be explored more since only eight articles
have discussed post-purchase satisfaction. Therefore, future
researchers need to focus on the post-purchase behaviour of online
consumers. There were few studies which were not part of this pro-
cess as they were studied from an organization's point of view
(De Haan et al., 2016). This is also a gap which can be addressed by
future researchers. The findings show that online consumer behaviour
is focused more on the consumer buying process and ignore the
online adoption process. This can be addressed by future researchers
on how online purchasing is in different stages for different nations
and what the factors are behind this.
4.4 | Methodology
Our review of online consumer behaviour using 197 articles shows
that the majority of the articles used survey method, 50% (refer to
Table 10). Most of these survey methods were done online
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU 17

TABLE 11 Summary of the data analysis technique

Data analysis technique % of studies Exemplary studies

ANOVA 16 Septianto et al. (2020); Sheehan et al. (2019); B. Huang et al. (2021); Hwang et al. (2020);
Fazeli et al. (2020); K. K. Kim et al. (2019); Dai et al. (2019); Hsieh et al. (2018); Ilyuk (2018);
Huyghe et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017); Saini and Lynch (2016); Gohary et al. (2016);
Bhargave et al. (2016); Kukar-Kinney and Carlson (2015); Jiménez and Mendoza (2013); S.
Liao and Chu (2013); S. Kim and Martinez (2013); S. Lee and Cude (2012); C. Chang (2011);
Drechsler and Natter (2011); Hand et al. (2009); M. Kim and Lennon (2008); Rajamma et al.
(2007); Weltevreden (2007); Hui and Wan (2007); Holzwarth et al. (2006); Schlosser et al.
(2006); Xia and Sudharshan (2002); Yoon (2002)
Confirmatory factor analysis 21 Erjavec and Manfreda (2022); Gulfraz et al. (2022); Kapoor and Vij (2021); Fernandes et al.
(2021); Barari et al. (2020); Abbes et al. (2020); C. J. Lo et al. (2019); Padmavathy et al.
(2019); Oghazi et al. (2018); M. Mishra (2018); Bashir et al. (2018); Duarte et al. (2018);
Davis et al. (2017); Natarajan et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017); Pereira
et al. (2016); Gohary et al. (2016); Zanjani et al. (2016); Pandey and Chawla (2014); M. Y.
Lee et al. (2013); Shih (2012); Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012); Y. J. Wang et al. (2011);
San Martín and Jiménez (2011); Martin et al. (2011); Demangeot and Broderick (2010);
Ganesh et al. (2010); Y. Ha and Lennon (2010); C. Liao et al. (2010); J. Kim and Forsythe
(2009); C. Park and Lee (2009); E. J. Lee and Park (2009); Keating et al. (2009); Hansen
(2008); J. Kim et al. (2007); Forsythe et al. (2006); Eroglu et al. (2003)
Structural equation modelling 19 Mahapatra and Mishra (2022); Gulfraz et al. (2022); Erjavec and Manfreda (2022); Kapoor and
Vij (2021); Akram et al. (2021); Abbes et al. (2020); Dabbous and Barakat (2020); Pelet
et al. (2020); Ramkumar and Jin (2019); W. H. Huang et al. (2019); Bashir et al. (2018); M.
Mishra (2018); Oghazi et al. (2018); Duarte et al. (2018); Davis et al. (2017); Sohn et al.
(2017); Ozkara et al. (2017); Natarajan et al. (2017); Pappas et al. (2017); Gohary et al.
(2016); Pereira et al. (2016); Anaza (2014); Scarpi et al. (2014); Shih (2012); Aghekyan-
Simonian et al. (2012); L. Wu et al. (2011); Liu and Forsythe (2011); Y. J. Wang et al. (2011);
C. Liao et al. (2010); C. Park and Lee (2009); M. Y. Lee et al. (2009); J. Kim and Forsythe
(2009); J. Kim and Forsythe (2008); Lennon et al. (2007); Holloway et al. (2005)
Factor analysis 6 Hou and Elliott (2021); Bhatnagar and Papatla (2016); L. Wu et al. (2011); Papatla (2011); H.
H. Lee et al. (2011); Jones and Kim (2010); Hui and Wan (2007); E. Y. Kim and Kim (2004);
McKinney (2004); Brown et al. (2003); Swinyard and Smith (2003); Yoh et al. (2003)
MANOVA 5 Jung and Seock (2017); Lissitsa and Kol (2016); M. Y. Lee et al. (2013); M. L. Chang and Wu
(2012); Drechsler and Natter (2011); Liu and Forsythe (2011); Keating et al. (2009); M. Kim
and Lennon (2008); Forsythe et al. (2006)
Cluster analysis 2 C. H. Park (2017); Hand et al. (2009); Brown et al. (2003); Moe (2003)
PLS-SEM 5 Hu et al. (2022); Hossain et al. (2021); Lin et al. (2020); Singh and Söderlund (2020); Mannan
et al. (2019); Driediger and Bhatiasevi (2019); Hult et al. (2019); Y. M. Chen et al. (2018);
Díaz et al. (2017); Ashraf et al. (2014)
T-test 4 Ruan and Mezei (2022); Furner and Zinko (2017); Beuckels and Hudders (2016); S. Liao and
Chu (2013); S. Lee and Cude (2012); Chu et al. (2010); Hansen and Jensen (2009);
Holloway et al. (2005)
Regression 4 Van Ewijk et al. (2020); Heng et al. (2018); Pénard and Perrigot (2017); Kukar-Kinney and
Carlson (2015); Albert et al. (2014); Chu et al. (2010); Jones and Kim (2010); Kolsaker et al.
(2004)
Bayesian information criterion 2 Van Ewijk et al. (2020); Kukar-Kinney and Carlson (2015); Chu et al. (2010)
Logistic regression analysis 3 De Haan et al. (2018); Beckers et al. (2018); Clemes et al. (2014); Punj (2011); D. G.
Soopramanien and Robertson (2007)
Path analysis 1 Martin et al. (2011); E. Y. Kim and Kim (2004)
Chi-square test 4 Jebarajakirthy et al. (2021); Guo et al. (2020); D. Soopramanien (2011); San Martín and
Jiménez (2011); Hansen (2008); H. Ha and Coghill (2008); Shiu and Dawson (2004); Lokken
et al. (2003)
EFA 3 Abbes et al. (2020); Padmavathy et al. (2019); Natarajan et al. (2017); Pandey and Chawla
(2014); Ganesh et al. (2010); E. J. Lee and Park (2009)
Content analysis 2 Kvalsvik (2022); Pantano et al. (2021); Van Droogenbroeck and Van Hove (2020); Trevinal
and Stenger (2014)
Others (linear regression, 7 Hallikainen et al. (2022); Johnson et al. (2022); Ruan and Mezei (2022); Esmeli et al. (2021);
template analysis, thematic Bandara et al. (2020); Rausch et al. (2021); Ketron and Spears (2021); Kawaf and
analysis, principal Istanbulluoglu (2019); Ladhari et al. (2019); Furner and Zinko (2017); Thaichon (2017); J. Li
component analysis, et al. (2017); Tontini (2016)

(Continues)
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
18 SINGH AND BASU

TABLE 11 (Continued)

Data analysis technique % of studies Exemplary studies

importance performance
analysis, MANCOVA,
ANCOVA, linear mixed-
effects models (LMMs)

TABLE 12 Consolidated findings

Theme Findings Authors

Hedonic versus • Hedonic and ethical benefits influence recommendation behaviour J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, &
utilitarian via perceived norms. Pu, 2020; C. J. Lo et al. (2019); S. Chung
• In hedonic purchases, consumers use social media and on-site et al. (2018); Ashraf and Thongpapanl
product pages as early as 2 weeks before the final purchase. For (2015); Childers et al. (2001)
utilitarian purchases, consumers use third-party reviews up to
2 weeks before the final purchase.
• Using a touch interface (vs. mouse) increases the likelihood of
consumers choosing hedonic over utilitarian option for immediate
purchase decision.
Cross-category • Some of the predictors of online apparel shopping are perceived Rodrigues et al. (2021); Jai et al. (2021); Van
usefulness, entertainment, cost, and demographic variables. Ewijk et al. (2020); Singh and Söderlund
• For online apparel purchases, perceived difficulty in selecting (2020); C. J. Lo et al. (2019); Huyghe et al.
women and men fewer fun items was an action barrier. (2017); Huyghe et al. (2017); Campo and
• For online grocery and food shopping, situational factors like Breugelmans (2015); Chu et al. (2010); Y.
health problems and having a baby were reasons for initiating an Ha and Lennon (2010); J. Kim and Forsythe
online purchase. Some other factors were also identified, such as (2009); Hansen and Jensen; (2009); Hand
website, product, and delivery service. Whereas, inconvenience in et al. (2009); J. Kim and Forsythe (2008);
service was a reason for discontinuation. M. Kim and Lennon (2008); Lennon et al.
• Households were considered more size loyal and brand loyal but (2007); E. Y. Kim and Kim (2004); Yoh et al.
less price-sensitive in online-shopping than offline shopping. (2003)
Cross-culture • The culture of a nation has significant impact on online reviews Bhargave et al. (2016); Ashraf et al. (2014);
and their antecedents. Shopping websites should be designed as Badrinarayanan et al. (2012); C. Park and
per the culture, since it impacts website design and its function Lee (2009)
• Attitude-oriented marketing and consumer-oriented marketing
were considered to be effective.
• In the cross-cultural study, perceived ease of use was significantly
higher than perceived usefulness to accept the technology at an
early adoption stage.
• Trust and perceived behavioural control (PBC) also play an
essential role in the use of technology. However, PBC loses its
importance after the consumer has adopted the technology.

(Anaza, 2014; De Haan et al., 2018; Pappas et al., 2017). A target
respondent was either asked online or directly for the survey with a
given set of questionnaires. Some researchers have noted that it is
less complicated to administer questionnaire surveys than to carry out
experiments in laboratory setups (Greenberg & Tomlinson, 2004;
Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019).
Besides survey, an experimental method (28%) was the second
most preferred method for data collection. This method was widely
used to understand the shopper's response to a given context. The
researchers conducted a controlled experiment with a given subject
design. An experimental study helps the researcher to build a situation
conducive to their research, but it has its limitations. Researchers have
criticized this methodology over the years; according to them, an
experimental study is criticized for its ‘artificiality’ and also for the
control they exercise over extraneous variables (Babbie, 2014;
Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019).
A mixed-method was also used for some studies (6%) where both
qualitative (descriptive) and quantitative (number-based) research
were used. A limited number of studies have used mixed methods for
their studies (Driediger & Bhatiasevi, 2019; Fernandes et al., 2021;
Forsythe et al., 2006; Ganesh et al., 2010; Hand et al., 2009;
Kvalsvik, 2022; C. J. Lo et al., 2019; Rodrigues et al., 2021; Ruan &
Mezei, 2022; Singh & Söderlund, 2020; Sohn et al., 2017). More such
studies should be conducted as mixed-method that will help to iden-
tify different variables that affect consumer behaviour; this can be
done via qualitative study. We can observe that many studies do not
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU 19

F I G U R E 2 Summary of
research on online consumer Theory Characteristics
behaviour No theory (53%) DV: Purchase intention
and actual purchase
Other theories
(24%) Mediator: Satisfaction
and attitude
More than one
theory (12%) Moderator: Involvement
TAM (4%) Internal factors: 36% of
the study
S-O-R (3%)
External factors: 57% of
the study

Consumer
behaviour

Context Methodology
United States (29%) Experimental study
28%
Europe (19%)
Survey method
User behaviour 50%
(47%)
Confirmatory factor
Technology analysis 21%
intervention (39%)
SEM 19%

use qualitative studies, which could be very useful to understand con-
sumer psychology. Qualitative research will give a more accurate idea
regarding online consumer shopping behaviour compared to a labora-
tory experiment or a structured questionnaire. For some quantitative
methods, data were collected from a large pool of data sets in a sec-
ondary database. Other studies include conceptual papers, review
papers, scale development research, and so forth.
In the decade from 2000 to 2010, researchers mostly used tradi-
tional methodology for their research articles. 62% of the articles dur-
ing this period conducted surveys to collect their data and fewer
experimental studies (23%) and other methods were used. The trend
was similar in the decade from 2011 to 2021, researchers again pre-
ferred more of a survey method (48%) followed by experimental study
at 30%. Mixed methods and qualitative studies were mostly used in
this decade.
For data analysis, researchers have used ANOVA for their analysis
of one dependent variable (refer to Table 11). Whereas for research
involving more than 2 variables, multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was also used by some researchers. SEM and CFA were
used by the majority of the researchers in these articles and it was quite
popular across both decades. Apart from SEM, researchers have also
used Linear Structural Equation Modelling (Hansen & Jensen, 2009) and
Latent Variable Structural Equation Modelling (LVSEM) (Kukar-Kinney &
Close, 2010). CFA and SEM have been used across the decades; it was
quite popular with the researchers for their data analysis technique.
Researchers have also used multiple data analysis techniques for their
data analysis such as t-test and SEM, ANOVA and MANOVA, and
regression and t-test. We see that factor analysis was only popular in
the last decade. For qualitative data analysis, researchers have used
content analysis (Kvalsvik, 2022; Pantano et al., 2021; Trevinal &
Stenger, 2014; Van Droogenbroeck & Van Hove, 2020). Linguistic
Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) (Singh & Söderlund, 2020) and configu-
rational analysis (Pappas, 2018). Hence, we suggest some other qualita-
tive tools for data analysis such as coding and text interpretation.
4.5 | Consolidated findings
The study of online consumer behaviour results in a wide variety of
findings. First, we see that there is a huge evolution in online con-
sumer behaviour literature since 2000. If we compare the two
decades of publication considered for this research, we see that only
23% of studies were conducted from 2000 to 2010. Eventually, this
went up to 77% from 2011 to 2021. This clearly shows that in recent
years the urge to understand online consumer behaviour has
increased among researchers. Researchers have also shifted their
focus of research to developing nations to understand consumer psy-
chology as internet penetration and smartphone availability are much
higher compared to the earlier decade. In the studies conducted from
2000 to 2010, the researchers' primary focus was to understand

