Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 325–331

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

The role of product brand image and online store image on perceived risks
and online purchase intentions for apparel
Mariné Aghekyan-Simonian a,n,1, Sandra Forsythe b, Wi Suk Kwon b, Veena Chattaraman b
a
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, California State University, Long Beach, California, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90840, USA
b
Department of Consumer Affairs, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Available online 27 March 2012 Purchase intentions for apparel products often require physical examination prior to purchase. Hence,
Keywords: greater risk is associated with shopping online for apparel products, making it important to examine
Product brand image factors that reduce various risks influencing online purchase intentions. This study examines and
Online store image compares the impact of two of the most important risk reducers for online apparel shopping – product
Perceived risks brand image and online store image – on specific types of perceived risks and online purchase
intentions for apparel. The results show that product brand image influences consumers’ online
purchase intentions both directly and indirectly by reducing various risk perceptions. Online store
image impacts purchase intentions indirectly by decreasing risk perceptions. The results of this study
provide fresh insight into understanding the impact of product brand image and online store image on
each type of perceived risk associated with online shopping.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The inability to physically examine apparel products when
shopping online increases the risk perceptions associated with
online shopping as consumers cannot touch, feel, or try on
products before purchase. It is clear that consumers often use
product brand name (Dawar and Parker, 1994; Greatorex and
Mitchell, 1994) and store name (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Teas and
Agarwal, 2000) as a surrogate for product quality to reduce their
risks and simplify their purchase decision, especially when shop-
ping online where many product attributes cannot be examined
directly. However, it is not equally clear how or to what extent
brand name and store name impact consumers’ online purchase
decisions for fashion apparel.
Product brand image impacts consumers’ perceptions of pro-
duct attributes (Chattopadhyay and Basu, 1990; Kwon and
Lennon, 2009); that is, the evaluation of a product’s attributes
can be influenced by the consumer’s impression of the brand’s
image (Beckwith et al., 1978). As a result, a strong and favorable
brand image can positively bias consumers’ impression of product
attributes. Online store image may have a similar effect, also
biasing consumers’ perceptions of product attributes. Hence,
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 562 985 7491; fax: þ 1 562 958 4441.
E-mail addresses: marine.aghekyan@csulb.edu (M. Aghekyan-Simonian),
forsysa@auburn.edu (S. Forsythe), kwonwis@auburn.edu (W. Suk Kwon),
vzc0001@auburn.edu (V. Chattaraman).
1
Primary Investigator.
consumers’ image of the online store selling the product may
influence their product evaluations when they cannot examine
the product directly. Given the potential for both product brand
image and online store image to influence perceptions of fashion
apparel products, enhancing product brand image and online
store image may be critical to increasing purchase intentions
among online apparel consumers.
This study examines the impact of product brand image and
online store image on (a) consumers’ perceptions of specific types
of risks and (b) their online purchase intentions for fashion
apparel products. Specifically, this study examines (1) the direct
impact of product brand image and online store image on
purchase intentions; (2) the influence of product brand image
and online store image on perceptions of three types of risk
(financial, product, time) associated with online purchase of
apparel products; and (3) the influence of these three types of
perceived risk on consumers’ online purchase intentions for
apparel products.
A conceptual model, built on the theory of perceived risk,
illustrates the potential impact of product brand image and online
store image on each of these perceived risks and subsequent
purchase intentions for apparel products. Since it has been shown
that consumers perceive greater risk in the online shopping
environment, particularly for fashion apparel products where
physical product evaluation is important, the risk-reducing roles
of product brand and online store image on purchase intentions
may be significant. This study contributes to our understanding of
the theory of perceived risk in online shopping as it broadens

0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.03.006
326 M. Aghekyan-Simonian et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 325–331
knowledge about the risk-reducing roles of product brand image
and store image for fashion apparel products. It also provides
fresh insights that may help practitioners design better strategies
to reduce these risks.
2. Background and hypotheses
2.1. Product brand image
Product brand image is often defined as ‘‘perceptions about a
brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer
memory’’ (Keller, 1993, p. 3). The favorability of brand associa-
tions produces relevant attitudes that transfer to the product.
Thus, the more favorable the brand image, the more positive the
attitude toward the branded product and it’s attributes. Further-
more, a favorable product brand image has a positive effect on
purchase intentions (Del Rio et al., 2001; Keller, 1993), and
consumers are more likely to shop online for products with
well-established brand names (Lee and Tan, 2003).
