KMO and Bartlettâs test
KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.862 | |
---|---|---|
Bartlettâs test of sphericity | Approximate | 1,812.156 |
df | 378 | |
Sig | 0.000 |
Cronbachâs Îą
Research variables | Cronbachâs |
---|---|
Fear of bank transaction and no faith | 0.747 |
Traditional shopping is convenient than online shopping | 0.797 |
Reputation and service provided | 0.825 |
Bad experience | 0.816 |
Insecurity and insufficient product information | 0.784 |
Lack of trust | 0.760 |
Factors | Name of the factor | Statements | Eigenvalue | % of variance | Loadings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Fear of bank transaction and faith | â The fact that only those with a credit card or bank account can shop on the internet is a drawback | 29.431 | 0.789 | |
âWhile shopping online, I hesitate to give my credit card number | 0.642 | ||||
âI do not prefer online shopping because of lack of trust over vendors | 8.241 | 0.601 | |||
âI do not prefer to buy online because of bad returning policy | 0.580 | ||||
âThe fear of wrong product delivery stops me to buy through online | 0.552 | ||||
âI do not prefer to purchase from online stores if they do not provide cash on delivery facilities | 0.394 | ||||
2 | Traditional shopping is convenient than online shopping | â I think shopping on the internet takes lot of time | 2.788 | 9.958 | 0.713 |
âOnline shopping is complex as compared to traditional shopping | 0.706 | ||||
âIt is more difficult to shop on the internet | 0.698 | ||||
âI believe online shopping cannot overtake the traditional shopping | 0.658 | ||||
âI prefer traditional shopping than online shopping | 0.614 | ||||
3 | Reputation and service provided | âI prefer to purchase from reputed online websites | 1.964 | 7.013 | 0.775 |
âI generally prefer to buy after comparing prices with all other websites | 0.732 | ||||
âI prefer to purchase online if website is secure and genuine | 0.726 | ||||
âI prefer those websites only that deliver the goods as soon as possible | 0.638 | ||||
âIf there is no guarantee and warrantee of the product, I will never prefer to buy through online stores | 0.550 | ||||
4 | Experience | âI do not prefer to purchase from online stores if they do not provide every month instalment (EMI) facilities | 1.299 | 4.640 | 0.776 |
âI hesitate to shop online because my past experience was not good | 0.663 | ||||
âI do not prefer to buy online because of little knowledge of internet | 0.606 | ||||
5 | Insecurity and insufficient product information | âI will not prefer online shopping if the description of products shown on the online websites are not accurate | 1.190 | 4.251 | 0.665 |
âI will not prefer online shopping if online prices are high | 0.614 | ||||
âThe information given about the products and services on the internet is not sufficient to make purchase | 0.548 | ||||
âIf variety of goods available on the online stores are less, I will not prefer online shopping | 0.539 | ||||
âOnline shopping is not secure as traditional shopping | 0.416 | ||||
6 | Lack of trust | â I hesitate to give my personal information on online websites | 1.098 | 3.920 | 0.552 |
âWithout touching products, it is difficult to make buying decision | 0.521 | ||||
âShopping online is risky | 0.511 | ||||
âI would be frustrated about what to do if I am dissatisfied with a purchase made from the internet | 0.488 |
Agift , A. , Rekha , V. and Nisha , C. ( 2014 ), â Consumers attitude towards online shopping â, Research Journal of Family, Community and Consumer Sciences , Vol. 2 No. 8 , pp. 4 - 7 , available at: www.isca.in/FAMILY_SCI/Archive/v2/i8/2.ISCA-RJFCCS-2014-017.php
Akroush , M.N. and Al-Debei , M.M. ( 2015 ), â An integrated model of factors affecting consumer attitudes towards online shopping â, Business Process Management Journal , Vol. 21 No. 6 , pp. 1353 - 1376 , doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2015-0022 .
