指導教授：孫碧娟 (Prof. Pi-Chuan Sun) 研究生：劉晏伶（Yen-Ling Liu）

ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF
PERCEIVED RISK AND TRUST ON INITIATOR IN

ONLINE GROUP BUYINGTHE MODERATING
EFFECTS OF BUYER-INITIATOR RELATIONSHIP
AND PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT
(Prof. Pi-Chuan Sun)

Yen-Ling Liu
Thesis for Master of Business Administration

Department of Business Management
Tatung University
January 2010
ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF PERCEIVED RISK

AND TRUST ON INITIATOR IN ONLINE GROUP BUYING
THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF BUYER-INITIATOR
RELATIONSHIP AND PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
MANAGEMENT OF
TATUNG UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
BY
Yen-Ling Liu
JANUARY 2010
TAIPEI, TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This student would like to express her greatest gratitude to all the people who have
helped directly and indirectly in finishing her research. First of all, this student would like
to thank her advisor, Professor Pi-Chuan Sun (), an earnest teacher, for her
continuous encouragement and patient guidance about a paper in the right direction, right
way during the entire period of my education.
Second, appreciative acknowledgement is given to his thesis committees members,
Professor Hui-Chen Chang () and Professor Hao-Erl Yang (), for giving
her many valuable suggestions about her thesis. This student would like to again give her
sincere thanks to all professors and their valuable opinions during her thesis works.
Equally, this student would like to express her appreciation to her dear Professor
Kun-Hung Yeh (), Dean of the Graduate School of Management, and Professor
Ruey-Shii Chen (), for their help and encouragement on my studying period.
Besides, also thanks her dear classmate, Pei-Chun Pan (), Kuan-Hsuan Chen (
), Wan-Ju Hsu (), Ya-Li Chen () for helping her reap a fruitful her
graduate school life. Finally, this student wants to appreciate her parents, Tzeng-Tzong
Liu (), Chung-Hwa Wu ()and her dear boyfriend Bo-Rei Yu (), for
their encouragement and financial support.
For all people mentioned above, many thanks again.
98
ii
iii
ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF PERCEIVED RISK AND

TRUST ON INITIATOR IN ONLINE GROUP BUYINGTHE
MODERATING EFFECTS OF BUYER-INITIATOR RELATIONSHIP
AdvisorProf. Pi-Chuan Sun

StudentYen-Ling Liu
TATUNG UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
MASTERS THESIS
January 2010
ABSTRACT
In recent years, the booming development of the electronic commerce has been
accelerating the growth of Taiwan's online shopping market. Online group buying is a
new way of online shopping, based on the network platform to aggregate buyers needs,
and to obtain the benefit of quantity discount. However, trust on initiator has become an
important factor because it is uncertain and risky in the context of online group buying.
Besides, the buyer-initiator relationship was no longer confined to family as well as
friends, and buyers could buy a variety of products by aggregating other buyers demands.
iv
Hence, for initiators of online group buying, the key issues are to understand the factors
which affect intentions of attending online group buying.
The participants of this study are those who have experiences of attending of online
group buying. Five antecedents (such as reputation, interaction, disposition to trust,
uncertainty avoidance and subjective norm) of perceived risk and trust on initiator
examined, and in turn the impacts of trust on initiator and perceived risk upon intention of
attending online group buying were tested. The influence of perceived risk upon trust on
initiator was also included in the model. Buyer-initiator relationship and product
involvement were considered as moderators in this research model.
The empirical result of this study shows that there are significantly positive effects
of reputation, interaction, disposition to trust, uncertainty avoidance and subjective norm
upon trust on initiator. On the other hand, only interaction is able to reduce perceived risk.
Furthermore, this study finds that the buyer-initiator relationship influences trust on
initiator, and trust on initiator has stronger impact on intention of attending online group
buying than perceived risk. This study also proves that when buyer and initiator are
unfamiliar with each others or buyers have higher product involvement, the effect of
perceived reputation upon the trust on initiator will be stronger, and the effect of
buyer-initiator interaction on reducing risk will be stronger, too.
Key wordsOnline Group Buying, Trust and Perceived Risk, Buyer-Initiator Relationship,
Product Involvement
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT IN CHINESE ...........................................................................ii
ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH ..........................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................x
1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1
1.1 Research Background..............................................................................................1
1.2 Research Motivation ................................................................................................3
1.3 Research Questions and Objectives........................................................................5
1.4 Research Procedure .................................................................................................6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................8
2.1 Group Buying ...........................................................................................................8
2.2 The Factors that Influence the Intention of Attending Online Group Buying...... 11
2.3 Antecedents of the Trust on Initiator and Perceived Risk .......................................16
2.4 The effects of Moderation......................................................................................20
3. RESEARCH METHOD ..........................................................................23

3.1 Research Framework.............................................................................................23
3.2 Research Hypotheses .............................................................................................24
vi
3.3 Definition and Measurements ...............................................................................32

3.4 Data Analysis Method............................................................................................38
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH RESULTS.................................41

4.1 Basic Data Analysis................................................................................................41
4.2 Descriptive statistics analysis ................................................................................43
4.3 Reliability analysis .................................................................................................47
4.4 Structural Equation Modeling..............................................................................48
4.5 Moderating Effect ..................................................................................................61
4.6 Discussion of Empirical Results............................................................................68
5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .................................................79

5.1 Research Conclusion..............................................................................................79
5.2 Research Findings and Contributions .................................................................81
5.3 Management Implications.....................................................................................83
5.4 Research Limitations and Directions for Future Researches ............................84
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................86
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE ..............................................................98
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Measurement of the Trust to Initiator ..............................................................33
Table 2 Measurement of Perceived Risk ........................................................................33
Table 3 Measurement of Reputation ..............................................................................34
Table 4 Measurement of Interaction ..............................................................................35
Table 5 Measurement of Disposition to Trust................................................................36
Table 6 Measurement of Uncertainty Avoidance ..........................................................36
Table 7 Measurement of Subjective Norm.....................................................................37
Table 8 Measurement of intention to attend online group-buying ..............................38
Table 9 the Effective Questionnaire Response Rate .....................................................41
Table 10 Sampling Structure ..........................................................................................42
Table 11 Measurement Items and Variable Names.......................................................44
Table 12 Cronbach Coefficient of each Construct and Dimension..........................47
Table 13 Models Fit Analysis...........................................................................................49
Table 14 Convergent Validity of Exogenous Variables .................................................51
Table 15 Convergent Validity of Endogenous Variables...............................................53
Table 16 Discriminant Validity of Exogenous Variables -by Chi-Square Difference Test....55
Table 17 Discriminant Validity of Endogenous Variables -by Chi-Square Difference Test..56
Table 18 Discriminant Validity of Exogenous Variables -by Examining Confidence Interval...56
viii
Table19 Discriminant Validity of Endogenous Variables -by Examining Confidence Interval .57
Table 20 Confirmatory Factory Analysis.......................................................................58
Table 21 Path Description of the Model.........................................................................60
Table 22 The test of Measurement Invariance on Buyer-Initiator Relationship.................62
Table 23 Result of Moderating Effect of the Buyer-Initiator Relationship......................63
Table 24 Result of Path Analysis for the Buyer-Initiator Relationship...........................64
Table 25 The test of Measurement Invariance on Product Involvement ............................65
Table 26 Result of Moderating Effect of Product Involvement...................................66
Table27 Result of path Analysis for Product Involvement ..........................................67
Table 28 Summary of Analysis for Models without Moderating Effect .....................78
Table 29 Empirical Result...............................................................................................80
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Research Process.................................................................................................7
Figure 2 Research Framework .......................................................................................24
Figure3 Measurement Model of Exogenous Varibles ...................................................52
Figure4 Measurement Model of Endogenous Variables...............................................54
Figure5 Research Model..................................................................................................60
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
In recent years, as the Internet has been developing, more buyers are enjoying
online shopping because the Internet services as a convenient way to shop. Today,
consumers can not only buy goods they needs in the brick-and-mortar establishments,
but also be able to shop online. Compared to these two different cotexts, online
shopping has the advantages of more convenient, lower prices and more various
product categories. Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute (MIC) expects that
online shopping market including auction market still has 3% growth rate in this year.
Due to the advance of internet, online group buying becomes more and more
popular in the context of electronic commerce. Central idea of online group-buying is
the aggregation of geographically dispersed consumer purchasing power from all over
the countries that have a common interest in a certain product and come together on
the group-buying-sites to get price discounts (Rezabakhsh et al., 2006). In addition,
attending online group buying not only has competitive advantages of quantitity
system price and delivery service, but also cooperates and shares shopping
experiences with netizens. Comparing to auction sites which is used the way of the
highest bidder transaction, but buyers are under price competitive environment. Thus,
buyers are likely to enjoy shopping in online group buying.

In the past, the PTT board of National Taiwan University is the main site of
Taiwan online group buying, and the majority of the participants were students. Later,
some of well-known online group buying website such as I HER GO had been
promoted, whose target is focused on workers purchasing powers. Besides, beginning
in 2007, so far this website has created 961% annual growth and has more than one
million points per day reading rate. Recently, due to global economic recession, many
well-known firms such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)
also established internal website of online group buying mechanism. It not only helps
employees get benefits, but also takes advantage of this opportunity to promote their
products. Thus, online group buying is no longer confined to family, friends and
well-known Websites. Compared to the past, the majority of the initiators were main
buyers in online group buying, too. However, because of the impact of global
economic recession, many vendors are aggressive being the roles of initiators holding
the activities of together-bidding to aggregate demands and stimulate buying
intentions. Therefore, No matter the role of initiator is main buyer or vendor, online
group buying has the characteristics of disperse costs, sharing of experiences, and
sales at the expense of profits.
1.2 Research Motivation
MIC (2007) finds that cheaper price is the main reason for consumers to use
online shopping. But unable to view the product which they purchased, uncertain
after-sales service, their private information was unsafe from hacker in the purchasing
process, initiators did not delivery products after getting money, wasting for long time,
which are the major reasons for buyers are worried and dissatisfaction to the
tranctraction online group buying (Lin, 2006).
Lee and Turban (2001) point out that trust is an important factor in the uncertain
and risky environment, and consumers purchase decision is based on the trust on
vendor, which also explain the importance of trust for online transactions (Urban et al.,
2000). Thus, in order to promote the intention of attending online group buying,
initiator should focus on how to increase the degree of trust on them and reduce
perceived risk experienced by buyers.
In previous research, Lin (2006) has discussed the influences of Initiators
characteristic (reputation and interaction), individuals characteristic (uncertainty
avoidance), subjective norm, and perceived risk to the trust on initiator. Yang (2006)
also proposes that reputation and disposition to trust have impacts on perceived risk in
online group buying. There are many scholars believe that trust and risk have close
relationship in online shopping (Williamson, 1993; Mayer et al., 1995). Buttener and
3
Goritz (2008) show that trust promotes both intention to buy and actual financial risk
taking.
However, due to environmental and geographical constraints, initiator is limited
to the person who is familiar with buyer in the past. Nowadays, buyer-initiator
relationship has developed from acquaintance to business relationship. Besides,
initiator plays an important role in the group buying activities, so the level of
relationship is able to influence on buyers attitude and behavior. Therefore, it should
be taken into account as a situational factor (Buttner and Goritz, 2008). Yet, this
factor has not been discussed in the related literature.
Furthermore, due to the advantage of convenience in the online shopping, the
products purchased from online group buying become a great diversity of products
from low-priced products such as: cookies to high-priced products such as: digital
camera and Heater, etc. Zaichkowsky (1986); Jain and Sharma (2000) also point out
that products that are high-priced having complex features which lead to higher
involvement levels. In contrast to low-priced products, these have simple features
resulting in lower involvement levels. Therefore, in the context of online group
buying, the extent of product involvement could influence purchasing behavior
(Assael, 1987). However, this factor also has not been compared and investigated in
the related literature.
Therefore, key objectives of this paper not only discusses of the antecedents and
consequences of trust on initiator as well as perceived risk, but also understands the
impact of perceived risk upon trust on initiator. Further examines the influences of
perceived risk and trust on initiator upon the intention of attending online group
buying. Specifically, this paper includes buyer-initiator relationship and product
involvement in this model as moderators.
1.3 Research Questions and Objectives
According to the research background and motivations outlined in Section 1, this

study aims to investigate the following questions from the experiences of buyers in
online group-buying.
(1) To examine the influences of the characteristic of initiator (reputation and
interaction), the characteristic of individual (disposition to trust and uncertainty
avoidance) and social norm upon the trust on initiator.
(2) To examine the influences of the characteristic of initiator (reputation and
interaction), the characteristic of individual (disposition to trust and uncertainty
avoidance) and social norm on perceived risk.
(3) To examine the influence of perceived risk upon the trust on initiator.
(4) To examine the influences of perceived risk and the trust on initiator upon the
intention of attending online group buying.
(5) To examine the moderating effects of the buyer-initiator relationship on the
5
correlation between the characteristic of initiator (reputation and interaction) and

the trust on initiator as well as perceived risk.
(6) To examine the moderating effects of product involvement on the correlation
between the characteristic of initiator (reputation and interaction) and the trust
on initiator as well as perceived risk.
1.4 Research Procedure
The research procedure of this study begins with a description of research motive
and objectives, followed by the collection of data, research in relevant literature
needed by the study, construction of framework(s) and presuppositions, and the
development of the questionnaire.
The data gathered through the collection of
questionnaires is then analyzed and discussed for the subsequent presentation of

research conclusions and suggestions. The aforementioned procedure is graphically
illustrated as follows:
Research motivations and objective
Literature review
Estimate research framework
Questionnaire design and data collection
Data analysis
Consequence and discussion
Figure 1 Research Process

Source: This study.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Group Buying
Group buying is also called collective bargaining and together buying. Online
group buying market mechanisms seek to aggregate a variety of disparate buyers who
can remotely and asynchronously via the web by providing them price-based
incentives to participate in the market and buy the goods. Furthermore, Web-based
Group-Buying mechanisms, a refinement of quantity discounting, are being used for
both Business-to-Business (B2B) and Business-to-Consumer (B2C) transactions
(Anand and Aron, 2003). If the buyers with similar product or service requirements
can form a virtual coalition to bargain collectively with the sellers, it can reduce the
transaction cost of each side (Li et al., 2002; Rha and Widdows, 2002).
Recently, due to the advance of internet, online group buying is popular in the
context of electronic commerce. Central idea of online group buying is the
aggregation of geographically dispersed consumer purchasing power from all over the
countries that have a common interest in a certain product come together on the
group-buying-site to get price discounts (Rezabakhsh et al., 2006). Group buying
pricing mechanisms permit buyers to aggregate their purchasing power and obtain
lower prices than they otherwise would be able to get individually and this model is
enable buyers to obtain lower prices, as more people indicate a willingness to buy
8
from the Internet-based sellers Website (Kauffman and Wang, 2002).

McHugh (1999) demonstrated that there are two reasons about how to attract
buyers attending online group buying, one is consumers can purchase the product at
the prices below market. The other is group buying leds consumers have the number
of volume discounts, and negotiate the price with suppliers. Anand and Aron (2003)
indentify that group buying is composed of demand aggregation and quantity
discounts. Buyers have coordination abilities with vendor to achieve price discount
which they want (Yuan and Lin, 2004). Therefore, this study is adapted from Wang
(2006) who provides the three processes of group buying as follow:
(1) Demand aggregation refers to aggregate kinds of products or services on which
buyers have common demands to achieve bigger purchasing power.
(2) Coordination ability means that by negotiating with vendors, buyers are able to
ask seller to provide best price and feedback.
(3) Quantity discount means that vendor is based on the quantities of demands from
buyers to provide different types of discounts.
Lia (2002) provides five dimensions to observe group buying behaviorand as
follow. Also, Chen et al. (2007) find that the model of group buying is more suitable
for electronic commerce than the model of fixed pricing because group buying has a
learning effect, too.
(1) Initiator: Do buyers or sellers initiate a group buying?
9
(2) Variety of products: How many kinds of products are included in a collective
bargaining?
(3) Number of sellers: Are more than one seller involved in the collective bargaining?
(4) Power base of group buying: Is the collective power based on the quantity or value
of total orders?
(5) Reservation price: Whether the buyers join a collective bargaining with a
researvation price?
Zhou (2005) and Chen (2005) suggest that there are two roles in the online group
buying. One is main buyer which is a kind of initiator and a leader in group buying.
The responsibilities of main buyer are that he/she posts the issue about the
requirement of group buying, and then calculates the qualities of demand as well as
price to order the products which are buyers expected. The other role is follower who
refers to buyer in online group buying.
Based on the research of Lai (2002), the role of initiator in group buying is able
to be a main buyer or a seller, but the majority of the initiators were also main buyers
holding two types of transaction. One is a sample process that the main buyer inviting
relatives and close friends buying products together. The other is that the main buyer
gathers the followers who are unfamiliar with main buyer, and calculates the
quantities of goods before negotiating price, product quality, order and arrival dates
with seller. In addition, there are many advantages being main buyers because they
10
not only get best price to buy, but also make good friends and learn treasure
experience form holding online group buying. But this model of online group buying
still exist many risks. Especially, some main buyers disappear after getting money
from buyer, or even use poor product to replace product which buyers really want.
Also only main buyers can get coupons or gifts than other buyers. Therefore, many
vendors notice that there are opportunities in online group buying market. They begin
being initiators to hold together-bidding activities by their well reputation, distribution
tunnel, and best price to appear buyers attending their activities. Insunnary, no matter
the role of initiators are main buyers or vendors, the trust on initiator and existed risk
have impacts on intention of attending online group buying.
2.2 The Factors that Influence the Intention of Attending Online Group Buying
Grazioli and Wang (2001); Jarvenpaa et al. (2000) find that perceived risk and
trust determine the consumers attitude toward online purchase, which subsequently
affected willingness to purchase and actual purchase behavior. Bauer (1960); Mitchell
(1999); Pires et al. (2004) point out that purchasing involves taking risks for buyers.
In others words, it means that the possibility of accepting adverse consequences.
Risk is deemed to be even higher in online transaction because the lack of
physical contact curtails constomers opportunities to exert control (Harris and Goode,
2004; Pires et al., 2004). Mayer et al. (1995); Gefen et al. (2003) demonstrate that risk
11
taking defines as a consequence of trust. In addition, the crucial role of trust in

electronic commerce is underlined by a growing body of research. Some authors find
that trust fosters the intention to buy from a provider (Bart et al, 2005; Schlosser et al,
2006), to share personal information (McKnight et al, 2002; Bart et al, 2005), and
satisfaction with a provider (Harris and Goode, 2004). Hence, based on above
researches, it is not different to find trust and perceived risk are the major factors
which always impact on the intention to buy online.
2.2.1 Trust
In the past, trust has been studied in different disciplines such as psychology,
sociology, marketing, and buyer-seller relationship, resulting in multitude definitions
of trust (Mayer et al., 1995; Ganesan and Hess, 1997). Yet, Petermann (1996) agrees
that trust has three major constitutes:
(1) Uncertainty about the outcomes of an interaction.
(2) Personal harm as a possible outcome of the interaction.
(3) Lack of influence on the outcomes.
Mayer et al. (1995) define that trust is based on the expectation that the other will
perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to
monitor or control that other party. They also indicate that trust is always discussed by
three dimensions (such as: ability, benevolence and integrity) to explain the extent of
12
reliability from trustee:

(1) Ability refers to the trustees competence to fulfill promises given.
(2) Benevolence denotes that the trustee is interested in the trustors well-being.
(3) Integrity means that the trustee follows a set of desirable principles.
Further, Buttener and Goritz (2008) demonstrate marketing research has focused
on trust in a particular interaction partner and on its consequences in buyer-seller
relationship. Several authors indicate that more intense levels of buyerseller
communication enhance feelings of trust (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Doney and
Cannon, 1997). Specifically, trust is based on buyers first impression of a company
such as website design, size or reputation (Schlosser et al, 2006; Sillence et al, 2006).
Therefore, trust plays an important role in the first encounter between buyer and
company (McKnight et al., 1998; McKnight et al., 2002; Stewart, 2003; Trifts and
Haubl, 2003). Consequently, this study assumes that trust on initiator has an important
impact on intention of attending online group buying.
2.2.2 Perceived risk
Perceived risk is developed from the psychological study of a future which is

early proposed by Bauer (1960). He also indicates that buyer behavior is regard as a
kind of risk taking, and buyer actually take some kinds of risk because buyers cannot
know more about information of this product and the consequence of using. Perceived
13
risk refers to buyers subjective assessment of possible negative consequences that a

behavior such as a purchase process (Bauer, 1960; Dowling and Staelin, 1994;
Mitchell, 1999; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000). Jacoby and Kaplan (1972) expand this
construct to include five independent types of risk as below:
(1) Financial risk means the purchase of a product would lead to financial loss.
(2) Performance Risk means that after purchasing product, buyers found it is not they
want.
(3) Physical risk refers to using product could lead injury to buyers.
(4) Psychical risk relates to product bought by buyers cannot fit self-image.
(5) Social risk means that product is not acceptable by partners.
Roselius (1971) suggestes that consumers may suffer time loss, hazard loss, ego
loss, and money loss when they have purchased at online shops, and the definition of
these losses as follow. Especially, time loss has not taken into account in previous
research. (1)Time Loss: When some products fail, we waste time, convenience, and
effort getting it adjusted, repaired, or replaced. (2) Hazard Loss: Some products are
dangerous to our health or safety when they fail. (3) Ego Loss: Sometimes when we
buy a product that turns out to be defective, we feel foolish, or other people make us
feel foolish. (4) Money Loss: When some products fail, our loss is the money it takes
to make the product work properly, or to replace it with a satisfactory product.
14
Forsythe and Shi (2003) also propose that it mainly faces four kinds of perceived
risk during buyers shopping online. (1)Performance Risk is defined as the loss
incurred when a brand or product does not perform as expected. (2)Financial Risk is
defined as a net loss of money to a buyer and includes the possibility that ones credit
card information may be misused. (3)Privacy Risk means that privacy and credit card
security problems which could result from Internet transactions (Hoffmam et al., 1999;
Jacobs, 1997). (4)Time Risk may refer to the loss of time and inconvenience incurred
due to difficulty of navigation and/or submitting order, finding appropriate Web sites,
or delays receiving products.
In summary, this study employs financial risk, psychical risk, performance risk,
social risk, physical risk, time risk and privacy risk to measure perceived risk in
online group buying.
2.2.3 The relationship between trust on initiator and perceived risk
Mayer et al. (1995) identify trust is the willingness to take risk in the transaction.
Williamson (1993) defines trust as the decision to accept the risk. Buttener and Goritz
(2008) propose that with regard to trust, two different types of perceived risk need to
be distinguished. One is the risk associated with a particular interaction partner such
as the service provider (Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; Pires et al, 2004). This is because
Jarvenpaa et al. (2000) argue that the more one trusts someone, the less risky one
15
perceives an interaction with this partner. The other one is the risks perceived with
that kind of transaction in general such as online shopping (Jarvenpaa et al, 2000) or
buying drugs (Mayer et al., 1995). As Mayer et al, (1995); Delgado-Ballester and
Munuera-Aleman (2001) demonstrate that the stages of relationship will influence
different levels of trust. The more risky a type of interaction is perceived to be, the
more trust is necessary to engage in such an interaction with a particular partner.
Furthermore, McKnight et al. (2002); Schlosser et al. (2006) also indicate that trust is
more important in electronic commerce because of its higher risks compared to
traditional offline retailing.
2.3 Antecedents of the Trust on Initiator and Perceived Risk
This study integrates three perspectives such as initiators characteristics,

individual characteristics, and subjective norm as antecedents of influence trust on
initiator and perceived risk by the researches of Lin (2006) and Yang (2006), and the
definitions of each antecedent will be demonstrated as below.
2.3.1 The characteristic of initiator
Lin (2006) indicates that reputation and interaction are two factors of initiators
characteristics because these are easily perceived in the context of online group
buying. The detailed is showed as follow:
16
(1) Reputation
According to the result of Doney and Cannon (1997), when buyers perceived
well companys reputation, the impact of trust on company also increase significantly.
Well reputation could help establish buyers trust (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999).
Next, reputation is also a direct information to company. Although it does not
completely include all information (McKnight and Chervany, 2002), understand
reputation is better than no other information (Granovetter, 1985). Jarvenpaa et al.
(2000) also suggest that size and reputation of Internet stores have influence on
consumer assessments of trustworthiness, perceived risk, and willingness to patronize
the store.
(2) Interaction
Doney and Cannon (1997) indicate saleperson should make business and social
contact with consumers, which could help build trust, because buyers are able to
observe behavior of initiators and by interacting with each other to build
trustworthiness on initiator. Confidently trust is also based on continuously interaction
to achieve reliability (Rousseau et al., 1998). Moreover, Buttener and Goritz (2008)
demonstrate trust is deemed to develop over time by repeated interactions. This is
because interaction provides the buyer with evidence that the vendor has various
positive attributes, thereby strengthening trusting beliefs, and it also provides buyers
17
with assurances that support willingness to depend on the vendor (trusting intentions)
(McKnight and Chervany, 2002). Fiore et al. (2005) point out that if vendor has more
interactions with buyer, it could not only reduce perceived risk but also allow buyers
enhancing more participation to online shopping.
2.3.2 The characteristic of individual
In the recent researches, Yang (2006) finds that the influence of disposition to
trust upon trust on initiator, and Lin (2006) also demonstrates the impact of
uncertainty avoidance upon trust on initiator. Therefore, this study integrates
disposition to trust and uncertainty avoidance are the antecedents of initiators
characteristic which impact upon trust on initiator and perceived risk.
(1) Disposition to trust
Disposition to trust is a generalized attitude learned from both personal
experience of fulfilled and unfulfilled promises as well as through direct observed
behavior of early caregivers (Rotter, 1967). McKnight et al. (2002) demonstrate that
an individuals disposition to trust has been assigned and is used to form an initial
swift trust judgment. Disposition to trust has a greater influence on an individuals
trust belief before any relevant information about a team members past behavior is
available (May et al., 1995; McKnight et al., 2002). Robert et al. (2009) find that
disposition to trust is akin to a personality trait and in some cases it has been treated
18
as one, and it is a general tendency resulting from past experiences. Gefen et al. (2000)
also find that disposition to trust will impact trust on vendor and reduce perceived risk
to promote buying intention.
(2) Uncertainty avoidance
Hofstede (1980) indicates that uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which a

society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these
situations, and it also influences on trust and buyer behavior. Liang and Huang (1998)
find shoppers which have experiences are concern about uncertainty in the electronic
transaction. Doney et al. (1998) show that uncertainty avoidance is the dimension of
culture that positively related to all of trust building processes, while individualism
and power distance have mixed relationships. Most perspectives on trust recognize
that risk is required for trust to influence choice and behavior. Hwang (2005)
identifies that the influence of uncertainty avoidance upon trust on initiator.
2.3.3 Subjective norm
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) argue that attitude and subjective norm are main
factors to decide the behavior willingness. Ajzen (1991) defines subjective norm as
the cognition of individual to social pressure, custom or others advices. Taylor and
Todd (1995) suggest that while subjective norm was a significant determinant for
19
close friends, it was a more important predictor of intention for those without prior
experience. Tan and Teo (2000) regard subjective norm as the influence from friends,
family, and colleagues/peers. Limayem et al. (2000) point out that subjective norm
will impact on buyer behavior and on intention to buy online. Roselius (1971) also
identifies that buyer will seek the advices of family and friends for products to reduce
perceived risk in the transaction. This is because Gefen et al. (2003) demonstrate that
society and environment are crucial issues to establish the trust. Hwang (2005) also
finds that subjective norm influences on online trust.
2.4 The effects of Moderation
2.4.1 Buyer-Initiator Relationship
Due to advance internet, initiator not only has close relationship with buyers
such as relatives, friends, colleagues, classmates, etc, but also is unfamiliar with
customers before they met in online group buying. In the previous research, some
scholars identify friendship is associated with intimate self-disclosure (Berndt and
Perry, 1986), and it is also based on voluntary social interaction (Haytko, 2004; Silver,
1990). This is because true friends are expected to be unmotivated by benefits that can
be used beyond the relationship (e.g., money, status), whereas business partners are,
by definition, at least partly motivated by these more instrumental concerns (Price
20
and Arnould, 1999; Murstein et al., 1977). Bove and Johnson (2000) also show that
buyer enjoys making transaction with close partner because they are depend on more
frequent interaction to enhance trust and decrease transaction cost and risk(Chih and
Li, 2006). Yet, Buttener and Goritz (2008) suggest that if customer to be evaluated is
unknown to the rater, research should address the impact of the stages of the
relationship with a vendor on the trust.
Based on above, in this study, there are two types relationships between initiator
and customer. One is existed friendship, the other is unfamilirity before they attend
online group buying, share experiences and exchange their needs to develop business
friendship. These different relationships influence on buyers attitude and behavior.
2.4.2 Product involvement
Day (1970) defines involvement as the general level of interest in the object, or
the centrality of the object to the persons ego-structure. Wulf et al. (2001) also find
that product involvement is an important measurement when discussing relationship
marketing. Higie and Feick (1989) show that product involvement means the
relevance or importance of a product. Cushing (1985) defines that the level of
important on persons life is product involvement and it also called that a persons
perceived relevance of the object for products category based on inherent needs,
21
values and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985). High-product involvement buyer will

present deeply attitude to understand the difference features (Sheth and Venkatesan,
1968). That is to say, buyer will spend time to search information to make a decision.
Besides, different involvement will cause different information processing cues
(Park and Young, 1986; Celuch and Slama, 1993). Petty et al. (1983) provide
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) to explaining a persons processing of
information differs by his or her level of involvement. When consumers have high
motivation to process communication, they are willing to exert a lot of cognitive
processing effort, which is called high-elaboration likelihood. On the contrary, when
motivation is low, consumers are neither willing nor able to exert a lot of effort.
Zaichkowsky (1985) demonstrates that if consumers have higher product involvement,
they will evaluate alternatives, pay more attentions on vendor, and get more detail
product information to reduce perceived risk. Based on above, different product
involvements result in different information processing cues which impact on buyers
attitude and behavior of attending online group buying.
22
3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Framework
This study examines the impacts of the trust on initiator and perceived risk in
online group-buying from five antecedents which is proposed by Lin (2006) and Yang
(2006) (reputation, interaction, disposition to trust, uncertainty avoidance, and
subjective norm). The intention of attending online Group-Buying is the endogenous
variable of the trust on initiator and perceived risk.
In addition, according to Bove and Johnson (2000) also show that buyer enjoys
making transaction with close partner because they are depend on more frequent
interaction to enhance trust and decrease transaction cost and risk(Chih and Li, 2006).
However, Buttener and Goritz (2008) suggest that if buyer-initiator relationship is
unfamiliarity, buyer will depend on initiators reputation and make frequently
interaction with initiator to evaluate trust on initiator and perceived risk.
Furthermore, High-product involvement buyer will present deeply attitude to
understand the difference features (Sheth and Venkatesan, 1968). That is to say, buyer
will spend time to search information to make a decision. Zaichkowsky (1985)
demonstrates that if consumers have higher product involvement, they will evaluate
alternatives, pay more attentions on vendor, and get more detail product information
to reduce perceived risk.
23
Hence, this study includes buyer-initiator relationship and product involvement

in the model as moderators. The empirical framework is shown in Figure 2.
Buyer-Initiator
Relationship
Product Involvement
Initiators
characteristic
Reputation
Interaction
H1a
H8a
H8b
H10a
H10b
H9a
H9b
H2a
H3a
H11a
H11b
Trust on
Initiator
H7a
H4a
H5a
Individual's
characteristic
H6
H1b
Intention of
attending
online group
buying
H2b
Disposition to
trust
H3b
Uncertainty
Avoidance
H7b
Perceived Risk
H4b
H5b
Subjective
Norm
Figure 2 Research Framework

Source: This Study
3.2 Research Hypotheses
3.2.1 Correlation between reputation and trust on initiator as well as perceived risk
Ba and Pavlou (2002) indicate that vendors reputation is an important factor

before interacting with buyers to build trust. Besides, Roselius (1971) shows that
buyers expressed a significantly more favorable response toward store image when it
24
was applied to a threatened money loss than they did for other loss types. Akaah and
Korgaonkar (1988) also find that vendors reputation is an important strategy for
reducing risk. Based on above, this study supposes that the well initiators reputation
is perceived by buyer, the higher trust on initiator will be created, and the lower
perceived risk is experienced by buyer. Thus proposes the following hypothesis:
H1aReputation has a positive effect on trust to initiator.
H1bReputation has a negative effect on perceived risk.
3.2.2 Correlation between interaction and trust on initiator as well as perceived risk
Buttener and Goritz (2008) demonstrate trust is deemed to develop over time by
repeated interactions. Several authors indicate that more intense levels of buyerseller
communication enhance feelings of trust (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Doney and
Cannon, 1997). Therefore, through interaction, buyers are able to understand more
characteristics about the products to build the trust on initiator. Fiore et al. (2005)
point out that if vendor has more interaction with buyer, it could not only reduce
perceived risk but also allow buyers enhancing more participation to online shopping.
Based on above, this study supposes that the more interactive between buyer and
initiator, the higher trust on initiator will be created, and the lower perceived risk is
experienced by buyer. Thus proposes the following hypotheses:
25
H2aInteraction has a positive effect on trust to initiator.

H2bInteraction has a negative effect on perceived risk.
3.2.3 Correlation between disposition to trust and trust on initiator as well as perceived risk
Robert et al. (2009) show that disposition to trust is a general tendency resulting
from past experiences. In the previous research, disposition to trust has been shown to
have a direct positive relationship with trust (Aubert and Kelsey, 2003). Gefen et al.
(2000) also find disposition to trust has impact upon the trust on vendor, reduceing
perceived risk, and promoting intention to buy. Based on above, this study supposes
that the higher disposition to trust buyers have, the higher trust on initiator will be
created, and the lower perceived risk is experienced by buyer. Thus proposes the
following hypotheses:
H3aDisposition to trust has a positive effect on trust to initiator.
H3bDisposition to trust has a negative effect on perceived risk.
3.2.4 Correlation between uncertainty avoidance and trust on initiator as well as perceived risk
Doney et al. (1998) show uncertainty avoidance is the dimension of culture that
positively related to all of trust building processes while individualism and power
distance have mixed relationships. Most perspectives on trust recognize that risk is
required for trust to influence choice and behavior. Hwang (2005) finds that
26
uncertainty avoidance will impact on online trust. Based on above, this study
supposes that the higher uncertainty avoidance buyers have, the higher trust on
initiator will be created, and the lower perceived risk is experienced by buyer. Thus
proposes the following hypotheses:
H4aUncertainty avoidance has a positive effect on trust to initiator.
H4bUncertainty avoidance has a negative effect on perceived risk.
3.2.5 Correlation between subjective norm and trust on initiator as well as perceived risk
Subjective norm was a significant determinant for close friends and it is a more
important predictor of intention for those without prior experience (Taylor and Todd,
1995). Limayem et al. (2000) indicate that subjective norm will impact on buyer
behavior and on intention to buy online. Roselius (1971) also identifies that buyer will
seek the advices of family and friends for products to reduce perceived risk in the
transaction. Hwang (2005) finds that subjective norm has an influence on online trust.
Based on above, this study supposes that the more subjective norms buyers are
influenced, the higher trust on initiator will be created, and the lower perceived risk is
experienced by buyer. Thus proposes the following hypotheses:
H5aSubjective norm has a positive effect on trust to initiator.
H5bSubjective norm has a negative effect on perceived risk.
27
3.2.6 Correlation between perceived risk and trust on initiator
Mayer et al. (1995) identify trust is willingness taking risk in the transaction.
Forsythe and Shi (2003) find that there are performance risk, financial risk, time risk
and privacy risk in the context of online shopping and in the online group buying case,
too. However, Williamson (1993) takes trust as the decision to accept the risk.
Therefore, it shows that how strong perceived risk is perceived by buyer influencing
upon the willingness to take risk and the trust on initiator. Based on above, this study
supposes that the lower perceived risk buyers feel, the higher trust on initiator will be
created. Thus proposes the following hypothesis:
H6Perceived risk has a negative effect on trust of initiator.
3.2.7 Correlation between trust on initiator as well as perceived risk and the intention
of attending online group-buying.
Buttener and Goritz (2008) demonstrate trust is deemed crucial for turning site
visitors into buyers in electronic commerce. However, as the online environment
might exist the possibilities for fraud, buyers are generally eager to find out before
any purchase whether a particular online shop is trustworthy or not (Grazioli and
Wang, 2001). Furthermore, perceived risk is a main factor to influence on buyer
behavior (Swaminathan et al., 1999). Bearden and Shimp (1982) also find that if
28
buyer has perceived risk on product, it will impact the extent of enjoyment from
buyers. Besides, Baird and Thomas (1985) also indicate that there is influence of
perceived risk which is experienced by buyers on purchasing decision. Based on
above, this study supposes that the higher trust on initiator will be created and the
lower perceived risk is experienced by buyers, the higher intention of attending online
group buying buyers have. Thus proposes the following hypotheses:
H7a
Trust on initiator has a positive effect on the intention of attending online
Group-buying.
H7bPerceived Risk has a negative effect on the intention of attending online
Group-buying.
3.2.8 The moderating effects of the buyer-initiator relationship
Close friends have more social interaction with customers and enjoy shaving a
lot of information (Newcomb and Brady, 1982), which could promote business
interaction (Crosby et al., 1990; Price et al., 1995). This is because true friends are
expected to be unmotivated by benefits that can be used beyond the relationship (e.g.,
money, status), whereas business partners are, by definition, at least partly motivated
by these more instrumental concerns (Price and Arnould, 1999; Murstein et al.,
1977). True friends concern about mutual interests, which causes less perceived risk
than business relationship (Blum, 1980). Bove and Johnson (2000) also show that
29
buyer enjoys making transaction with close partner because they are depend on more
frequent interaction to enhance trust and decrease transaction cost and riskChih and
Li, 2006. Yet, Buttener and Goritz (2008) suggest that if customer to be evaluated is
unknown to the rater, research should address the impact of the stages of the
relationship with a vendor on the trust. Therefore, if buyer-initiator relationship is
unfamiliarity, buyer will depend on initiators reputation and make frequently
interaction with initiator to evaluate trust on initiator and perceived risk
Based on above, this study assumes that the moderating effect of buyer-initiator
relationship between initiators characteristic and trust on initiator as well as
perceived risk. The hypotheses are as follows:
H8aThe buyer-initiator relationship has a moderating effect on the relationship
between reputation and trust on initiator
H8bThe buyer-initiator relationship has a moderating effect on the relationship
between reputation and perceived risk
H9aThe buyer-initiator relationship has a moderating effect on the relationship
between interaction and trust on initiator.
H8bThe buyer-initiator relationship has a moderating effect on the relationship
between interaction and perceived risk
3.2.9 The moderating effects of product involvement
30
Nowadays, all products bought from online group buying have becoming more
and more categories of product and from low to high priced goods. Products that are
highly priced having complex features, resulting in higher involvement levels. In
constract to low-priced products, these have simple features resulting in lower
involvement levels (Zaichkowsky 1986, Jain and Sharma, 2000). Park et al. (2007)
find that low-involvement buyer is mainly impacted by the quantity of information
high-involvement buyer is impacted by the quality of information. Generally, it is an
important information about the service quality of initiator. If this initiator has well
service and quality, this means he/she has good reputation, and buyer has deeply rust
on initiator(Luo, 2002). Therefore, reputation is a crucial issue for higher involvement
buyer. Zaichkowsky (1985) demonstrates that if consumers have higher product
involvement, they will evaluate alternatives, pay more attentions on vendor, and get
more detail product information to reduce perceived risk. Based on above, this study
assumes that the moderating effect of product involvement between initiators
characteristic and trust on initiator as well as perceived risk. The hypotheses are as
follows:
H10aProduct involvement has a moderating effect on the relationship between
reputation and trust on initiator.
H10bProduct involvement has a moderating effect on the relationship between
reputation and perceived risk
31
H11aProduct involvement has a moderating effect on the relationship between

interaction and trust on initiator.
H11bProduct involvement has a moderating effect on the relationship between
interaction and perceived risk
3.3 Definition and Measurements
There are several constructs in this study including trust on initiator, perceived
risk, five antecedents of the (reputation, interaction, disposition to trust, uncertainty
avoidance, as well as subjective norm), and intention of attending online group buying.
These items are measured by five point Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5). On the contrary, reverse items are different. Furthermore,
this study also multiple-items scale to measure product involvement. Definitions and
Measurements of variables are as follow.
3.3.1 Trust on initiator
This study employed the definition of Lin (2006); Ba and Pavlou (2000), trust as
the subjective assessment of one party that another party will perform a particular
transaction according to his or her confident expectations, in an environment
characterized by uncertainty. Therefore, this items of this study used in the construct
of the trust on initiator were adapted from Lin (2006); Hsu and Chiu (2004); Hwang
(2005), and combining similar variables into 4 items for evaluation.
32
Table 1 Measurement of the Trust to Initiator

Construct
Trust on initiator
Items
1. I believe this initiator will deliver to me a product that
matches the posted description.
2. Based on my experience with the online initiator in the past,
I know it provides good service.
I know it is trustworthy.
I know it is knows its market.
Source: This study items used in the construct of the Trust to Initiator were adapted
from Ba and Pavlou (2002); Gefen et al. (2003).
3.3.2 Perceived risk
According to the definition of Yang (2006), and Featherman and Pavlou (2003),
this study assumes that perceived risk in online group buying refers to facing all of the
loss in group buying. The items of this study used in the construct of perceived risk
were adapted from Yang (2006); Roselius (1971); Peter and Tarpey (1975); Mooney
(2000), and combining similar variables into 7 items for evaluation.
Table 2 Measurement of Perceived Risk

Construct
Dimension
Perceived Financial
Risk
Risk
Items
1. I think that it is that the purchase of a product from
group buying would lead to a financial loss for me
because of such things as its poor warranty, high
maintenance costs, and/or high monthly payments.
Psychological 2. I think that it is that the purchase of a product from

Risk
group buying would lead to a psychological loss for
me because it would not fit in well with my
33
Construct
Dimension
Items
self-image or self-concept.
Performance
Risk

group buying would lead to a performance loss for
me because it would run extremely poorly.
Social Risk

group buying would lead to a social loss for me
because my friends and relatives would think less
highly of me.
Physical Risk

group buying would lead to a physical loss for me
because it would not be very safe or would become
unsafe.
Time Risk

group buying would lead to a loss of convenience for
me because I would have to waste a lot of time and
effort getting it adjusted and repaired.
Privacy risk

group buying would lead to an privacy risk for me
because personal information is not safe from hacker.
Source: This study items used in the construct of Perceived Risk were adapted from
Yang (2006); Roselius (1971) Peter and Tarpey (1975); Mooney (2000)
3.3.3 Antecedents of trust on initiator and perceived risk
(1)Reputation
This study based on the researches of Ganesan (1994) and Lin (2006), define
reputation as this initiator has a reputation for being honest and be concerned about
buyers, and combining similar variables into 2 items for evaluation.
Table 3 Measurement of Reputation
Construct
Reputation
Items
1.
This initiator has a reputation for being honest.
2.
This initiator is known to be concerned about buyers.