20
customer satisfaction as well as trust and motivation, but eventually,
this dimension broadened, covering the business aspects of online-
shopping. Researchers tried to understand the revenue model of
online-shopping platforms, price factors, product assortment on web-
sites, and so forth.
Second, we have classified a few findings into three main themes,
namely hedonic versus utilitarian, cross-category, and cross-culture
(refer to Table 12). Apart from these findings, trust plays a vital factor
while shopping online (Yoon, 2002). Trust in the website plays an
essential role in purchase intention (Bandara et al., 2020; Bashir
et al., 2018; Darley, 2010; Das et al., 2003; Faqih, 2016; Furner &
Zinko, 2017; Gulfraz et al., 2022; Hossain et al., 2021; Martin
et al., 2011; Oghazi et al., 2018; Pappas, 2018; Ramkumar &
Jin, 2019; Rasty et al., 2021; Schlosser et al., 2006; Yoon, 2002).
Online consumer behaviour differs based on gender (Dai et al., 2019;
Hansen & Jensen, 2009; Hou & Elliott, 2021; Mann & Liu-
Thompkins, 2019; San Martín & Jiménez, 2011). Women perceived
difficulty choosing items as significant compared to men (Hansen &
Jensen, 2009). In contrast, online-shopping was considered less fun
for men (Hansen & Jensen, 2009). Women showed a more positive
attitude towards offline shopping than online-shopping; compara-
tively, men had no change in attitude towards online and offline shop-
ping (Dai et al., 2019). Imagination tactics while making an online
purchase have a positive or no impact on women consumers, while
generic imagination lowers purchase intention for men (Mann & Liu-
Thompkins, 2019). The virtual try-on technology was equally accepted
by both genders in apparel shopping (J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008),
whereas a study by Brown et al. (2003) states that gender has a negli-
gible impact on purchase intention (Figure 2).
5 | FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
The present study summarizes the discussion and the progress in the
literature on online consumer behaviour in the past two decades. Due
to continuous growth in technology in the retail environment, the
scope of online-shopping has increased from laptop/desktop to
mobile/tablet. Likewise, there is a continuous evolution in the last two
decades in the theories used by the researchers, the context in which
they are studied, the characteristics which they use for the study, and
the methodology of the study. The first two objectives of this study
have been discussed in the earlier sections. Here we fulfil our third
objective where we discuss the future directions for the researchers.
This section provides future research direction in online-shopping
again using the TCCM framework (Y. Chen et al., 2021; Paul &
Feliciano-Cestero, 2021; Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019), followed by
potential research topics and guiding questions. These potential
research topics are based on the gaps found in the literature review
and hence this can be addressed by future researchers. The guiding
questions related to the potential research topics are based on the
lack of studies on online-shopping behaviour. These are the sugges-
tive questions that can be addressed by the researchers in their future
studies (Figure 3).
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU
5.1 | Theory
It is evident from the discussion in the earlier section that
researchers have used diverse theories to study online-shopping.
However, most of the researchers (53% of the studies) have not
used any theories to establish their studies. Future researchers
should try and adopt theory-driven studies to establish themselves.
Since it was seen that most of the research articles have not used
any theory or focused on single-use theory to explain online-
shopping behaviour. Hence, we recommend a combination of theo-
ries to cover both the aspects of online consumer behaviour, that is,
technology acceptance/switching behaviour and consumer behav-
iour. Some of the noted various theories of technology acceptance
and consumer behaviour that can be combined and used for further
studies are the TRA, Theory of Innovation Adoption, ELM, TAM,
Theory of Perceived Behaviour (TPB), S-O-R Model—Stimulus–
Organism–Response Theory, Information Processing Theory, Adap-
tation Level Theory, and others (refer to Table 13). The theory gen-
erally applied for media studies like Uses and Gratification Theory
by Eighmey and McCord (1998) might help in strengthening the
knowledge of how and why the consumer uses the internet for
product details and online-shopping.
The given theories cover aspects of technology acceptance and
consumer behaviour that can effectively explain consumer online-
shopping behaviour. These theories can be used in combination or
independently of each other. In the theory section (refer to
Section 4.1) it was observed that the majority of the studies do not
report any theories while studying online consumer shopping behav-
iour, therefore these theories can potentially fill the gap and lend a
robust foundation for future research in the domain.
5.2 | Context
The findings showed studies on online consumers are mainly focused
on website shopping (refer to Appendix B). Hence, for further studies,
the concept of online-shopping should be expanded, and mobile shop-
ping should also be incorporated. Furthermore, since mobile phone
usage is rapidly increasing, some companies specifically tailor their
website for mobile shoppers.
Further research could focus on studies in under-developed
nations since most of the studies were conducted in the U.S. and
European countries (refer to Table 5). It will be interesting to see how
consumer behaviour changes in under-developed nations or what we
can learn from cross-cultural studies between developed and under-
developed nations.
Also, the context of the study needs to be widened, as most of
the studies are in grocery (Brand et al., 2020; Campo &
Breugelmans, 2015; Chu et al., 2010; Driediger & Bhatiasevi, 2019;
Hallikainen et al., 2022; Hand et al., 2009; Hansen, 2008; Heng
et al., 2018; Huyghe et al., 2017; Ilyuk, 2018; Kvalsvik, 2022; Sheehan
et al., 2019; Singh & Söderlund, 2020; Van Droogenbroeck & Van
Hove, 2020; Van Ewijk et al., 2020), and apparel (Aghekyan-Simonian
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU 21

F I G U R E 3 Summary of future
research agenda

TABLE 13 Potential research topics and guiding questions (theory)

Research gaps Potential theoretical foundation Guiding research questions

Gap 1: 59% of the Theory of Innovation Adoption • Understanding rural consumers' online-shopping attitude (Zheng
studies were data & Ma, 2021)
driven and did • How does online-shopping differ from consumers of different
not consider any nations? (Rosillo-Díaz et al., 2019)
theory Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) • How do online reviews influence consumer purchases of luxury
Gap 2: Majority of products? (Shin & Darpy, 2020)
the dual theories • The role of social media as a local food destination (Gon, 2021)
articles were
conducted in last Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) • How does website change the way consumers shop? (Impulse
decade as buying behaviour versus habitual decision making) (Klein &
compared to a Sharma, 2022)
single dual • The role of culture to shift from online purchases to mobile
theory study in apps? (Al-Adwan et al., 2019)
the previous Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R) theory • How does the online store atmosphere impact consumer
decade behaviour? (Basu et al., 2022)
• What are the key elements of online store atmospherics that
impact consumer purchase intention? (Roberts & Grassi, 2021)
Information Processing Theory • Behavioural and psychological effect on advertisement in online
games (S. Mishra & Malhotra, 2021)
• Which platform is more effective for advertisement (TV vs.
website) (Jeong & King, 2010)
Adaptation Level Theory • Study the role of perceived risk and benefits derived from
online-shopping behaviour (Jain, 2021)
• Examine impact of electronic word of mouth (E-WOM) on
online shopper's loyalty (Al-Adwan et al., 2020)

et al., 2012; Beuckels & Hudders, 2016; Dominici et al., 2021; Y. Ha &
Lennon, 2010; Hansen & Jensen, 2009; Jacobs & De Klerk, 2010; Jai
et al., 2021; Jebarajakirthy et al., 2021; Jones & Kim, 2010; Kawaf &
Istanbulluoglu, 2019; J. Kim et al., 2007; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2008; J.
Kim & Forsythe, 2009; E. Y. Kim & Kim, 2004; M. Kim & Lennon, 2008;
S. Kim & Martinez, 2013; Ladhari et al., 2019; H. H. Lee et al., 2011;
Lennon et al., 2007; Rausch et al., 2021; Aghekyan-Simonian et al.,
2012; Yoh et al., 2003), which involve low costs. Therefore, it will be
interesting to see the impact of online-shopping on luxury products.
Future research may benefit from focusing on the context of the

22
TABLE 14 Potential research topics and guiding questions (context)
Potential research
Research gaps settings
Gap 1: 36% of the studies conducted in M-shopping
developed countries like the United States
14% in European countries. Developing
and under-developed countries were not
considered for understanding online-
shopping behaviour Developing and
Gap 2: Few studies covered adoption across under-developed
cultures, gender differences, attitudes, nations
impact interface, and consumption of
luxury goods or second-hand apparel
shopping
Gap 3: Majority of studies considered online Category of products
as website shopping and not shopping
using mobile devices
Gap 4: 46% of research focused on user
behaviour and very less on perceived
benefits and risk as a context Service category
Rural consumer
Post-purchase
behaviour
increasing use of online experiential luxury or luxury services
(Beuckels & Hudders, 2016; M. Chung et al., 2020; Fazeli et al., 2020).
The discussion in the context section (refer to Section 4.2)
shows that another area for future study can be in the context of
online-shopping for second-hand products since second-hand web-
sites and apps are extremely popular in western and Asian countries
(Abbes et al., 2020; C. J. Lo et al., 2019; Padmavathy et al., 2019).
Therefore, it will be interesting to find how cultural factors may
influence marked variances in self-consciousness and the extent to
which derived benefits influence perceived norms and recommen-
dation behaviour.
Studies on online consumer behaviour are limited only to product
categories (Y. Ha & Lennon, 2010; Huyghe et al., 2017; Jai
et al., 2021; J. Kim & Forsythe, 2009; Rodrigues et al., 2021; Singh &
Söderlund, 2020; Van Ewijk et al., 2020). There is a shortage of stud-
ies on online-shopping for services (K. K. Kim et al., 2019; M. Y. Lee
et al., 2013; C. J. Lo et al., 2019). Future studies can cover how con-
sumers choose a particular service in an online context and study the
critical elements while choosing these online services (refer to
Table 14). These online services can include enrolling in online educa-
tion, receiving online consultations, and so forth. Another area where
online consumer behaviour needs to be studied is the adoption of
online-shopping by rural consumers because of the limited access to
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU
Guiding research questions
• Understanding the personality traits between purchase intention
towards utilitarian products and purchase intention towards hedonic
products in m-shopping (Lissitsa & Kol, 2021)
• A comparative study regarding m-retailing service quality and
customer loyalty (R. Zhang et al., 2021)
• How consumers across countries engage with brands differently or
do they experience brands in unique ways? (Khan et al., 2020)
• Impact of M-shopping service quality dimensions and their effects
on customer trust and loyalty shopping in developing nations and
developed nations (R. Zhang et al., 2021)
• Examine different categories of luxury products/luxury products of
different price levels/luxury products for different uses (Yu
et al., 2018)
• How does purchase of second-hand goods differ across countries?
(Padmavathy et al., 2019)
• What are the critical factors that influence consumers before
choosing an online service? (Ramkumar & Woo, 2018)
• A comparison of servicescape perception between online and real
shopping to investigate the differences between elements of
servicescape in a real atmosphere and a web-based environment
(Tankovic & Benazic, 2018)
• The factors between a rural consumer and an urban consumer are
similar when choosing an online product? (Y. Xu & Paulins, 2005)
• Examine the impact of online advertisement on rural consumers?
(Parayitam et al., 2020)
• Examining the loyalty and revisit intention for online consumer
behaviour (Huifeng & Ha, 2021; Suhartanto et al., 2019)
• Examining the approach/avoidance behaviour for online consumer
behaviour (K. X. Ma et al., 2021)
resources. Since most of the studies have used urban consumers for
their studies.
5.3 | Characteristics
Since most of the studies have used the technology acceptance
model, and S-O-R theories, hence their constructs are also used
repeatedly. However, in future studies, authors need to look for new
constructs or moderators to understand online-shopping behaviour.
Like trust in the website, issues with payment, online service quality,
and online store atmosphere to evaluate online consumer behaviour
(refer to Table 15). In addition, online retailers must focus on service
quality issues, especially regarding delivery, and consider enhancing
the online-shopping experience to make it more rewarding, simulating,
and less complicated. Therefore, construct like ‘delivery’ can be an
important factor when choosing an online service. A future research
study can also analyse the impact of imagination in boosting product
assessment and consumer experience within visualization technology
and compare the collective versus self in the online-shopping experi-
ence. Therefore, the role of online ‘store atmospheric’ will be vital for
the e-retailers to influence the consumers visually. In addition, it
would be interesting to see the moderating role of gender on others
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU 23