For product categories that typically require physical evalua-
tion, such as apparel, some of the information desirable for
making a purchase decision is not available online. Consequently,
brand image may serve as an important surrogate for intrinsic
product attribute information that is not available online. There-
fore, the following hypothesis is developed.
H1. Favorability of product brand image will positively influence
online purchase intentions for apparel products.
2.2. Online store image
Store image is the way in which consumers perceive the store
based on it’s functional qualities and environmental attributes
(Martineau, 1958). Retail store image and it’s relationship with
consumers’ purchase intentions have been studied for over 50
years, showing a positive relationship between store image and
purchase intentions (e.g., Agarwal and Teas, 2001; Bell, 1999;
Grewal et al., 1998; Dodds et al., 1991). However, the impact of
online store image on consumers’ purchase intentions has not
been widely examined. Although few studies have linked the
holistic construct of online store image to purchase intentions,
different dimensions of online store image have been found to
exert a positive influence on purchase intentions. For example,
studies have found a positive relationship between purchase
intentions and website functional qualities (e.g., product catalog,
price comparisons, payment methods) (Liang and Lai, 2002),
website design (Richard, 2005), security, privacy, website design,
and information content (Ranganathan and Ganapathy, 2002).
Chen et al. (2010) show a positive relationship between online
store attributes and purchase intentions for computers, consumer
electronics, and communication products/services, concluding
that online store attributes such as technology (usability and
security) and shopping factors (trust and convenience) influence
consumers’ online purchase intentions. Other studies focusing on
multichannel retailers show a significant positive relationship
between online store image and consumer purchase intention
(Kwon and Lennon, 2009; Verhagen and van Dolen, 2009). For
example, Kwon and Lennon (2009) examined the effect of
vertically-integrated specialty apparel brands’ online store image
on consumers’ patronage intention for the brand’s online store.
But, Kwon et al.’s study did not address the effect of multi-brand
online retailers’ store image. Verhagen and van Dolen (2009)
examined online store image holistically, but did not include pure
internet players—a considerable segment of online retailing.
Addressing this gap in the literature, we hypothesize a positive
relationship between consumers’ online store image of a multi-
brand retailer and intentions to purchase apparel products from
the retailer’s online store.
H2. Favorability of online store image perceptions will positively
influence online purchase intentions for apparel products.
2.3. Internet shopping and perceived Risks
Chang et al. (2005) classify the factors that influence consu-
mers’ online shopping decisions, finding that risk was one of the
most extensively investigated constructs. Nevertheless, studies of
perceived risk report inconsistent findings. Several studies report
a negative relationship between perceived risks and online shop-
ping intentions (e.g., Jarvenpaa and Tractinsky, 1999; Kimery and
McCord, 2002), while others find no such linkage (e.g., Liao and
Cheung, 2001; Miyazaki and Fernandez, 2001). The 45 studies
reviewed by Chang et al. (2005) examined either a general
conceptualization of risk or focused on only one dimension of
risk. Thus, the inconsistencies regarding the influence of per-
ceived risks may be due to the examination of only ‘overall risk’ or
limited conceptualization of the risk construct. Examination of
the simultaneous impact of various specific dimensions of per-
ceived risk on purchase intentions may shed greater insight on
the actual role of perceived risk in the consumer decision process.
Consumers often rely on risk relievers such as the brands or
stores that have a good reputation as a means to lessen their
uncertainty (Derbaix, 1983). Furthermore, consumers perceive
higher levels of risk when shopping online than when shopping in
traditional channels (Bhatnagar and Ghose, 2004). Recent
research shows that three types of risk – product performance,
financial, and time risks – are highly relevant to online shopping
(Forsythe and Shi, 2003).
Product risk is described as the loss experienced by consumers
when their expectations of a product do not actualize after
purchase (Forsythe and Shi, 2003). This risk is largely due to the
online shopper’s inability to examine products physically before
buying (Bhatnagar et al., 2000), and consumers’ perceived product
risk is likely to rise when desired information about the product is
limited, when the price is high, and when the consumer cannot
adequately evaluate the product (Forsythe and Shi, 2003). Product
risk varies across product categories and retail channels. Because
apparel product inspection is limited in the online environment,
consumers are likely to reduce product performance risk by
purchasing well-known brand name products from well-known
retail websites. Given that product brand image signals certain
product attributes relative to product performance, and online
store image signals quality of the products carried, both product
brand image and online store image are expected to impact
product risk in the online environment.