Alam , M.Z. and Elaasi , S. ( 2016 ), â A study on consumer perception towards e-shopping in KSA â, International Journal of Business and Management , Vol. 11 No. 7 , p. 202 .
Alam , S. and Yasin , N.M. ( 2010 ), â What factors influence online brand trust: evidence from online tickets buyers in Malaysia â, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 78 - 89 , doi: 10.4067/S0718-18762010000300008 .
Al-Debei , M.M. , Akroush , M.N. and Ashouri , M.I. ( 2015 ), â Consumer attitudes towards online shopping: the effects of trust, perceived benefits, and perceived web quality â, Internet Research , Vol. 25 No. 5 , pp. 707 - 733 , doi: 10.1108/IntR-05-2014-0146 .
Aziz , N.N.A. and Wahid , N.A. ( 2018 ), â Factors influencing online purchase intention among university students â, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences , Vol. 8 No. 7 , pp. 702 - 717 , doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i7/4413 .
Banerjee , N. , Dutta , A. and Dasgupta , T. ( 2010 ), â A study on customersâ attitude towards online shopping-An Indian perspective â, Indian Journal of Marketing , Vol. 40 No. 11 , pp. 36 - 42 .
Bianchi , C. and Andrews , L. ( 2012 ), â Risk, trust, and consumer online purchasing behaviour: a Chilean perspective â, International Marketing Review , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 253 - 275 , doi: 10.1108/02651331211229750 .
Bilgihan , A. ( 2016 ), â Gen Y customer loyalty in online shopping: an integrated model of trust, user experience and branding â, Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 61 , pp. 103 - 113 , doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.014 .
Casalo , L. , FlaviĂĄn , C. and GuinalĂu , M. ( 2008 ), â The role of perceived usability, reputation, satisfaction and consumer familiarity on the website loyalty formation process â, Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 24 No. 2 , pp. 325 - 345 , doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.017 .
Chaturvedi , D. , Gupta , D. and Singh Hada , D. ( 2016 ), â Perceived risk, trust and information seeking behavior as antecedents of online apparel buying behavior in India: an exploratory study in context of Rajasthan â, International Review of Management and Marketing , Vol. 6 No. 4 , pp. 935 - 943 , doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3204971 .
Cheung , C.M. and Lee , M.K. ( 2003 ), â An integrative model of consumer trust in internet shopping â, ECIS 2003 Proceedings , p. 48 .
Cho , C.H. , Kang , J. and Cheon , H.J. ( 2006 ), â Online shopping hesitation â, Cyberpsychology and Behavior , Vol. 9 No. 3 , pp. 261 - 274 , doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.261 .
Clement , J. ( 2020 ), â Worldwide digital population as of April 2020 â, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/ ( accessed 18 June 2020 ).
Comegys , C. , Hannula , M. and VĂĄisĂĄnen , J. ( 2009 ), â Effects of consumer trust and risk on online purchase decision-making: a comparison of Finnish and United States students â, International Journal of Management , Vol. 26 No. 2 , available at: www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-1874986651/effects-of-consumer-trust-and-risk-on-online-purchase
Forsythe , S. , Liu , C. , Shannon , D. and Gardner , L.C. ( 2006 ), â Development of a scale to measure the perceived benefits and risks of online shopping â, Journal of Interactive Marketing , Vol. 20 No. 2 , pp. 55 - 75 , doi: 10.1002/dir.20061 .
George , O.J. , Ogunkoya , O.A. , Lasisi , J.O. and Elumah , L.O. ( 2015 ), â Risk and trust in online shopping: experience from Nigeria â, International Journal of African and Asian Studies , Vol. 11 , pp. 71 - 78 , available at: https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JAAS/article/view/23937
Gong , W. , Stump , R.L. and Maddox , L.M. ( 2013 ), â Factors influencing consumersâ online shopping in China â, Journal of Asia Business Studies , Vol. 7 No. 3 , pp. 214 - 230 , doi: 10.1108/JABS-02-2013-0006 .