TABLE 15 Potential research topics and guiding questions (characteristics)

Research gaps
Gap 1: Independent variables like attitude, perceived
ease of use, and perceived usefulness were repeatedly
used by the researchers. Variables such as trust in the
website, issues with the payment method, online
service quality, and online store atmosphere were
missing
Gap 2: Majority considered purchase intention or
purchase behaviour as dependent variables. Post-
purchase behaviour has been largely ignored
Gap 3: The mediating and moderating variables focus
more on consumer behaviour constructs and less on
technology-based constructs like innovation or
comparison between the website and mobile app
variables
Potential constructs
and relationships
Trust on website
Risk/issue with
payment
Online service quality
Store atmospherics
Delivery
Guiding research questions
• Exploring the role of culture on website trust
(Harrigan et al., 2021)
• What are the marketing strategies to build a trust for
different products? (Ku, 2012)
• Exploring role of trust in online food delivery service
(Suhartanto et al., 2019)
• Evaluate personal privacy, convenience, and vendor
reputation that affect consumers' perceived risks (Ho
& Awan, 2019).
• Measuring the online service impact towards
satisfaction and loyalty (Suhartanto et al., 2019)
• Evaluate whether outcomes differ among age groups
that are unfamiliar with online chatbot service (M.
Chung et al., 2020)
• What vital elements of store atmospherics influences
online consumer behaviour? (Basu et al., 2022)
• Examining the role of store atmospherics while
making a hedonic or utilitarian purchase decision
(Laroche et al., 2022)
• Exploring the delivery option between restaurant to
customer and third party (Francioni et al., 2022)
• Analyse the consumer choice of delivery across
various demographic factors (Saad, 2020)

TABLE 16 Potential research topics and guiding questions (methodology)

Research gaps Potential methodology Guiding research questions

Gap 1: 36% studies used
experimental and 35% were
survey-based research, thus
qualitative study or mixed
approach have not been
used much
Gap 2: For data analysis
researchers have used CFA,
SEM and ANOVA, other
analysis tools are missing
Qualitative study • Future researchers should adopt more qualitative studies to find out the
new dimensions of online consumer behaviour
• Researchers should try and understand consumers' behaviour through their
understanding and not by a structured questionnaire
Mixed approach • A mixed approach will help future researchers to build a holistic study
where the qualitative study will provide new dimensions to the literature
and those dimensions can be further evaluated by a quantitative study
Meta-analysis • Call for an updated meta-analysis on another aspect of online-shopping,
that is, mobile shopping
• Additional topics for meta-analysis include meta-analysis on consumer
behaviour from the organizational point of view, or meta-analysis on
consumer shift from one platform to another (offline, online and m-
commerce)

versus self-referencing. Additionally, in online consumer behaviour, the
impact of perceived characteristics of innovation (rationality, venture-
some, dogmatism, innovativeness, empathy, and ability to deal with
abstractions) can also be studied in future research. Moreover, the differ-
ence in individual attributes according to adopting categories (innovators,
early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards) can be a vital
study in online consumer behaviour. Finally, age and geographic location
can be studied as moderating effects on online-shopping adoption.
In online consumer shopping behaviour, the characteristics of online
buying were limited to evaluating sites viewed on computer monitors
only. Hence the outcome of the study could differ if mobile phone factors
are used because of the minimal screen space (S. Chung et al., 2018).
These include perceived ease of use (W. O. Lee & Wong, 2016; Tarhini
et al., 2016), perceived convenience (Handarkho & Harjoseputro, 2019),
and deal proneness (Handarkho & Harjoseputro, 2019; Valentini
et al., 2020) which may impact the consumer to switch from the website
to a mobile app. They provide a lot more information regarding the prod-
uct and an impactful visual effect.
5.4 | Methodology
The literature shows the maximum use of surveys (50%) and
experimental studies (28%) as compared to other methods.
 24

TABLE 17 Important literature in online consumer behaviour and its constructs based on TCCM

Characteristics Methodology

Author Citation Theory Context DV's IV's Moderator Mediator Analysis type Analysis tools
Childers et al. 4385 TAM User behaviour Attitude Navigation None Ease of use Experimental Structural
(2001) Convenience Usefulness study regression
Sub-experience enjoyment modelling
Häubl and Trifts 2450 None Technology Amount of Recommendation None None Experimental Generalized
(2000) intervention information search, agent study estimating
consideration sets, equations (GEE)
and decision
quality
Yoon (2002) 1690 None User behaviour Purchase intention Transaction security, Website trust and Website trust, Survey ANOVA
website awareness satisfaction awareness and method
and website satisfaction
satisfaction
Eroglu et al. (2003) 1538 S-O-R theory Technology Approach avoidance High and low task- Involvement and Affect and cognition Experimental CFA
intervention behaviour relevant cues atmospheric study
responsiveness
Schlosser et al. 1227 None Technology Purchase intention Website investment Perceived risk and Ability, benevolence Experimental ANOVA
(2006) intervention and strong privacy/ search/browse and integrity study
security statement
Jiménez and 429 None User behaviour Purchase intention Detailed review and None None Experimental ANOVA
Mendoza (2013) credibility of the study
review
Y. J. Wang et al. 388 Appraisal theory User behaviour Purchase, Aesthetic formality Purchase task Satisfaction, arousal Experimental CFA and SEM
(2011) and perceptual consultation, and aesthetic and online service study
control theory search on other appeal quality
websites and revisit
Ashraf et al. (2014) 340 TAM User behaviour Intention to shop Trust, perceived Perceived Perceived ease of use Survey PLS-SEM
online usefulness and behavioural control and attitude method
perceived and perceived ease
behavioural control of use
Hult et al. (2019) 216 None User behaviour Customer complaints Overall quality and Purchase context Customer satisfaction Survey PLS-SEM
and customer customer (online vs. offline) and perceived method
loyalty expectations value
Badrinarayanan 180 Schema theory User behaviour Purchase intention Attitude and trust None None Survey ANCOVA
et al. (2012) and theory of
reasoned action
SINGH AND BASU

14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

SINGH AND BASU
F I G U R E 4 Proposed model
based on the findings
Therefore, authors should consider other approaches like qualitative
study or mixed-method to provide a new dimension for future
research. The mixed-method would be more beneficial in this type of
study because instead of going by the established scale, the
researcher should find out the factors that affect consumer online
behaviour. This can be done via qualitative study and later those fac-
tors can be analysed through a quantitative study (survey method)
(refer to Table 16). This will give a holistic overview of the real factors
that impact consumer shopping behaviour. In addition, a longitudinal
study can be carried out to evaluate how consumers' understanding of
crucial online-shopping elements changes with time and forecast the
essential elements for consumer purchase intention in different shop-
ping contexts. For analysis tools, it was observed that most of the stud-
ies have used ANOVA, CFA and SEM (refer to Table 11). Therefore,
future researchers can use different analysis tools like content analysis,
coding, or text interpretation based on the type of study.
The given table expands the dimension for future research stud-
ies. Researchers can use either of the given approaches which are yet
to be explored for understanding online-shopping behaviour. Along
with the approach, there are a few guiding questions that can be
addressed by them.
The table below shows the important literature published across
two decades. Since it was not possible to accommodate all 197 papers
due to the page limit, we have selected articles based on the citation
they have received. Since earlier articles have received more citations
than the articles published in the last decade, to keep the result free
from bias we have considered five pieces of literature each from both
decades. We have shown the findings of these review papers based
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
25
on TCCM components (refer to Table 17). We see that the findings
shown in the important literature are a reflection of our overall find-
ings. Here also we see the use of TAM and S-O-R theories, whereas
experimental and survey methods were only used in these works of
literature. Therefore, based on these findings from the literature
review and the gaps, we have proposed a conceptual model for future
research studies, where researchers can refer to the context and a
few constructs for their future studies on online consumer behaviour.
We have proposed a model for future research direction (refer to
Figure 4).
6 | CONC LU SION
This study provides a systematic review and synthesis of online con-
sumer shopping behaviour between 2000 and 2021, showing the
development of various online-shopping areas over these years. The
body of research on online consumer shopping behaviour provides a
fragmented and inconsistent view of consumer buying behaviour. The
systematic literature review showed that existing literature has signifi-
cantly added to our understanding of online retailing behaviour in the
online atmosphere. Additionally, we highlighted the ongoing patterns,
uncovered several gaps, and offered a well-grounded foundation for
future research studies. We have especially recognized gaps that
future research studies need to address pertaining to online-shopping
theory, concept, characteristics, and methodology. Our study
advances the understanding of online retailing behaviour in an online-
shopping setup and offers significant implications for academicians

26
and retail practitioners. Our study will invite scholars to this growing
and appealing domain of online retail behaviour research and motivate
future studies that will uncover new dimensions with novel
approaches in unique contexts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
None.
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST
None.
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were gener-
ated or analysed during the current study.
ORCID
Kandarp Singh https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5251-5477
Rituparna Basu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9954-4216
RE FE R ENC E S
Abbes, I., Hallem, Y., & Taga, N. (2020). Second-hand shopping and brand
loyalty: The role of online collaborative redistribution platforms. Jour-
nal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101885.
Agag, G., & El-Masry, A. A. (2016). Understanding consumer intention to
participate in online travel community and effects on consumer inten-
tion to purchase travel online and WOM: An integration of innovation
diffusion theory and TAM with trust. Computers in Human Behaviour,
60, 97–111.
Aghekyan-Simonian, M., Forsythe, S., Kwon, W. S., & Chattaraman, V.
(2012). The role of product brand image and online store image on
perceived risks and online purchase intentions for apparel. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(3), 325–331.
Akram, U., Junaid, M., Zafar, A. U., Li, Z., & Fan, M. (2021). Online purchase
intention in Chinese social commerce platforms: Being emotional or
rational? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, 102669.
Al-Adwan, A. S., Alrousan, M., Al-Soud, A., & Al-Yaseen, H. (2019). Reveal-
ing the black box of shifting from electronic commerce to mobile com-
merce: The case of Jordan. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic
Commerce Research, 14(1), 51–67.
Al-Adwan, A. S., Kokash, H., Adwan, A. A., Alhorani, A., & Yaseen, H.
(2020). Building customer loyalty in online shopping: The role of online
trust, online satisfaction and electronic word of mouth. International
Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, 11(3), 278–306.
Albert, L. J., Aggarwal, N., & Hill, T. R. (2014). Influencing customer's pur-
chase intentions through firm participation in online consumer com-
munities. Electronic Markets, 24(4), 285–295.
Aldás-Manzano, J., Ruiz-Mafe, C., & Sanz-Blas, S. (2009). Exploring individ-
ual personality factors as drivers of M-shopping acceptance. Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 109(6), 739–757.
Anaza, N. A. (2014). Personality antecedents of customer citizenship
behaviours in online shopping situations. Psychology & Marketing,
31(4), 251–263.
Ashraf, A. R., Thongpapanl, N., & Auh, S. (2014). The application of the
technology acceptance model under different cultural contexts: The
case of online shopping adoption. Journal of International Marketing,
22(3), 68–93.
Ashraf, A. R., & Thongpapanl, N. T. (2015). Connecting with and converting
shoppers into customers: Investigating the role of regulatory fit in the
online customer's decision-making process. Journal of Interactive Mar-
keting, 32, 13–25.
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU
Babbie, E. (2014). The practice of social research (14th ed.). Cengage
Learning.
Badrinarayanan, V., Becerra, E. P., Kim, C. H., & Madhavaram, S. (2012).
Transference and congruence effects on purchase intentions in online
stores of multi-channel retailers: Initial evidence from the US and
South Korea. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(4),
539–557.
Bandara, R., Fernando, M., & Akter, S. (2020). Explicating the privacy para-
dox: A qualitative inquiry of online shopping consumers. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101947.
Barari, M., Ross, M., & Surachartkumtonkun, J. (2020). Negative and posi-
tive customer shopping experience in an online context. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101985.
Bashir, S., Anwar, S., Awan, Z., Qureshi, T. W., & Memon, A. B. (2018). A
holistic understanding of the prospects of financial loss to enhance
shopper's trust to search, recommend, speak positive and frequently
visit an online shop. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 42,
169–174.
Basu, R., Paul, J., & Singh, K. (2022). Visual merchandising and store atmo-
spherics: An integrated review and future research directions. Journal
of Business Research, 151, 397–408.
Becker, I. F., Linzmajer, M., & von Wangenheim, F. (2017). Cross-industrial
user channel preferences on the path to online purchase: Homoge-
neous, heterogeneous, or mixed? Journal of Advertising, 46(2),
248–268.
Beckers, J., Cárdenas, I., & Verhetsel, A. (2018). Identifying the geography
of online shopping adoption in Belgium. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 45, 33–41.
Beuckels, E., & Hudders, L. (2016). An experimental study to investigate
the impact of image interactivity on the perception of luxury in an
online shopping context. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33,
135–142.
Bezirgani, A., & Lachapelle, U. (2021). Qualitative study on factors
influencing aging population's online grocery shopping and mode
choice when grocery shopping in person. Transportation Research
Record, 2675(1), 79–92.
Bhargave, R., Mantonakis, A., & White, K. (2016). The cue-of-the-cloud
effect: When reminders of online information availability increase pur-
chase intentions and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5),
699–711.
Bhatnagar, A., & Papatla, P. (2016). Increasing online sales by facilitating
spillover shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29,
58–69.
Billore, S., & Anisimova, T. (2021). Panic buying research: A systematic lit-
erature review and future research agenda. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 45(4), 777–804.
Biswas, D., & Biswas, A. (2004). The diagnostic role of signals in the con-
text of perceived risks in online shopping: Do signals matter more on
the web? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 30–45.
Booker, E. (1995). MCI opens doors to king of cybermall. Computerworld,
29(15), 28.
Brand, C., Schwanen, T., & Anable, J. (2020). ‘Online omnivores’ or ‘willing
but struggling’? Identifying online grocery shopping behavior seg-
ments using attitude theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
57, 102195.
Brown, M., Pope, N., & Voges, K. (2003). Buying or browsing? An explora-
tion of shopping orientations and online purchase intention. European
Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 1666–1684.
Calantone, R. J., Griffith, D. A., & Yalcinkaya, G. (2018). An empirical exam-
ination of a technology adoption model for the context of China. Jour-
nal of International Marketing, 14(4), 1–27.
Campo, K., & Breugelmans, E. (2015). Buying groceries in brick and click
stores: Category allocation decisions and the moderating effect of
online buying experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 31,
63–78.