H3. Favorability of product brand image will negatively influence
perceived product performance risk for apparel products in online
shopping.
H4. Favorability of online store image will negatively influence
perceived product performance risk for apparel products in online
shopping.
Financial risk is generally described as a potential loss of
money (Forsythe and Shi, 2003) and is common across product
categories (Bhatnagar et al., 2004). Financial risk includes issues
related to refunds and misuse of one’s credit card information
(Forsythe and Shi, 2003). Thus, it is likely that perceived financial
risk, derived largely from trust in the online retailer, may be
reduced if the online store image is favorable. Studies show that
perceived overall risk tends to decrease when online stores use
 M. Aghekyan-Simonian et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 325–331
safety cues (Guda et al., 2008), suggesting that perceived financial
risk is influenced by the consumer’s image of the online store.
When online retailers use safety cues such as ensuring high
protection of online transactions, they may build trust toward
the retailers and thereby enhance the online store image.
Findings of Chenga et al. (2008) suggest a negative relationship
between online retailers’ image and consumers’ perceived online
risk. Although Chenga et al.’s (2008) study does not separate
perceived risk by specific dimensions as in our study, it does show
that perceived risks are generally reduced by a favorable online
store image. Furthermore, store image has been shown to reduce
financial risk in traditional store environments (Roselius, 1971),
suggesting a negative relationship between store image and
perceived financial risk (Liljander et al., 2009). Though these
studies focus on physical stores, this relationship is expected to
apply to online stores as well.
H5. Favorability of online store image will negatively influence
perceived financial risks associated with apparel products in online
shopping.
Time risk in online shopping is described as time loss due to
difficulties in the website navigation, submitting a product order,
and waiting for product delivery (Forsythe and Shi, 2003);
furthermore, site design affects functional attributes of online
stores such as ease of navigation and product order submission
(Littler and Melanthiou, 2006). Hence, a more favorable image of
the online store could positively bias consumers’ evaluations of
other store image attributes such as functionality (e.g., ease of
navigation and placing an order) resulting in less time risk. Store
image has been reported to reduce time risks in traditional store
environments (Roselius, 1971), so it is plausible that such risk
relieving effects of store image may also exist in the online
shopping environment.
H6. Favorability of online store image will negatively influence
perceived time risk in online shopping for apparel products.
A number of studies demonstrate that website features that
reduce risk also influence consumers’ purchasing behavior. For
instance, higher confidence in transactional security and protec-
tion of confidential information results in more positive consumer
attitudes toward online purchases (Keeney, 1999). Given that
perceived risk has been shown to reduce purchase intentions in
both traditional (e.g., Grewal et al., 1998) and online shopping
channels (e.g., Heijden and Verhagen, 2004; Kwon and Lennon,
2009), it is expected that the three types of perceived risks
defined in this study will similarly reduce purchase intentions
among online shoppers.
Product Brand
Image
H3
H5 H4
H6
Online Store
Image
Fig. 1. Hypothesized model of measuring impact of brand image and online store image on risks and purchase intentions.
327
H7. Perceptions of financial risk will negatively influence online
purchase intentions for apparel products.
H8. Perceptions of product risk will negatively influence online
purchase intentions for apparel products.
H9. Perceptions of time risk will negatively influence online purchase
intentions for apparel products.
A model showing the hypothesized relationships is presented
in Fig. 1.
3. Method
3.1. Research design
A web-based survey was conducted to examine the hypoth-
eses in context to three products (shirt, dress, and athletic shoes).
Apparel continues to be one of the best selling online product
categories (Moore, 2012) despite the need for trialability and
tangibility to reduce perceived risks.
In order to increase the variability of responses to survey
items, the researchers created four versions of the questionnaire,
each reflecting a combination of more or less favored product
brands and online store names for all three products. Survey
participants were randomly assigned one of the four versions. To
identify more and less favorable product brands and online stores
for each product category, a pretest was conducted with a random
sample of 73 female college students recruited from a South-
eastern university. The initial list of product brand names and
online store names were identified based on their market share
(i.e., larger and smaller market share deemed to reflect more or
less favorability). Thirty-seven product brands (11 brands for
athletic shoes, 16 brands for dresses, and 10 brands for shirts)
and nine online stores selling these products were rated using a
seven-point Likert-type scale item (1¼I do not like this brand/
online store at all; 7¼ I like this brand/online store very much).