34
Source: This study items used in the construct of initiators reputation were adapted
from Lin, Chen-Hung (2006); Doney and Cannon (1997); Jarvenpaa et al. (2000).
(2)Interaction
According to the definitions of McKnight and Chervany (2002), this study
assumes interaction means that the interactive behavior between buyers and initiators.
The items of this stydy used in the construct of interaction were adapted from Lin
(2006); Doney and Cannon (1997); Li et al. (2002), and combining similar variables
into 4 items for evaluation.
Table 4 Measurement of Interaction
Construct
Interaction
Items
1.
This initiator takes a lot of time learning our needs.
2.
This initiator tells buyers the requirement of group buying

exactly.
3.
This initiators responses are relevant and accurate, and his/her

content is appropriate to buyer requirements.
4.
Relevant FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) helps buyer to

solve problems by themselves.
Source: This study items used in the construct of initiators reputation were adapted
from Lin (2006); Doney and Cannon (1997); Li et al. (2002).
(3)Disposition to trust
According to the definitions of disposition to Trust from the result of Yang (2006)
and Gefen (2000), this study assumes that disposition to trust refer to a general
inclination to display faith in humanity and to adopt a trusting stance toward others.
Therefore, referring to the items of Yang (2006) and Gefen (2000) and four items
were used to measure disposition to trust.
35
Table 5 Measurement of Disposition to Trust

Construct
Disposition to trust
Items
1.
I generally trust other people
2.
I tend to count upon other people
3.
I generally have faith in humanity
4.
I feel that people are generally reliable Dropped
Source: Yang (2006); Gefen (2000)
(4)Uncertainty avoidance
Hofstede (1980) proposes uncertainty avoidance indicates the extent to which a
society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these
situations by providing greater career stability. Thus, the items of this study used in
the construct of the uncertainty avoidance were adapted from Lin (2006); Clugston et
al. (2000); Hwang (2005), and combining similar variables into 4 reverse items for
evaluation.
Table 6 Measurement of Uncertainty Avoidance
Construct
Uncertainty
avoidance
Items
1.
It is important to have requirements and instructions of

Group-Buying spelled out in detail so that followers
always know what they are expected to do.
2.
Rules and regulations of Group-Buying are important

because they inform followers what the organization
expects of them.
3.
Standard operating procedures are helpful to followers

on the Group-Buying activities.
4.
Instructions for operations are important for followers

on the Group-Buying activities.
Source: this study items used in the construct of Uncertainty Avoidance were adapted
from Lin (2006); Clugston et al. (2000); Hwang (2005)
36
(5)Subjective norm
Based on the definition of Thompson et al. (1991), this study uses the influences
of media, friends and website friends as formative dimension of social norms.
Therefore, the items of this study used in the construct of the subjective norm were
adapted from Lin (2006); Hsu and Chiu (2004); Hwang (2005), and combining
similar variables into 6 items for evaluation.
Table 7 Measurement of Subjective Norm
Construct
Subjective norm
Items
1. I read/saw news reports that attending the Group-Buying
activity was a good way.
2. The popular press depicted a positive sentiment for
attending the Group-Buying activity.
3. The members of my relatives and friends depicted a
positive sentiment for attending the Group-Buying activity.
4. The members of my relatives and friends convinced me of
5. Expert opinions depicted a positive sentiment for attending
the Group-Buying activity.
6. Expert opinions convinced
Group-Buying activity.
me
of
attending
the
Source: this study items used in the construct of subjective norm were adapted from
Lin (2006); Hsu and Chiu (2004); Hwang (2005)
3.3.4 Intention of attending online group-buying
Based on the definition of Lin (2006) and Gupta et al. (2004), this study assumes
that the intention of attending online group buying refers to the willingness of buyers
to attend online group buying again. Thus, this items of this study used in the
37
construct of the intention of attending online group-buying were adapted from Lin
(2006) and Gupta et al. (2004) and combining similar variables into 3 items for
evaluation.
Table 8 Measurement of intention to attend online group-buying
Construct
intention of
attending Online
Group-Buying
Items
1.
I have a willingness to continue attending the

Group-Buying activity with this initiator.
2.
It is possible for me to continue attending the

3.
I am interested to continue attending the Group-Buying

activity with this initiator.
Source: this study items used in the construct of the intention of attending online
group-buying were adapted from Lin (2006); Gupta et al. (2004).
3.3.5 Measurement of product involvement
Based on the definition of Higie and Feick (1989) and Wei (2006), this study
assumes product involvement means that the relevance or importance of a product.
Therefore, this study items used Revised Personal Involvement Inventory PII were
adapted from Zaichkowsky (1985), including ten items such as important, relevant,
means a lot of me, valuable, interesting, exciting, appealing, fascinating, needed and
involved for evaluation.
3.4 Data Analysis Method
The methods of statistic analysis used by this study are explained as below.
(1)Descriptive statistics: Descriptive statistics are used to describe the basic features
38
of the data gathered from an experimental study in various ways.

(2)Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA): This study adopts the two-step approach
developed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and performs confirmatory factor
analysis with AMOS 6.0 to validate the fitness of individual questions and the
measurement models. The t-values are used as an indicator for convergent
validity.
(3)Reliability analysis: Reliability is the extent to which the measurements of a test
remain consistent over repeated tests of the same subject under identical
conditions. Cronbachs measures how well a set of items (or variables)
measures a single unidimensional latent construct. In social science, 0.7 is the
minimum of acceptable reliability value (Devellis, 1991).
(4)Discriminant validity: This study adopts the following two methods to assess the
discriminant validity. As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988),
discriminant validity can be assessed for two estimated constructs by
constraining the estimated correlation parameter between them to 1.0 and then
performing a chi-square difference test on the values obtained for the
constrained and unconstrained models. The chi-square difference should be
greater than 3.84 to be considered significant (p<0.05) and that means
discriminant validity is achieved (Bagozzi and Phillips, 1982). By determining
whether the confidence interval ( two standard errors) around the correlation
estimate between the two factors includes 1.0. If the confidence interval does
not include 1.0, that means discriminant validity exists. (Anderson and Gerbing,
1988)
(5) Structural Equation Modeling: A measurement model which including an
39
independent variable and one or more dependent variables, usually can list an
equation of every dependent variables to indicate the correlation between this
dependent variable and other independent variables. In this research, the model
was adopted to verify the correlations among the reputation of Initiator, the
interaction of Initiator, Disposition to Trust, Uncertainty Avoidance, Social
Norms, the trust of Initiator, Perceived Risk and the intention of attending
Online Group-Buying.
40
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH RESULTS

4.1 Basic Data Analysis
4.1.1 Questionnaire response rate
This study employs paper and online questionnaires whixh were used
anonymous and convenient sampling targeting the public who have attending Online
Group-Buying. Four hundred questionnaires were collection within one month. 59
questionnaires were excluded as incomplete responding or answering consistently
reasons, left 341 valid questionnaires in total. The effect responding rate is 85.25%
and details were shown in table 9.
Table 9 the Effective Questionnaire Response Rate
Total of the collected
questionnaires
Effective
questionnaires
Invalid
questionnaires
Paper
242
231
11
Online
158
110
48
Total
400
341
59
85.25%
14.75%
Percentage 100%
SourceThis study
4.1.2 Sampling Structure
Male participants were 45.7%, and female participants were 54.3%; in the age
distribution, the majority of the participants(36.4%) were in 25 to 35 age group and
then follow by 19 to 24 age group(33.7%)in the occupation distribution, the majority
41
of the participants were students and services, which were 35.8% and 17.8%
respectively; the majority of monthly income (26.1%) is below NT ten thousand
dollars; the majority of the attending online group buying frequency (64.2%) is less
three times in half year. Notably, in the role of initiator, 41.3% is a vendor and 53.4%
is a main buyer; Furthermore, 50.10% of the participants were known initiators before,
including relatives, friends, colleagues, and classmates. On the other hand, 48.71% of
the participants are unfamiliar with initiators before. The detailed sampling structure
was stated as table 10.
Table 10 Sampling Structure
Item
Gender
Description
No. of
Samples
Male
156
45.7%
Female
185
54.3%
Total: 341
Age
Occupation
Percentage
100.0%
Under the age of 18
0.9%
age of 19 to 24
115
33.7%
age of 25 to 35
124
36.4%
age of 36 to 45
55
16.1%
above the age of 45

Total
44
12.9%
341
100.0%
Agriculture/Forestry/Fishery/Animal
husbandry/ Mining
0.9%
Information/Communication
24
7.0%
Manufacturer
34
10.0%
Business/Finance
39
11.4%
Service
59
17.3%
Military/Police/PublicFunctionary/Teacher 14
4.1%
Students
122
35.8%
House keeper
23
6.7%
42
Item
Monthly
Income
How many
times
attending of
Online Group
Buying
the role of
Initiator
Description
No. of
Samples
Percentage
Others
Total
23
6.7%
341
100.0%
Below NT$ 10,000
89
26.1%
NT$10,001~ NT$20,000
49
14.4%
NT$20,001~ NT$40,000
84
24.6%
NT$40,001~ NT$60,000
67
19.6%
NT$60,001~ NT$80,000
34
10.0%
NT$ 80,000 or more

Total
18
5.3%
341
100.0%
Never
69
20.2%
Less 3 times
219
64.2%
3~6 times
48
14.1%
7~9 times
0.3%
Over 10 times
Total
1.2%
341
100.0%
A vendor (Not attending that

Group-Buying activities )
141
41.3%
A main buyer
182
53.4%
Unknown
Total
18
5.3%
341
100.0%
23
6.7%
87
25.5%
61
17.9%
Not familiar with
166
48.70%
Unknown
Total
1.2%
341
100.0%
The
Relatives and Friends
buyer-initiator Colleagues
relationship
Classmates
Source: This Study

4.2 Descriptive statistics analysis
The descriptive analysis was employed to observe the distribution of variables

discussed in the present investigation, mean and standard deviations were listed as
table 11.
43
Table 11 Measurement Items and Variable Names

Construct
Reputation
Interaction
Disposition
to Turst
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Measurement
Variable
Standard
Mean
Deviation
Name
1-1 This initiator has a reputation for

being honest.
REP1
3.60
0.618
1-2 This initiator is known to be

concerned about buyers.
REP2
3.67
0.620
2-1 This initiator takes a lot of time

learning our needs.
INT 1
3.52
0.649
2-2 This initiator tells buyers the

requirement of group buying exactly.
INT 2
3.81
0.658
2-3 This initiators responses are

relevant and accurate, and his/her
content is appropriate to buyer
requirements.
INT 3
3.77
0.629
2-4 Relevant FAQ (Frequently Asked

Questions) helps buyer to solve
problems by themselves.
INT 4
3.73
0.719
3-1 I generally trust other people
ITR 1
3.63
0.800
3-2 I tend to count upon other people
ITR 2
3.56
0.740
3-3 I generally have faith in humanity
ITR 3
3.57
0.766
3-4I feel that people are generally

reliable Dropped
ITR 4
3.59
0.741
4-1 It is important to have requirements

and instructions of Group-Buying
spelled out in detail so that followers
always know what they are expected to
do.
UA 1
2.06
0.681
4-2 Rules and regulations of

Group-Buying are important because
they inform followers what the
organization expects of them.
UA 2
2.08
0.677
4-3 Standard operating procedures are

helpful to followers on the
Group-Buying activities.
UA 3
1.97
0.674
4-4 Instructions for operations are

important for followers on the
UA 4
2.04
0.708
44
Construct
Variable
Standard
Mean
Deviation
Name
Measurement
Group-Buying activities.
Subjective
Norm
Trust on
Initiator
Perceived
Risk
5-1 I read/saw news reports that

attending the Group-Buying activity
was a good way.
SNM1
3.79
0.578
5-2The popular press depicted a

positive sentiment for attending the
SNM2
3.73
0.591
5-3 The members of my relatives and

friends depicted a positive sentiment for SNF1
3.63
0.647
5-4 The members of my relatives and

friends convinced me of attending the
SNF2
3.72
0.621
5-5 Expert opinions depicted a positive

sentiment for attending the
SNW1
3.82
0.583
5-6 Expert opinions convinced me of

SNW2
3.85
0.589
6-1 I believe this seller will deliver to

me a product that matches the posted
description
TR 1
3.80
0.644
6-2 Based on my experience with the

online vendor in the past, I know it
provides good service.
TR 2
3.73
0.636

online vendor in the past, I know it is
trustworthy.
TR 3
3.79
0.626

online vendor in the past, I know it is
knows its market.
TR 4
3.56
0.720
RF1
3.81
0.651
7-1 I think that it is that the purchase of

a product from group buying would
lead to a financial loss for me because
of such things as its poor warranty, high
maintenance costs, and/or high monthly
45
Construct
Variable
Standard
Mean
Deviation
Name
Measurement
payments.
Intention of
attending
Online
Group
Buying

lead to a psychological loss for me
because it would not fit in well with my
RSY1
3.84
0.633

lead to a performance loss for me
because it would run extremely poorly.
RPF1
3.88
0.640

lead to a social loss for me because my
friends and relatives would think less
highly of me.
RSO1
3.77
0.599

lead to a physical loss for me because it
would not be very safe or would
become unsafe.
RHY1
3.98
0.566
7-11 I think that it is that the purchase

of a product from group buying would
lead to a loss of convenience for me
because I would have to waste a lot of
time and effort getting it adjusted and
repaired.
RT1
3.87
0.650
7-13 I think that it is that the purchase

of a product from group buying would
lead to an privacy risk for me because
personal information is not safe from
hacker.
RPY1
3.93
0.726
8-1 I have a willingness to continue

with this initiator.
WI1
3.74
0.720
WI2
3.72
0.670
8-2 It is possible for me to continue

46
Construct
Variable
Standard
Mean
Deviation
Name
Measurement
8-3 I am interested to continue
WI3
3.70
0.686
Source: This Study

4.3 Reliability analysis
Academic researches usually adopt Cronbach as the index of reliability to test

the scale internal consistency. Nunnally1978suggested that Cronbach value of
0.7 as high reliability, scale needed to be modified if the value is lower than 0.6. In
terms of reliability analysis, the Cronbach coefficients of the characteristic of
initiators are: =0.684 for reputation and =0.830 for interaction. The Cronbach
coefficients of the characteristic of individuals are: =0.876 for disposition to trust
and =0.893 for uncertainty avoidance. The Cronbach coefficients of subjective
norm is 0.884. The Cronbach coefficients of trust on initiator is 0.828. The
Cronbach coefficients of perceived risk is 0.884. The Cronbach coefficients of
intention of attending online group buying is 0.915. The Cronbach value of
constructs of the scale all above 0.7 (table 12) expect the initiators reputation 0.684,
this shows the present research has good reliability.
Table 12 Cronbach Coefficient of each Construct and Dimension
Construst
The reputation of InitiatorREP
No. of Items
2
47
Cronbach
0.684
Construst
The interaction of InitiatorINT
No. of Items
Cronbach
0.830
Disposition to TrustITR
0.876
Uncertainty AvoidanceUA
0.893
Subjective Norm (SN)
0.884
The trust to InitiatorTR
0.828
Perceived Risk (PR)

7
The intention to Online roup-BuyingWI 3
0.884
0.915
Source: This Study

4.4 Structural Equation Modeling
The Amos version 6.0 is employed to test the Structural Equation Models. The
measurement model (also known as confirmatory factor analysis) and structural
model (also known as regression analysis) are two components of SEM. The
measurement model test the correlation between index variables and constructs, and
the structural model estimate parameters in order to do path analysis. These provide
data for further testing fitness model to verify constructs and hypothness.
4.4.1 Model Fit Analysis
The model of the present research includes various indicators such as absolute fit
measure index, incremental fit measures provided by Hair et al. (1998), as
parsimonious fit measure all above requested level. The results stated as table 13.
48
Table 13 Models Fit Analysis

Fit Index
Absolute Fit
Measure
Index
Recommended
value
Antecedents
of trust on
initiator and
perceived
risk
Consequences Model
of trust on
Fit
initiator and
perceived risk
CMIN
311.588
157.728
DF
154
70
CMIN/DF
Meet the criteria,3
2.023
2.253
Yes
GFI
Meet the criteria,0.9
0.918
0.939
Yes
AGFI
0.888
0.909
Yes
Acceptable 0.9~0.8
Incremental
Fit Measures
Parsimonious
Fit Measures
RMSEA
0.055
0.061
Yes
NFI
0.917
0.944
Yes
TLI
0.945
0.958
Yes
CFI
0.956
0.968
Yes
IFI
0.956
0.968
Yes
PNFI
0.743
0.726
Yes
PCFI
0.774
0.745
Yes
Source: This Study

4.4.2 Convergent Validity
The measurement model of exogenous variables is presented in figure 3. The

measurement model of endogenous Variables is presented in figure 4. After some
modifications on the errors of measurement, most fitness indicators are in compliance
with the overall fitness standards of the models. Therefore, the overall fitness is good.
Standardized factor loading for exogenous variables is listed in table 14 and for
endogenous variables is listed in table 15.
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggest that measuring variables value, the t-test
49
reach significant level (p<0.001) can get supported that items have good convergent
validity. The data of the present study showed all items T-value were higher than 3.29
(p=0.001) and reach significant level, which indicated the items have good convergent
validity.
According to measurement standard of Fornell and Larcker (1981), constructs
explaining variance need to higher than 0.5. The explaining variance of constructs in
this research all higher than this suggested standard. Convergent validities and
explaining variance results were listed in table14 and table15
50
Table 14 Convergent Validity of Exogenous Variables