Huseynov , F. and Yildirim , S.O. ( 2016 ), â Internet usersâ attitudes toward business-to-consumer online shopping: a survey â, Information Development , Vol. 32 No. 3 , pp. 452 - 465 , doi: 10.1177/0266666914554812 .
Jadhav , V. and Khanna , M. ( 2016 ), â Factors influencing online buying behavior of college students: a qualitative analysis â, The Qualitative Report , Vol. 21 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 15 , available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss1/1
Jayasubramanian , P. , Sivasakthi , D. and Ananthi , P.K. ( 2015 ), â A study on customer satisfaction towards online shopping â, International Journal of Applied Research , Vol. 1 No. 8 , pp. 489 - 495 , available at: www.academia.edu/download/54009715/1-7-136.pdf
Jun , G. and Jaafar , N.I. ( 2011 ), â A study on consumersâ attitude towards online shopping in China â, International Journal of Business and Social Science , Vol. 2 No. 22 , pp. 122 - 132 .
Karthikeyan ( 2016 ), â Problems faced by online customers â, International Journal of Current Research and Modern Education (IJCRME) , Vol. 1 No. 1 , pp. 166 - 169 , available at: http://ijcrme.rdmodernresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/23.pdf
Katawetawaraks , C. and Wang , C.L. ( 2011 ), â Online shopper behavior: influences of online shopping decision â, Asian Journal of Business Research , Vol. 1 No. 2 , pp. 66 - 74 , available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2345198
Kumar , M. ( 2016 ), â Consumer behavior and satisfaction in e-commerce: a comparative study based on online shopping of some electronic gadgets â, International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management , Vol. 7 No. 7 , pp. 62 - 67 , available at: https://ijrcm.org.in/article_info.php?article_id=6785
Kuriachan , J.K. ( 2014 ), â Online shopping problems and solutions â, New Media and Mass Communication , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 4 , available at: www.academia.edu/download/34229456/Online_shopping_problems_and_solutions
Laudon , K.C. and Traver , C.G. ( 2009 ), E-Commerce Business. Technology. Society , 5th ed ., Prentice Hall .
Lawler , J.P. ( 2003 ), â Customer loyalty and privacy on the web â, Journal of Internet Commerce , Vol. 2 No. 1 , pp. 89 - 105 , doi: 10.1300/J179v02n01_07 .
Lee , M.K. and Turban , E. ( 2001 ), â A trust model for consumer internet shopping â, International Journal of Electronic Commerce , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 75 - 91 , doi: 10.1080/10864415.2001.11044227 .
Lennon , S.J. , et al. ( 2008 ), â Rural consumersâ online shopping for food and fiber products as a form of outshopping â, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal , Vol. 27 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 30 , doi: 10.1177/0887302X07313625 .
Liang , T.P. and Lai , H.J. ( 2002 ), â Effect of store design on consumer purchases: an empirical study of on-line bookstores â, Information and Management , Vol. 39 No. 6 , pp. 431 - 444 , doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00129-X .
Lim , P.L. and Yazdanifard , R. ( 2014 ), â Does gender play a role in online consumer behavior? â, Global Journal of Management and Business Research , Vol. 14 No. 7 , pp. 48 - 56 , available at: https://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/view/1570
Limbu , Y.B. , Wolf , M. and Lunsford , D.L. ( 2011 ), â Consumersâ perceptions of online ethics and its effects on satisfaction and loyalty â, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing , Vol. 5 No. 1 , pp. 71 - 89 , doi: 10.1108/17505931111121534 .
Liu , C. and Guo , Y. ( 2008 ), â Validating the end-user computing satisfaction instrument for online shopping systems â, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing , Vol. 20 No. 4 , pp. 74 - 96 , available at: www.igi-global.com/article/journal-organizational-end-user-computing/3849
Martin , J. , Mortimer , G. and Andrews , L. ( 2015 ), â Re-examining online customer experience to include purchase frequency and perceived risk â, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , Vol. 25 , pp. 81 - 95 , doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.03.008 .