SINGH AND BASU
Canabal, A., & White, G. O., III. (2008). Entry mode research: Past and
future. International Business Review, 17(3), 267–284.
Cao, Y., & Gruca, T. S. (2004). The influence of pre-and post-purchase ser-
vice on prices in the online book market. Journal of Interactive Market-
ing, 18(4), 51–62.
Cavalinhos, S., Marques, S. H., & de Fátima Salgueiro, M. (2021). The use
of mobile devices in-store and the effect on shopping experience: A
systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 45(6), 1198–1216.
Chang, C. (2011). The effect of the number of product subcategories on
perceived variety and shopping experience in an online store. Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 25(3), 159–168.
Chang, M. L., & Wu, W. Y. (2012). Revisiting perceived risk in the context
of online shopping: An alternative perspective of decision-making
styles. Psychology & Marketing, 29(5), 378–400.
Cheeseborough, H., & Teece, D. (1996). When is virtual virtuous? Harvard
Business.
Chen, Y., Mandler, T., & Meyer-Waarden, L. (2021). Three decades of
research on loyalty programs: A literature review and future research
agenda. Journal of Business Research, 124, 179–197.
Chen, Y. M., Hsu, T. H., & Lu, Y. J. (2018). Impact of flow on mobile shop-
ping intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 281–287.
Chiang, K. P., & Dholakia, R. R. (2003). Factors driving consumer intention
to shop online: An empirical investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, 13(1–2), 177–183.
Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utili-
tarian motivations for online retail shopping behaviour. Journal of
Retailing, 77(4), 511–535.
Chu, J., Arce-Urriza, M., Cebollada-Calvo, J. J., & Chintagunta, P. K. (2010).
An empirical analysis of shopping behaviour across online and offline
channels for grocery products: The moderating effects of household
and product characteristics. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24(4),
251–268.
Chung, M., Ko, E., Joung, H., & Kim, S. J. (2020). Chatbot e-service and
customer satisfaction regarding luxury brands. Journal of Business
Research, 117, 587–595.
Chung, S., Kramer, T., & Wong, E. M. (2018). Do touch interface users feel
more engaged? The impact of input device type on online shoppers'
engagement, affect, and purchase decisions. Psychology & Marketing,
35(11), 795–806.
Clemes, M. D., Gan, C., & Zhang, J. (2014). An empirical analysis of online
shopping adoption in Beijing, China. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 21(3), 364–375.
Dabbous, A., & Barakat, K. A. (2020). Bridging the online offline gap:
Assessing the impact of brands' social network content quality on
brand awareness and purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 53, 101966.
Dabić, M., Vlačić, B., Paul, J., Dana, L. P., Sahasranamam, S., & Glinka, B.
(2020). Immigrant entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda.
Journal of Business Research, 113, 25–38.
Dai, W., Arnulf, J. K., Iao, L., Wan, P., & Dai, H. (2019). Like or want? Gen-
der differences in attitudes toward online shopping in China. Psychol-
ogy & Marketing, 36(4), 354–362.
Darley, W. K. (2010). Guest editorial: The interaction of online technology
on the consumer shopping experience. Psychology & Marketing, 27,
91–93.
Das, S., Echambadi, R., McCardle, M., & Luckett, M. (2003). The effect of
interpersonal trust, need for cognition, and social loneliness on shop-
ping, information seeking and surfing on the web. Marketing Letters,
14(3), 185–202.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
27
Davis, R., Smith, S. D., & Lang, B. U. (2017). A comparison of online and
offline gender and goal directed shopping online. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 38, 118–125.
De Canio, F., & Fuentes-Blasco, M. (2021). I need to touch it to buy it!
How haptic information influences consumer shopping behaviour
across channels. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61,
102569.
De Haan, E., Kannan, P. K., Verhoef, P. C., & Wiesel, T. (2018). Device
switching in online purchasing: Examining the strategic contingencies.
Journal of Marketing, 82(5), 1–19.
De Haan, E., Wiesel, T., & Pauwels, K. (2016). The effectiveness of
different forms of online advertising for purchase conversion in a
multiple-channel attribution framework. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 33(3), 491–507.
De Keyser, A., & Kunz, W. H. (2022). Living and working with service
robots: A TCCM analysis and considerations for future research. Jour-
nal of Service Management, 33(2), 165-196.
De los Santos, B. (2018). Consumer search on the internet. International
Journal of Industrial Organization, 58, 66–105.
De Magalhães, D. J. A. V. (2021). Analysis of critical factors affecting the
final decision-making for online grocery shopping. Research in Trans-
portation Economics, 87, 101088.
Demangeot, C., & Broderick, A. J. (2010). Consumer perceptions of online
shopping environments: A gestalt approach. Psychology & Marketing,
27(2), 117–140.
Díaz, A., Go
mez, M., & Molina, A. (2017). A comparison of online and off-
line consumer behaviour: An empirical study on a cinema shopping
context. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 44–50.
Dominici, A., Boncinelli, F., Gerini, F., & Marone, E. (2021). Determinants
of online food purchasing: The impact of socio-demographic and situa-
tional factors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102473.
Drechsler, W., & Natter, M. (2011). Do price charts provided by online
shopbots influence price expectations and purchase timing decisions?
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 95–109.
Driediger, F., & Bhatiasevi, V. (2019). Online grocery shopping in Thailand:
Consumer acceptance and usage behaviour. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 48, 224–237.
Duarte, P., e Silva, S. C., & Ferreira, M. B. (2018). How convenient is it?
Delivering online shopping convenience to enhance customer satisfac-
tion and encourage e-WOM. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
44, 161–169.
Duarte, P., & e Silva, S. C. (2020). Need-for-touch and online purchase pro-
pensity: A comparative study of Portuguese and Chinese consumers.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102122.
Eighmey, J., & McCord, L. (1998). Adding value in the information age:
Uses and gratifications of sites on the world wide web. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 41(3), 187–194.
Ek Styvén, M., Foster, T., & Wallström, Å. (2017). Impulse buying tenden-
cies among online shoppers in Sweden. Journal of Research in Interac-
tive Marketing, 11(4), 416–431.
Erjavec, J., & Manfreda, A. (2022). Online shopping adoption during
COVID-19 and social isolation: Extending the UTAUT model with herd
behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 65, 102867.
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2001). Atmospheric qualities
of online retailing: A conceptual model and implications. Journal of
Business Research, 54(2), 177–184.
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Chebat, J. C. (2005). The interaction of
retail density and music tempo: Effects on shopper responses. Psychol-
ogy & Marketing, 22(7), 577–589.
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2003). Empirical testing of a
model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychol-
ogy & Marketing, 20(2), 139–150.
Esmeli, R., Bader-El-Den, M., & Abdullahi, H. (2021). Towards early pur-
chase intention prediction in online session based retailing systems.
Electronic Markets, 31(3), 697–715.

28
Faqih, K. M. (2016). An empirical analysis of factors predicting the behav-
ioral intention to adopt internet shopping technology among
non-shoppers in a developing country context: Does gender matter?
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 140–164.
Fazeli, Z., Shukla, P., & Perks, K. (2020). Digital buying behaviour: The role
of regulatory fit and self-construal in online luxury goods purchase
intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 37(1), 15–26.
Fernandes, S., Venkatesh, V. G., Panda, R., & Shi, Y. (2021). Measurement
of factors influencing online shopper buying decisions: A scale devel-
opment and validation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59,
102394.
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.
Francioni, B., Curina, I., Hegner, S. M., & Cioppi, M. (2022). Predictors of
continuance intention of online food delivery services: Gender as
moderator. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
50(12), 1437–1457.
Fu, H., Manogaran, G., Wu, K., Cao, M., Jiang, S., & Yang, A. (2020). Intelli-
gent decision-making of online shopping behaviour based on internet
of things. International Journal of Information Management, 50,
515–525.
Fulgoni, G. M., & Lipsman, A. (2016). The future of retail is mobile: How
mobile marketing dynamics are shaping the future of retail. Journal of
Advertising Research, 56(4), 346–351.
Furner, C. P., & Zinko, R. A. (2017). The influence of information overload
on the development of trust and purchase intention based on online
product reviews in a mobile vs. web environment: An empirical investi-
gation. Electronic Markets, 27(3), 211–224.
Ganesh, J., Reynolds, K. E., Luckett, M., & Pomirleanu, N. (2010). Online
shopper motivations, and e-store attributes: An examination of online
patronage behaviour and shopper typologies. Journal of Retailing,
86(1), 106–115.
Gohary, A., Hamzelu, B., & Alizadeh, H. (2016). Please explain why it hap-
pened! How perceived justice and customer involvement affect post
co-recovery evaluations: A study of Iranian online shoppers. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 127–142.
Gon, M. (2021). Local experiences on Instagram: Social media data as
source of evidence for experience design. Journal of Destination Mar-
keting & Management, 19, 100435.
González-Benito, Ó., Martos-Partal, M., & San Martín, S. (2015). Brands as
substitutes for the need for touch in online shopping. Journal of Retail-
ing and Consumer Services, 27, 121–125.
Greenberg, J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2004). Situated experiments in organiza-
tions: Transplanting the lab to the field. Journal of Management, 30,
703–724.
Groß, M. (2015). Mobile shopping: A classification framework and litera-
ture review. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
43(3), 221–241.
Gulfraz, M. B., Sufyan, M., Mustak, M., Salminen, J., & Srivastava, D. K.
(2022). Understanding the impact of online customers' shopping expe-
rience on online impulsive buying: A study on two leading E-commerce
platforms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 68, 103000.
Guo, J., Wang, X., & Wu, Y. (2020). Positive emotion bias: Role of emo-
tional content from online customer reviews in purchase decisions.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101891.
Häubl, G., & Trifts, V. (2000). Consumer decision making in online shop-
ping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing
Science, 19(1), 4–21.
Ha, H., & Coghill, K. (2008). Online shoppers in Australia: Dealing with
problems. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(1), 5–17.
Ha, H. Y. (2012). The effects of online shopping attributes on satisfaction–
purchase intention link: A longitudinal study. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 36(3), 327–334.
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU
Ha, Y., & Lennon, S. J. (2010). Online visual merchandising (VMD) cues and
consumer pleasure and arousal: Purchasing versus browsing situation.
Psychology & Marketing, 27(2), 141–165.
Hallikainen, H., Luongo, M., Dhir, A., & Laukkanen, T. (2022). Conse-
quences of personalized product recommendations and price promo-
tions in online grocery shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 69, 103088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.
103088
Hand, C., Riley, F. D. O., Harris, P., Singh, J., & Rettie, R. (2009). Online gro-
cery shopping: The influence of situational factors. European Journal of
Marketing, 43(9/10), 1205–1219.
Handarkho, Y. D., & Harjoseputro, Y. (2019). Intention to adopt mobile
payment in physical stores: Individual switching behavior perspective
based on push–pull–mooring (PPM) theory. Journal of Enterprise Infor-
mation Management, 33(2), 285–308.
Hansen, T. (2008). Consumer values, the theory of planned behaviour and
online grocery shopping. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
32(2), 128–137.
Hansen, T., & Jensen, J. M. (2009). Shopping orientation and online cloth-
ing purchases: The role of gender and purchase situation. European
Journal of Marketing, 43(9/10), 1154–1170.
Harrigan, M., Feddema, K., Wang, S., Harrigan, P., & Diot, E. (2021). How
trust leads to online purchase intention founded in perceived useful-
ness and peer communication. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(5),
1297–1312.
Hassan, S. M., Rahman, Z., & Paul, J. (2022). Consumer ethics: A review
and research agenda. Psychology & Marketing, 39(1), 111–130.
Heijden, H. V. D. (2000). E‐Tam: A revision of the Technology Acceptance
Model to explain website revisits (No. 0029).
Heng, Y., Gao, Z., Jiang, Y., & Chen, X. (2018). Exploring hidden factors
behind online food shopping from Amazon reviews: A topic mining
approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 42, 161–168.
Hentzen, J. K., Hoffmann, A., Dolan, R., & Pala, E. (2021). Artificial intelli-
gence in customer-facing financial services: A systematic literature
review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 40(6), 1299–1336.
Ho, H. C., & Awan, M. A. (2019). The gender effect on consumer attitudes
toward payment methods: The case of online Chinese customers. Jour-
nal of Internet Commerce, 18(2), 141–169.
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.
Holmes, A., Byrne, A., & Rowley, J. (2014). Mobile shopping behaviour:
Insights into attitudes, shopping process involvement and location.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 42(1), 25–39.
Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., & Neumann, M. M. (2006). The influence
of avatars on online consumer shopping behaviour. Journal of Market-
ing, 70(4), 19–36.
Hossain, M. A., Akter, S., & Rahman, S. (2021). Customer behavior of
online group buying: An investigation using the transaction cost eco-
nomics theory perspective. Electronic Markets, 32(3), 1447–1461.
Hou, J., & Elliott, K. (2021). Mobile shopping intensity: Consumer demo-
graphics and motivations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
63, 102741.
Hsieh, Y. C., Chiu, H. C., Tang, Y. C., & Lee, M. (2018). Do colors change
realities in online shopping? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 41,
14–27.
Hu, L., Filieri, R., Acikgoz, F., Zollo, L., & Rialti, R. (2022). The effect of utili-
tarian and hedonic motivations on mobile shopping outcomes. A
cross-cultural analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies. [ahead
of print]. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12868
Huang, B., Juaneda, C., Sénécal, S., & Léger, P. M. (2021). “Now you see
me”: The attention-grabbing effect of product similarity and proximity
in online shopping. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 54, 1–10.