Measurement
Construct
variable
Standardized
Factor Loading
()
Standard
t-value
Error
REP
Average
Variance
Extracted
51.10%
REP1
0.732
0.207
3.536
REP2
0.710
0.196
3.622
INT
56.50%
INT1
0.566
0.051
11.098
INT2
0.841
0.030
28.033
INT3
0.822
0.029
28.345
INT4
0.746
0.032
23.313
ITR
65.40%
ITR1
0.746
0.047
15.872
ITR2
0.690
0.040
17.250
ITR3
0.868
0.029
29.931
ITR4
0.911
0.026
35.038
UA
67.72%
UA1
0.813
0.028
29.036
UA2
0.868
0.026
33.385
UA3
0.805
0.034
23.676
UA4
0.804
0.028
28.714
SN
50.18%
SNM1
0.705
0.041
17.195
SNM2
0.695
0.041
16.951
SNF1
0.720
0.039
18.462
SNF2
0.705
0.050
14.100
SNW1
0.765
0.06
12.750
SNW2
0.656
0.053
12.377
Source: This Study
51
REP1
re1
Reputation
REP2
re2
INT1
n1
1
1
1
n2
INT2
1
n3
Interaction
INT3
1
INT4
n4
1
it1
ITR1
1
it2
ITR2
1
it3
Disposition to Trust
ITR3
1
ITR4
it4
UA1
u1
Uncertainty
Avoidance
UA2
u2
1
u3
UA3
UA4
u4
SNM1
s1
s2
1
1
SNM2
Subjective
Norm
s4
SNF1
1
SNF2
s5
s6
1
s7
SNW1
SNW2
Figure3 Measurement Model of Exogenous Varibles

Source: This Study
52
Table 15 Convergent Validity of Endogenous Variables
Construct
Measurement
variable
Standardized
Factor
Loading
()
Standard
Error
t-value
Average Variance
Extracted
57.20%
TR
TR1
0.744
0.03
24.800
TR2
0.772
0.035
22.057
TR3
0.883
0.025
35.320
TR4
0.599
0.050
11.980
51.62%
RF1
0.657
0.055
11.945
RSY1
0.785
0.030
26.167
RPF1
0.780
0.029
26.897
RSO1
0.726
0.038
19.105
RHY1
0.641
0.043
14.907
RT1
0.736
0.038
19.368
RPY1
0.691
0.038
18.184
WI
80.36%
WI1
0.743
0.045
16.511
WI2
0.969
0.014
69.214
WI3
0.959
0.014
68.500
Source: This Study
53
TR1
TR2
Trust on Initiator
1
t1
1
t2
TR3
t3
TR4
1
Intention of attending
Online Group Buying
t4
WI1
w1
WI2
w2
WI3
w3
RHY1
r9
RSO1
r7
1
r13
RPY1
Perceived Risk
RT1
r11
RPF1
r5
1
1
RSY1
RF1
r3
1
r1
Figure4 Measurement Model of Endogenous Variables

Source: This Study
4.4.3 Discriminate Validity
The present research adopts the suggestion of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) to
test the discriminate validity, the procedures are as following: divided all constructs in
pair set the correlation coefficient as 1, then comparing the determined model and
undermined model by Chi-square differential testing. If the Chi-square value of
54
determined model is significantly higher than undermined model, then these two
constructs have good discriminate validity. In addition, using the correlation
coefficient of construct plus/minus two standard deviations to calculate confidence
validity if the value does not include1. Data show the constructs of this study have
good discriminate validity.
When all constructs were paired up and the correlation coefficient was set as 1
from table16 to table17, the constructs show good discriminant validity when the
Chi-square value of determined model is significantly higher than undetermined
model. Additionally, table 18 and table 19 are showed the results using correlation
coefficient in judging discriminant validity.
Table 16 Discriminant Validity of Exogenous Variables -by Chi-Square Difference Test
Model
Unconstrained Model
Reputation <> Interaction
(correlation parameter between them is constrained to 1.0)
Reputation <> Disposition to Trust

Reputation <> Uncertainty Avoidance

Reputation <> Subjective Norm

Interaction <> Disposition to Trust

Interaction <> Uncertainty Avoidance

Interaction <> Subjective Norm

55
DF
632.801
159
821.830
160
189.029**
863.799
160
230.998**
847.237
160
214.436**
837.882
160
205.081**
1162.182 160
529.381**
1044.766 160
411.965**
917.626
284.825**
160
Model
Disposition to Trust <> Uncertainty Avoidance

Disposition to Trust <> Subjective Norm

Uncertainty Avoidance <> Subjective Norm

DF
1143.392 160
510.591**
1149.487 160
516.686**
902.494
269.693**
160
Note: ** p<0.01
Source: This Study
Table 17 Discriminant Validity of Endogenous Variables -by Chi-Square Difference Test
Model
Unconstrained Model
DF
477.918
Trust on Initiator <> Perceived Risk

Trust on Initiator <> Intention of attending Online group-Buying
Perceived Risk <> Intention of attending Online Group-Buying
73
1103.898 74
625.980**
879.174
74
401.256**
1441.198 74
963.280**
Note: ** p<0.01
Source: This Study
Table 18 Discriminant Validity of Exogenous Variables -by Examining Confidence Interval
Standard
Error
Reputation<>Interaction
0.293
0.076
0.141~0.445
Reputation<>Disposition to Trust
0.12
0.077
-0.034~0.274 Yes
Reputation<>Uncertainty Avoidance
0.19
0.062
0.066~0.314
Yes
Reputation<>Subjective Norm
0.168
0.067
0.034~0.302
Yes
Interaction<>Disposition to Trust
0.344
0.065
0.021~0.474
Yes
Interaction<>Uncertainty Avoidance
0.503
0.052
0.399~0.607
Yes
Interaction<>Subjective Norm
0.443
0.061
0.321~0.565
Yes
Disposition to Trust<>Uncertainty Avoidance
0.406
0.056
0.294~0.518
Yes
Disposition to Trust<>Subjective Norm
0.284
0.075
0.134~0.434
Yes
Uncertainty Avoidance<>Subjective Norm
0.518
0.056
0.406~0.63
Yes
Source: This Study

56
Confidence
Interval
Discriminant
Validity
Correlatio
n
Related Construct
Yes
Table19 Discriminant Validity of Endogenous Variables -by Examining Confidence Interval
Related Construct
Trust on Initiator<>Perceived Risk
Trust on Initiator<>
Intention of attending Online group buying
Perceived Risk<>
Intention of attending Online group buying
Confidence
Interval
Discriminant
Validity
Correlation
Standard
Error
0.077
0.082
-0.087~0.241 Yes
0.549
0.052
0.445~0.653
0.023
0.078
-0.133~0.179 Yes
Yes
Source: This Study

4.4.4 Verification of Hypotheses
The present investigation adopted AMOS 6.0 to do the analysis of SEM, use
maximum likelihood to calculate parameter of constructs in order to verify the
proposed hypothesis of this research. In the recent research, Hair et al. (1998) provide
that there are three indexes (such as: absolute fit measure, incremental fit measure,
and parsimonious fit measure) to measure the fitness of model.
In absolute fit measures, 2 =974.641, DF =493; 2/ DF=1.977 lower than 3.0 of
fitness index; the GFI0.928, AGFI0.834, all higher than 0.8 lowest level, and
close to 0.9 good fitness standard; the(RMSEA0.054, lower than 0.08 fitness
standard.
In incremental fit measures, NFI0.866, higher than 0.8 lowest level, and closed
to 0.9 good fitness standard; TLI0.919, CFI 0.928, IFI0.929, all higher than
0.9 of good fitness standard.
57
In parsimonious fit measures, PNFI0.761, PGFI0.715, all higher than 0.5,

revealed that the model pass the standard. All data and results were listed in table 20.
Table 20 Confirmatory Factory Analysis
Fit Index
Absolute Fit
Measure Index
Incremental Fit
Measures
Parsimonious
Fit Measures
Test Result
Chi-Square index 2
(CMIN)
974.641
DF
493
CMIN/DF
1.977
Meet the criteria,3
Goodness of fit ndex(GFI)
0.928
Meet the criteria, 0.9
Adjusted goodness of fit

index (AGFI)
0.834
Acceptable, 0.9~0.8
Root mean square error of

approximation(RMSEA)
0.054
Meet the criteria, <0.08
Normed fit index(NFI)
0.866
Tucker-Lewis index(TLI)
0.919
Acceptable, 0.9~0.8
Comparative fit
index(CFI)
0.928
Incremental fit index(IFI)
0.929
Parsimonious normed
fit(PNFI)
0.761
0.715
Parsimonious goodness fit

(PGFI)
SourceThis Study
The research model is shown on figure 5, and the path description of the model is
shown on table 21. The empirical result shows that reputation (=0.176; t=2.794) has
positive and significant effect on trust on initiator, but it is fail to meet significant
effect on perceived risk(=0.094; t=1.306). Interaction (=0.247; t=3.250) has
positive and significant effect on trust on initiator, but it also has negative and
significant effect on perceived risk (=-0.165; t=1.793). Disposition to trust (=0.200;
58
t=3.030) has positive and significant effect on trust on initiator, but it is fail to meet
significant effect on perceived risk (=-0.083; t=-1.153). Uncertainty avoidance
(=0.131; t=2.148) has positive and significant effect on trust on initiator, but it is fail
to meet significant effect on perceived risk (=0.138; t=1.266). Subjective norm
(=0.309; t=4.612) has positive and significant effect on trust on initiator, but it is fail
to meet significant effect on perceived risk (=0.068; t=0.716). Perceived risk
(=0.065; t=1.182) is fail to meet significant effect on trust on initiator. Trust on
initiator (=0.582; t=11.182) has positive and significant effect on intention of
attending online group buying, but perceived risk is fail to meet significant effect on
intention of attending online group buying (=-0.022; t=-0.338).
59
re1
t4
REP1
1
re2
t1
TR4 TR3
TR2
TR1
Reputation
REP2
1
n1
t2
t3
1
INT1
1
n2
INT2
1
n3
n4
ITR2
it2
1
1
1
t5
w4
1
ITR1
1
it3
Trust on Intiator
INT4
it1
Interaction
INT3
Intention of attending
Online Group Buying
Disposition to Trust
ITR3
it4
u2
UA2
u3
u4
WI3
s1
s2
1
1
SNM2
SNF1
1
SNF2
1
Subjective
Norm
1
s6
s7
r15
Perceived Risk
SNM1
s4
s5
Uncertainty
Avoidance
UA3
UA4
1
w2
WI2
UA1
w1
ITR4
1
u1
1
WI1
1
RF1 RSY1 RPF1 RSO1 RHY1 RT1 RPY1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SNW1
r1
r3
r5
r7
r9
r11
r13
SNW2
Figure5 Research Model

SourceThis Study
Table 21 Path Description of the Model
Path
Standard
Coefficient
Standard
Error
ReputationTrust on Initiator
0.176
0.063
2.794***
ReputationPerceived Risk
0.094
0.072
1.306
InteractionTrust on Initiator
0.247
0.076
3.250***
InteractionPerceived Risk
-0.165
0.092
-1.793**
Disposition to TrustTrust on Initiator
0.200
0.066
3.030***
Disposition to TrustPerceived Risk
-0.083
0.072
-1.153
Uncertainty AvoidanceTrust on Initiator
0.131
0.061
2.148***
Uncertainty AvoidancePerceived Risk
0.138
0.109
1.266
Subjective NormTrust on Initiator
0.309
0.067
4.612***
Subjective NormPerceived Risk
0.068
0.095
0.716
Perceived RiskTrust on Initiator
0.065
0.055
1.182
Trust on Initiator
0.582
0.052
11.192***
60
t-value
w3
Path
Standard
Coefficient
Standard
Error
-0.022
0.065
t-value
Intention of attending Online Group-Buying

Perceived Risk
Intention of attending Online Group-Buying
-0.338
Note: ***p<0.005, **p<0.05

SourceThis Study
4.5 Moderating Effect
4.5.1 The moderating effects of the buyer-initiator relationship
The first section aims to assessments the moderating effects of buyer-initiator

relationship between the characteristic of Initiator and trust on initiator as well as
perceived risk. First, the sample was separated into two sub-groups based on the stage
of the relationship with initiators. Group 1 includes the respondents who report the
initiator as relatives, friends, colleagues and classmates. Respondents who are
unfamiliar with initiators are classified as group 2. Accordingly, two models were
developed in this study: Limited structure models and unlimited structure model.
However, Bollen (1989) suggests that it is important to test the measurement
invariance of method and scale while conducting multi-group research. Measurement
invariance is also called multi-group invariance, which means that the result and scale
of research should be invariance on different participants and time points (Reise et al.,
1993). Therefore, before analyzing the moderating effectsof buyer-initiator
relationship between the characteristic of Initiator and trust on initiator as well as
61
perceived risk, this study should conduct the test of measurement invariance. This
study is based on the research of Martin (2007), employing factor loadings invariant
to conduct the test of multi-group invariance and employs AMOS 6.0 to set up two
types of baseline model and measurement weights model. Baseline model refers to
unlimited model, but measurement weights model is set upt the factor structure and
factor loading are the same in different groups. In addition, Bollen (1989) provides
that if the differentance of Chi-square between baseline model and measurement
weight model achieve significant level, it means that the hypothiesis of measurement
invariance is not supported. On the contrary, if it fails to achieve the significant level,
the hypothiesis of measurement invariance is supported. The detailed result is shown
on table 22.
Table 22 The test of Measurement Invariance on Buyer-Initiator Relationship
Fit Index
Unlimited
Model
Measurement Weights
Model
(Baseline Model)
(Factor loadings invariant)
356.920
379.066
222.146
DF
220
233
df=13
RMSEA 0.08acceptable
0.043
0.043
meet the criteria
0.05 meet the criteria
NFI
0.870
0.861
Close the criteria
CFI
0.944
0.941
meet the criteria
Source: This study

Based on table 22, the differentance of Chi-square between these two models (
222.146) less than the critical 2(13, 0.01)=27.6885. It means that the result fails
62
to achieve the significant level. Thus, the hypothiesis of measurement invariance is

supported. In addition, for both baseline model and measurement invariance model,
the RMSEA and CFI meet the criteria (Martin, 2007). Although the NFI fails to meet
the criteria of above 0.9, it achieves the reasonable fit criteria of 0.8~0.89(Byrne,
1989), which shows that the measurement medel meet the fitness index in different
groups or contexts. That is to say, the model is fitted with both two sub-group samples.
Next, the Chi-Square testing is used to determine the moderating effect of
buyer-initiator relationship. Table 23 shows examine the result of moderating effect of
the buyer-initiator relationship. Table24 shows the moderating effect of buyer-initiator
relationship
Table 23 Result of Moderating Effect of the Buyer-Initiator Relationship
Hypotheses
Unlimited
Model
Limited
Model
1703.897
(DF=986)
1708.185
(DF=987)
4.288**
1703.897
(DF=986)
1704.757
(DF=987)
0.860
1703.897
(DF=986)
1706.402
(DF=987)
2.505
1703.897
(DF=986)
1711.077
(DF=987)
7.180**
Note: ** p<0.05
SourceThis Study
63
Moderating
Effect
Yes
No
No
Yes
Table 24 Result of Path Analysis for the Buyer-Initiator Relationship

Path
Reputation
Trust on Initiator
Reputation
Perceived Risk
Interaction
Trust on Initiator
Interaction
Perceived Risk
Familiar with each other

(Group=1) (N=171)
Unfamiliar with each other

(Group=2) (N=166)
Path
loading
Stand
error
t-value
Path
loading
Stand
error
t-value
0.082
0.098
0.837
0.234
0.092
2.543**
0.053
0.139
0.381
0.194
0.121
1.603
0.221
0.103
2.146** 0.192
0.079
2.430**
-0.039
0.114
-0.342
0.140
-2.921**
-0.409
Note: ** p<0.05
SourceThis Study
Compared to unlimited model and Limited Model, table 23 and table 24 show
that the unlimited model of 2 value (1703.897, DF=986). There is a moderating effect
of buyer-initiator relationship between reputation and trust on initiator because the
2=4.288 bigger than 2 (1,0.05)3.841, but there is not a moderating effect of
buyer-initiator relationship between reputation and perceived risk because. 2
=0.860 less than 2 (1,0.05)3.841. On the part of interaction, there is not a
moderating effect of buyer-initiator relationship between interaction and trust on
initiator because its2 =2.505 less than 2 (1,0.05)3.841, but there is a moderating
effect of buyer-initiator relationship between interaction and perceived risk because
2 =7.180 is bigger than 2 (1,0.05)3.841.
64
4.5.2 The moderating effects of product involvement
The second section aims to assessments the moderating effect of product

involvement between the characteristic of Initiator and the trust on initiator as well as
perceived risk. First, we calculate the items of product involvement by dividing the
median value of 51 to separate two groups (lower product involvement and higher
product involvement). This study defines the items are higher median value as group
1 and lower median value as group 2. Accordingly two models were developed in this
study: Limited structure models and unlimited structure model.
This section also followed the suggestion of Bollen (1989), conducting the the
test of measurement invariance before this study analyzes the moderating effects of
product involvement between the characteristic of initiators and trust on initiator as
well as perceived risk. The procedure of test is the same as previous research.
Table 25 The test of Measurement Invariance on Product Involvement
Fit Index
Unlimited
Model
Measurement Weights
Model
(Baseline Model)
(Factor loadings invariant)
346.238
361.578
215.340
DF
220
233
df=13
RMSEA 0.08acceptable
0.041
0.040
meet the criteria
NFI
0.876
0.870
Close the criteria
CFI
0.950
0.949
meet the criteria
Source: This study
65
Based on table 25, the differentance of Chi-square between these two models (
215.340) less than the critical 2(13, 0.01)=27.6885. It means that the result fails
to achieve the significant level. Thus, the hypothiesis of measurement invariance is
supported. In addition, no matter the baseline model and measurement invariance
model, the RMSEA and CFI meet the criteria (Martin, 2007). Although the NFI fails
to meet the criteria of above 0.9, it achieves the reasonable fit criteria of
0.8~0.89(Byrne, 1989), which shows that the measurement medel meet the fitness
index in different groups or contexts. That is to say, the result is consistent with
different levels of product involvement. Next, the Chi-Square testing is used to
determine the moderating effect of product involvement. Table 26 shows examine
result of moderating effect of product involvement. Table27 shows that Result of Path
Analysis for product involvement.
Table 26 Result of Moderating Effect of Product Involvement
Hypotheses
Unlimited
Model
Limited
Model
1789.583
(DF=986)
1793.995
(DF=987)
4.412**
1789.583
(DF=986)
1791.878
(DF=987)
2.295
1789.583
(DF=986)
1789.904
(DF=987)
0.321
1789.583
(DF=986)
1793.653
(DF=987)
4.07**
Note: *** p<0.05

SourceThis Study
66
Moderating
Effect
Yes
No
No
Yes
Table27 Result of path Analysis for Product Involvement

Path
Reputation
Trust on Initiator
Reputation
Perceived Risk
Interaction
Trust on Initiator
Interaction
Low Product Involvement