Mittal , A. ( 2013 ), â E-commerce: itâs impact on consumer behavior â, Global Journal of Management and Business Studies , Vol. 3 No. 2 , pp. 131 - 138 , available at: www.ripublication.com/gjmbs_spl/gjmbsv3n2spl_09.pdf
Miyazaki , A.D. and Fernandez , A. ( 2001 ), â Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks for online shopping â, Journal of Consumer Affairs , Vol. 35 No. 1 , pp. 27 - 44 , doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00101.x .
Monsuwe , T.P.Y. , Dellaert , B.G.C. and Ruyter , K.D. ( 2004 ), â What drives consumers to shop online? A literature review â, International Journal of Service Industry Management , Vol. 15 No. 1 , pp. 102 - 121 , doi: 10.1108/09564230410523358 .
Muthumani , A. , Lavanya , V. and Mahalakshmi , R. ( 2017 ), â Problems faced by customers on online shopping in Virudhunagar district â, International Journal of Science Technology and Management (IJSTM) , Vol. 6 No. 2 , pp. 152 - 159 , available at: www.ijstm.com/images/short_pdf/1486214600_S184_IJSTM.pdf .
Nazir , S. , Tayyab , A. , Sajid , A. , Ur Rashid , H. and Javed , I. ( 2012 ), â How online shopping is affecting consumers buying behavior in Pakistan? â, International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI) , Vol. 9 No. 3 , p. 486 .
Nikhashem , S.R. , Yasmin , F. , Haque , A. and Khatibi , A. ( 2011 ), â Study on customer perception towards online-ticketing in Malaysia â, In Proceedings For 2011 International Research Conference and Colloquium , Vol. 1 , No. 1 , pp. 320 - 338 .
Pan , Y. and Zinkhan , G.M. ( 2006 ), â Exploring the impact of online privacy disclosures on consumer trust â, Journal of Retailing , Vol. 82 No. 4 , pp. 331 - 338 , doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2006.08.006 .
Roman , S. ( 2007 ), â The ethics of online retailing: a scale development and validation from the consumersâ perspective â, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 72 No. 2 , pp. 131 - 148 , doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9161-y .
Sivanesan ( 2017 ), â A study on problems faced by customers in online shopping with special reference to Kanyakumari district â, International Journal of Research in Management and Business Studies , Vol. 4 No. 3 , pp. 22 - 25 , available at: http://ijrmbs.com/vol4issue3SPL1/sivanesan.pdf
Tsiakis , T. ( 2012 ), â Consumersâ issues and concerns of perceived risk of information security in online framework. The marketing strategies â, Procedia â Social and Behavioral Sciences , Vol. 62 No. 24 , pp. 1265 - 1270 , doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.216 .
Wei , L.H. , Osman , M.A. , Zakaria , N. and Bo , T. ( 2010 ), â Adoption of e-commerce online shopping in Malaysia â, In 2010 IEEE 7th International Conference on E-Business Engineering , IEEE , pp. 140 - 143 .
Yazdanifard , R. and Godwin , N.W. ( 2011 ), â Challenges faced by customers: Highlighting E-shopping problems â, Paper presented at international Conference on Economics, Business and Marketing Management (CEBMM 2011) , Shanghai, China , available at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Assc_Prof_Dr_Rashad_Yazdanifard/publication/268507745_Challenges_faced_by_customers_Highlighting_E-shopping_problems/links/546d4ade0cf26e95bc3cb0a1/Challenges-faced-by-customers-Highlighting-E-shopping-problems.pdf ( accessed 20 March 2020 ).
Grabner-Kräuter , S. and Kaluscha , E.A. ( 2003 ), â Empirical research in on-line trust: a review and critical assessment â, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , Vol. 58 No. 6 , pp. 783 - 812 .