SINGH AND BASU
Huang, W. H., Shen, G. C., & Liang, C. L. (2019). The effect of thresh-
old free shipping policies on online shoppers' willingness to pay
for shipping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 48,
105–112.
Hui, T. K., & Wan, D. (2007). Factors affecting internet shopping behaviour
in Singapore: Gender and educational issues. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 31(3), 310–316.
Huifeng, P., & Ha, H. Y. (2021). Temporal effects of online customer
reviews on restaurant visit intention: The role of perceived risk. Journal
of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 30(7), 825–844.
Hult, G. T. M., Sharma, P. N., Morgeson, F. V., III, & Zhang, Y. (2019). Ante-
cedents and consequences of customer satisfaction: Do they differ
across online and offline purchases? Journal of Retailing, 95(1), 10–23.
Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: Towards a general the-
ory of marketing. M. E. Sharpe Inc.
Huyghe, E., Verstraeten, J., Geuens, M., & Van Kerckhove, A. (2017).
Clicks as a healthy alternative to bricks: How online grocery shop-
ping reduces vice purchases. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1),
61–74.
Hwang, A. H. C., Oh, J., & Scheinbaum, A. C. (2020). Interactive music for
multisensory e-commerce: The moderating role of online consumer
involvement in experiential value, cognitive value, and purchase inten-
tion. Psychology & Marketing, 37(8), 1031–1056.
Ilyuk, V. (2018). Like throwing a piece of me away: How online and in-
store grocery purchase channels affect consumers' food waste. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 20–30.
Jacobs, B., & De Klerk, H. M. (2010). Online apparel shopping behaviour of
South African professional women: The role of consumers' apparel
shopping scripts. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(3),
255–264.
Jai, T. M. C., Fang, D., Bao, F. S., James, R. N., III, Chen, T., & Cai, W.
(2021). Seeing it is like touching it: Unraveling the effective product
presentations on online apparel purchase decisions and brain activity
(an fMRI study). Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53, 66–79.
Jain, S. (2021). Examining the moderating role of perceived risk and
web atmospherics in online luxury purchase intention. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 25(4),
585–605.
Jaller, M., & Pahwa, A. (2020). Evaluating the environmental impacts of
online shopping: A behavioural and transportation approach. Transpor-
tation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 80, 102223.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102223
Jebarajakirthy, C., Das, M., Shah, D., & Shankar, A. (2021). Deciphering in-
store-online switching in multi-channel retailing context: Role of
affective commitment to purchase situation. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 63, 102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.
2021.102742
Jeong, Y., & King, C. M. (2010). Impacts of website context relevance on
banner advertisement effectiveness. Journal of Promotion Management,
16(3), 247–264.
Jiménez, F. R., & Mendoza, N. A. (2013). Too popular to ignore: The influ-
ence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experi-
ence products. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(3), 226–235.
Johnson, R. L., Nambiar, D., & Suman, G. (2022). Using eye-movements to
assess underlying factors in online purchasing behaviors. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(4), 1365–1380.
Jones, C., & Kim, S. (2010). Influences of retail brand trust, off-line patron-
age, clothing involvement and website quality on online apparel shop-
ping intention. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(6),
627–637.
Jung, N. Y., & Seock, Y. K. (2017). Effect of service recovery on customers'
perceived justice, satisfaction, and word-of-mouth intentions on
online shopping websites. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
37, 23–30.
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
29
Kahiya, E. T. (2018). Five decades of research on export barriers: Review
and future directions. International Business Review, 27(6), 1172–1188.
Kapoor, A. P., & Vij, M. (2021). Following you wherever you go: Mobile
shopping ‘cart-checkout'abandonment. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 61, 102553.
Kawaf, F., & Istanbulluoglu, D. (2019). Online fashion shopping paradox:
The role of customer reviews and facebook marketing. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 48, 144–153.
Kawaf, F., & Tagg, S. (2012). Online shopping environments in fashion
shopping: An SOR based review. The Marketing Review, 12(2),
161–180.
Keating, B. W., Quazi, A. M., & Kriz, A. (2009). Financial risk and its impact
on new purchasing behavior in the online retail setting. Electronic Mar-
kets, 19(4), 237–250.
Ketron, S., & Spears, N. (2021). Sound-symbolic signaling of online retailer
sizes: The moderating effect of shopping goals. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 58, 102245.
Khan, I., Hollebeek, L. D., Fatma, M., Islam, J. U., & Rahman, Z. (2020).
Brand engagement and experience in online services. Journal of Ser-
vices Marketing, 34(2), 163–175.
Kim, E. Y., & Kim, Y. K. (2004). Predicting online purchase intentions for
clothing products. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 883–897.
Kim, J., Fiore, A. M., & Lee, H. H. (2007). Influences of online store percep-
tion, shopping enjoyment, and shopping involvement on consumer
patronage behavior towards an online retailer. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 14(2), 95–107.
Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2008). Adoption of virtual try-on technology for
online apparel shopping. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(2), 45–59.
Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2009). Adoption of sensory enabling technology for
online apparel shopping. European Journal of Marketing, 43(9/10),
1101–1120.
Kim, K. K., Gravier, M. J., Yoon, S., & Oh, S. (2019). Active bidders versus
smart bidders: Do participation intensity and shopping goals affect the
winner's joy in online bidding? European Journal of Marketing, 53(4),
585–606.
Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2008). The effects of visual and verbal information
on attitudes and purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychology &
Marketing, 25(2), 146–178.
Kim, S., & Martinez, B. (2013). Fashion consumer groups and online shop-
ping at private sale sites. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
37(4), 367–372.
Kitz, R., Walker, T., Charlebois, S., & Music, J. (2022). Food packaging dur-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic: Consumer perceptions. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(2), 434–448.
Klein, A., & Sharma, V. M. (2022). Consumer decision‐making styles,
involvement, and the intention to participate in online group buying.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64, 102808.
Ko, E., Kim, E. Y., & Lee, E. K. (2009). Modeling consumer adoption of
mobile shopping for fashion products in Korea. Psychology & Market-
ing, 26(7), 669–687.
Kolsaker, A., Lee-Kelley, L., & Choy, P. C. (2004). The reluctant Hong Kong
consumer: Purchasing travel online. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 28(3), 295–304.
Krishen, A. S., Dwivedi, Y. K., Bindu, N., & Kumar, K. S. (2021). A broad
overview of interactive digital marketing: A bibliometric network anal-
ysis. Journal of Business Research, 131, 183–195.
Ku, E. C. (2012). Beyond price: How does trust encourage online group's
buying intention? Internet Research, 22(5), 569–590.
Kukar-Kinney, M., & Carlson, J. R. (2015). A fresh look at consumers' dis-
counting of discounts in online and bricks-and-mortar shopping con-
texts. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(4), 442–444.
Kukar-Kinney, M., & Close, A. G. (2010). The determinants of consumers'
online shopping cart abandonment. Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, 38(2), 240–250.