For each product category, two product brands and two online
stores (representing more or less favored product brands and
online stores) were chosen based on their mean favorability
scores. A series of t-tests showed that the two most and least
favored product brands or online stores chosen for each product
category had statistically significant mean differences. Two dress
brands—Ralph Lauren (M¼4.32, SD ¼2.07) and Tommy Hilfiger
(M ¼2.54, SD¼1.52), t ¼10.40, p o.05; two shirt brands—Ralph
Lauren (M ¼4.79, SD¼2.04) and Kenneth Cole Reaction (M¼2.81,
SD¼1.83), t¼8.42, p o.05; and two athletic shoe brands—Nike
(M ¼5.81, SD¼1.55) and Tommy Hilfiger (M ¼1.97, SD¼1.56), t
¼20.80, po.05, were chosen as the product brands representing
H1
Financial Risk
H7
Product Risk H8
Purchase Intention
H9
Time Risk
H2
328 M. Aghekyan-Simonian et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 325–331
high and low favorability, respectively. Amazon.com (M¼3.39,
SD¼1.59) and Overstock.com (M¼2.27, SD ¼2.16) were selected
as the more and less favored online stores to be used as contexts
for the surveys. Favorability means for the two online stores
differed significantly (t ¼3.94, p o.05).
It was necessary to control for the influence of product esthetic
and design factors so that ratings were based on product brand
and online store names. Therefore, identical product pictures
were used in all four versions of the survey. Participants
were shown a product picture along with a randomly assigned
(more or less favored) product brand name and (more or less
favored) online store name, then completed the questions relat-
ing to that product and online store combination. This procedure
was repeated for each of the other combinations of products/
stores.
3.2. Sampling procedure and sample characteristics
The main survey data were collected from a random sample of
875 female college students enrolled at a Southeastern university
who volunteered to participate in this study. Before the main
survey, a pilot test was conducted with another random sample of
157 female college students recruited from the same university in
order to assure the validity and reliability of the survey instru-
ments. College students are a major consumer group in the US
online market as they spend more money online compared to
other demographic segments. They are potentially valuable target
consumers for online retailers because they feel comfortable with
online shopping. In addition, female college students are intensive
purchasers of the chosen products for this research.
Announcements soliciting participation and including a URL
that linked to a web survey were e-mailed to students. The Office
of Institutional Research and Assessment of the participating
university selected a random sample of students for each phase
of this study (1250 students for the pretest for brand and online
store selection; 3750 students for the pilot test of the question-
naire, and 7717 students for the main survey), sent the initial
invitation e-mail and a follow-up e-mail two days after the first
e-mail. To increase the participation rate, a random drawing of
$200 was announced for the main survey.
The mean age of respondents in the main survey was 22.8
(SD¼6.12); 82% of respondents were between 19 and 24, 9% were
between 25 and 28, and 9% were 29 and older. About 27% of the
participants were graduate students while 73% were undergrad-
uate students. The majority of the respondents were White/
Caucasian (81.2%), followed by African-American (9.4%), Asian
(7.2%), and Hispanic (2.2%).
H1
Product Brand
Image
H3
-.26*; -.17*; - .10*
H5
-.39*; -.39*; -.30*
-.11*; .01; -.10*
Online Store
Image
H2
Fig. 2. Modified model and hypotheses. Numbers around a path indicate standardized coefficients of the path for shirts, dress, and athletic shoes, in this order, resulting
from the SEM. * p o .05.
3.3. Instrument
The main survey questionnaire contained measures for pro-
duct brand image, online store image, three types of perceived
risks, and purchase intention, for each of the three product
categories. A 16-item scale developed by Forsythe et al. (2006)
was used to measure the three perceived risks (7 items for
financial risk, 5 items for product risk, and 4 items for time risk).
The brand utility scale developed by Vasquez et al. (2002) was
adapted to measure product brand image because this scale
measures both functional and symbolic associations with the
brand, consistent with our definition of brand image. Of 11
original items, only nine were used in the main survey, and two
of these items were eliminated after the pilot test produced low
factor loadings of the two items. A scale adapted from Yun and
Good (2007) was used to measure online store image. Yun and
Good’s (2007) original scale had 21 items, but 14 items were
eliminated after the pilot test due to low factor loadings. Thus,
only seven items were used in this study. The items for perceived
risks, brand image, and online store image were rated using a
7-point Likert scale (1¼strongly disagree, 7¼strongly agree).
