Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 1160 1166

The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value


on consumer preference and intentions
Jeffrey W. Overby a,, Eun-Ju Lee b,1
a
College of Business Administration, Belmont University, 1900 Belmont Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37212, USA
b
College of Business Administration, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Korea
Received 11 November 2003; accepted 13 March 2006

Abstract

Though value has received significant attention in the marketing literature in recent years, research on the concept has been somewhat limited in
the context of online shopping, particularly in regards to empirical hypothesis testing. This paper examines the relevancy of value dimensions for
online shopping and the relationship between value dimensions, preference towards the Internet retailer, and intentions. Findings from the large-scale
study indicate that utilitarian value is more strongly related than hedonic value to preference towards the Internet retailer and intentions and that
shopping frequency can play a moderating role. The paper concludes with a discussion of limitations and managerial implications.
2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Online shopping; Utilitarian value; Hedonic value; Internet; Preference

1. Introduction elaborate sites to an overemphasis on advertising at the expense


of content (Burke, 1997; Crockett, 2000; Mitchell, 2000). These
As the number of Internet users continues to increase, op- factors are likely important symptoms, but the more likely cause
portunities for online shopping continue to expand as well. is a lack of understanding of the target audience. Cowles et al.
However, online shopping and purchase growth have not (2002) argue that e-commerce research should consider the
necessarily paralleled the historical expansion of Internet usage. motivations or desired value behind consumer use of the me-
The Internet shopping conversion rate the number of visitors dium. Because shoppers choose and return to retailers who offer
who come to a particular retail site divided by the number of superior value, as defined by customers (Woodruff, 1997), e-
actual buyers was only 1.8% in 1999, according to a survey by tailers must design and ultimately deliver a value proposition
Boston Consulting Group and Shop.org. More recent industry that is most appealing to e-customers.
statistics (Shop.org, 2004) show that the online conversion rate Value judgments have been shown to influence preference,
gradually improved from 2.2% in 2000 to 3.1% in 2003; but this is satisfaction, loyalty, and other important outcomes (Cronin et al.,
still low. In fact, it is estimated that two-thirds of online shoppers 2000), but nearly all studies examining such constructs have
fill their electronic shopping carts but exit at the checkout point been in the context of offline consumer behavior. In regards to
without making any purchase (Gurley, 2000; Rewick, 2000). on-line shopping, empirical research has begun to emerge in
What are potential reasons for such developments? Re- the marketing literature. However, many unanswered questions
searchers have blamed everything from user interfaces to over- still exist, including whether the in-store customer value
dimensions identified in the retailing literature are equally rel-
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 615 460 6499; fax: +1 615 460 6487. evant within an online shopping context and, if so, to what extent
E-mail addresses: overbyj@mail.belmont.edu (J.W. Overby), these differences in value dimensions influence preference for
elee9@cau.ac.kr (E.-J. Lee). the Internet retailer and future shopping intentions. The
1
Tel.: +82 2 820 5735; fax: +82 2 813 8910. remainder of this paper will seek to address these questions.
0148-2963/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.03.008
J.W. Overby, E.-J. Lee / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 11601166 1161