(N=164)
High Product Involvement

(N=177)
Path
loading
Stand
error
Path
Stand
loading error
0.065
0.115
0.565
0.216
0.113 1.912**
0.100
0.084
1.190
0.082
0.064 1.281
0.356
0.100
3.560**
0.247
0.126 1.960**
0.128
-0.539
-0.395
0.160 -2.469***
-0.069
Perceived Risk
Note: ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01
SourceThis Study
t-value
t-value
Compared to unlimited model and Limited Model, table 26 and table 27 show
that the unlimited model of 2 value (1789.583, DF=986). There is a moderating effect
of product involvement between reputation and trust on initiator because the
2=4.412 bigger than 2 (1,0.05)3.841, but there is not a moderating effect of
product involvement between reputation and perceived risk because.2 =2.295 less
than 2 (1,0.05)3.841. On the part of interaction, there is not a moderating effect of
product involvement between interaction and trust on initiator because its2 =0.321
less than 2 (1,0.05)3.841, but there is a moderating effect of product involvement
between interaction and perceived risk because 2 =4.07 is bigger than 2 (1,0.05)
3.841.
67
4.6 Discussion of Empirical Results
Based on the previous analysis, the empirical results of analysis for the models
with or without moderators will be discussed herein respectively.
4.6.1 Analysis for models without moderators
For the models without moderators, among 13 of the path hypotheses, 7 of path
hypotheses are significant but the other 6 havent reached the significant level. Based
on table28, the empirical results for 13 path hypotheses are explained as below:
(1) Correlation between reputation and the trust to initiators as well as perceived risk
The standardized coefficient between reputation and trust on initiators has a

significant and positive impact. This finding is same as the research result of Ba and
Pavlou (2002). It shows that initiators having well reputation could increase buyers
trust on initiator. Hence, Hypothesis H1a is supported.
In the previous research of Akaah (1988), He find that sellers reputation is an
important strategy to reduce risk, but the empirical result of this study indicate the
standardized coefficient between reputation and perceived risk in not significant.
Hence, Hypothesis H1b is not supported. However, recent research finds that there are
many sellers in order to obtain well perceived reputation by using false transactions to
earn well evaluations (Yang, 2006). Besides, the result of this study also shows that it
68
is a good way of reducing perceived risk to allow buyer interacting with initiators.
(2) Correlation between interaction and trust on initiators as well as perceived risk
There is significant and positive correlation between interaction and trust on

initiator. This finding is also consistent with the research result of Buttener and Goritz
(2008). It appears that trust is deemed to develop over time by repeated interactions.
Therefore, Hypothesis H2a is supported.
Furthermore, the correlation between interaction and perceived risk is significant
and negative impact. According to the research of Fiore et al. (2005), it shows that if
vendor has more interaction with buyer, it could not only reduce perceived risk but
also allow buyers enhancing more participation to online shopping. Hence,
Hypothesis H2b is supported.
(3) Correlation between disposition to trust and trust on initiator as well as perceived risk
The standardized coefficient between disposition to trust and trust on initiator

has a significant and positive impact. This finding is the same as the research result of
Aubert and Kelsey (2003). It means disposition to trust has direct relationship with
trust. Hence, Hypothesis H3a is supported.
The empirical result of this study cannot prove there is significant correlation
between disposition to trust and perceived risk. This is because disposition to trust is a
69
general tendency resulting from past experiences (Robert et al., 2009). Therefore, in
the uncertain context of online group buying, disposition to trust cannot reduce
perceived risk, it still needs to bu the way of interaction with the initiator to reduce the
perceived risk. Hypothesis H3b is not supported.
(4) Correlation between uncertainty avoidance and trust on initiator as well as perceived risk
The standardized coefficient between uncertainty avoidance and trust on initiator

has a significant and positive impact. This finding is also consistent with the research
result of Hwang (2005). It means that uncertainty avoidance has an impact on trust to
initiator. Therefore, Hypothesis H4a is supported.
However, the empirical result of this study cannot prove there is a significant
correlation between uncertainty avoidance and perceived risk. Hypothesis H4b is not
supported. The possible reason might result from requirements and instructions of
group buying cannot effectively reduce perceived risk. It is necessary to take these
ways of interaction as well as establishment of long-term partnerships to reduce
perceived risk.
(5) Correlation between subjective norm and trust on initiator as well as perceived risk
The standardized coefficient between subjective norm and trust on initiator has a
significant and positive impact. The result is the same as the research result of Hwang
70
(2005). It appears that subjective norm has an influence on the trust to initiator. Hence,
HypothesisH5a is supported.
Nevertheless, the empirical result of this study cannot prove there is a significant
correlation between subjective norm and perceived risk. Hypothesis H5b is not
supported. The possible reason might result from personally interactive experience is
a effective way of reduceing perceived risk than the opinions from media, relatives,
friends and netizen.
(6) Correlation between perceived risk and trust on initiator
This study discusses correlation between perceived risk and trust on initiator
based on Buttner and Goritz (2008), trust partially mediated the influence of
perceived risk on intention to buy. The empirical result of this study cannot prove
therefore is a significant correlation between trust on initiator and perceived risk.
Hypothesis H6 is not supported. This is possible because some researches are focused
on the impact of trust on perceived risk and arguing that higher levels of trust can
reduce the level of perceived risk (Okazaki et al., 2009; Pavlou, 2003). Therefore, the
different side relationships may cause the result cannot meet significant level.
(7) Correlation between trust on initiator as well as perceived risk and the intention
of attending online group buying
71
The standardized coefficient between the trust to initiator and intention of

attending online group buying has a significant and positive impact. According to
Buttener and Goritz (2008), trust is an important factor for turning sites visitors into
buyers in the context of electronic commerce, Hence, Hypothesis H7a is supported.
Yet, the empirical result of this study cannot prove there is a significant
correlation between perceived risk and intention of attending online group buying.
Hypothesis H7b is not supported. According to table 26, we find that t-value of trust
on initiator (=0.582; t-value =11.192) is higher than t-value of perceived risk
(=-0.022; t-value =-0.338) to intention of attending online group buying. The result
is possible the same as Buttener and Goritz (2008), they indicate that the key to
success lies in the hands of the particular online shop because the impact of trust is
more important than perceived risk. For initiator in online group buying, establishing
trust as a component of the companys image can result in a competitive advantage
especially in high-risk domains.
4.6.2
The moderating effects
For the models with the buyer-initiator relationship and product involvement as
moderators, the results of analysis are summarized in table 23 and table26
respectively. The empirical results with moderating models for 8 path relations are
explained as below:
72
(1) The moderating effects of buyer-initiator relationship between reputation and trust
to initiator as well as perceived risk
In this study, the buyer-initiator relationship has the moderating effect on the
correlation between reputation and trust on initiator. There is a stronger moderating
effect on the correlation between reputation and trust on initiator while buyers are not
familiar with initiators. When buyer-initiator relationship is unfamiliar, if buyers
perceived well initiators reputation, it could promote buyers trust on initiator. This
result is the same as the result of Sillence et al. (2006). It indicates that trust is based
on buyers first impression of a company such as website design, size or reputation.
However, this study cannot prove that the buyer-initiator relationship has a
significant moderating effect on the correlation between reputation and perceived risk.
Reputation is a direct information to company, buy it does not completely include all
information (McKnight and Chervany, 2002), but perceive reputation is better for
buyers than no other information (Granovetter, 1985). This study finds that it is a
good way of reducing perceived risk for buyers to make interaction with initiators.
Therefore, no matter the buyer-initiator relationships are familiar or unfamiliar;
reputation is not a complete way to reduce perceived risk, and it still by the way of
interaction to reduce perceived risk.
(2) The moderating effects of buyer-initiator relationship between interaction and the
73
trust on initiator as well as perceived risk.

The empirical results of this study cannot prove that the buyer-initiator
relationship has the moderating effect to the correlation between interaction and trust
on initiator. Hypothesis H9a is not supported. This study finds that no matter the
buyer-initiator relationships are familiar or unfamiliar, the greater interaction between
initiators and buyers, the higher trust will be created (Doney and Cannon, 1997).
Nevertheless, the buyer-initiator relationship has the moderating effect on the
correlation between interaction and perceived risk. Hypothesis H9b is supported.
According to table 24, the greater interaction between initiators and buyers, the lower
perceived risk is experienced by buyers. This result is the same as Fiore et al. (2005),
it shows that if vendor has more interaction with buyer, it could not only reduce
perceived risk but also allow buyers enhancing more participation to online shopping.
This study finds that this factor is very important in the situation where buyer is
unfamiliar with initiator.
(3) The moderating effects of product involvement between reputation and the trust
on initiator as well as perceived risk
In this study, product involvement has the moderating effect on the correlation
between reputation and trust on initiator. According to table 26, the higher product
involvement buyers have, which has significant influence of reputation upon trust on
74
initiator. This is the same as Dick and Basu (1994). When buyers have higher product
involvement, buyers have higher trust on initiator. Also, Goldberg and Hartwick
(1990) indicate that when consumers perceived companys image is reliable, they tend
to buy products from that company. In summary, the greater product involvement
buyers have, if they perceived well initiators reputation, which could enhance the
trust on initiator.
However, the empirical results of this study cannot prove that product
involvement has the moderating effect on the correlation between reputation and
perceived risk. According to table 27, no matter high or low product involvement
buyers have, reputation is not a good way to reduce perceived risk. This is because
low-involvement buyer is mainly impacted by the quantity of information;
high-involvement buyer is impacted by the quality of information (Park et al., 2007).
Therefore, this study finds that only initiator reputation is not good enough and
provides well information to let buyer perceive less risk.
(4) The moderating effects of product involvement between interaction and the trust
to initiator as well as perceived risk
The empirical results of this study cannot prove that product involvement has the
moderating effect on the correlation between interaction and trust on initiator. This
study finds that no matter high or low product involvement buyers have, the more
75
interactive initiator makes with buyer, which could promote trust on initiator (Doney
and Cannon, 1997).
However, product involvement has the moderating effect to the correlation
between interaction and the tperceived risk. According to table 27, the higher product
involvement buyers have, and if initiator frequently interacts with buyers, which
could reduce perceived risk. This is the same as Zaichkowsky (1985), if consumers
have higher product involvement, they will evaluate alternatives, pay more attentions
on vendor, and get more detail product information to reduce perceived risk.
4.6.3 Corelation between buyer-initiator relationship and trust on initiator as well as

perceived risk
According to the research of Mayer et al. (1995), they indicate trust is a
willingness taking risk in the transaction. However, Buttner and Goritz (2008) suggest
that further research should address the impact of the stages of the relationship with a
vendor on the trust. Therefore, this study conducts a further research and finds that the
mean 3.81(SD=0.505) of familiar buyer-initiator relationship is higher than the mean
3.62(SD=0.540) of unfamiliar buyer-initiator relationshi to trust on initiator.
Consequently, familiar buyer-initiator relationship has greater influence upon trust on
initiator. However, the mean of familiar 3.82(SD=0.495) or unfamiliar 3.93(SD=0.484)
buyer-initiator relationship are not difference on perceived risk.
76
Further by F-test, we find that the there is a significant correlation between

buyer-initiator relationship and trust on initiator(F=5.9; P=0.003)but no significant
correlation between buyer-initiator relationship and perceived risk(F=2.457P=0.083).
Therefore, this study demonstrates that different stage of buyer-initiator relationship
will have influence the correlation between perceived risk and trust on initiator.
77
Table 28 Summary of Analysis for Models without Moderating Effect

Hypothesis
Standard
Coefficient
Standard
Error
t-value
Expected
sign
result
Reputation trust to initiator
H1a
0.176
0.063
2.794***
Supported
Reputation Perceived risk
H1b
0.094
0.072
1.306
Not Supported
interaction trust to initiator
H2a
0.247
0.076
3.250***
Supported
interaction Perceived risk
H2b
-0.165
0.092
-1.793**
Supported
Disposition to trusttrust to initiator
H3a
0.200
0.066
3.030***
Supported
Disposition to trust Perceived risk
H3b
-0.083
0.072
-1.153
Not Supported
Uncertainty Avoidance trust to initiator
H4a
0.131
0.061
2.148***
Supported
Uncertainty Avoidance Perceived risk
H4b
0.138
0.109
1.266
Not Supported
Subjective Norm trust to initiator
H5a
0.309
0.067
4.612***
Supported
Subjective Norm Perceived risk
H5b
0.068
0.095
0.716
Not Supported
Perceived risk trust to initiator
H6
0.065
0.055
1.182
Not Supported
H7a
0.582
0.052
11.192***
H7b
-0.022
0.065
-0.338
trust to initiator
intention of attending online group buying
Perceived risk
intention of attending online group buying
Note: ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01
Source: This Study
78
Supported
Not Supported
5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Research Conclusion
This study tries to investigate the antecedents and consequences of trust on initiator
and perceived risk. Therefore, it integrates five factors such as reputation, interaction,
disposition to trust, uncertainty avoidance, and subjective norm were adopted from Lin
(2006) and Yang (2006) to examine the influences upon trust on initiator and perceived
risk. Furthermore understand the influences of perceived risk upon trust on initiator and
these two factors impact on intention of attending online group buying.
Besides, according to related literatures, this study also tries to examine the
moderating effects of buyer-initiator relationship and product involvement on the
correlation between initiators characteristics and trust on initiator as well as perceived
risk.
The empirical results of this study show that there are significant and positive
correlation between five antecedents and trust on initiator. However, for perceived risk,
there is only significant and negative correlation between interaction and perceived risk.
Furthermore, this study proves that if buyer-initiator relationship is closer, which leads to
a significant and negative correlation between perceived risk and trust on initiator. Also,
this study finds that trust on initiator has a significant and positive influence on intention
of attending online group buying but there is no significant correlation between perceived
risk and intention of attending online group buying. For the moderating models, if buyers
are unfamiliar with initiators or have higher product involvement, the well reputation was
perceived by buyer, the higher trust on initiator will be created and the more interactive
between buyers and initiators, the lower perceived risk is experienced by buyers. The
detail empirical results are listed in table 29.
Table 29 Empirical Result
Research Hypothesis
Result
H1a
Reputation has a positive effect on trust on initiator.
Supported
H1b
Reputation has a negative effect on perceived risk.
Unsupported
H2a
Interaction has a positive effect on trust on initiator.
Supported
H2b
Interaction has a negative effect on perceived risk.
Supported
H3a
Disposition to trust has a positive effect on trust on initiator.
Supported
H3b
Disposition to trust has a negative effect on perceived risk.
Unsupported
H4a
Uncertainty Avoidance has a positive effect on trust on initiator.
Supported
H4b
Uncertainty Avoidance has a negative effect on perceived risk.
Unsupported
H5a
Subjective Norm has a positive effect on trust on initiator.
Supported
H5b
Subjective Norm has a negative effect on perceived risk.
Unsupported
H6
Perceived risk has a negative effect on trust on initiator.
Unsupported
H7a
Trust on initiator has a positive effect on intention of attending online

group buying.
Supported
H7b
Perceived risk has a negative effect on intention of attending online

group buying.
Unsupported
H8a
Buyer-initiator relationship has a moderating effect on the correlation

between reputation and trust on initiator.
Supported
H8b

Unsupported
H9a

Unsupported
H9b

Supported
80
Research Hypothesis
Result
H10a
Product involvement has a moderating effect on the correlation

between reputation and trust on initiator.
Supported
H10b

Unsupported
H11a

Unsupported
H11b

Supported
Source: This study

5.2 Research Findings and Contributions
In the past, there are not many perspectives of buyer-initiator relationship and
product involvement to explore the context of online group buying. This study has
focused on five antecedents such as reputation, interaction, disposition to trust,
uncertainty avoidance and subjective norm to examine the influences of trust on initiator
and perceived risk, understands the correlation between perceived risk and trust on
initiator, further investigates the influences of trust on initiator and perceived risk on
intention of attending online group buying. Such a framework integrates both antecedents
and consequence of trust on initiator and perceived risk. The empirical results of this
study prove that reputation, interaction, disposition to trust, uncertainty avoidance, and
subjective norm could promote the influences of trust on initiator. However, there is only
negatively significant correlation between interaction and perceived risk. This research
also finds that the closer buyer-initiator relationship is, which leads to perceived risk has
negatively significant influence trust on initiator, and trust on initiator has higher impact
81
on intention of attending online group buying than perceived risk does. This finding is the
same as the resesrch of Buttner and Goritz (2008). In the context of electronic commerce,
trust is an important factor for turning sites visitors into buyers. Also, in the setting of
uncertain transaction, building trust between buyers and initiators can form a competition
advantage.
According to Buttner and Goritz (2008) and Bove and Johnson (2000), they suggest
that future research has focused on the different buyer-initiator relationship have
influences on trust on initiator and perceived risk. This study indicates that buyers are
unfamiliar with initiators, if they perceived well initiators reputation, buyer will increase
the trust on initiator, and initiator has more interaction with buyers, it could effectively
reduce perceived risk in online group buying.
This study is also based on Park et al. (2007); Zaichkowsky (1986); Jain and
Sharma(2000), indicating buyers have different product involvement which has
moderating effects between initiators characteristics and trust on initiator as well as
perceived risk. This study finds that buyers have greater product involvement, which
means those products are more important for buyers, if buyers perceived well initiators
reputation, it could enhance trust on initiator. Also, buyers want to get more information
about those product by frequently interact with initiators to reduce perceived risk.
82
5.3 Management Implications
Nowadays, during the global economic recession, buyers are used to attending
online group buying to aggregate their demands from people in different countries and get
shopping advantage by the way of quantity system price. Besides, they want to be
initiators to invite relatives, friends and other buyers to attend online group buying to get
best price and share shopping experiences with each other. Furthermore, the
characteristics such as disperse costs, sharing of experiences, and sales at expense of
profits in the context of online group buying, which appears many vendors being
initiators to hold activities. Online group buying can create a win-win goal by reducing
gather costs and getting products at lower price.
No matter the roles of initiators are main buyers or vendors, this study suggests that
initiators should create well reputation and maintain frequently interact with buyers,
which could promote trust on initiator. In addition, the higher disposition to trust and
uncertainty avoidance buyers have, which also increase trust on initiator. If relatives,
friends and netizen have positive comments on online group buying, it also enhances trust
on initiator. In summary, trust plays an important role in electronic commerce. This study
finds that interaction has negatively significant influence on perceived rick than
reputation, disposition to trust, uncertainty avoidance, and subjective norm. This result
means that in context of online group buying, interacting with buyers is a crucial factor
83
for initiator, and how to understand actually demands by the way of interaction is a good
method to effectively reduce perceived risk.
This research also finds that when buyers are unfamiliar with initiators, reputation is
an important factor to promote trust on initiator. Therefore, building well reputation could
make a long-tern buyer-initiator relationship. Furthermore, setting the mechanism of
interaction in the context of online group buying such as immediate response and FAQs
could effectively reduce perceived risk.
Recently, buyers could buy many kinds of products in online group buying. This
study indicates that buyers have more concern about product, if the well reputation is
perceived by buyer; the higher trust on initiator will be created. If initiator makes
immediate and friendly interaction with buyers, which also reduces perceived risk.
All of these factors will help improve the buyer-initiator relationship, and created
better mechanism of online group buying.
5.4 Research Limitations and Directions for Future Researches
This study tries to validate the antecedents, consequences and moderator of

relationship value based on the past literature with regard to relationship marketing and
relationship value. Although lots of efforts have been made to ensure the objectiveness
and exactness, there are still some limitations.
(1)This study only conducts on a convenient sample, and the majority of participants are
84
students, which cannot generally represent all buyers have attending online group
buying. Future research may apply this model in other demographic variables.
(2)This study only considers buyer-initiator relationship and product involvement as
moderators; does not explore any other possible moderators. Future research may
include other possible moderators such as product types into the framework to
conduct empirical study.
(3) This study discusses correlation between perceived risk and trust on initiator based on
Buttner and Goritz (2008), trust partially mediated the influence of perceived risk on
intention to buy. On the other hand, many researches is focused on trust influencing
on perceived risk (Okazaki et al., 2009; Pavlou, 2003). Therefore, future research
may discuss the impact of trust on initiator upon perceived risk.
(4)This study only performs a cross-section analysis, and does not conduct a longitudinal
analysis. Future research may perform a longitudinal analysis to further confirm the
antecedents and consequences of relationship value.
85
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 1980.
Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50 (1991): 179-211.
Akaah, I. P. and P. K. Korgaonkar. A conjoint investigation of the relative importance of
risk relativers in direct marketing. Journal of Advertising Research 28, (1988):
38-44.
Anand, K. S. and R. Aron. Group buying on the web: A comparison of price-discovery
mechanisms. Management Science 49, no.11(2003): 1546-1562.
Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review
and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103, (1988):
411-423.
Assael, H. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Boston: Kent Publishing Company,
1987.
Aubert, B. and B. Kelsey. Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual
teams. Small Group Research 34 no.5 (2003): 575618.
Ba, S. and P. A. Pavlou. Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in
Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior. MIS Quarterly 26, no.3
(2002): 243-268.
Baird, I. S. and H. Thomas. Toward A Contingency Model of Strategic Risk Taking,
The Academy of Management Review 10, no.2 (1985): 230-243.
86
Bart, Y, V. Shankar, F. Sultan, and G. L. Urban. Are the drivers and role of online trust
the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical
study. foumal of Marketin, 69 no.4 (2005): 133-152.
Bauer, R. A. Consumer Behavior as Risk-taking, Dynamic Marketing for a Changing
World, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1960.
Bearden, W. O. and T. A. Shimp. The Use of Extrinsic Cues to Facilitate Product
Adoption. Journal of Marketing Research, May (1982): 229-239.
Berndt, T. J. and T. B. Perry. Children's Perceptions of Friendships as Supportive
Relationships. Developmental Psychology 22, no.5 (1986): 640-648
Bhattacharya, C. B., H. Rao, and M. A. Glynn. Understanding the Bond of Identification:
An Investigation of Its Correlates Among Art Museum Members, Journal of
Marketing 59, (1995): 46-57.
Blum, H. P. Psychoanalytic explannations of technique: Discussion in the theory of
therapy, New York: International Universities Press, 1980.
Bollen, K. A. Structural equtions with latent variables, New York: Wiley, 1989.
Bove, L. L. and L. W. Johnson. A Customer-Service Worker Relationship Model.
International Journal of Service Industry, 11, no.5 (2000): 491-505.
Buttener, B. O. and A. S. Goritz. Perceived trustworthiness of online shops Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 7, (2008): 35-50
Byrne, B. M. A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for
Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989.
Celuch, K. G. and M. Slama. Program Content and Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of
87
the Congruity Hypothesis for Cognitive and Affective Sources of Involvement,