Further, Theo and Liu’s (2007) 6-item purchase intention scale
was used to measure online purchase intentions (1 ¼ unlikely,
7¼likely), and demographic questions were asked at the end of
the survey.
4. Analyses and results
4.1. Scale reliability and validity
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood
estimation was performed to test the validity of measurement
models with the data. Perceived time risk was highly correlated
with perceived financial risk. So, to avoid multicollinearity and
have a measure that meets discriminate validity requirements,
financial and time risks were combined, creating a 10-item factor
called financial/time risk. As a result, some hypotheses had to be
revised—H7 and H9 are combined resulting in the new H6; H5
and H6 are combined resulting in the new H5 (see Fig. 2 for the
modified model and hypotheses). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
(.79–.93) demonstrate acceptable internal reliability for all scales.
4.2. Hypothesis testing
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to test the
proposed hypotheses. First, SEM analyses were applied to each
product separately and model fit for each product was examined.
.23*; .13*; .25*
Financial/Time .00; -.23*; .07
Risk
H6
Purchase Intention
Product Risk H7
-.31*;-.26*;-.30*
H4
.04; .06; .02
 M. Aghekyan-Simonian et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 325–331
Then, estimated coefficients and their statistical significance for
the regression paths between the latent variables were examined
to test the hypotheses.
Model fit was acceptable for each product—shirt:
RMSEA ¼.051, CFI ¼.94, IFI ¼.94; dress: RMSEA ¼.055, CFI¼ .94,
IFI ¼.94; and athletic shoes: RMSEA¼ .051, CFI ¼.95, IFI ¼.95. The
path model was used to examine the direct effect of product
brand image (H1) and online store image (H2) on purchase
intentions and on the two remaining types of perceived risks
(H3, H4, and H5) for each product separately and also to test the
direct effect of these perceived risks on purchase intentions for
each product (H6 and H7).
Results (see Fig. 2) show support for H1 (product brand image
will positively influence purchase intention) across all three
products (shirt: b ¼.23; dress: b ¼.13, athletic shoes: b ¼.25).
However, path coefficients between online store image and
purchase intentions were not significant for any of the three
products, failing to support H2 that online store image will
positively influence purchase intentions.
Results also show support for H3 that product brand image
negatively influences perceived product performance risk across
all three products (shirt: b ¼  .26; dress: b ¼  .17, athletic shoes:
b ¼  10). The influence of online store image on perceived
product risk (H4) was supported for the shirt (b ¼  .11) and
athletic shoes (b ¼  .10), but not for the dress. In addition, the
negative relationship between online store image and perceived
financial/time risk (H5) was supported across all three products
(shirt: b ¼  .39; dress: b ¼ .39, athletic shoes: b ¼ .30). H6,
which addressed negative impact of financial/time risk on pur-
chase intention, was supported only for the dress (b ¼  .23). H7
(negative impact of product performance risk on purchase inten-
tion) was supported across all three products (shirt: b ¼ .31;
dress: b ¼  .26, athletic shoes: b ¼ .30).
5. Discussion and Conclusions
The primary objective of the present study was to examine the
direct and indirect influences of product brand image and store
image on consumers’ online purchase intentions for fashion
apparel products. The results of this study indicate the specific
routes through which both brand and store image impact differ-
ent types of perceived risks in the apparel category and subse-
quent purchase intentions—an important dimension of intention
formation that has not been previously examined. The results also
enable researchers to measure the relative contribution of pro-
duct brand image and online store image in online purchase
intentions for apparel.
Specifically, the results show that product brand image does
influence consumers’ online purchase intentions for fashion
apparel products both directly and indirectly by reducing various
risk perceptions. These findings extend and reinforce previous
findings that favorability of product brand image has a positive
impact on consumers’ purchase intentions in both the physical
store environment (e.g., del Rio et al., 2001; Dodds et al., 1991)
and the online environment (e.g., Lee and Tan, 2003) by illustrat-
ing both the direct effect of product brand image and the indirect
effect of product brand image on purchase intentions that is
mediated by perceived risks. Product brand image is a critical cue
in purchase intention formation when shopping online for
apparel products, suggesting that brand name serves as a surro-
gate for a variety of apparel attributes such as color, texture, and
fit that cannot be examined directly when shopping online. Thus,
product brand image is important as an indicator of product
quality in the apparel context, serving as a risk reliever (e.g.,
Derbaix, 1983; Roselius, 1971) in a category where consumers
329
experience greater product risk and leading to increased purchase
intentions.