2. Conceptual background value judgments to positively influence preference, satisfaction,


and loyalty (Cronin et al., 2000). Consistent with Mathwick et al.
In order to examine the relationship between judgments of (2001), preference is an especially important issue within an
Internet shopping value and consumer outcomes, one must first Internet shopping context. Preference represents the disposition
understand the concept of value and its related dimensions. Past of the Internet shopper to favor a specific Internet retailer. We
research has conceptualized value as simply a tradeoff between propose that utilitarian and hedonic value will have a direct and
quality and price (Bolton and Drew, 1991), though a number of positive effect upon preference for the Internet retailer (as
recent researchers argue that value is more complex, that other illustrated in Fig. 1). This hypothesis is supported by a number of
dimensions of value should be considered by scholars and studies, including early research conducted by Jacoby and
managers, and that consumer choice is the result of multiple Kaplan (1972) and Kaplan et al. (1974). More recent studies
dimensions of consumption value (Bolton and Drew, 1991; have shown a parallel link between value and brand preference
Grewal et al., 2003; Holbrook, 1994). Two value dimensions (Dodds et al., 1991; Erdem and Swait, 1998; Grewal et al., 1998;
appear to be most universal utilitarian value and hedonic Sinha and DeSarbo, 1998).
value (Babin et al., 1994; Sheth, 1983). We now define these
Hypothesis 1. Value judgments are positively related to
value dimensions specifically for an Internet shopping context.
preference for the Internet retailer and future intentions.
2.1. Utilitarian value Preference is believed to influence future consumer out-
comes, including intentions, willingness to buy, and word-of-
Utilitarian value is defined as an overall assessment (i.e., mouth (Bagozzi, 1992; Dodds et al., 1991). Although Fishbein
judgment) of functional benefits and sacrifices. Utilitarian value and Stasson (1990) believe that intentions are motivational in
is relevant for task-specific use of online shopping, such as nature, Bagozzi (1992) argues that preference is distinct from
purchase deliberation (i.e., considering the product, service, and intentions. Bagozzi (1992) even asserts that unless preference is
price features before actual purchase) (Hoffman and Novak, present, intentions may not be activated. For this reason, we
1996). Although this concept is similar to the active source of propose that preference for the Internet retailer will positively
extrinsic value for Internet shopping identified by Mathwick influence consumer intentions. This is consistent with research
et al. (2001), we believe that it is important to further dif- that has linked value to retail store preference and retail pat-
ferentiate utilitarian value as something distinct and different ronage intent (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Dick and Basu, 1994;
from hedonic value. Utilitarian value incorporates more cog- Mathwick et al., 2001) and also structural research that has
nitive aspects of attitude, such as economic value for the linked preference to repurchase behavior (Andreassen and
money (Zeithaml, 1988) and judgments of convenience and Lindestad, 1998; Erdem and Swait, 1998; Pritchard et al., 1999;
time savings (Jarvenpaa and Todd, 1997; Teo, 2001). For Roest and Pieters, 1997).
example, shoppers may shop online because of the convenience
Hypothesis 2. Preference towards the Internet retailer is
of locating and comparing merchants, evaluating price/quality
positively related to future intentions.
ratios, and conserving temporal and psychological resources
(Grewal et al., 2003; Mathwick et al., 2001). Although we believe that there will be a positive relationship
between value judgments and preference towards an Internet
2.2. Hedonic value retailer, we assert that the strength of this relationship will be
partially driven by the type of value received (i.e., hedonic
Hedonic value is defined as an overall assessment (i.e., versus utilitarian). Overall, we propose that utilitarian value is
judgment) of experiential benefits and sacrifices, such as en- likely to play a stronger role than hedonic value in the formation
tertainment and escapism. Consumers often shop for an ap- of preference towards the Internet retailer (Igbaria et al., 1994;
preciation of the experience rather than simply for task Teo, 2001). This is consistent with a number of research findings
completion (Babin et al., 1994). Hedonic value dimensions (see Jarvenpaa and Todd, 1997; Vijayasarathy and Jones, 2000).
have been the subject of much research in the in-store shopping For example, Jarvenpaa and Todd (1997) and Burke (1997)
literature (see Babin and Attaway, 2000; Darden and Reynolds,
1971) and have begun to be recognized as important elements of
online shopping (Burke, 1999; Hoffman and Novak, 1996).
Like offline shopping, one expects online shoppers to also
shop for entertainment purposes and for out-of-routine ex-
periences that absorb the users and let them get away from it
all (Kim, 2002; Mathwick et al., 2001).