Psychology and Marketing 10, no.4 (1993): 285-299.
Chen, J., X. Chen, and X. Song. Comparison of the group-buying auction and the fixed
pricing mechanism. Decision Support Systems 43, no.43 (2007): 445-459.
Chen, H.-Q. Many people start using online group buying United Daily News, (2005,
January 5), A5.
Chih, W.-H. and C.-R. Li. The Influences of Customers Motivation on the Relationship
Maintenance, Marketing Review 3, no.4 (2006): 423-446.
Clugston, M., J. P. Howell, and P. W. Dorfman. Does Cultural Socialization Predict
Multiple Bases and Foci of Commitment? Journal of Management 26, no.1(2000):
5-30.
Crosby, L. A., K. R. Evans, and D. Cowles. Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An
International Influence Perspective. Journal of Marketing 54, (1990):68-81
Cushing, P., The effect of people/product relationships on advertising processing. In:
Alwitt, L., Mitchell, A. (Eds.), Psychological Process and Advertising Effects, New
Jersey: Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1985.
Day, G. S. Buyer Attitudes and Brand Choice Behavior, New York: Free Press, 1970.
Delgado-BaUester E and J. L. Munuera-Aleman. Brand trust in the context of consumer
loyalty. European Joumal of Marketing 35, (2001): 1238-1258.
Doney, P. M. and J. P. Cannon. An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller
Relationships. Journal of Marketing 61, (1997): 35-51.
Doney, P., J. Cannon, and M. Mullen. Understanding the Influence of National Culture
88
on the Development of Trust. Academy of Management Review 23, no.3 (1998):

601-621.
Dowling, G. R. and R. Staelin. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
activity. Journal of Consumer Research 21, (1994): 119-134.
Featherman, M. S. and P. A. Pavlou. Predicting e-services Adoption: A Perceived Risk
Facets Perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59, (2003):
451-474.
Fiore, A. M., H. J. Jin, and J. Kim. For Fun and Profit: Hedonic Value from Image
Interactivity and Responses Toward an Online Store. Psychology & Marketing 22,
no.8 (2005): 669-694.
Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Errors. Journal of Marketing Research 18, no.2 (1981): 39-50.
Forsythe, S. M. and B. Shi. Consumer Patronage and Risk Perceptions in Internet
Shopping. Journal of Business Research 56, (2003): 867-875.
Ganesan, S. Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships.
Journal of Marketing 58, no.2 (1994): 1-19.
Ganesan S. and R. Hess. Dimensions and levels of trust: implications for commitment to
a relationship. Marketing Letters 8, no.4 (1997): 439-448.
Garbarino, E. and M. S. Johnson. The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and
Commitment in Customer Relationships. Journal of Marketing 63, no.2 (1999):
70-87.
Gefen, D., E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An
Integrated Model. MIS Quarterly 27, no.1 (2003): 51-90.
89
Granovetter, M. Economic Action and Social Structure: the Problem of Embeddedness.

The American Journal of Sociology 91, no.3 (1985): 481-510.
Grazioli, S. and A. Wang. Looking Without Seeing: Understanding Unsophisticated
Consumers' Success and Failure to Detect Internet Deception. Proceedings of the
22nd International Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans, 2001).
Gupta, A., B.-C. Su, and Z. Walter. An Empirical Study of Consumer Switching from
Traditional to Electronic Channels: A Purchase-Decision Process Perspective.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8, no.3 (2004): 131-161.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. Chap.4, Multiple Regression
Analysis, Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
International, Inc., 1998.
Harris L. C. and M. M. H. Goode. The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of tmst:
a study of online service dynamics. Joumal of Retailing 80, no.2 (2004): 139-158.
Haytko, D. L. Firm-to-Firm and Interpersonal Relationships: Perspectives from
Advertising Agency Account Managers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 32, no.3 (2004):31228.
Higie, R. A. and L. F. Feick. Enduring Involvement: Conceptual and Measurement
Issues.Advances in Consumer Research, no.16(1989): 690-696.
Hofstede, G. Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply
Abroad? Organizational Dynamics 9, no.1 (1980): 42-63.
Hsu, M. H. and C. M. Chiu. Internet Self-Efficacy and Electronic Service Acceptance.
Decision Support Systems 38, (2004): 369381.
Hwang, Y. An Empirical Study of Online Trust and Consumer Behavior: Cultural
90
Orientation,
Social
Norms,
and
Personal
Innovativeness
in
Information
Technology. International Conference on Information Systems 26, (2005): 872-884.

Jacoby, J. and L. Kaplan. The components of perceived risk, Proceedings of 3rd Annual
Conference, Association for Consumer Research, Chicago: IL, 1972.
Jain, K. S. and K. Sharma. Product Related Antecedents of Consumer Involvement: An
Empirical Investigation. Vikalpa 25, no.1 (2000): 29-42.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., N. Tractinsky, and M. Vitale. Consumer trust in an Internet store.
Information Technology and Management 1, no.12 (2000): 45-71.
Kauffman, R. J. and B. Wang. Bid Together, Buy Together: On The Efficacy of
Group-Buying Business Model in Internet-Based Selling, Handbook of Electronic
Commerce in Business and Society, P. B. Lowry, J. O. Cherrington and R.R.
Watson(eds.), Baca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002.
Lai, H. Collective Bargaining Models on e-Marketplace., International Conference on
Advance in Infrastructure for e-Business, e-Education, e-Science, e-Medicine on the
Internet, LAquila, Italy, 2002.
Lee, M. K. O. and E. Turban. A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, no.1 (2001): 7591.
Li, Y. N., K. C. Tan, and M. Xie. Measuring Web-Based Service Quality. Total Quality
Management 13, no.5 (2002): 685- 700.
Liang, C.-J. and W.-H. Wang. Do loyal and more involved customers reciprocate
retailers relationship efforts? Journal of Services Research 8, no.1 (2008): 63-90.
Liang, T, and J. Huang. An Empirical Study on Consumer Acceptance of Products in
Electronic Markets: A Transaction Cost Model, Decision Support Systems 24,
91
(1998): 29-43.
Limayem, M., M. Khalifa, and A. Frini. What Makes Consumers Buy from Internet? A
Longitudinal Study of Online Shopping, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics 30, no.4 (2000): 421-432.
Lin, C.-H. The Effects of Initiators Trust and Perceived Risk on Online Group-Buying
Behavior Unpublished MIS Thesis, National Sun Yat-Sen University, 2006.
Luo, X. Trust Production and Privacy Concerns on the Internet A Framework Based on
Relationship Marketing and Social Exchange Theory, Industrial Marketing
Management 31, no.2 (2002): 111-118.
Martin, A. J. Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement

using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Education Psychology, 77,
(2007): 413-414.
Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. An integrative model of organizational
tmst. Academy of Management Review 20, no.3 (1995): 709-734.
McHugh, J. Consumer collusion! Forbes, (1999, September 6).
McKnight, D. H., V. Choudhury, and C. Kacmar. The Impact of Initial Consumer Trust
on Intentions to Transact with a Web Site: a Trust Building Model. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems 11, (2002): 297-323.
McKnight, D. H., L. L. Cummings, and N. L. Chervany. Initial Trust Formation in New
Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review 23, no.3 (1998):
473-490.
McKnight, D. H. and N. L. Chervany. What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer
Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology. International Journal of
92
Electronic Commerce 6, no.2 (2002): 3357.

MIC,
online
shopping
crates
many
business
opportunities,
available
at
http://tech.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-News/Inc/2007cti-news-Tech-inc/TechContent/0,4703,130509%20132008011501812,00.html, 2007.
MIC,
The
status
of
online
group
buying,
available
at
http://irich123.blogspot.com/2009/01/2009.html?widgetType=BlogArchive&widgetI
d=BlogArchive1&action=toggle&dir=open&toggle=MONTHLY-1209571200000&
toggleopen=MONTHLY-1238515200000, 2009.
Mitchell, U. V-W. Consumer perceived risk: conceptualizations and models. European
Joumal of Marketing 33, no.1-2 (1999): 163-195.
Murstein, B., M. Cerreto, and M. Macdonald, A Theory and Investigation of the Effect
of Exchange Orientation on Marriage and Friendship, Journal of Marriage and the
Family 39, (1977): 543-548.
Newcomb, A. F. and J. E. Brady. Mutuality in Boy's Friendship Relations. Child
Development 53, (1982): 392-395.
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Okazaki, S., H. Li, and M. Hirose. Consumer Privacy Concerns And Preference For
Degree Of Regulatory Control: A Study of Mobile Advertising in Japan, Journal of
Advertising 38, no.4 (2009): 63-77.
Park, C. W. and S. M. Young. Consumer Response to Television Commercials: The
Impact of Involvement and Background Music on Brand Attitude Formation,
Journal of Marketing Research 23, no.1 (1986): 11-24.
Pavlou, P. A. Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and
93
Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model, International Journal of Electronic

Commerce 7, no.3 (2003): 101134.
Petemiann, F. Psychologie des Vertrauens The Psychology of Trust, 3rd Ed., Hogrefe:
Gottingen, 1996.
Peter, J. P. and S. L. X. Tarpey. A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer Decision
Strategies. Journal of Consumer Research 2, no.1 (1975): 29-37.
Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann. Central and peripheral Routes to
Advertising Effectiveness: The moderating Role of Involvement, Journal of
Consumer Research no.10(Sep 1983): 135-146.
Pires G, J. Stanton, A. Eckford. Infiuences on the perceived risk of purchasing online.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4, no.2 (2004): 118-131.
Price, L. L. and E. J. Arnould. Commercial Friendships: Service ProviderClient
Relationships in Context. Journal of Marketing, 63, no.3 (1999): 3856.
Price, L. L., E. J. Arnould, and S. L. Deibler. Consumer's Emotional Responses to
Service Encounters: The Influence of the Service Provide, International Journal of
Service Industries Management 6, no.3 (1995): 34-63.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., and Pugh, R. H. Confirmatory factor analysis and item
response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol
Bull, 114, no.3 (1993): 552-566.
Rezabakhsh, B., D. Bornemann, U. Hansen, and U. Schrader. Consumer power: a
comparison of the old economy and the Internet economy, Journal of Consumer
Policy 29, no. 1(2006): 3-36.
Rha, J.-Y. and R. Widdows. The Internet and the consumer: Countervailing power
94
revisited. Prometheus 20, no.2 (2002): 107-118.

Roselius, T. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods Journal of Marketing, 35,
January, (1971): 56-61
Rousseau, D. M., S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, and C. Camerer. Not so different at all: a cross
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23, no.3 (1998): 393-404.
Robert, L. P., J. A. R. Denis, and Y.T. C. Hung. Individual Swift Trust and
KnowledgeBased Trust in Face-to-Face and Virtual Team Members. Journal of
Management Information Systems 26, no. 2 (2009): 241-279.
Rotter, J. B. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality 35, no.4 (1967): 651-665.
Schlosser A. E., T. B. White, S. M. Lloyd. Converting web site visitors into buyers: how
web site investment increases consumer trtisting beliefs and online purchase
intentions. Journal of Marketing 10, no.2 (2006): 133-148.
Sheth, J. N. and M. Venkatesan. Risk-reduction processes in repetitive consumer
behavior, Journal of Marketing Research 5, (1968): 307-310.
Sillence, E,, P. Briggs, H. Peter, and L. Fishwick. A framework for understanding tmst
factors in web-based health advice. Intemational Journal of Human-Computer
Studies 64, no.8 (2006): 697-713.
Silver, A. Friendship in Commercial Society: Eighteenth-Century Social Theory and
Modern Sociology, American Journal of Sociology, 95, no.2 (1990): 1474-1504.
Stewart K. J. Trust transfer on the world wide web. Organization Science 14, no.1
(2003): 5-17.
95
Tan, M. and T. S. H. Teo. Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems 1, (2000): 1-42.
Taylor, S. and P. A. Todd. Understanding information technology usage: a test of
competing models. Information Systems Research 6, (1995): 144-176.
Thompson D., P. S. Hammond, K. S. Nicholas, and M. A. Fedak. "Movements, diving
and foraging behaviour of grey seals, Journal of Zoology 224, (1991): 223-232.
Trifts, V, G. Haubl. Information availability and consumer preference: can online
retailers benefit from providing access to competitor price information? Joumal of
Consumer Psychology 13, no.1-2 (2003): 149-159.
Urban, G. L., F. Sultan, and W. J. Qualls. Placing Trust at the Center of Your Internet
Strategy. Sloan Management Review 3, (2000): 39-48.
Wang, M.-C. The Value Cognitive Structure of the Online Group-Buying Consumers
Unpublished DBA Thesis, National Cheng Kung University, 2006.
Wei, C.-L. The effects of trivial attributes, Product involvement and product line
Extensions on product line extensions Evaluations Unpublished MBA Thesis,
Tatung University, 2006.
Williamson, O. E. Calculativeness, Trust and Economic Organization. Journal of Law
and Economics 36, no.2 (1993): 453-486.
Wulf, K. D., G. Odekerken-schroder, and D. Iacobucci. Investments in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of
Marketing 65, no.4 (2001): 33-50.
Yang, H.-C. The effects of Perceived risk and Intention of Group-Buying Unpublished
MBA Thesis, Soochow University, 2006.
96
Yuan, S.-T. and Y.-H. Lin. Credit Based Group Negotiation for aggregate sell/buy in
e-markets. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3, no.1 (2004): 74-94.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research 12, (1985): 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. Conceptualising Involvement. Journal of Advertising 15, no.2
(1986): 4-14.
Zhou,
J.-H.
shopping
new
way-Online
Group
http://www.yzu.edu.tw/e_news/389/student/01.htm, 2005.
97
Buying
available
at:
APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE
Antecedents and Consequences of Perceived Risk and Trust on Initiator in Online Group Buying
the Moderating Effects of Buyer-Initiator Relationship and Product Involvement
Dear Sir,
This is a questionnaire for academic research that aims to investigate the
antecedents and consequences of perceived risk and trust on initiator in online group
buying. Further explore the moderating effects of buyer-initiator relationship and
product involvement
This research requires no signature; all data will be used for academics study only.
Please feel free to complete the questionnaire according to the actual status of your
experience on Online Group-Buying. Your response is a key factor to the success of
this study. Thanks a lot for your assistance.
Tatung University
Graduated School of Business Administration
AdvisorProf. Pi-Chuan Sun
StudentYen-Ling Liu
Part 1Based on the actual status of your near experience on Online Group-Buying,
follow the questions and choose the best answer to meet your actual feeling.
1. In this Group-Buying, I brought the product is
Please choose the appropriate item in your mind for that product you brought from
Group-Buying.
Note:1 unimportant; 7 important
Based on that product you brought on Group-Buying, To me
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. unimportant.. ......important
3. irrelevant...... ..relevant
4. means nothing .means a lot of me
5. worthless.... .valuable
6. boring .interesting
7. unexciting.. ..exciting
8. unappealing ..appealing
9. mundane ..fascinating
10. not need......... ..needed
11. uninvolved. ..involved
98
16. This initiators responses are relevant and

accurate, and his/her content is appropriate to
customer requirements.
17. Relevant FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
helps customer to solve problems by themselves.
18. I generally trust other people
19. I tend to count upon other people
20. I generally have faith in humanity
21. I feel that people are generally reliable Dropped
22. It is important to have requirements and
instructions of Group-Buying spelled out in detail
so that followers always know what they are
expected to do.
23. Rules and regulations of Group-Buying are
important because they inform followers what the
organization expects of them
24. Standard operating procedures are helpful to
followers on the Group-Buying activities.
25. Instructions for operations are important for
followers on the Group-Buying activities.
26. I read/saw news reports that attending the
Group-Buying activity was a good way.
99
Totally Agreed.
15. This initiator tells customers the requirement of

group buying exactly.
Agreed.
14. This initiator takes a lot of time learning our

needs.
Fair
13. This initiator is known to be concerned about

customers.
Disagreed
12. This initiator has a reputation for being honest.
Totally Disagreed
According to that experience on Group-Buying, I feel
33. Based on my experience with the online initiator

in the past, I know it provides good service.
in the past, I know it is trustworthy.
in the past, I know it is knows its market.
group buying would lead to a financial loss for me
because of such things as its poor warranty, high
maintenance costs, and/or high monthly
payments.
group buying would lead to a psychological loss for
me because it would not fit in well with my
group buying would lead to a performance loss for
me because it would run extremely poorly.
group buying would lead to a social loss for me
because my friends and relatives would think less
highly of me.
100
Totally Agreed.
32. I believe this initiator will deliver to me a product

that matches the posted description.
Agreed.
31. Expert opinions convinced me of attending the

Fair
28. The members of my relatives and friends depicted

a positive sentiment for attending the
29. The members of my relatives and friends
convinced me of attending the Group-Buying
activity.
30. Expert opinions depicted a positive sentiment for
Disagreed
27. The popular press depicted a positive sentiment

for attending the Group-Buying activity.
Totally Disagreed
Totally Disagreed
Disagreed
Fair
Agreed.
Totally Agreed.

group buying would lead to a physical loss for me
because it would not be very safe or would become
unsafe.

group buying would lead to a loss of convenience for
me because I would have to waste a lot of time and
effort getting it adjusted and repaired.
42. I think that it is that the purchase of a product

from group buying would lead to an privacy risk
for me because personal information is not safe
from hacker.
43. I have a willingness to continue attending the
44. It is possible for me to continue attending the
45. I am interested to continue attending the
46. In that Group-Buying experience, the Initiators role is
A seller (Not attending that Group-Buying activities )
A buyer
Unknown
47. The relationship with that Initiator
Relatives and Friends
Colleagues
Classmates
101
Unfamiliar with
Unknown
Part 2Basic Data

1.
Gender
Male
Female
2. Age
Under the age of 18
age of 36 to 45
3.
age of 19 to 24
age of 25 to 35
above the age of 45
Occupation
Agriculture/Forestry/Fishery/Animal husbandry/ Mining
Information/Communication
Manufacturer
Business/Finance
Service
Military/Police/Public Functionary/Teacher
Students
House keeper
Others
4. Your Income level(per month):

Below NT$ 10,000
NT$40,001~ NT$60,000
NT$10,001~ NT$20,000
NT$60,001~ NT$80,000
NT$20,001~ NT$40,000
NT$ 80,000 or more
5. How many times you attend the activities of Online Group-Buying

Never
Less 3 times
3~6 times
7~9 times
Over 10 times
~ This questionnaire has all been finished. Please check again to make sure all
questions have been answered. Thanks a lot for your patience and help. ~
102
ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF

PERCEIVED RISK AND TRUST ON INITIATOR IN
ONLINE GROUP BUYINGTHE MODERATING
EFFECTS OF BUYER-INITIATOR RELATIONSHIP
(Prof. Pi-Chuan Sun)

Yen-Ling Liu
Thesis for Master of Business Administration

Department of Business Management
Tatung University
January 2010
98
ii

98 .................................................................................i
................................................................................................................ iii
..............................................................................................................v
........................................................................................................... vii
..................................................................................................1
..............................................................................................1
..............................................................................................3
..........................................................................................................4
.........................................................................................6
..................................................................................................................6
.............................................................................8
.......................................12
........................................................................................................15
.......................................................................................18
........................................................................................................18
........................................................................................................19
iii
.......................................................................25
................................................................................................30
...........................................................................32
..................................................................................................32
..............................................................................................34
..........................................................................................................36
..........................................................................................37
..............................................................................................49
......................................................................................................55
...................................................................................62
........................................................................................................62
............................................................................................67
........................................................................................................68
...........................................................................69
........................................................................................................71
: ....................................................................................................83
iv

.....................................................................................26
..............................................................................................26
......................................................................................................27
..................................................................................................27
.....................................................................................28
.............................................................................28
..............................................................................................29
.................................................29
......................................................................................................32
..........................................................................................................33
.....................................................................................34
Cronbach .............................................................................37
.....................................................................38
.........................................................................................39
.........................................................................................42
...............................................................................44
...............................................................................45
.........................................................................45
.........................................................................46
.....................................................................................47
..........................................................................................................49
.......................................................51
...........................................51
...................................................53
.......................................54
.........................................................55
..........................................................................................................62
vi

....................................................................................................................5
............................................................................................................19
..............................................................................................41
..............................................................................................43
..................................................................................................................48
vii
(2009)
3,208
PTT
I HER
GO
2007 961%
(2007)
(2006)Lee and Turban (2001)
(Urban et al., 2000)
(2006)()
(2006)
(Williamson, 1993Mayer et
al., 1995) Buttener and Goritz(2008)
(Buttner and Goritz,

2008)
(Zaichkowsky, 1986; Jain and

Sharma, 2000)
(Assael, 1987)
(
)
(
)
()
()
Anand and Aron (2003)
B2B B2C
(Li et al., 2002; Rha and Widdows, 2002)
(online group-buying)
(Rezabakhsh et al., 2006)
(Kauffman and
Wang, 2002)
McHugh(1999)
Anand and Aron(2003)
(Yuan and Lin, 2004)(2006)
()
()
()
Lai(2002) Chen et
al.(2007) (fixed pricing
mechanism)
()
()
()
()
()
(2005)(2005)

Lai(2002)
PChome

Grazioli and Wang (2001); Jarvenpaa et al. (2000)
Bauer (1960); Mitchell
(1999); Pires et al. (2004)
(Harris and Goode, 2004; Pires et al., 2004)Mayer et al.