30
Kumar, A., Paul, J., & Unnithan, A. B. (2020). ‘Masstige’ marketing: A
review, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Business Research,
113, 384–398.
Kursan Milakovi
c, I. (2021). Purchase experience during the COVID-19
pandemic and social cognitive theory: The relevance of consumer vul-
nerability, resilience, and adaptability for purchase satisfaction and
repurchase. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(6), 1425–
1442.
Kvalsvik, F. (2022). Understanding the role of situational factors on online
grocery shopping among older adults. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 68, 103009.
Ladhari, R., Gonthier, J., & Lajante, M. (2019). Generation Y and online
fashion shopping: Orientations and profiles. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 48, 113–121.
Laroche, M., Li, R., Richard, M. O., & Zhou, M. (2022). An investigation into
online atmospherics: The effect of animated images on emotions, cog-
nition, and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Ser-
vices, 64, 102845.
Le, H. T., Carrel, A. L., & Shah, H. (2021). Impacts of online shopping on
travel demand: A systematic review. Transport Reviews, 42(3),
273–295.
Lee, J., & Ko, G. (2021). In‐store shopping hassles: Conceptualization and
classification. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(1),
119–130.
Lee, E. J., & Park, J. K. (2009). Online service personalization for apparel
shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(2), 83–91.
Lee, H. H., Damhorst, M. L., Campbell, J. R., Loker, S., & Parsons, J. L.
(2011). Consumer satisfaction with a mass customized internet apparel
shopping site. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(3),
316–329.
Lee, J. Y., Fang, E., Kim, J. J., Li, X., & Palmatier, R. W. (2018). The effect of
online shopping platform strategies on search, display, and member-
ship revenues. Journal of Retailing, 94(3), 247–264.
Lee, M. Y., Kim, Y. K., & Fairhurst, A. (2009). Shopping value in online auc-
tions: Their antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 16(1), 75–82.
Lee, M. Y., Kim, Y. K., & Lee, H. J. (2013). Adventure versus gratification:
Emotional shopping in online auctions. European Journal of Marketing,
47(1/2), 49–70.
Lee, S., & Cude, B. J. (2012). Consumer complaint channel choice in online and
offline purchases. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(1), 90–96.
Lee, W. O., & Wong, L. S. (2016). Determinants of mobile commerce cus-
tomer loyalty in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224,
60–67.
Lennon, S. J., Kim, M., Johnson, K. K., Jolly, L. D., Damhorst, M. L., &
Jasper, C. R. (2007). A longitudinal look at rural consumer adoption of
online shopping. Psychology & Marketing, 24(4), 375–401.
Lewis, P. H. (1994). Attention shoppers: Internet is open. The New York
Times.
Li, X., Zhao, X., & Pu, W. (2020). Measuring ease of use of mobile applica-
tions in e‐commerce retailing from the perspective of consumer online
shopping behaviour patterns. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Ser-
vices, 55, 102093.
Li, J., Abbasi, A., Cheema, A., & Abraham, L. B. (2020). Path to purpose?
How online customer journeys differ for hedonic versus utilitarian pur-
chases. Journal of Marketing, 84(4), 127–146.
Li, J., Konuş, U., Pauwels, K., & Langerak, F. (2015). The hare and the tor-
toise: Do earlier adopters of online channels purchase more? Journal of
Retailing, 91(2), 289–308.
Li, J., Tso, K. F., & Liu, F. (2017). Profit earning and monetary loss bidding
in online entertainment shopping: The impacts of bidding patterns and
characteristics. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 77–90.
Li, X., Zhao, X., & Pu, W. (2020). Measuring ease of use of mobile applica-
tions in e-commerce retailing from the perspective of consumer online
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU
shopping behaviour patterns. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Ser-
vices, 55, 102093.
Liao, C., Palvia, P., & Lin, H. N. (2010). Stage antecedents of consumer
online buying behavior. Electronic Markets, 20(1), 53–65.
Liao, S., & Chu, H. (2013). Influence of consumer online resale awareness
on purchase decisions: A mental accounting perspective. European
Journal of Marketing, 47(10), 1576–1597.
Liaukonyte, J., Teixeira, T., & Wilbur, K. C. (2015). Television advertising
and online shopping. Marketing Science, 34(3), 311–330.
Lin, H. H., Tseng, T. H., Yeh, C. H., Liao, Y. W., & Wang, Y. S. (2020). What
drives customers' post-purchase price search intention in the context
of online price matching guarantees. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 54, 102015.
Lissitsa, S., & Kol, O. (2016). Generation X vs. generation Y—A decade of
online shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31,
304–312.
Lissitsa, S., & Kol, O. (2021). Four generational cohorts and hedonic m-
shopping: Association between personality traits and purchase inten-
tion. Electronic Commerce Research, 21(2), 545–570.
Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-
analysis. Oxford University Press.
Liu, C., & Forsythe, S. (2011). Examining drivers of online purchase inten-
sity: Moderating role of adoption duration in sustaining post-adoption
online shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(1),
101–109.
Lo, C. J., Tsarenko, Y., & Tojib, D. (2019). To tell or not to tell? The roles of
perceived norms and self-consciousness in understanding consumers'
willingness to recommend online second-hand apparel shopping. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 36(4), 287–304.
Lo, L. Y. S., Lin, S. W., & Hsu, L. Y. (2016). Motivation for online impulse
buying: A two-factor theory perspective. International Journal of Infor-
mation Management, 36(5), 759–772.
Lokken, S. L., Cross, G. W., Halbert, L. K., Lindsey, G., Derby, C., &
Stanford, C. (2003). Comparing online and non-online shoppers. Inter-
national Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(2), 126–133.
Lynch, D., & Lundquist, L. (1996). Digital money. Wiley.
Ma, J. (2016). Does greater online assortment pay? An empirical study
using matched online and catalog shoppers. Journal of Retailing, 92(3),
373–382.
Ma, K. X., Mather, D. W., Ott, D. L., Fang, E., Bremer, P., & Mirosa, M.
(2021). Fresh food online shopping repurchase intention: The role of
post-purchase customer experience and corporate image. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 50(2), 206–228.
Maass, W., Parsons, J., Purao, S., Storey, V. C., & Woo, C. (2018). Data‐
driven meets theory‐driven research in the era of big data: Opportuni-
ties and challenges for information systems research. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 19(12), 1.
Madzharov, A. V., Block, L. G., & Morrin, M. (2015). The cool scent of
power: Effects of ambient scent on consumer preferences and choice
behaviour. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 83–96.
Mahapatra, S., & Mishra, A. (2022). ‘Crying over spilt milk?’ Effect of post-
consumption dissonance on coping behaviour for online purchases.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(3), 1035–1054.
Mallapragada, G., Chandukala, S. R., & Liu, Q. (2016). Exploring the effects
of “what”(product) and “where”(website) characteristics on online
shopping behaviour. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 21–38.
Mann, M. K., & Liu-Thompkins, Y. (2019). Shopping online? The role of imag-
ination and gender. European Journal of Marketing, 53(12), 2604–2628.
Mannan, M., Ahamed, R., & Zaman, S. B. (2019). Consumers' willingness to
purchase online mental health services. Journal of Services Marketing,
33(5), 557–571.
Marriott, H. R., Williams, M. D., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2017). What do we know
about consumer m-shopping behaviour? International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 45(6), 568–586.

SINGH AND BASU
Martin, S. S., Camarero, C., & José, R. S. (2011). Does involvement matter
in online shopping satisfaction and trust? Psychology & Marketing,
28(2), 145–167.
McKinney, L. N. (2004). Creating a satisfying internet shopping experience
via atmospheric variables. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
28(3), 268–283.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psy-
chology. The MIT Press.
Melis, K., Campo, K., Lamey, L., & Breugelmans, E. (2016). A bigger slice of
the multichannel grocery pie: When does consumers' online channel
use expand retailers' share of wallet? Journal of Retailing, 92(3),
268–286.
Mintz, O., Currim, I. S., & Jeliazkov, I. (2013). Information processing pat-
tern and propensity to buy: An investigation of online point-of-
purchase behaviour. Marketing Science, 32(5), 716–732.
Mishra, M. (2018). For Indian online shoppers, have saying and doing
parted ways? Psychology & Marketing, 35(1), 5–19.
Mishra, S., & Malhotra, G. (2021). The gamification of in-game advertising:
Examining the role of psychological ownership and advertisement intru-
siveness. International Journal of Information Management, 61, 102245.
Mitchell, R. (1995). Safe passage in cyberspace. Business Week, 3416, 33.
Moe, W. W. (2003). Buying, searching, or browsing: Differentiating
between online shoppers using in-store navigational clickstream. Jour-
nal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1–2), 29–39.
Narang, U., & Shankar, V. (2019). Mobile app introduction and online and
offline purchases and product returns. Marketing Science, 38(5),
756–772.
Natarajan, T., Balasubramanian, S. A., & Kasilingam, D. L. (2017). Under-
standing the intention to use mobile shopping applications and its
influence on price sensitivity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Ser-
vices, 37, 8–22.
Ngwe, D., Ferreira, K. J., & Teixeira, T. (2019). The impact of increasing
search frictions on online shopping behaviour: Evidence from a field
experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(6), 944–959.
Oghazi, P., Karlsson, S., Hellström, D., & Hjort, K. (2018). Online purchase
return policy leniency and purchase decision: Mediating role of con-
sumer trust. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 190–200.
Ozkara, B. Y., Ozmen, M., & Kim, J. W. (2017). Examining the effect of flow
experience on online purchase: A novel approach to the flow theory
based on hedonic and utilitarian value. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 37, 119–131.
Pénard, T., & Perrigot, R. (2017). Online search–online purchase in fran-
chising: An empirical analysis of franchisor website functionality. Jour-
nal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, 164–172.
Padmavathy, C., Swapana, M., & Paul, J. (2019). Online second-hand shop-
ping motivation—conceptualization, scale development, and validation.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 19–32.
Pandey, S., & Chawla, D. (2014). E-lifestyles of Indian online shoppers: A
scale validation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(6),
1068–1074.
Pantano, E., Dennis, C., & De Pietro, M. (2021). Shopping centers revisited:
The interplay between consumers' spontaneous online communica-
tions and retail planning. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61,
102576.
Papatla, P. (2011). Do online shopping styles affect preferred site attri-
butes? An empirical investigation and retailing implications. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(4), 362–369.
Pappas, I. O. (2018). User experience in personalized online shopping: A
fuzzy-set analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 52(7/8), 1679–1703.
Pappas, I. O., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giannakos, M. N., &
Chrissikopoulos, V. (2017). Sense and sensibility in personalized e-
commerce: How emotions rebalance the purchase intentions of per-
suaded customers. Psychology & Marketing, 34(10), 972–986.
Parayitam, S., Kakumani, L., & Muddangala, N. B. (2020). Perceived risk as
a moderator in the relationship between perception of celebrity
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
31
endorsement and buying behavior: Evidence from rural consumers of
India. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 28(4), 521–540.
Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009). Antecedents of online reviews' usage and
purchase influence: An empirical comparison of US and Korean con-
sumers. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 332–340.
Park, C. H. (2017). Online purchase paths and conversion dynamics across
multiple websites. Journal of Retailing, 93(3), 253–265.
Park, C. H., & Park, Y. H. (2016). Investigating purchase conversion by
uncovering online visit patterns. Marketing Science, 35(6), 894–914.
Paul, J. (2019). Marketing in emerging markets: A review, theoretical syn-
thesis and extension. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 15(3),
446–468.
Paul, J., & Benito, G. R. (2018). A review of research on outward foreign
direct investment from emerging countries, including China: What do
we know, how do we know and where should we be heading? Asia
Pacific Business Review, 24(1), 90–115.
Paul, J., & Feliciano‐Cestero, M. M. (2021). Five decades of research on
foreign direct investment by MNEs: An overview and research agenda.
Journal of Business Research, 124, 800–812.
Paul, J., & Mas, E. (2020). Toward a 7‐P framework for international mar-
keting. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28(8), 681–701.
Paul, J., & Singh, G. (2017). The 45 years of foreign direct investment
research: Approaches, advances and analytical areas. The World Econ-
omy, 40(11), 2512–2527.
Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Gupta, P. (2017). Exporting challenges of
SMEs: A review and future research agenda. Journal of World Business,
52(3), 327–342.
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O'Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific
procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-
4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 1–16.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What
do we know and what do we need to know? International Business
Review, 29(4), 101717.
Paul, J., & Feliciano-Cestero, M. M. (2021). Five decades of research on
foreign direct investment by MNEs: An overview and research agenda.
Journal of Business Research, 124, 800–812.
Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-
global/international new venture models: A review and research
agenda. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858.
Pelet, J. E., Durrieu, F., & Lick, E. (2020). Label design of wines sold online:
Effects of perceived authenticity on purchase intentions. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102087.
Pereira, H. G., de Fátima Salgueiro, M., & Rita, P. (2016). Online purchase
determinants of loyalty: The mediating effect of satisfaction in tour-
ism. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 279–291.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2019). Experimental designs in man-
agement and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recom-
mendations for improving publishability. The Leadership Quarterly,
30(1), 11–33.
Pons, F., & Laroche, M. (2007). Cross-cultural differences in crowd assess-
ment. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 269–276.
Punj, G. (2011). Effect of consumer beliefs on online purchase behaviour:
The influence of demographic characteristics and consumption values.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(3), 134–144.
Rahman, S.u., Khan, M. A., & Iqbal, N. (2018). Motivations and barriers to
purchasing online: Understanding consumer responses. South Asian
Journal of Business Studies, 7(1), 111–128.
Rajamma, R. K., Paswan, A. K., & Ganesh, G. (2007). Services purchased at
brick and mortar versus online stores, and shopping motivation. Jour-
nal of Services Marketing, 21(3), 200–212.
Ramkumar, B., & Woo, H. (2018). Modeling consumers’ intention to use
fashion and beauty subscription‐based online services (SOS). Fashion
and Textiles, 5(1), 1–22.
Ramkumar, B., & Jin, B. E. (2019). Examining pre-purchase intention and
post-purchase consequences of international online outshopping