Although previous research shows store image to have a
positive impact on consumers’ purchase intentions in both
physical stores (e.g., Grewal et al., 1998) and online stores (e.g.
Liang and Lai, 2002; Chen et al., 2010; Verhagen and van Dolen,
2009), this study fails to find a significant direct relationship
between online store image and purchase intentions. Instead,
findings in this study show that online store image indirectly
impacts purchase intentions through reduced product and finan-
cial/time risks. By including the mediating role of perceived risks,
our findings provide a more comprehensive look at the relation-
ship between online store image and purchase intention for
apparel products, thereby providing additional insight into pur-
chase decision formation and the role of perceived risk in this
process. Viewed together, these results suggest that in the fashion
apparel category, product brand image has a greater and more
direct impact on purchase intentions for apparel products than
online store image.
Our findings also suggest that the impact of online store image
on online purchase intention may be smaller than that of physical
store image on purchase intention for traditional stores. This is
not surprising given that the public nature of shopping at a
physical store can add significance of physical store image for
shoppers’ expression of values and status (e.g., shopping a well-
known and prestigious store may suggest the shopper’s social
status) through atmosphere and physical environment of the
store. On the other hand, the private nature of online shopping,
which usually occurs in a shopper’s home or other private spaces,
makes the value- or status-expression function of online store
image less meaningful, creating fewer concerns about the sym-
bolic value of online store image. However, it is important to
mention that this study examined only a limited number of
apparel brands. It may be that the impact of online store image
on purchase intention is weaker among the brands examined
than among other apparel brands.
The present study also extends the extant literature regarding
the relationship between product brand and online store images
and specific types of perceived risks associated with online
shopping. Specifically, we find support for the proposition that
both favorable online store image and product brand image
negatively influence product risk as well as financial/time risk.
These results are consistent with prior research findings in
physical store (e.g. Roselius, 1971) and online store environments
(e.g. Chenga et al., 2008; Liljander et al., 2009) and extend the
previous findings by showing that this relationship exists for two
specific types of perceived risks associated with online apparel
shopping.
Our finding that perceived financial/time risk is significantly
related to purchase intentions for only one of the three products
may lead to speculation that perceived financial/time risk does
not substantially hinder consumers from shopping online; it
certainly seems consistent with the findings of Swaminathan
et al. (1999) that financial risk has no significant influence on
consumers’ online shopping behavior and lends support to Chen
et al.’s (2010) finding that online security is not a significant
factor shaping college students’ online purchase intentions. How-
ever, failure to demonstrate a significant impact of financial/time
risk on online purchase intentions for two of the three products
may be due in part to the sample used in this study, as college
students are confident online shoppers that are typically sup-
ported by high-speed Internet connections that minimize
time risk.
The current finding that product risk significantly influences
purchase intentions across apparel products demonstrates that
product risk is likely to be a substantial barrier to purchase
330 M. Aghekyan-Simonian et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 325–331
intentions for various apparel products in online shopping envir-
onments. Based on the findings of this study, it can be concluded
that online stores can mitigate these product risks in the apparel
category through the use of strong brand name merchandise,
which have the potential to signal the quality of the product and
it’s attributes and increase purchase intention and sales.
6. Implications and Recommendations
The findings of this study lead to several theoretical and
managerial implications and recommendations for future
research discussed below.
6.1. Theoretical Implications
This research extends theoretical and empirical work in
perceived risks related to high-risk merchandise such as apparel
by examining the relative importance of product brand image and
online store image with regard to specific risk perceptions and
purchase intentions in online environments. The results extend
the theory of perceived risk by demonstrating that risk perception
mediates the effects of product brand and store images on
purchase intentions in the online shopping channel. These find-
ings offer fresh insight into the roles of product brand image and
online store image with respect to specific types of perceived risk
associated with online shopping and particularly, product risk
associated with shopping for apparel.