2.3. Value, preference, and intentions

Given the various forms of Internet shopping value, one must


question how judgments of value influence consumer evalua-
tions. As discussed earlier, offline shopping research has shown Fig. 1. The research model: value, preference, and intentions.
1162 J.W. Overby, E.-J. Lee / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 11601166

found that the most important perceived benefit of Internet indicate the degree to which each statement was characteristic of
shopping was convenience. Similarly, Vijayasarathy and Jones their thoughts and feelings and the way they interact online. The
(2000) found price to be particularly important for Internet survey was implemented over several months and resulted in
shopping. If confirmed, such a finding would be particularly 817 usable responses. All items were measured on a 7-point
noteworthy as it would contrast with in-store shopping research. Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree. A profile of the sample is in Table 1. The respondents
Hypothesis 3. Consumer judgments of utilitarian value of an
were generally highly educated, relatively affluent, and
Internet retailer are more strongly related to preference towards
experienced with the Internet. This profile is comparable to
the Internet retailer than are consumer judgments of hedonic
typical Internet users identified in the literature (see Swinyard
value.
and Smith, 2003).

2.4. Moderation 4. Results

In addition to the hypothesized direct relationships, we assert 4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
that shopping frequency is likely to serve as a moderator of the
influence of value upon preference and intentions. For example, Following procedures recommended by Anderson and
Evans et al. (2001) found that experienced Internet users were Gerbing (1988), we conducted two analysis phases. First, we
more likely to participate in virtual communities for informa- tested the overall fit of the hypothesized model. As evident in
tional reasons, whereas novice users were more likely to par- Table 2, the overall fit was acceptable with a goodness-of-fit
ticipate for social interaction. Liang and Huang (1998) found index (GFI) 0.909, a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.934, no
that consumers' prior experience actually moderated the effect of standardized residuals over 2.0, and a Chi-square of 634.313
value considerations upon consumer acceptance of electronic (100 df, p = 0.000). We then examined the adequacy of each
shopping. Given these findings, we propose that consumer
experience is likely to moderate the influence of specific value
dimensions upon preference.
Table 1
Hypothesis 4. Shopping frequency moderates the influence of Sample profile
specific value dimensions upon preference towards the Internet
Frequency % Frequency %
retailer and future intentions:
Gender Race
Female 263 32.2% White 744 91.1%
(a) Utilitarian value is more strongly related to preference Male 554 67.8% Other 57 6.9%
towards the Internet retailer for frequent shoppers than for Not say 16 2.0%
infrequent shoppers. 817 100% 817 100%
(b) Hedonic value is more strongly related to preference Age Education
Under 20 21 2.6% High school or less 33 4.0%
towards the Internet retailer for infrequent shoppers than
2130 236 28.9% Vocational/technology 25 3.1%
for frequent shoppers. 3140 226 27.7% Some college 217 26.6%
4150 188 23.0% Bachelor's degree 299 36.6%
5060 105 12.9% Master's degree 175 21.4%
3. Methodology 6070 27 3.3% Doctoral Degree 39 4.8%
Over 70 7 0.9% Professional 24 2.9%
3.1. Data collection and measures Not Say 7 0.9% Other 5 0.6%
817 100% 817 100%
Income Marital status
The value scales in this study were developed from previous
Less than $10,000 15 1.8% Married 426 52.1%
published research (c.f., Babin and Darden, 1995; Catalog $10,000$19,000 28 3.4% Single 247 30.2%
Coalition, 1993; Hirschman, 1986; Maddox, 1982; Unger and $20,000$29,000 49 6.0% Divorced 59 7.2%
Kernan, 1983; Zeithaml, 1988) and were refined through expert $30,000$39,000 91 11.1% Separated 7 0.9%
review and pretesting using a small number of shopping experts $40,000$49,000 88 10.8% Widowed 12 1.5%
$50,000$74,000 189 23.1% Other 57 7.0%
(see Mathwick et al., 2001 for the procedures). Once refined,
$75,000$99,000 118 14.4% Not say 9 1.1%
the final instrument was collected using an online survey Over $100,000 130 15.9%
(Graphics Visualization and Usability Center, 1998). With an Not Say 109 13.3%
offer of cash prizes to selected participants, respondents were 817 100% 817 100%
recruited via numerous Internet related newsgroups, special Years on the Internet Comfortable with the Internet
Under 6 months 15 1.8% Very Comfortable 729 89.2%
pointers by Yahoo!, MindSpring and DoubleClick, announce-
612 months 36 4.4% Somewhat Comfortable 80 9.8%
ments made to the www-surveying mailing list, and the popular 13 years 231 28.3% Neither 6 0.7%
media. 46 years 333 40.8% Somewhat 1 0.1%
Visitors to the survey website were instructed to complete the Uncomfortable
survey in terms of an Internet retailer from which they had Over 7 years 202 24.7% Very Uncomfortable 1 0.1%
817 100% 817 100%
recently shopped and purchased. They were then instructed to
J.W. Overby, E.-J. Lee / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 11601166 1163