(1995); Gefen et al. (2003)
(Bart et al., 2005; Schlosser et al., 2006)(McKnight et al.,

8
2002; Bart et al., 2005)(Harris and Goode, 2004)
(Trust)
(Mayer et al., 1995; Ganesan and Hess, 1997)

Petermann (1996)
Mayer et al. (1995)
()
()
(Ability)
()
(Benevolence)
()
(Integrity)
Buttener and Goritz (2008)
(Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Doney and Cannon,

1997)
(Schlosser et al., 2006; Sillence et al., 2006)
(McKnight et al., 1998;

McKnight et al., 2002; Stewart, 2003; Trifts and Haubl, 2003)
(Perceived Risk)
Bauer (1960)Bauer(1960)
(risk taking)
(Bauer, 1960; Dowling and Staelin,

1994; Mitchell, 1999; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000)Jacoby and Kaplan (1972)
Roselius (1971)

10
Forsythe and Shi (2003)
()
Peter and Tarpey (1975) Jacoby and
Kaplan(1972)
Roselius(1971)
(Jarvenpaa et al., 2000)
11

Mayer et al. (1995)
Williamson (1993)Buttener and Goritz(2008)
(Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; Pires et al.,

2004)Jarvenpaa et al. (2000)
(Jarvenpaa et al., 2000)

(Mayer et al., 1995) Mayer et al. (1995); Delgado-Ballester and
Munuera-Aleman(2001)
McKnight et al. (2002); Schlosser et al. (2006)
(2006)(2006)

(2006)
12
(Reputation)
Doney and Cannon (1997)
(Garbarino and Johnson, 1999)

(McKnight and Chervany, 2002)
(Granovetter, 1985)Jarvenpaa et al. (2000)
(Interaction)
Doney and Cannon (1997)
Rousseau et al., 1998

Buttener and Goritz(2008)
(McKnight and Chervany, 2002)Fiore et al. (2005)
(2006)
(2006)
13
(Disposition to trust)
(Rotter, 1967)McKnight et al. (2002)
(May et al., 1995; McKnight et al., 2002)Robert et al. (2009)
Gefen et al. (2000)
(Uncertainty avoidance)
Hofstede (1980)
Liang and Huang (1998)
Doney et al. (1998)
Hwang (2005)
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)

Ajzen(1991)
14
Taylor and Todd (1995)

Tan and Teo (2000)
Limayem et al. (2000)
Roselius (1971)
Gefen et
al. (2003)
Hwang (2005)
(Berndt and Perry, 1986)(Haytko, 2004;

Silver, 1990)Price and Arnould (1999)
(Murstein
et al., 1977)Bove and Johnson (2000)
(2006)
15
Day (1970)
Wulf et al. (2001)
Higie and Feick (1989)
Cushing (1985)
(Zaichkowsky, 1985)
(Sheth and
Venkatesan, 1968)
(Park
and Young, 1986; Celuch and Slama, 1993)Petty et al. (1983)
(Elaboration Likelihood Model, ELM)
(
2006)Zaichkowsky(1985)
16
17
(2006)(2006)
()(
)
Bove and Johnson (2000)
(2006)
(Sheth and
Venkatesan, 1968)
Zaichkowsky(1985)
18
H1a
H10a
H10b
H8a
H8b
H9a
H9b
H2a
H3a
H11a
H11b
H7a
H4a
H5a
H6
H1b
H2b
H3b
H7b
H4b
H5b
Ba and Pavlou (2002)

Roselius(1971)
Akaah and Korgaonkar(1988)
19
H1a
H1b

(Bhattacharya et al.,
1995; Doney and Cannon, 1997)
Fiore et al.(2005)
H2a
H2b
Robert et al. (2009)
(Aubert and Kelsey, 2003)Gefen et al. (2000)
20
H3a
H3b
Doney et al. (1998)
Hwang (2005)
H4a
H4b
(Taylor and Todd, 1995)Limayem et al. (2000)
Roselius(1971)
Hwang (2005)
H5a
21
H5b
Mayer et al. (1995)

Forsythe and Shi (2003)
Williamson (1993)
H6
(Grazioli and Wang, 2001)

Swaminathan et al., 1999Bearden and Shimp(1982)
Baird and
Thomas(1985)
22
H7a
H7b
(Newcomb and Brady, 1982)

(Crosby et al., 1990; Price et al., 1995) Price and
Arnould (1999)
(Murstein et al., 1977)
(Blum, 1980)Bove and Johnson (2000)
()
()
23
H8a
H8b
H9a
H9b
(Zaichkowsky, 1986; Jain and Sharma, 2000)Park et al. (2007)
(Luo, 2002)
Zaichkowsky(1985)
24
()
H10a
H10b
H11a
H11b
5=
1=
Ba and Pavlou(2000)(2006)
25
(2006)Hsu and Chiu (2004)

Hwang (2005)

1.
2.
3.
4.
: Ba and Pavlou (2002); Gefen et al.(2003)
Featherman and Pavlou (2003)(2006)
(2006)Roselius(1971)Peter and Tarpey (1975)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
26
: (2006); Roselius(1971); Peter and Tarpey(1975)
Ganesan(1994)(2006)
(2006)Doney and
Cannon (1997) Jarvenpaa et al. (2000)

1.
2.
: (2006); Doney and Cannon (1997); Jarvenpaa

et al. (2000)
McKnight and Chervany2002

Doney and
Cannon (1997)

1.
2.
3.
4.
: (2006); Doney and Cannon (1997); Li et al. (2002)
27

Gefen(2000)(2006)
(2006) Gefen(2000)
1.
2.
3.
4.
: (2006); Gefen (2000)
Hofstede1980
(2006); Clugston et al. (2000)
Hwang (2005)

1.
2.
3.
4.
: (2006)Clugston et al. (2000); Hwang (2005)
28
Thompson et al. (1991)

(2006); Hsu and Chiu (2004) Hwang (2005)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
: (2006); Hsu and Chiu (2004); Hwang (2005)
(2006) Gupta et al.(2004)
Gupta et al.(2004)(2006)
1.
2.
3.
: (2006); Gupta et al. (2004)
Higie and Feick (1989)(2006)

Zaichkowsky(1985)
29

SPSS 14.0 AMOS 6.0
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) two-step

approach AMOS 6.0
t
Cronbach
Anderson and
Gerbing1988
1
30
Anderson and Gerbing1988
1.0
1.0
31
400
59 341
85.25%

242
231
11
158
110
48
400
341
59
85.25%
14.75%
100%
45.7% 54.3%
25 35 36.4% 19 24
33.7% 53.1%
10000 26.1%
64.2%
41.3% 53.4%
32
48.71%
156
45.7%
185
54.3%
341
100.0%
18
0.9%
19-24
115
33.7%
25-35
124
36.4%
36-45
55
16.1%
45
44
12.9%
341
100.0%
0.9%
24
7.0%
34
10.0%
39
11.4%
59
17.3%
14
4.1%
122
35.8%
23
6.7%
23
6.7%
341
100.0%
10,000 ()
89
26.1%
10,001~20,000
49
14.4%
20,001~40,000
84
24.6%
40,001~60,000
67
19.6%
60,001~80,000
34
10.0%
80,000
18
5.3%
341
100.0%
69
20.2%
219
64.2%
3~6
48
14.1%
7~9
0.3%
10
1.2%
33
341
100.0%
141
41.3%
182
53.4%
18
5.3%
341
100.0%
23
6.7%
87
25.5%
61
17.9%
166
48.70%
1.2%
341
100.0%

REP
1-1
REP1
3.60
0.618
1-2 REP2
INT
3.67
0.620
2-1
INT 1
3.52
0.649
2-2 INT 2
3.81
0.658
2-3 INT 3
3.77
0.629
2-4 INT 4
3.73
0.719
34
ITR
3-1
ITR 1
3.63
0.800
3-2
ITR 2
3.56
0.740
3-3
ITR 3
3.57
0.766
3-4
ITR 4
3.59
0.741
UA
4-1 UA 1
2.06
0.681
4-2 UA 2
2.08
0.677
4-3 UA 3
1.97
0.674
2.04
0.708
4-4 UA 4
SN
5-1 SNM1
3.79
0.578
5-2 SNM2
3.73
0.591
3.63
0.647
5-5 SNF2 3.72

5-6 SNW1
3.82
0.621
SN 5-4 SNF1
5-7
0.583
SNW2 3.85
0.589
TR 1
3.80
0.644
TR 2
3.73
0.636
TR 3
3.79
0.626
6-4 TR 4
3.56
0.720
TR
6-1
6-2
TR 6-3
7-1 RF1
35
3.81
0.651
7-3 RSY1
3.84
0.633
7-5 RPF1
3.88
0.640
7-7 RSO1
3.77
0.599
7-9 RHY1
3.98
0.566
7-11 RT1
3.87
0.650
7-13 RPY1
3.93
0.726
WI
8-1
8-2
WI 8-3
WI1
3.74
0.720
WI2
3.72
0.670
3.70
0.686
WI3

Cronbachs
Nunnally(1978) Cronbachs 0.7
0.6
Cronbach =0.684 =0.830
Cronbach =0.876
=0.893 Cronbach =0.884
Cronbach =0.828 Cronbach =0.884
Cronbach =0.915
36
Cronbachs 0.684 0.6 0.7
Cronbach
Cronbach
REP
0.684
INT
0.830
ITR
0.876
UA
0.893
(SN)
0.884
TR
0.828
(PR)
0.884
0.915
WI

AMOS 6.0 SEM
(Path Analysis)
Hair et al. (1998)
37
CMIN
311.588
157.728
DF
154
70
CMIN/DF 3
0.9
GFI
2.023
2.253
0.918
0.939
AGFI
0.9 0.888
0.9~0.8
0.909
RMSEA
0.08
0.055
0.061
NFI
0.9
0.917
0.944
TLI
0.9
0.945
0.958
CFI
0.9
0.956
0.968
IFI
0.9
0.956
0.968
PNFI
0.5
0.743
0.726
0.774
0.745
PCFI
0.5
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) t
38
(p<0.001)
t 3.29 (p=0.001)
Fornell and Larcker (1981)
0.50
(SE)
REP
51.10%
REP1
0.732
0.207
3.536
REP2
0.710
0.196
3.622
INT
56.50%
INT1
0.566
0.051
11.098
INT2
0.841
0.030
28.033
INT3
0.822
0.029
28.345
INT4
0.746
0.032
23.313
ITR
65.40%
ITR1
0.746
0.047
15.872
ITR2
0.690
0.040
17.250
ITR3
0.868
0.029
29.931
ITR4
0.911
0.026
35.038
UA
67.72%
UA1
0.813
0.028
29.036
UA2
0.868
0.026
33.385
UA3
0.805
0.034
23.676
UA4
0.804
0.028
28.714
SN
50.18%
SNM1
0.705
0.041
17.195
SNM2
0.695
0.041
16.951
SNF1
0.720
0.039
18.462
SNF2
0.705
0.050
14.100
39
SNW1
0.765
SNW2
0.656
(SE)
0.06
12.750
0.053
12.377
40
REP1
re1
re2
REP2
INT1
n1
1
n2
INT2
1
n3
INT3
1
INT4
n4
1
it1
ITR1
1
it2
ITR2
1
it3
ITR3
1
ITR4
it4
UA1
u1
UA2
u2
1
u3
UA3
UA4
u4
SNM1
s1
1
1
s2
SNM2
1
s4
SNF1
1
SNF2
s5
s6
1
s7
SNW1
SNW2
41
(SE)
57.20%
TR
TR1
0.744
0.03
24.800
TR2
0.772
0.035
22.057
TR3
0.883
0.025
35.320
TR4
0.599
0.050
11.980
51.62%
RF1
0.657
0.055
11.945
RSY1
0.785
0.030
26.167
RPF1
0.780
0.029
26.897
RSO1
0.726
0.038
19.105
RHY1
0.641
0.043
14.907
RT1
0.736
0.038
19.368
RPY1
0.691
0.038
18.184
WI
80.36%
WI1
0.743
0.045
16.511
WI2
0.969
0.014
69.214
WI3
0.959
0.014
68.500
42
TR1
TR2
1
t1
1
t2
TR3
t3
TR4
1
t4
WI1
w1
WI2
w2
WI3
w3
RHY1
r9
RSO1
r7
1
r13
RPY1
RT1
r11
RPF1
r5
1
1
RSY1
RF1
r3
1
r1
Anderson and Gerbing(1988)

1
43
1 1
632.801
159
<>
( 1)
821.830
160
189.029**
<>
( 1)
863.799
160
230.998**
<>
( 1)
847.237
160
214.436**
<>
( 1)
837.882
160
205.081**
<>
( 1)
1162.182 160
529.381**
<>
( 1)
1044.766 160
411.965**
<>
( 1)
917.626
160
284.825**
<>
( 1)
1143.392 160
510.591**
<>
( 1)
1149.487 160
516.686**
<>
( 1)
902.494
269.693**
** p<0.01
44
160
477.918
73
<>
( 1)
1103.898
74
625.980**
<>
( 1)
879.174
74
401.256**
<>
( 1)
1441.198
74
963.280**
** p<0.01
<>
0.293 0.076
0.141~0.445
<>
0.12
0.077
<>
0.19
0.062
-0.034~0.274
0.066~0.314
<>
0.168 0.067
0.034~0.302
<>
0.344 0.065
0.021~0.474
<>
0.503 0.052
0.399~0.607
<>
0.443 0.061
0.321~0.565
<>
0.406 0.056
0.294~0.518
<>
0.284 0.075
0.134~0.434
<>
0.518 0.056
0.406~0.63
** p<0.01
45
<>
<>
<>
0.077 0.082
-0.087~0.241
0.549 0.052
0.445~0.653
0.023 0.078
-0.133~0.179
** p<0.01
AMOS 6.0 (SEM)

(Maximum Likelihood)
Hair et
al., 1998Absolute Fit
Measures
Incremental Fit Measures
Parsimonious
Fit Measures
2 =974.641DF =4932/ DF=1.977 3.0
GFI0.928AGFI0.834
0.8 0.9 (RMSEA)
0.054 0.08
NFI0.866 0.8
0.9 TLI0.919 0.8
0.9 (CFI) 0.928IFI
46
0.929 0.9
PNFI0.761
PGFI0.715 0.5
2 (CMIN)
974.641
DF
493
CMIN/DF
1.977
GFI
0.928
0.9
0.834
0.9~0.8
AGFI
0.054
0.08
RMSEA
NFI
0.866
0.9~0.8
TLI
0.919
0.9
CFI
0.928
0.9
IFI
0.929
0.9
PNFI 0.761
PGFI 0.715
0.5
0.5
(=0.176; t=2.794)
(=0.094; t=1.306)(=0.247;
t=3.250)(=-0.165; t=1.793)
(=0.200; t=3.030)
(=-0.083; t=-1.153)
(=0.131; t=2.148)
47
(=0.138; t=1.266)
(=0.309; t=4.612)
(=0.068; t=0.716)(=0.065; t=1.182)
(=0.582;
t=11.182)
(=-0.022; t=-0.338)
1
re1
t4
REP1
1
re2
t1
1
REP2
TR4 TR3 TR2 TR1
1
n1
t2
t3
1
INT1
1
n2
INT2
1
n3
n4
INT3
t5
INT4
w4
1
ITR1
it1
1
ITR2
it2
1
it3
ITR3
it4
1
UA1
UA2
1
u3
u4
s1
s2
UA3
1
1
SNM2
SNF1
s7
r15
1
1
SNF2
1
s6
SNM1
s4
s5
UA4
1
w1
1
w2
WI2
WI3
1
u2
1
WI1
ITR4
u1
SNW1
1
RF1 RSY1 RPF1 RSO1 RHY1 RT1 RPY1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r1
r3
SNW2
48
r5
r7
r9
r11
r13
w3
0.176
0.063
2.794***
0.094
0.072
1.306
0.247
0.076
3.250***
-0.165
0.092
-1.793**
0.200
0.066
3.030***
-0.083
0.072
-1.153
0.131
0.061
2.148***
0.138
0.109
1.266
0.309
0.067
4.612***
0.068
0.095
0.716
0.065
0.055
1.182
0.582
0.052
11.192***
-0.022
0.065
-0.338
***p<0.005, **p<0.05
(Bollen, 1989)
49
(Reise et al., 1993)
Martin(2007) CFA
AMOS 6.0
(Bollen, 1989)
()
356.920
379.066
222.146
DF
220
233
df=13
RMSEA 0.08
0.05
0.043
0.043
NFI
0.9
0.870
0.861
0.9
CFI
0.944
0.941
0.01
2(13, 0.01)=
27.6885
RMSEA CFI (Martin,
2007) NFI 0.9 0.8~0.89
50
(Byrne, 1989)
1703.897
(DF=986)
1708.185
4.288**
(DF=987)
1703.897
(DF=986)
1704.757
0.860
(DF=987)
1703.897
(DF=986)
1706.402
2.505
(DF=987)
1703.897
(DF=986)
1711.077
7.180**
(DF=987)
** p<0.05
(Group=1) (N=171)
(Group=2) (N=166)
0.082
0.098
0.837
0.234
0.092
2.543**
0.053
0.139
0.381
0.194
0.121
1.603
0.221
0.103
2.146** 0.192
0.079
2.430**
-0.039 0.114
-0.342
0.140
-2.921**
-0.409
** p<0.05
51
1703.897 986
4.288
2(1,0.05)3.841
0.860 2(1,0.05)3.841
2.505 2(1,0.05)3.841
7.180 2(1,0.05)
3.841
SPSS
51
Bollen(1989)
52
()
346.238
361.578
215.340
DF
220
233
df=13
RMSEA 0.08
0.05
0.041
0.040
NFI
0.9
0.876
0.870
0.9
CFI
0.950
0.949
0.01
2(13, 0.01)= 27.6885
RMSEA CFI (Martin, 2007) NFI 0.9

0.8~0.89 (Byrne, 1989)
1789.583
(DF=986)
1793.995
(DF=987)
4.412**
1789.583
(DF=986)
1791.878
(DF=987)
2.295
1789.583
(DF=986)
1789.904
(DF=987)
0.321
1789.583
1793.653
4.07**
53
(DF=986)
(DF=987)
** p<0.05
(N=164)
0.065
0.115
0.100
0.356
-0.069
** p<0.05 *** p<0.01
(N=177)
t
0.565
0.216
0.113
1.912**
0.084
1.190
0.082
0.064
1.281
0.100
3.560**
0.247
0.126
1.960**
0.128
-0.539
-0.395 0.160
-2.469***
1789.583 986
4.412 2(1,0.05)
3.841
2.295
2(1,0.05)3.841
0.321 2(1,0.05)3.841
4.07 2(1,0.05)3.841
54
13 7
6 13
H1a
0.176
0.063
2.794***
H1b
0.094
0.072
1.306
H2a
0.247
0.076
3.250***
H2b
-0.165
0.092
-1.793**
H3a
0.200
0.066
3.030***
H3b
-0.083
0.072
-1.153
H4a
0.138
0.061
2.148***
H4b
0.138
0.109
1.266
H5a
0.309
0.067
4.612***
H5b
0.068
0.095
0.716
H6
0.065
0.055
1.182
H7a
0.582
0.052
11.192***
H7b
-0.022
0.065
-0.338
()
Ba and
55
Pavlou2002
H1a
Akaah(1988)
H1b
(2006)
()
Buttener
and Goritz(2008)H2a
Fiore et al.(2005)
H2b
()
Aubert and
Kelsey (2003)
H3a
H3b
(Robert et al., 2009)
56
()
Hwang (2005)
H4a
H4b
()
Hwang
(2005)H5a
H5b
()
Buttner and Goritz (2008)
57
H6
(Okazaki et al., 2009; Pavlou, 2003)
()