32
(IOO): The moderating effect of E-tailer's country image. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 186–197.
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of
open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innova-
tion Management, 33(6), 750–772.
Rao, A. (2015). Online content pricing: Purchase and rental markets. Mar-
keting Science, 34(3), 430–451.
Rasty, F., Mirghafoori, S. H., Saeida Ardekani, S., & Ajdari, P. (2021). Trust
barriers to online shopping: Investigating and prioritizing trust barriers
in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 45(5), 1030–1046.
Rausch, T. M., Baier, D., & Wening, S. (2021). Does sustainability really
matter to consumers? Assessing the importance of online shop and
apparel product attributes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
63, 102681.
Reibstein, D. J. (2002). What attracts customers to online stores, and what
keeps them coming back? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
30(4), 465–473.
Reich, T., & Maglio, S. J. (2020). Featuring mistakes: The persuasive impact
of purchase mistakes in online reviews. Journal of Marketing, 84(1),
52–65.
Resnick, R. (1995). Business is good, not (pp. 71–73). Internet World.
Riley, F. D. O., Scarpi, D., & Manaresi, A. (2009). Purchasing services
online: A two-country generalization of possible influences. Journal of
Services Marketing, 23(2), 92–102.
Roberts, J., & Grassi, A. (2021). A review of studies on virtual layout and
atmospherics-potential applications to the fashion industry. The Inter-
national Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 31(4),
432–456.
Rodrigues, V. S., Demir, E., Wang, X., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Measurement,
mitigation and prevention of food waste in supply chains: An online
shopping perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 93,
545–562.
Rosado‐Serrano, A., Paul, J., & Dikova, D. (2018). International franchising:
A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research,
85, 238–257.
Rosillo-Díaz, E., Blanco-Encomienda, F. J., & Crespo-Almendros, E. (2019).
A cross-cultural analysis of perceived product quality, perceived risk
and purchase intention in e-commerce platforms. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 33(1), 139–160.
Rowley, J. (1998). Internet food retailing: The UK in context. British Food
Journal, 100(2), 85–95.
Ruan, Y., & Mezei, J. (2022). When do AI chatbots lead to higher customer
satisfaction than human frontline employees in online shopping assis-
tance? Considering product attribute type. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 68, 103059.
Rudner, R. S. (1966). Philosophy of social science. Prentice Hall.
Saad, A. T. (2020). Factors affecting online food delivery service in
Bangladesh: An empirical study. British Food Journal, 123(2), 535–550.
Sadiq, M., Adil, M., & Paul, J. (2021). An innovation resistance theory per-
spective on purchase of eco-friendly cosmetics. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 59, 102369.
Saini, Y. K., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (2016). The effects of the online and offline
purchase environment on consumer choice of familiar and unfamiliar
brands. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(3), 702–705.
San Martín, S., & Jiménez, N. H. (2011). Online buying perceptions in
Spain: Can gender make a difference? Electronic Markets, 21(4),
267–281.
San-Martín, S., González-Benito, Ó., & Martos-Partal, M. (2017). To what
extent does need for touch affect online perceived quality? Interna-
tional Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(9), 950–968.
Scarpi, D., Pizzi, G., & Visentin, M. (2014). Shopping for fun or shopping to
buy: Is it different online and offline? Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 21(3), 258–267.
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU
Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., & Lloyd, S. M. (2006). Converting web site
visitors into buyers: How web site investment increases consumer
trusting beliefs and online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing,
70(2), 133–148.
Schultz, D. E., & Block, M. P. (2015). US online shopping: Facts, fiction,
hopes and dreams. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 23,
99–106.
Seock, Y. K., & Bailey, L. R. (2008). The influence of college students' shop-
ping orientations and gender differences on online information
searches and purchase behaviours. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 32(2), 113–121.
Seock, Y. K., & Chen-Yu, J. H. (2007). Website evaluation criteria among
US college student consumers with different shopping orientations
and internet channel usage. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
31(3), 204–212.
Septianto, F., Kemper, J. A., & Choi, J. J. (2020). The power of beauty? The
interactive effects of awe and online reviews on purchase intentions.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 102066.
Sheehan, D., Hardesty, D. M., Ziegler, A. H., & Chen, H. A. (2019). Con-
sumer reactions to price discounts across online shopping experiences.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 129–138.
Shi, S. W., & Zhang, J. (2014). Usage experience with decision aids and evo-
lution of online purchase behaviour. Marketing Science, 33(6), 871–882.
Shih, H. P. (2012). Cognitive lock-In effects on consumer purchase inten-
tions in the context of B2C web sites. Psychology & Marketing, 29(10),
738–751.
Shin, D., & Darpy, D. (2020). Rating, review and reputation: How to unlock
the hidden value of luxury consumers from digital commerce? Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(10), 1553–1561.
Shiu, E. C., & Dawson, J. A. (2004). Comparing the impacts of internet
technology and national culture on online usage and purchase from a
four-country perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
11(6), 385–394.
Shobeiri, S., Mazaheri, E., & Laroche, M. (2015). Shopping online for goods
vs. services: Where do experiential features help more? International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(2), 172–179.
Singh, R. (2019). Why do online grocery shoppers switch or stay? An
exploratory analysis of consumers' response to online grocery shop-
ping experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Manage-
ment, 47(12), 1300–1317.
Singh, R., & Söderlund, M. (2020). Extending the experience construct: An
examination of online grocery shopping. European Journal of Marketing,
54(10), 2419–2446.
Sismeiro, C., & Bucklin, R. E. (2004). Modeling purchase behaviour at an e-
commerce web site: A task-completion approach. Journal of Marketing
Research, 41(3), 306–323.
Sohn, S. (2017). A contextual perspective on consumers' perceived useful-
ness: The case of mobile online shopping. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 38, 22–33.
Sohn, S., Seegebarth, B., & Moritz, M. (2017). The impact of perceived
visual complexity of mobile online shops on user's satisfaction. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 34(2), 195–214.
Soopramanien, D. (2011). Conflicting attitudes and scepticism towards
online shopping: The role of experience. International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies, 35(3), 338–347.
Soopramanien, D. G., & Robertson, A. (2007). Adoption and usage of
online shopping: An empirical analysis of the characteristics of
“buyers” “browsers” and “non-internet shoppers”. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 14(1), 73–82.
Sramova, B., & Pavelka, J. (2019). Gender differences and wellbeing values
in adolescent online shopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribu-
tion Management, 47(6), 623–642.
Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural
values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30, 679–704.

SINGH AND BASU
Suel, E., & Polak, J. W. (2018). Incorporating online shopping into travel
demand modelling: Challenges, progress, and opportunities. Transport
Reviews, 38(5), 576–601.
Suhartanto, D., Helmi Ali, M., Tan, K. H., Sjahroeddin, F., & Kusdibyo, L.
(2019). Loyalty toward online food delivery service: The role of e-
service quality and food quality. Journal of Foodservice Business
Research, 22(1), 81–97.
Sultan, F., Rohm, A. J., & Gao, T. (2009). Factors influencing consumer
acceptance of mobile marketing: A two‐country study of youth mar-
kets. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 308–320.
Swinyard, W. R., & Smith, S. M. (2003). Why people (don't) shop online: A
lifestyle study of the internet consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 20(7),
567–597.
Tankovic, A. C., & Benazic, D. (2018). The perception of e‐servicescape
and its influence on perceived e‐shopping value and customer loyalty.
Online Information Review, 42(7), 1124–1145.
Tarhini, A., Teo, T., & Tarhini, T. (2016). A cross-cultural validity of the
E-learning acceptance measure (ElAM) in Lebanon and England: A confir-
matory factor analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5),
1269–1282.
Thaichon, P. (2017). Consumer socialization process: The role of age in
children's online shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 34, 38–47.
Tontini, G. (2016). Identifying opportunities for improvement in online shop-
ping sites. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 228–238.
Trevinal, A. M., & Stenger, T. (2014). Toward a conceptualization of the
online shopping experience. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
21(3), 314–326.
Ursu, R. M. (2018). The power of rankings: Quantifying the effect of rank-
ings on online consumer search and purchase decisions. Marketing Sci-
ence, 37(4), 530–552.
Valentini, S., Neslin, S. A., & Montaguti, E. (2020). Identifying omnichannel
deal prone segments, their antecedents, and their consequences. Jour-
nal of Retailing, 3, 310–327.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information sys-
tems. MIS Quarterly, 695–704.
Van Droogenbroeck, E., & Van Hove, L. (2020). Intra-household task allo-
cation in online grocery shopping: Together alone. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 56, 102153.
Van Ewijk, B. J., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Gijsbrechts, E. (2020). The rise of
online grocery shopping in China: Which brands will benefit? Journal
of International Marketing, 28(2), 20–39.
Van Kerrebroeck, H., Willems, K., & Brengman, M. (2017). Touching the
void: Exploring consumer perspectives on touch-enabling technologies
in online retailing. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Manage-
ment, 45(7/8), 892–909.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the tech-
nology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management
Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Vlačić, B., Corbo, L., e Silva, S. C., & Dabić, M. (2021). The evolving role of
artificial intelligence in marketing: A review and research agenda. Jour-
nal of Business Research, 128, 187–203.
Wang, E. T., Yeh, H. Y., & Jiang, J. J. (2006). The relative weights of inter-
net shopping fundamental objectives: Effect of lifestyle differences.
Psychology & Marketing, 23(5), 353–367.
Wang, R. J. H., Malthouse, E. C., & Krishnamurthi, L. (2015). On the go:
How mobile shopping affects customer purchase behaviour. Journal of
Retailing, 91(2), 217–234.
Wang, S., Cheah, J. H., Lim, X. J., Leong, Y. C., & Choo, W. C. (2022).
Thanks COVID-19, I'll reconsider my purchase: Can fear appeal reduce
online shopping cart abandonment? Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 64, 102843.
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
33
Wang, S., Cheah, J. H., & Lim, X. J. (2022). Online shopping cart abandon-
ment: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer
Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12876
Wang, Y. J., Minor, M. S., & Wei, J. (2011). Aesthetics and the online shop-
ping environment: Understanding consumer responses. Journal of
Retailing, 87(1), 46–58.
Weltevreden, J. W. (2007). Substitution or complementarity? How the
internet changes city centre shopping. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 14(3), 192–207.
Wu, J. H., & Wang, Y. M. (2006). Development of a tool for selecting
mobile shopping site: A customer perspective. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 5(3), 192–200.
Wu, L., Cai, Y., & Liu, D. (2011). Online shopping among Chinese con-
sumers: An exploratory investigation of demographics and value
orientation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(4),
458–469.
Xia, L., & Sudharshan, D. (2002). Effects of interruptions on consumer
online decision processes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3),
265–280.
Xu, J., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. T. (2020). The relative effect of the con-
vergence of product recommendations from various online sources.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(3), 788–819.
Xu, X., Wu, J. H., & Li, Q. (2020). What drives consumer shopping behav-
iour in live streaming commerce? Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, 21(3), 144–167.
Xu, Y., & Paulins, V. A. (2005). College students' attitudes toward shopping
online for apparel products: Exploring a rural versus urban campus.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,
9(4), 420–433.
Xu, Y. C., & Kim, H. W. (2008). Order effect and vendor inspection in
online comparison shopping. Journal of Retailing, 84(4), 477–486.
y Monsuwé, T. P., Dellaert, B. G., & De Ruyter, K. (2004). What drives con-
sumers to shop online? A literature review. International Journal of Ser-
vice Industry Management, 15(1), 101–121.
Yoh, E., Damhorst, M. L., Sapp, S., & Laczniak, R. (2003). Consumer adop-
tion of the internet: The case of apparel shopping. Psychology & Mar-
keting, 20(12), 1095–1118.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived
quality of an internet shopping site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 2(1), 31–45.
Yoon, S. J. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of trust in online-
purchase decisions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 47–63.
Yu, S., Hudders, L., & Cauberghe, V. (2018). Selling luxury products online:
The effect of a quality label on risk perception, purchase intention and
attitude toward the brand. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,
19(1), 16–35.
Zanjani, S. H., Milne, G. R., & Miller, E. G. (2016). Procrastinators' online
experience and purchase behaviour. Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, 44(5), 568–585.
Zhang, R., Jun, M., & Palacios, S. (2021). M-shopping service quality dimen-
sions and their effects on customer trust and loyalty: An empirical
study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 40,
169–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11-2020-0374
Zhang, Y., Trusov, M., Stephen, A. T., & Jamal, Z. (2017). Online shop-
ping and social media: Friends or foes? Journal of Marketing, 81(6),
24–41.
Zheng, H., & Ma, W. (2021). Click it and buy happiness: Does online shop-
ping improve subjective well-being of rural residents in China? Applied
Economics, 53(36), 4192–4206.
Zhuang, H., Leszczyc, P. T. P., & Lin, Y. (2018). Why is price dispersion
higher online than offline? The impact of retailer type and shopping
risk on price dispersion. Journal of Retailing, 94(2), 136–153.
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
34 SINGH AND BASU

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
awarded the runner up prize for CEEMAN Emerald Case Writing
Competition 2020. She received many awards including the pres-
Kandarp Singh, a Fellow Researcher at International Management
tigious AIMS Outstanding Woman Management Researcher
Institute—Kolkata (IMI-K). He is currently working on the thesis
Award 2017, AIMS-IRMA Outstanding Young Woman Manage-
titled ‘Exploring the relationship between store atmospheric and con-
ment Teacher Award 2016 for her contribution to management
sumer buying behaviour in Omnichannel retailing’. He has worked
teaching and research. She has written 30+ peer-reviewed
for almost 2 years at IMI-K under a project by The United Nations
research papers for top international journals and is cited widely.
Development Program (UNDP) and the Ministry of Environment
She has been an adjunct faculty to IIT Kharagpur and an Erasmus
and Forest (MoEF). He has cleared National Eligibility Test (NET).
+ Grant awardee. Dr. Basu may be reached at r.basu@imi-k.edu.in
He has a master's and bachelor's degree with a specialization in
Marketing from St. Xavier's College, Kolkata. Kandarp Singh can
be reached at kandarp.singh@imi-k.edu.in
How to cite this article: Singh, K., & Basu, R. (2023). Online
Rituparna Basu is an Associate Professor and Area Chair of Mar-
consumer shopping behaviour: A review and research agenda.
keting at the International Management Institute Kolkata. She
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 1–37. https://doi.
won the first prize in the Global ISB-Ivey Case Competition 2017
org/10.1111/ijcs.12899
and thereafter has a dual win to her credit with two teaching
cases in the 2018 edition of the global competition. She was also