multi-item scale in capturing its respective construct. The Table 3


residuals and scales exhibited satisfactory unidimensionality. Hypothesis tests
The standardized loadings for all items were significant, sug- Structural path Standardized estimate t values
gesting convergent validity. The construct reliabilities for each Utilitarian value preference 0.638 15.698
construct were above 0.70 therefore demonstrating internal (Hypotheses 1 and 3)
consistency. In addition, the average variance extracted (AVE) Hedonic value preference 0.178 5.114
(Hypotheses 1 and 3)
ranged from 0.53 to 0.71 indicating that the variance captured by
Preference intentions ( Hypotheses 2) 0.874 21.827
the construct was greater than the variance due to measurement
Significant at p b 0.01.
error (Fornell and Larker, 1981).

4.2. Structural model and tests of hypotheses


effects on preference for the Internet retailer. As evident in
Because the proposed measurement model was consistent Table 3, the two latent constructs significantly affect preference
with the data, the hypotheses were tested with AMOS 4.01, toward the Internet retailer, explaining 47% of the variation in
using the covariance matrix. Hypothesis 1 suggested that util- preference. Hypothesis 2 predicted that preference for the
itarian and hedonic value judgments would have significant Internet retailer would predict intentions. The findings demon-
strate that preference has a significant, positive effect on in-
tentions. In fact, preference explains 76% of the variation in
intentions. Thus, Hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported.
Table 2
Hypothesis 3 predicted that utilitarian value would play a
Measurement scales and summary statistics
stronger role than hedonic value in the formation of preference
Utilitarian value a, The price of the product and/or services I
for the Internet retailer (Igbaria et al., 1994; Teo, 2001). As
reliability = .89, AVE b = .60 purchased from this Internet retailer are at the
right level, given the quality. hypothesized, utilitarian value had a much stronger influence on
When I make a purchase from this Internet preference than hedonic value. Utilitarian value explains ap-
site, I save time. proximately 41% in the variation in preference, and hedonic
The products and/or services I purchased value explains only 3%. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is supported.
from this Internet retailer were a good buy.
While the Research Model demonstrated that utilitarian and
This Internet retailer offers a good economic
value. hedonic value dimensions each influences preference and ul-
Hedonic value a, Making a purchase totally absorbs me. timately intentions, Hypothesis 4 predicted that the predictive
reliability = .79, AVE b = .53 This Internet retailer doesn't just sell product power of these value dimensions might be partially moderated
or services it entertains me. by shopping frequency. Our sample included 361 low
Making a purchase from this Internet retail
frequency shoppers and 466 high frequency shoppers. We
site gets me away from it all.
Making a purchase from this Internet site truly imposed the structure of the Research Model separately on the
feels like an escape. two subsets of data in order to investigate how shopping
Preference a, reliability = .83, When it comes to making a purchase, this frequency might influence the relationship between value
AVE b = .58 Internet retailer is my first preference. dimensions and preference. Using confirmatory factor analy-
I prefer this Internet retailer to other Internet
ses, the Measurement Models representing both the utilitarian
providers of its type.
I consider this Internet retailer to be my and the hedonic shopping value dimensions were adequately
primary source of this type of merchandise or identified for the low frequency and high frequency shoppers.
service. Each model demonstrated good convergent and discriminant
Intentions a, reliability = .90, In the future, this Internet retailer is one of the validity.
AVE b = .71 first places I intend to look when I need the
As evident in Table 4, the results demonstrated that for the
type of merchandise or services it provides.
I intend to continue to visit this Internet low frequency shoppers (N = 361) the effect of utilitarian value
retailer's site in the future. on preference was positively significant (bUVPREF = 0.539).
I intend to purchase from this Internet retailer Hedonic value also had a significant influence on preference
in the future. (bHVPREF = 0.338). The fit indices, GFI and CFI for the low
I intend to continue doing business with this
frequency shopper sample, were 0.900, and 0.935, respectively.
Internet retailer over the next few years.
I have a favorable attitude toward continuing For the high frequency shoppers (N = 466), the effect of
to do business with this Internet retailer over utilitarian value on preference was again positively significant
the next few years. (bUVPREF = 0.773). However, unlike the low frequency shop-
Fit statistics (N = 827) per sample, hedonic value did not significantly influence pref-
2 = 634.313
erence (bHVPREF = 0.081) for high frequency shoppers. The fit
d.f. = 100
CFI = .934 indices, GFI and CFI, for this sample were 0.874 and 0.913,
GFI = .909 respectively. Overall, Hypothesis 4 appeared to be supported.
RMSEA = 0.80 Utilitarian value explained more variance in preference towards
a
All factor loadings are significant at the p b .001 level. the Internet retailer for frequent shoppers than for infrequent
b
AVE refers to Average Variance Extracted. shoppers. Moreover, hedonic was significantly related to
1164 J.W. Overby, E.-J. Lee / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 11601166