6.2. Managerial Implications
The findings provide practical implications for both marketers
and online retailers seeking to increase revenue by reducing
potential risks that may hinder consumers from purchasing
online. First, based on the results of this study, online apparel
retailers may benefit by prioritizing their marketing efforts to
focus on reducing product risks that are most likely to hinder
purchase intentions for apparel online. For fashion apparel, as
found in this study, reducing product risk is more important than
reducing financial/time risk. In finding strategies to reduce
perceived product risk in the online environment, strong brand
image products emerge as the most valuable asset for online
retailers selling apparel. Thus, online retailers will benefit from
including strong and favorable brand names in their offering and
employ marketing strategies that associate these strong brands
with their online store, so that consumers can make this connec-
tion in their minds. Furthermore, marketers of apparel and
fashion products may want to give increased attention to main-
taining their strong and favorable product brand image especially
when selling in the online channel.
Second, our findings that online store image only indirectly
influences purchase intentions (i.e. via perceived financial/time
risk) suggests that online store image does not serve as a direct
barrier to online purchase for apparel products, but does impact
financial/time risk perceptions. Hence, the online store image
signals the quality of the experience with respect to time spent
and security issues in the online store. Therefore, it is important
for online marketers design their online store image with respect
to esthetics, flow, and security in a way to ensure that their
customers have confidence in the online store and can easily
achieve their shopping goals to minimize perceived financial/time
risks. This may be especially important for pure online retailers as
they cannot enjoy a strong multi-channel brand image that can
positively bias online store perceptions.
6.3. Limitations and recommendations for future studies
The results need to be interpreted in light of some limitations.
First, the sample employed in this study is limited to female
college students in one university. Though it was a random
sample of students in the university, focusing on a single
geographical region limits the generalizability of the results. Also,
compared to the national population, the respondents in this
study are young, well-educated, and web-savvy. Using a national
sample of Internet consumers in future research could provide a
more externally-valid indication of the role of product brand
image and online store image on online purchase intentions
across consumer groups.
Second, the product categories chosen in this study do not
represent the whole spectrum of fashion apparel. Therefore, these
findings may not be generalized to all apparel products. Certain
types of risk, such as product risk, may be more or less pertinent
for some apparel products than others. For example, due to fit
requirements, product risk may be higher for suit pants, sun-
glasses, and high-heel shoes than for sport pants or basic t-shirts.
Inclusion of other apparel products that are potentially more or
less risky may help in understanding the role of product brand
image on perceptions of product risk and purchase intentions for
the entire category of apparel.
Finally, this study used a limited set of product brands and
online stores. In addition, the two online stores used in this study
were both Internet-only retailers. Further studies that include a
wider variety of product brands within and beyond the apparel
category and online stores including both multichannel retailers
(e.g., department store websites) and Internet-only retailers could
provide increased confidence in the findings regarding the roles of
product brand image and online store image in the online
shopping environment.
References
Agarwal, S., Teas, K.R., 2001. Perceived value: mediating role of perceived risk.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 9 (4), 1–14.
Beckwith, N.E., Kassarjian, H.H., Lehmann, D.R., 1978. Halo effects in marketing
research: review and prognosis. In: Hunt, H.K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer
Research. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 465–467.
Bell, S., 1999. Image and consumer attraction to intraurban retail areas: an
environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 6 (2), 67–78.
Bhatnagar, A., Ghose, S., 2004. Segmenting consumers based on the benefits and
risks of Internet shopping. Journal of Business Research 57 (12), 1352–1360.
Bhatnagar, A., Misra, S.M., Rao, R.H., 2000. On risk, convenience, and internet
shopping behavior. Communications of the ACM 43 (11), 98–105.
Bolton, R.N., Drew, J.H., 1991. A multi-stage model of consumers’ assessments of
service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (4), 375–384.
Chang, M.K., Cheung, W., Lai, V.S., 2005. Literature derived reference models for
the adoption of online shopping. Information and Management 42 (4),
543–559.
Chattopadhyay, A., Basu, K., 1990. Humor in advertising: the moderating role of
prior brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 27 (Nov.), 466–476.
Chen, Y.H., Hsu, I.C., Lin, C.C., 2010. Website attributes that increase consumer
purchase intentions: a conjoint analysis. Journal of Business Research 63,
1007–10014.
Chenga, J.M.S., Wangb, E.S.T., Linc, J.Y.C., Chend, L.S.L., Huanga, W.H., 2008. Do
extrinsic cues affect purchase risk at international e-tailers: the mediating
effect of perceived e-tailer service quality. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 15, 420–428.