SINGH AND BASU
APPENDIX A
LIST OF PAPERS CONSIDERED FOR REVIEW
Abbes et al. (2020)
Ashraf and Thongpapanl
(2015)
Bashir et al. (2018)
Bhatnagar and Papatla (2016)
Cao and Gruca (2004)
Chiang and Dholakia (2003)
Dabbous and Barakat (2020)
De Haan et al. (2018)
Driediger and Bhatiasevi
(2019)
Esmeli et al. (2021)
Furner and Zinko (2017)
Guo et al. (2020)
Hand et al. (2009)
Holloway et al. (2005)
Hu et al. (2022)
Huyghe et al. (2017)
Jebarajakirthy et al. (2021)
Kapoor and Vij (2021)
J. Kim and Forsythe (2009)
K. K. Kim et al. (2019)
Ladhari et al. (2019)
M. Y. Lee et al. (2013)
J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li,
Zhao, and Pu (2020)
Lin et al. (2020)
J. Ma (2016)
Martin et al. (2011)
Narang and Shankar (2019)
Padmavathy et al. (2019)
Pappas et al. (2017)
Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012)
Ashraf et al. (2014)
Becker et al. (2017)
Biswas and Biswas (2004)
Cavalinhos et al. (2021)
Childers et al. (2001)
Dai et al. (2019)
Demangeot and Broderick
(2010)
Duarte and e Silva (2020)
Faqih (2016)
Ganesh et al. (2010)
H. Y. Ha (2012)
Hansen (2008)
Holzwarth et al. (2006)
W. H. Huang et al. (2019)
Hwang et al. (2020)
Jiménez and Mendoza (2013)
Kawaf and Istanbulluoglu (2019)
E. Y. Kim and Kim (2004)
Kolsaker et al. (2004)
S. Lee and Cude (2012)
J. Y. Lee et al. (2018)
J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li,
Zhao, and Pu (2020)
Lissitsa and Kol (2016)
Mahapatra and Mishra (2022)
McKinney (2004)
Natarajan et al. (2017)
Pandey and Chawla (2014)
C. H. Park (2017)
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
35
Akram et al. (2021) Albert et al. (2014) Anaza (2014)
Badrinarayanan et al. Bandara et al. (2020) Barari et al. (2020)
(2012)
Beckers et al. (2018) Beuckels and Hudders Bhargave et al. (2016)
(2016)
Brand et al. (2020) Brown et al. (2003) Campo and
Breugelmans (2015)
C. Chang (2011) M. L. Chang and Wu Y. M. Chen et al. (2018)
(2012)
Chu et al. (2010) S. Chung et al. (2018) Clemes et al. (2014)
Darley (2010) Davis et al. (2017) De Haan et al. (2016)
Díaz et al. (2017) Dominici et al. (2021) Drechsler and Natter
(2011)
Duarte et al. (2018) Erjavec and Manfreda Eroglu et al. (2003)
(2022)
Fazeli et al. (2020) Fernandes et al. (2021) Forsythe et al. (2006)
Gohary et al. (2016) González-Benito et al. Gulfraz et al. (2022)
(2015)
H. Ha and Coghill Y. Ha and Lennon (2010) Hallikainen et al. (2022)
(2008)
Hansen and Jensen Häubl and Trifts (2000) Heng et al. (2018)
(2009)
Hossain et al. (2021) Hou and Elliott (2021) Hsieh et al. (2018)
B. Huang et al. (2021) Hui and Wan (2007) Hult et al. (2019)
Ilyuk (2018) Jacobs and De Klerk Jai et al. (2021)
(2010)
Johnson et al. (2022) Jones and Kim (2010) Jung and Seock (2017)
Keating et al. (2009) Ketron and Spears (2021) J. Kim and Forsythe
(2008)
M. Kim and Lennon S. Kim and Martinez J. Kim et al. (2007)
(2008) (2013)
Kukar-Kinney and Kukar-Kinney and Close Kvalsvik (2022)
Carlson (2015) (2010)
E. J. Lee and Park M. Y. Lee et al. (2009) H. H. Lee et al. (2011)
(2009)
Lennon et al. (2007) J. Li et al. (2015) J. Li et al. (2017)
S. Liao and Chu C. Liao et al. (2010) Liaukonyte et al. (2015)
(2013)
Liu and Forsythe C. J. Lo et al. (2019) Lokken et al. (2003)
(2011)
Mallapragada et al. Mann and Liu-Thompkins Mannan et al. (2019)
(2016) (2019)
Mintz et al. (2013) M. Mishra (2018) Moe (2003)
Ngwe et al. (2019) Oghazi et al. (2018) Ozkara et al. (2017)
Pantano et al. (2021) Papatla (2011) Pappas (2018)
C. Park and Lee C. H. Park and Park Pelet et al. (2020)
(2009) (2016)
(Continues)

36
Pénard and Perrigot (2017)
Rao (2015)
Riley et al. (2009)
Scarpi et al. (2014)
Septianto et al. (2020)
Shobeiri et al. (2015)
D. Soopramanien (2011)
Trevinal and Stenger (2014)
Y. J. Wang et al. (2011)
Xia and Sudharshan (2002)
Y. Zhang et al. (2017)
14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU
Pereira et al. (2016) Punj (2011) Rajamma et al. (2007). Ramkumar and Jin
(2019)
Rasty et al. (2021) Rausch et al. (2021) Reibstein (2002) Reich and Maglio
(2020)
Rodrigues et al. (2021) Ruan and Mezei Saini and Lynch (2016) San Martín and
(2022) Jiménez (2011)
Schlosser et al. (2006) Schultz and Block Seock and Bailey (2008) Seock and Chen-Yu
(2015) (2007)
Sheehan et al. (2019) Shi and Zhang (2014) Shih (2012) Shiu and Dawson
(2004).
Singh and Söderlund (2020) Sismeiro and Bucklin Sohn et al. (2017) Sohn et al. (2017)
(2004)
D. G. Soopramanien and Swinyard and Smith Thaichon (2017) Tontini (2016)
Robertson (2007) (2003)
Ursu (2018) Van Droogenbroeck Van Ewijk et al. (2020) Wang et al. (2006)
and Van Hove
(2020)
S. Wang, Cheah, Lim, Leong, and S. Wang, Cheah, Lim, Weltevreden (2007) L. Wu et al. (2011)
Choo (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, Leong, and Choo
and Lim (2022) (2022); S. Wang,
Cheah, and Lim
(2022)
Y. C. Xu and Kim (2008) Yoh et al. (2003) Yoon (2002) Zanjani et al. (2016)
Zhuang et al. (2018)
 14706431, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12899 by Federal Urdu University of Art, Wiley Online Library on [26/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SINGH AND BASU 37

APPENDIX B

WHERE DO CONSUMERS BUY?

Where do Website Mahapatra and Mishra (2022); Johnson et al. (2022); Ruan and Mezei (2022); Kvalsvik (2022); S. Wang,
they buy it? Cheah, Lim, Leong, and Choo (2022); S. Wang, Cheah, and Lim (2022); Gulfraz et al. (2022); Erjavec and
Manfreda (2022); Rasty et al. (2021); Jebarajakirthy et al. (2021); Dominici et al. (2021); Rausch et al.
(2021); Esmeli et al. (2021); Hossain et al. (2021); B. Huang et al. (2021); Jai et al. (2021); Rodrigues et al.
(2021); Ketron and Spears (2021); Fernandes et al. (2021); Barari et al. (2020); Bandara et al. (2020);
Abbes et al. (2020); Septianto et al. (2020); Guo et al. (2020); Pantano et al. (2021); Akram et al. (2021);
Reich and Maglio (2020); Brand et al. (2020); Ewijk et al. (2020); Singh and Söderlund (2020); Hwang et al.
(2020); Lin et al. (2020); Duarte and e Silva (2020); Pelet et al. (2020); Dabbous and Barakat (2020); J. Li,
Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, and Pu (2020); C. J. Lo et al. (2019); Hult et al. (2019); Kawaf and
Istanbulluoglu (2019); Dai et al. (2019); Padmavathy et al. (2019); Kapoor and Vij (2021); Mann and Liu-
Thompkins (2019); Ngwe et al. (2019); K. K. Kim et al. (2019); W. H. Huang et al. (2019); Sheehan et al.
(2019); Mannan et al. (2019); Driediger and Bhatiasevi (2019); Ramkumar and Jin (2019); Hsieh et al.
(2018); S. Chung et al. (2018); Zhuang et al. (2018); Ursu (2018); M. Mishra (2018); Beckers et al. (2018);
Oghazi et al. (2018); Pappas (2018); Heng et al. (2018); J. Y. Lee et al. (2018); Y. Zhang et al. (2017);
Huyghe et al. (2017); Pénard and Perrigot (2017); C. H. Park (2017); Pappas et al. (2017); Thaichon (2017);
J. Li et al. (2017); Ozkara et al. (2017); Jung and Seock (2017); Faqih (2016); Pereira et al. (2016);
Mallapragada et al. (2016); Bhargave et al. (2016); Zanjani et al. (2016); Tontini (2016); Saini and Lynch
(2016); C. H. Park and Park (2016); Gohary et al. (2016); Ashraf and Thongpapanl (2015); Kukar-Kinney
and Carlson (2015); Liaukonyte et al. (2015); J. Li et al. (2015); Rao (2015); Anaza (2014); Albert
et al., 2014; Clemes et al. (2014); Trevinal and Stenger (2014); Trevinal and Stenger (2014); Ashraf et al.
(2014); Shi and Zhang (2014); Mintz et al. (2013); M. Y. Lee et al. (2013); S. Liao and Chu (2013); S. Kim
and Martinez (2013); Jiménez and Mendoza (2013); M. L. Chang and Wu (2012); Shih (2012); Aghekyan-
Simonian et al. (2012); C. Chang (2011); Drechsler and Natter (2011); Punj (2011); D. Soopramanien
(2011); San Martín and Jiménez (2011); H. H. Lee et al. (2011); Martin et al. (2011); Y. J. Wang et al.
(2011); Papatla (2011); L. Wu et al. (2011); Liu and Forsythe (2011); Demangeot and Broderick (2010); C.
Liao et al. (2010); Ganesh et al. (2010); Y. Ha and Lennon (2010); Jones and Kim (2010); Darley (2010);
Kukar-Kinney and Close (2010); Jacobs and De Klerk (2010); C. Park and Lee (2009); Hand et al. (2009);
Hansen and Jensen (2009); Keating et al. (2009); M. Y. Lee et al. (2009); E. J. Lee and Park (2009); J. Kim
and Forsythe (2009); Y. C. Xu and Kim (2008); H. Ha and Coghill (2008); J. Kim and Forsythe (2008); M.
Kim and Lennon (2008); J. Kim et al. (2007); Weltevreden (2007); Lennon et al. (2007); Hui and Wan
(2007); D. G. Soopramanien and Robertson (2007); Forsythe et al. (2006); Holzwarth et al. (2006); Van
Wang et al. (2006); Schlosser et al. (2006); Holloway et al. (2005); E. Y. Kim and Kim (2004); Kolsaker et al.
(2004); Shiu and Dawson (2004); McKinney (2004); Cao and Gruca (2004); Biswas and Biswas (2004);
Sismeiro and Bucklin (2004); Brown et al. (2003); Chiang and Dholakia (2003); Eroglu et al. (2003); Lokken
et al. (2003); Swinyard and Smith (2003); Yoh et al. (2003); Moe (2003); Yoon (2002); Xia and Sudharshan
(2002); Reibstein (2002); Childers et al. (2001); Häubl and Trifts (2000).
Multi-channel Hallikainen et al. (2022); Van Droogenbroeck and Van Hove (2020); Ilyuk (2018); Becker et al. (2017); Davis
et al. (2017); J. Ma (2016); De Haan et al. (2016); Campo and Breugelmans (2015); González-Benito et al.
(2015); Scarpi et al. (2014); Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012); Badrinarayanan et al. (2012); S. Lee and
Cude (2012); Chu et al. (2010); Rajamma et al. (2007).
Mobile app Hu et al. (2022); J. Li, Abbasi, et al., 2020; X. Li, Zhao, and Pu (2020); Ladhari et al. (2019); Narang and
Shankar (2019); Y. M. Chen et al. (2018); De Haan et al. (2018); Natarajan et al. (2017); Furner and Zinko
(2017); Sohn et al. (2017); Sohn et al. (2017).