Table 4 5.2. Limitations and future research


Structural parameter estimates and goodness-of-fit indices for two-group
comparisons
One limitation of this research is that the sample was
Paths Hypothesis Standardized estimate Standardized estimate collected using non-probabilistic methods and may not be
Frequent shoppers Infrequent shoppers representative of the general consuming public. Given that the
(n = 466) (n = 361) Internet does not yet offer a mechanism for random selection and
Utilitarian value 0.773 0.539 the fact that many people still do not access the Internet, the
preference sample likely did not include many individuals lacking access or
Hedonic value 0.081 0.338
skills to use the Internet. It is for this reason that respondents
preference
Preference 0.906 0.752 were recruited through diverse media (as described earlier),
intentions including high exposure websites, content neutral websites, and
2 = 490.36, p b .001 2 = 317.41, p b .001 random rotation of banners through advertising networks to
CFI = .913, GFI = .874 CFI = .935, GFI = .900 advertise the survey. Though the sample characteristics do ap-
Significant at p b 0.01. pear to be somewhat biased towards experienced and more
frequent Internet users, such a sample is useful for learning about
preference only for infrequent shoppers and not for frequent the shopping value sought by the wired population (Clayton and
shoppers. Werking, 1995; Dillman and Bowker, 2001; Klassen and
Jacobs, 2001).
5. Discussion An important area for future research concerns the influence
of additional online shopping value dimensions on online shop-
5.1. Summary of findings and implications ping behavior. One such new and underresearched concept is
interactivity. Interactivity allows the consumer or end-user to
In response to our research questions and recent calls for more maintain high levels of control over access, timing and se-
research on consumption goals (see Bagozzi and Dholakia, quencing of information and services (Alpert et al., 2003;
1999; Woodruff, 1997), the findings indicate that Internet Mundorf and Bryant, 2002). With enhanced interactivity, the
shopping invokes multiple value dimensions and that these Internet can allow online shoppers to exchange product in-
value dimensions additively contribute to preference towards the formation, reviews, and ideas freely, using chat rooms, bulletin
Internet retailer and future intentions. The measurement model boards, or electronic forums (Hoffman and Novak, 1996). Aside
verified two overall value dimensions (utilitarian and hedonic) in from interactivity, there may be other wants/desires that con-
the Internet shopping environment, and more importantly, these sumers have not expressed or businesses have not yet identified.
value dimensions were operationalized at the benefit level rather There may also be significant changes in the relevance of
than at the attribute level. The study found that consumers existing value dimensions (Flint et al., 2002). Though this study
indeed perceive utilitarian value and hedonic value to be im- only examined received value, consumers' received value
portant in their preference for online retailers and future in- judgments are not always parallel to their desired value. Those
tentions, though utilitarian value was a stronger predictor than marketers that are best able to discern and respond to changes in
hedonic value. It appears that online consumer shoppers turn desired and/or received value are likely to gain a competitive
to the Internet primarily for utilitarian reasons, such as price advantage in their market.
savings and convenience. This finding is important given that Another area in need of additional research concerns the
previous in-store research (e.g., Babin and Attaway, 2000; Babin influence of potential moderating variables for online shopping
et al., 1994; Batra and Ahtola, 1991) has shown utilitarian and behavior. In addition to purchase frequency, other potential
hedonic value dimensions to play nearly equal roles in predicting moderators include product type, gender, situational context,
outcomes such as intentions. Given the current study findings, culture, and even the purpose of the website. Research has
Internet retailers should ensure that they are providing adequate shown that the type of product and even gender can influence
utilitarian value to e-customers before attempting to focus on Internet behavior (see Korgaonkar and Wolin, 1999; Liang and
other aspects of their website development. Huang, 1998; Weiser, 2000), and future research should in-
In regards to our second research issue concerning the corporate such variables when examining customer value and
influence of moderating variables, this research provides some the Internet. For example, one might expect that certain types of
support for the influence of purchase frequency. The findings products are simply more experiential and thus more likely to
indicate that, though utilitarian value is relevant for both fre- invoke hedonic value. Similarly, though the correlation between
quent and infrequent online shoppers, hedonic value appears to hedonic and utilitarian found in this study (.14) is consistent
play a significant role for infrequent shoppers but not for fre- with that reported by Babin et al. (1994) across multiple sam-
quent shoppers. Such findings may hold a number of implica- ples, this correlation is different from that reported in studies
tions for online retailers. It may be that the more Internet conducted in other nations/cultures. Though few studies exist
experience a shopper gains, the less likely s/he is to be influenced that examine such issues (see Overby et al., 2004), future value
by visual appeals and experiential features on a website. Ul- research should examine not only how value dimensions differ
timately, the Internet shopper becomes more task-oriented as s/ across multiple cultures but also the various influences that
he gains experience on the retailer's Internet site. result in such differences.
J.W. Overby, E.-J. Lee / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 11601166 1165