Dawar, N., Parker, P., 1994. Marketing universals: consumers’ use of brand name,
price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product
quality. Journal of Marketing 58 (2), 81–95.
del Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R., Iglesias, V., 2001. The effects of brand association on
consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18 (5), 410–425.
Derbaix, C., 1983. Perceived risk and risk relievers: an empirical investigation.
Journal of Economic Psychology 3 (1), 19–38.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers’ product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 28
(3), 307–319.
Forsythe, S., Shi, B., 2003. Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in internet
shopping. Journal of Business Research 56 (11), 867–876.
 M. Aghekyan-Simonian et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 325–331
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.
Greatorex, M., Mitchell, V.W., 1994. Modelling consumer risk reduction prefer-
ences from perceived loss data. Journal of Economic Psychology 15 (4),
669–685.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., Borin, N., 1998. The effect of store name, brand
name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions.
Journal of Retailing 74 (3), 331–352.
Guda, V.N., Kerkhof, P., Fennis, B.M., 2008. The persuasiveness of online safety
cues: The impact of prevention focus compatibility of web content on
consumers’ risk perceptions, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 22 (4), 58–72.
Heijden, H.v.d., Verhagen, T., 2004. Online store image: conceptual foundations
and empirical measurement. Information and Management 41 (5), 609–617.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., 1999. Consumer trust in an Internet store: a cross-
cultural validation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 5 (2), 1–36.
Keeney, R.L., 1999. The value of internet commerce to the customer. Management
Science 15 (4), 533–542.
Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1), 1–22.
Kimery, K.M., McCord, M., 2002. Third-party assurances: mapping the road to trust
in e-retailing. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4 (2),
63–81.
Kwon, W.S., Lennon, S.J., 2009. What induces online loyalty? Online versus offline
brand images. Journal of Business Research 62 (5), 557–564.
Lee, K.S., Tan, S.J., 2003. E-retailing versus physical retailing. A theoretical model
and empirical test of consumer choice. Journal of Business Research 56 (11),
877–885.
Liang, T.P., Lai, H.J., 2002. Effect of store design on consumer purchases: van
empirical study of online bookstores. Information and Management 39 (6),
431–444.
Liao, Z., Cheung, M.T., 2001. Internet-based e-shopping and consumer attitudes: an
empirical study. Information and Management 38 (5), 299–306.
331
Liljander, V., Polsa, P., van Riel, A.C.R., 2009. Modeling consumer responses to an
apparel store brand: store image as a risk reducer. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 16 (4), 281–290.
Littler, D., Melanthiou, D., 2006. Consumer perceptions of risk and uncertainty and
the implications for behavior towards innovative retail services: the case of
internet banking. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13, 431–443.
Martineau, P., 1958. The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review
36 (Jan./Feb), 47–55.
Miyazaki, A.D., Fernandez, A., 2001. Consumer perceptions of privacy and security
risks for online shopping. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 35 (1), 27–44.
Moore, S., 2012. Books, clothes and electronics are the most-shopped categories
online. Internet retailer. Retrieved from /http://www.internetretailer.com/
2012/01/24/books-clothes-and-electronics-are-most-shopped-categoriesS.
Ranganathan, C., Ganapathy, S., 2002. Key dimensions of business to consumer
web sites. Information and Management 39 (6), 457–465.
Richard, M.O., 2005. Modeling the impact of internet atmospherics on surfer
behavior. Journal of Business Research 58 (12), 1632–1642.
Roselius, T., 1971. Consumer ranking of risk reduction methods. Journal of
Marketing 35 (1), 56–61.
Swaminathan, V., Lepkowska-White, E., Rao, B.P., 1999. Browsers of buyers in
cyberspace? An investigation of factors influencing electronic exchange.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 5 (2), 1–24.
Teas, K.R., Agarwal, S., 2000. The effects of extrinsic cues on consumers’ percep-
tions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 28 (2), 278–290.
Theo, T.S.H., Liu, J., 2007. Consumer trust in e-commerce in the United States,
Singapore and China. Omega 35 (1), 22–38.
Vasquez, R., del Rio, A.B., Iglesias, V., 2002. Consumer-based brand equity:
development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Market-
ing Management 18 (1/2), 27–48.
Verhagen, T., van Dolen, W., 2009. Online purchase intentions: a multichannel
store image perspective. Information and Management 46, 77–82.
Yun, Z.S., Good, L.K., 2007. Developing customer loyalty from e-tail store image
attributes. Managing Service Quality 17 (1), 4–22.