H7a
H7b
t
(=0.582; t =11.192) t (=-0.022; t
=-0.338) Buttener and Goritz(2008)
()
58
Sillence et al. (2006)
(McKnight and Chervany, 2002)

(Granovetter, 1985)
()
(Doney and Cannon, 1997)
Fiore et al.(2005)
59
()
Park et al. (2007)
Park et al. (2007)
()
(Doney and Cannon, 1997)
Zaichkowsky(1985)
60
Mayer et al. (1995)

Buttner and Goritz(2008)
3.81(=0.50)
3.62(=0.540)
3.82
=0.495 3.93
=0.484
F
(F=5.9P=0.003)(F=2.457P=0.083)
61
(2006)(2006):
H1a
H1b
H2a
H2b
62
H3a
H3b
H4a
H4b
H5a
H5b
H6
H7a
H7b
H8a
H8b
H9a
H9b
H10a
H10b
H11a
H11b
63
H1aH2aH2b H1b
Robert
et al., 2009
H3aH4a H3bH4b
H5a H5b
64
(Okazaki et al., 2009; Pavlou,

2003) H6
Buttener and
Goritz(2008)
H7a H7b
H8a H8b
65
H9b
H9a
H10a H10b
66
H11b H11a
()(
)
Buttner and Goritz(2008)
Buttner and Goritz(2008) Bove and Johnson (2000)
67

Park et al. (2007); Zaichkowsky (1986); Jain and Sharma (2000)
68
69
Buttner and Goritz (2008)
(Okazaki et al., 2009; Pavlou,

2003)
70
2006
3 4
423-4462006
2006
http://www.yzu.edu.tw/e_news/389/student/01.htm2005
2005 5 A5
2006
http://tech.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-News/Inc/
2007cti-news-Tech-inc/Tech-Content/0,4703,130509%20132008011501812,00.h
tml2007
http://irich123.blogspot.com/2009/01/2009.html?
widgetType=BlogArchive&widgetId=BlogArchive1&action=toggle&dir=open&
toggle=MONTHLY-1209571200000&toggleopen=MONTHLY-1238515200000
2009
2006
Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 1980.
71
Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes 50, (1991): 179-211.
Akaah, I. P. and P. K. Korgaonkar. A conjoint investigation of the relative importance
of risk relativers in direct marketing. Journal of Advertising Research 28,
(1988): 38-44.
Anand, K. S. and R. Aron. Group buying on the web: A comparison of
price-discovery
mechanisms.
Management
Science
49,
no.11(2003):
1546-1562.
Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A
Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103,
(1988): 411-423.
Assael, H. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Boston: Kent Publishing
Company, 1987.
Aubert, B. and B. Kelsey. Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual
teams. Small Group Research 34, no.5 (2003): 575618.
Ba, S. and P. A. Pavlou. Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in
Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior. MIS Quarterly 26,
no.3 (2002): 243-268.
Baird, I. S. and H. Thomas. Toward A Contingency Model of Strategic Risk Taking,
The Academy of Management Review 10, no.2 (1985): 230-243.
Bart, Y, V. Shankar, F. Sultan, and G. L. Urban. Are the drivers and role of online
trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory
empirical study. foumal of Marketin 69, no.4 (2005): 133-152.
72
Bauer, R. A. Consumer Behavior as Risk-taking, Dynamic Marketing for a

Changing World, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1960.
Bearden, W. O. and T. A. Shimp. The Use of Extrinsic Cues to Facilitate Product
Adoption. Journal of Marketing Research, May, (1982): 229-239.
Berndt, T. J. and T. B. Perry. Children's Perceptions of Friendships as Supportive
Relationships. Developmental Psychology 22, no.5 (1986): 640-648
Bhattacharya, C. B., H. Rao, and M. A. Glynn. Understanding the Bond of
Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates Among Art Museum
Members, Journal of Marketing 59, (1995): 46-57.
Blum, H. P. Psychoanalytic explannations of technique: Discussion in the theory of
therapy, New York: International Universities Press, 1980.
Bollen, K. A. Structural equtions with latent variables, New York: Wiley, 1989.
Bove, L. L. and L. W. Johnson. A Customer-Service Worker Relationship Model.
International Journal of Service Industry, 11, no.5 (2000): 491-505.
Buttener, B. O. and A. S. Goritz. Perceived trustworthiness of online shops Journal
of Consumer Behaviour 7, (2008): 35-50.
Byrne, B. M. A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for
Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989.
Celuch, K. G. and M. Slama. Program Content and Advertising Effectiveness: A

Test of the Congruity Hypothesis for Cognitive and Affective Sources of
Involvement, Psychology and Marketing 10, no.4 (1993): 285-299.
Chen, J., X. Chen, and X. Song. Comparison of the group-buying auction and the
73
fixed pricing mechanism. Decision Support Systems 43, no.43 (2007): 445-459.
Clugston, M., J. P. Howell, and P. W. Dorfman. Does Cultural Socialization Predict
Multiple Bases and Foci of Commitment? Journal of Management 26,
no.1(2000): 5-30.
Crosby, L. A., K. R. Evans, and D. Cowles. Relationship Quality in Services Selling:
An International Influence Perspective. Journal of Marketing 54, (1990): 68-81
Cushing, P., The effect of people/product relationships on advertising processing. In:
Alwitt, L., Mitchell, A. Psychological Process and Advertising Effects, New
Jersey: Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1985.
Day, G. S. Buyer Attitudes and Brand Choice Behavior, New York: Free Press, 1970.
Delgado-BaUester E and J. L. Munuera-Aleman. Brand trust in the context of
consumer loyalty. European Joumal of Marketing 35, (2001): 1238-1258.
Doney, P. M. and J. P. Cannon. An Examination of the Nature of Trust in
Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing 61, (1997): 35-51.
Doney, P., J. Cannon, and M. Mullen. Understanding the Influence of National
Culture on the Development of Trust. Academy of Management Review 23,
no.3 (1998): 601-621.
Dowling, G. R. and R. Staelin. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
activity. Journal of Consumer Research 21, (1994): 119-134.
Featherman, M. S. and P. A. Pavlou. Predicting e-services Adoption: A Perceived
Risk Facets Perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59,
(2003): 451-474.
74
Fiore, A. M., H. J. Jin, and J. Kim. For Fun and Profit: Hedonic Value from Image
Interactivity and Responses Toward an Online Store. Psychology & Marketing
22, no.8 (2005): 669-694.
Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Errors. Journal of Marketing Research 18, no.2
(1981): 39-50.
Forsythe, S. M. and B. Shi. Consumer Patronage and Risk Perceptions in Internet
Shopping. Journal of Business Research 56, (2003): 867-875.
Ganesan, S. Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships.
Journal of Marketing 58, no.2 (1994): 1-19.
Ganesan S. and R. Hess. Dimensions and levels of trust: implications for
commitment to a relationship. Marketing Letters 8, no.4 (1997): 439-448.
Garbarino, E. and M. S. Johnson. The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and
Commitment in Customer Relationships. Journal of Marketing 63, no.2 (1999):
70-87.
Gefen, D., E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An
Integrated Model. MIS Quarterly 27, no.1 (2003): 51-90.
Granovetter, M. Economic Action and Social Structure: the Problem of
Embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology 91, no.3 (1985): 481-510.
Grazioli, S. and A. Wang. Looking Without Seeing: Understanding Unsophisticated
Consumers' Success and Failure to Detect Internet Deception. Proceedings of
the 22nd International Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans,
75
(2001).
Gupta, A., B.-C. Su, and Z. Walter. An Empirical Study of Consumer Switching from
Traditional to Electronic Channels: A Purchase-Decision Process Perspective.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8, no.3 (2004): 131-161.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. Chap.4, Multiple
Regression Analysis, Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall International, Inc., 1998.
Harris L. C. and M. M. H. Goode. The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of
tmst: a study of online service dynamics. Joumal of Retailing 80, no.2 (2004):
139-158.
Haytko, D. L. Firm-to-Firm and Interpersonal Relationships: Perspectives from
Advertising Agency Account Managers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 32, no.3 (2004): 31228.
Higie, R. A. and L. F. Feick. Enduring Involvement: Conceptual and Measurement
Issues.Advances in Consumer Research, no.16(1989): 690-696.
Hofstede, G. Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories
Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics 9, no.1 (1980): 42-63.
Hsu, M. H. and C. M. Chiu. Internet Self-Efficacy and Electronic Service
Acceptance. Decision Support Systems 38, (2004): 369381.
Hwang, Y. An Empirical Study of Online Trust and Consumer Behavior: Cultural
Orientation, Social Norms, and Personal Innovativeness in Information
Technology. International Conference on Information Systems 26, (2005):
872-884.
76
Jacoby, J. and L. Kaplan. The components of perceived risk, Proceedings of 3rd

Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, Chicago: IL, 1972.
Jain, K. S. and K. Sharma. Product Related Antecedents of Consumer Involvement:
An Empirical Investigation, Vikalpa 25, no.1 (2000): 29-42.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., N. Tractinsky, and M. Vitale. Consumer trust in an Internet store.
Information Technology and Management 1, no.12 (2000): 4571.
Kauffman, R. J. and B. Wang. Bid Together, Buy Together: On the Efficacy of
Group-Buying Business Model in Internet-Based Selling. Handbook of
Electronic Commerce in Business and Society, P. B. Lowry, J. O. Cherrington
and R.R. Watson(eds.), Baca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002.
Lai, H. Collective Bargaining Models on e-Marketplace., International Conference
on Advance in Infrastructure for e-Business, e-Education, e-Science, e-Medicine
on the Internet, LAquila, Italy, 2002.
Lee, M. K. O. and E. Turban. A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, no.1 (2001): 7591.
Li, Y. N., K. C. Tan, and M. Xie. Measuring Web-Based Service Quality. Total
Quality Management 13, no.5 (2002): 685- 700.
Liang, C.-J. and W.-H. Wang. Do loyal and more involved customers reciprocate
retailers relationship efforts? Journal of Services Research 8, no.1
(2008):63-90.
Liang, T, and J. Huang. An Empirical Study on Consumer Acceptance of Products in
Electronic Markets: A Transaction Cost Model, Decision Support Systems 24,
(1998): 29-43.
77
Limayem, M., M. Khalifa, and A. Frini. What Makes Consumers Buy from Internet?
A Longitudinal Study of Online Shopping, IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics 30, no.4 (2000): 421-432.
Luo, X. Trust Production and Privacy Concerns on the Internet A Framework Based
on Relationship Marketing and Social Exchange Theory, Industrial Marketing
Management 31, no.2 (2002): 111-118.
Martin, A. J. Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and
engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Education
Psychology, 77(2007): 413-414.
Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. An integrative model of
organizational tmst. Academy of Management Review 20, no.3 (1995):
709-734.
McHugh, J. Consumer collusion! Forbes, (1999, September 6).
McKnight, D. H., V. Choudhury, and C. Kacmar. The Impact of Initial Consumer
Trust on Intentions to Transact with a Web Site: a Trust Building Model.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11, (2002): 297-323.
McKnight, D. H., L. L. Cummings, and N. L. Chervany. Initial Trust Formation in
New Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review 23,
no.3(1998): 473-490.
McKnight, D. H. and N. L. Chervany. What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer
Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, no.2 (2002): 3357.
Mitchell, U. V-W. Consumer perceived risk: conceptualizations and models.
78
European Joumal of Marketing 33, no.1/2 (1999): 163-195.

Murstein, B., M. Cerreto, and M. Macdonald, A Theory and Investigation of the
Effect of Exchange Orientation on Marriage and Friendship, Journal of
Marriage and the Family 39, (1977): 543-548.
Newcomb, A. F. and J. E. Brady. Mutuality in Boy's Friendship Relations. Child
Development 53, (1982): 392-395.
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Okazaki, S., H. Li, and M. Hirose. Consumer Privacy Concerns And Preference For
Degree Of Regulatory Control: A Study of Mobile Advertising in Japan,
Journal of Advertising 38, no.4 (2009): 63-77.
Park, C. W. and S. M. Young. Consumer Response to Television Commercials: The
Impact of Involvement and Background Music on Brand Attitude Formation,
Journal of Marketing Research 23, no.1 (1986): 11-24.
Pavlou, P. A. Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and
Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model, International Journal of
Electronic Commerce 7, no.3 (2003): 101-134.
Petemiann, F. Psychologie des Vertrauens the Psychology of Trust, 3rd ed., Hogrefe:
Gottingen, 1996.
Peter, J. P. and S. L. X. Tarpey. A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer
Decision Strategies. Journal of Consumer Research 2, no.1 (1975): 29-37.
Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann. Central and peripheral Routes to
Advertising Effectiveness: The moderating Role of Involvement, Journal of
79
Consumer Research no.10(Sep 1983): 135-146.

Pires G, J. Stanton, A. Eckford. Infiuences on the perceived risk of purchasing
online. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4, no.2 (2004): 118-131.
Price, L. L. and E. J. Arnould. Commercial Friendships: Service ProviderClient
Relationships in Context. Journal of Marketing, 63, no.3 (1999):38-56.
Price, L. L., E. J. Arnould, and S. L. Deibler. Consumer's Emotional Responses to
Service Encounters: The Influence of the Service Provide, International
Journal of Service Industries Management 6, no.3 (1995): 34-63.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., and Pugh, R. H. Confirmatory factor analysis and item
response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance.
Psychol Bull, 114, no.3 (1993): 552-566.
Rezabakhsh, B., D. Bornemann, U. Hansen, and U. Schrader. Consumer power: a
comparison of the old economy and the Internet economy, Journal of
Consumer Policy 29, no. 1(2006): 3-36.
Rha, J.-Y. and R. Widdows. The Internet and the consumer: Countervailing power
revisited. Prometheus 20, no.2 (2002): 107-118.
Robert, L. P., J. A. R. Denis, and Y.T. C. Hung. Individual Swift Trust and
KnowledgeBased Trust in Face-to-Face and Virtual Team Members. Journal
of Management Information Systems 26, no. 2 (2009): 241279.
Roselius, T. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods Journal of Marketing, 35,
January, (1971): 56-61.
Rousseau, D. M., S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, and C. Camerer. Not so different at all: a
80
cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23, no.3

(1998) : 393-404.
Rotter, J. B. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality 35, no.4 (1967): 651665.
Schlosser A. E., T. B. White, S. M. Lloyd. Converting web site visitors into buyers:
how web site investment increases consumer trtisting beliefs and online
purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing 10, no.2 (2006): 133-148.
Sheth, J. N. and M. Venkatesan. Risk-reduction processes in repetitive consumer
behavior, Journal of Marketing Research 5, (1968): 307-310.
Sillence, E., P. Briggs, H. Peter, and L. Fishwick. A framework for understanding
tmst
factors
in
web-based
health
advice.
Intemational
Journal
of
Human-Computer Studies 64, no.8 (2006): 697-713.

Silver, A. Friendship in Commercial Society: Eighteenth-Century Social Theory and
Modern Sociology, American Journal of Sociology, 95, no.2 (1990):
1474-1504.
Stewart K. J. Trust transfer on the world wide web. Organization Science 14, no.1
(2003): 5-17.
Tan, M. and T. S. H. Teo. Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 1, (2000): 1-42.
Taylor, S. and P. A. Todd. Understanding information technology usage: a test of
competing models. Information Systems Research 6, (1995): 144-176.
Thompson D., P. S. Hammond, K. S. Nicholas, and M. A. Fedak. "Movements, diving
81
and foraging behaviour of grey seals, Journal of Zoology 224, (1991): 223-232.
Trifts, V, G. Haubl. Information availability and consumer preference: can online
retailers benefit from providing access to competitor price information? Joumal
of Consumer Psychology 13, no.1-2 (2003): 149-159.
Urban, G. L., F. Sultan, and W. J. Qualls. Placing Trust at the Center of Your
Internet Strategy. Sloan Management Review 3, (2000): 39-48.
Williamson, O. E. Calculativeness, Trust and Economic Organization. Journal of
Law and Economics 36, no.2 (1993): 453-486.
Wulf, K. D., G. Odekerken-schroder, and D. Iacobucci. Investments in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of
Marketing 65, no.4 (2001): 33-50.
Yuan, S.-T. and Y.-H. Lin. Credit Based Group Negotiation for aggregate sell/buy in
e-markets. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3, no.1 (2004):
74-94.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research 12, (1985): 341-352.
Zaichkowsky J. L. Conceptualising Involvement. Journal of Advertising 15, no.2
(1986): 4-14.
82
0983-873-384
E-mail:annie7310@yahoo.com.tw
1.
:
1
1.
83
2. .....
......
3. .....
..
4. .....
..
5. .....
..
6. .
..
7. .
..
8. .....
..
9. .....
..
10. .....
..
11. .....
..
1
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
84
1
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
85
1
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.

86
47.
_________________
1.
2.
18
19-24
25-35
36-45
45
3.
4. ()
10,000 ()
10,001~20,000
20,001~40,000
40,001~60,000
60,001~80,000
80,000
5.
3~6
7~9
10
~
~
87

指導教授：孫碧娟 (Prof. Pi-Chuan Sun) 研 究 生：劉晏伶（Yen-Ling Liu）

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

指導教授：孫碧娟 (Prof. Pi-Chuan Sun) 研 究 生：劉晏伶（Yen-Ling Liu）

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF

PERCEIVED RISK AND TRUST ON INITIATOR IN

(Prof. Pi-Chuan Sun)

Thesis for Master of Business Administration

ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF PERCEIVED RISK

ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF PERCEIVED RISK AND

AdvisorProf. Pi-Chuan Sun

3. RESEARCH METHOD ..........................................................................23

3.3 Definition and Measurements ...............................................................................32

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH RESULTS.................................41

5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .................................................79

buyers are likely to enjoy shopping in online group buying.

1.2 Research Motivation

1.3 Research Questions and Objectives

According to the research background and motivations outlined in Section 1, this

correlation between the characteristic of initiator (reputation and interaction) and

1.4 Research Procedure

The data gathered through the collection of

questionnaires is then analyzed and discussed for the subsequent presentation of

Research motivations and objective

Estimate research framework

Questionnaire design and data collection

Consequence and discussion

Figure 1 Research Process

from the Internet-based sellers Website (Kauffman and Wang, 2002).

taking defines as a consequence of trust. In addition, the crucial role of trust in

reliability from trustee:

2.2.2 Perceived risk

Perceived risk is developed from the psychological study of a future which is

risk refers to buyers subjective assessment of possible negative consequences that a

2.2.3 The relationship between trust on initiator and perceived risk

2.3 Antecedents of the Trust on Initiator and Perceived Risk

This study integrates three perspectives such as initiators characteristics,

2.3.1 The characteristic of initiator

2.3.2 The characteristic of individual

(2) Uncertainty avoidance

Hofstede (1980) indicates that uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which a

2.3.3 Subjective norm

2.4 The effects of Moderation

2.4.1 Buyer-Initiator Relationship

2.4.2 Product involvement

values and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985). High-product involvement buyer will

Hence, this study includes buyer-initiator relationship and product involvement

Figure 2 Research Framework

Ba and Pavlou (2002) indicate that vendors reputation is an important factor

H2aInteraction has a positive effect on trust to initiator.

3.2.6 Correlation between perceived risk and trust on initiator

3.2.8 The moderating effects of the buyer-initiator relationship

3.2.9 The moderating effects of product involvement

H11aProduct involvement has a moderating effect on the relationship between

3.3 Definition and Measurements

3.3.1 Trust on initiator

Table 1 Measurement of the Trust to Initiator

Table 2 Measurement of Perceived Risk

Psychological 2. I think that it is that the purchase of a product from

3. I think that it is that the purchase of a product from

4. I think that it is that the purchase of a product from

5. I think that it is that the purchase of a product from

6. I think that it is that the purchase of a product from

7. I think that it is that the purchase of a product from

This initiator has a reputation for being honest.

This initiator is known to be concerned about buyers.

This initiator takes a lot of time learning our needs.

指導教授：孫碧娟 (Prof. Pi-Chuan Sun) 研究生：劉晏伶（Yen-Ling Liu）

指導教授：孫碧娟 (Prof. Pi-Chuan Sun) 研究生：劉晏伶（Yen-Ling Liu）