Finally, most of the respondents in this study responded in Cowles DL, Kiecker P, Little MW. Using key informant insights as a foundation
terms of online retailers of books, music, and electronics. Future for e-tailing theory development. J Bus Res 2002;55(8):62936.
Crockett RO. Keep em coming back. Bus Week 2000;3681:EB20 [May 15].
research should examine which products or services are marketed Cronin JJ, Brady MK, Hult TM. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
most successfully via the Internet. For example, some researchers customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
have argued that the current state of Internet technologies pre- environments. J Retail 2000;76(2):193205.
cludes the delivery of the sensory aspects of shopping, such as Darden WR, Reynolds FD. Shopping orientations and product usage rates.
J Mark Res 1971;8:5058 [November].
taste, smell, and touch (e.g., Stewart and Zhao, 2000). Re-
Dick AS, Basu K. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual
searchers should also examine ways to either overcome such framework. J Acad Mark Sci 1994;22(2):99113.
disadvantages with existing technology or enable the Internet to Dillman DA, Bowker DK. The web questionnaire challenge to survey
actually provide such sensory experiences, particularly for prod- methodologists. In: Reips UD, Bosnjak M, editors. Dimensions of internet
ucts such as perfume, cosmetics, fabric, and fresh foods. science. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2001. p. 15978.
In conclusion, this research demonstrates that online shop- Dodds WB, Monroe KB, Grewal D, 1991. Effects of price, brand and store
information on buyers' product evaluations. J Mark Res 2001;28
pers are motivated by multiple types of value, including util- (August):30719.
itarian and hedonic value. It must be emphasized that the Erdem T, Swait J. Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. J Consum Psychol
subjects in this study were shoppers who also had purchased. In 1998;7:13157 [April].
reality, many online shoppers do not purchase, and one likely Evans M, Wedande W, Ralston L, van t'Hul S. Consumer interaction in the
reason for this situation may be that many Internet retailers virtual era: some qualitative insights. Qual Mark Res 2001;4(3):1509.
Fishbein M, Stasson M. The role of desires, self-predictions, and perceived
simply have not found a way to create superior value for shop- control in the prediction of training session attendance. J Appl Soc Psychol
pers that visit their websites. Obviously, the potential is great, 1990;20(3):17398.
and to realize this potential, it is necessary for Internet retailers to Flint DJ, Woodruff RB, Gardial SF. Exploring the phenomenon of customers'
determine the core value sought by e-customers and excel in that desired value change in a business-to-business context. J Mark 2002;66
core value delivery. (4):10217.
Fornell C, Larker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981;18:3950 [February].
Acknowledgement Graphics Visualization and Usability Center [homepage on the Internet].
Atlanta, GA: College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology; [cited
The authors wish to thank the Georgia Tech Research Cor- 2005 Aug 8]. The GVU Center's 10th WWW User Survey. Available from:
poration and the Graphic, Visualization, and Usability Center http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10/.
Grewal D, Monroe KB, Krishnan R. The effect of price-comparison advertising
(GVU) for generously providing the data set for usage in this study. on buyers' perception of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral
intentions. J Mark 1998;62:4659 [April].
References Grewal D, Gopalkrishnan RI, Krishnan R, Sharma A. The Internet and the price-
value-loyalty chain. J Bus Res 2003;56(5):3918.
Alpert SR, Karat J, Karat C-M, Brodie C, Vergo JG. User attitudes regarding a Gurley JW. The one Internet metric that really matters. Fortune 2000;141:392
user-adaptive eCommerce web site. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. [March 6].
2003;13(4):37396. Hirschman EC. The effect of verbal and pictorial advertising stimuli on aesthetics,
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review utilitarian, and familiarity perceptions. J Advert 1986;15(2):2734.
and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988;103:41123. Hoffman DL, Novak TP. Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
Andreassen TW, Lindestad B. Customer loyalty and complex services: the environments: conceptual foundations. J Mark 1996;60:5068 [July].
significance of quality, image and satisfaction on customer loyalty. Int J Serv Holbrook MB. The nature of customer value: an axiology of service in the
Ind Manag 1998;9(1):723. consumption experience. In: Oliver Richard Rust Roland T, editor. Service
Babin BJ, Attaway JS. Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and quality: new directions in theory and practice. London: Sage Publications;
gaining share of customer. J Bus Res 2000;49:919 [Special Issue]. 1994. p. 2171.
Babin BJ, Darden WR. Consumer Self-Regulation in a Retail Environment. J Retail Igbaria M, Schiffman SJ, Wieckowski TJ. The respective roles of perceived
1995;71(1):4770. usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer
Babin BJ, Darden WR, Griffin M. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and technology. Behav Inf Technol 1994;13(6):34961.
utilitarian shopping value. J Consum Res 1994;20:64456 [March]. Jacoby J, Kaplan LB. The components of perceived risk. Proceedings of the third
Bagozzi RP. The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Soc annual conference, association for consumer research; 1972. p. 38293.
Psychol Q 1992;55(2):178204. Jarvenpaa SL, Todd PA. Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the
Bagozzi RP, Dholakia U. Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. World Wide Web. Int J Electron Commer 1997;1(2):5988 [Winter].
J Mark 1999;63:1932 [Special Issue]. Kaplan LB, Szybillo GJ, Jacoby J. Components of perceived risk in product
Batra R, Ahtola O. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer purchase: a cross-validation. J Appl Psychol 1974;59:28791.
attitudes. Mark Lett 1991;2(2):15970. Kim Y-K. Consumer value: an application to mall and Internet shopping. Int J
Bolton RN, Drew JH. A multistage model of customers' assessments of service Retail Distrib Manag 2002;30(11/12):595604.
quality and value. J Consum Res 1991;17(4):37584. Klassen RD, Jacobs J. Experimental comparison of web, electronic and mail
Burke K. Creating a compelling online experience. Cat Age 1999;16:109 [August]. survey technologies in operations management. J Oper Manag 2001;19
Burke RR. Do you see what I see? The future of virtual shopping. J Acad Mark (6):71328.
Sci 1997;25:35260 [Fall]. Korgaonkar P, Wolin L. A multivariate analysis of Web usage. J Advert Res
Catalog Coalition Research Project. The. A commercial research project 1999;39(2):5368.
sponsored by a consortium of catalog retailers lead by Sears shop at home Liang TP, Huang JS. An empirical study on consumer acceptance of products in
services. Hoffman Estates (IL); 1993. electronic markets: a transaction cost model. Decis Support Syst 1998;24
Clayton RL, Werking GS. Using e-mail/world wide web for establishment (1):2943.
survey data collection. Proceedings of the section on survey methods. Maddox RN. The structure of consumers' satisfaction: cross-product compar-
Washington, D.C.: American Statistical Association; 1995. p. 52732. isons. J Acad Mark Sci 1982;10:3753 [Winter].
1166 J.W. Overby, E.-J. Lee / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 11601166

Mathwick C, Malhotra N, Rigdon E. Experiential value: conceptualization, Sinha I, DeSarbo WS. An integrated approach toward the spatial modeling of
measurement, and application in the catalog and Internet shopping perceived customer value. J Mark Res 1998;25(2):23649.
environment. J Retail 2001;77:3956. Stewart DW, Zhao Q. Internet marketing, business models, and public policy.
Mitchell A. Why old retail model won't work on the Net. Mark Week 2000;23 J Public Policy Mark 2000;19(2):28796.
(17):367. Swinyard WR, Smith SM. Why people (don't) shop online: a lifestyle study of
Mundorf N, Bryant J. Realizing the social and commercial potential of the Internet consumer. Psychol Mark 2003;20(7):56797.
integrative technologies. J Bus Res 2002;55(8):66570. Teo T. Demographic and motivation variables associated with Internet usage
Overby JW, Gardial SF, Woodruff RB. French versus American consumers' activities. Internet Res 2001;11(2):12537.
attachment of value to a product in a common consumption context: a cross- Unger LS, Kernan JB. On the measuring of leisure: an investigation of some
national comparison. J Acad Mark Sci 2004;32:43760 [Fall]. determinants of the subjective experience. J Consum Res 1983;9:38191
Pritchard MP, Havitz ME, Howard DR. Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link [March].
in service contexts. J Acad Mark Sci 1999;27(3):33348. Vijayasarathy LR, Jones JM. Print and Internet catalog shopping: assessing
Rewick J. Clinching the Holiday E-Sale some 65% of online shoppers bolt at attitudes and intentions. J Internet Res 2000;10(3):191202.
the checkout point; e-tailers try to keep them. Wall St J 2000:B1 [October 9]. Weiser EB. Gender differences in Internet use patterns and Internet application
Roest H, Pieters R. The nomological net of perceived service quality. Int J Serv preferences: a two-sample comparison. Cyberpsychol Behav 2000;3
Ind Manag 1997;8(4):33651. (2):16777.
Sheth JN. An integrative theory of patronage preference and behavior. In: Woodruff RB. Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage.
Darden WR, Lusch RF, editors. Patronage behavior and retail management. J Acad Mark Sci 1997;25:13953 [Spring].
New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co.; 1983. p. 928. Zeithaml VA. Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end
Shop.org. [homepage on the Internet]. Washington, D.C.: National Retail model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 1988;52:2-22 [July].
Federation; [cited 2004 Aug 7]. The State of Retailing Online 6.0. Available
from: http://www.shop.org/research/reports.asp.

Вам также может понравиться