Nurfajrinah , M.A. , Nurhadi , Z.F. and Ramdhani , M.A. ( 2017 ), â Meaning of online shopping for indie model â, The Social Sciences , Vol. 12 No. 4 , pp. 737 - 742 , available at: https://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=sscience.2017.737.742
Related articles, all feedback is valuable.
Please share your general feedback
Contact Customer Support
Discover the world's research
Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
Read our research on:
Full Topic List
Read Our Research On:
America has long been a nation of shoppers, and that is as true online as it is in the physical world. The earliest modern e-commerce transactions date to just 1994, but by 2015 Americans were spending nearly $350 billion annually online â or roughly 10% of all retail purchases, excluding automobiles and fuel. Pew Research Center surveys of digital commerce tell a similar tale. When the Center first asked about online shopping in a survey conducted in June 2000, just 22% of Americans indicated that they had ever made a purchase online. But in the intervening years that figure has increased nearly fourfold: Today, 79% of Americans say they make purchases online.
And in an era of widespread social media use and smartphone access, many Americans are incorporating these devices and platforms into their purchasing behaviors. Roughly half (51%) of Americans report making online purchases using their cellphones, while 15% have purchased something by following a link on social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter.
A substantial majority of Americans are online shoppers, but for most this behavior is a relatively infrequent occurrence. Some 15% of Americans say that they make purchases online on a weekly basis (4% do so several times a week, while 10% do so about once a week) and 28% shop online a few times a month. On the other hand, nearly six-in-ten Americans say they buy online less often than a few times a month (37%) or they never make any online purchases (20%).
And while each of these online shopping behaviors are relatively common across a wide range of demographic groups, younger adults in particular are especially likely to utilize cellphones and social media platforms to engage in commercial activity. Some 90% of 18- to 29-year-olds ever buy items online, while 77% have purchased something using their cellphones and 24% have bought something by following a link on social media. By contrast, a majority (59%) of those 65 and older ever generally make online purchasesâbut only 17% have bought something using their cellphones and just 5% have done so through a social media link.
Despite the large share of Americans who engage in online shopping and the potential conveniences that come with buying online, a majority of online shoppers indicate that â all things being equal â they actually prefer to do their shopping in physical stores. Some 65% of online shoppers indicate that, when given the choice, they generally prefer to buy from physical locations; 34% indicate that they generally prefer to buy online.
As might be expected, the most dedicated online shoppers tend to express a relatively pronounced preference for shopping online as opposed to shopping in physical stores. Among Americans who make online purchases on a weekly basis, 62% indicate that they generally prefer to buy online, while 37% generally prefer to buy from physical stores. But among those who buy online on a monthly basis, 42% prefer online shopping while 58% prefer buying from physical locations. And among those who make online purchases even less frequently, just 18% prefer buying online â with 82% indicating that they prefer to shop in physical stores.
But even as many online shoppers express preferences for physical stores in the abstract, their ultimate decision of where to buy something often comes down to price. When asked a second question about their relative preferences for online and in-person shopping that incorporates pricing, fully 65% of online shoppers indicate that if they needed to make a purchase they would probably compare the price they could get online with the price they could get from physical stores and choose whichever one offered them the best deal. Another 21% of online shoppers say they would likely buy from stores without looking at prices online, while 14% indicate they would buy online without looking at prices in physical stores.
Users who frequently shop online are substantially more likely to say that they would typically choose to make purchases by simply buying online without visiting stores: 28% of weekly online shoppers say that they would likely do this if they needed to buy something, compared with 17% of monthly online shoppers and just 6% of those who buy online less often. But even among these frequent online shoppers, 62% say that they would typically compare the price they could get online and the price they could get in physical stores and choose whichever one is cheapest.
Americans take a number of factors into consideration when shopping for something that they havenât purchased in the past â especially the ability to compare prices from multiple sellers and to ask questions about what they are buying. When asked about the importance of seven different factors when buying something for the first time, 86% of Americans say that the ability to compare prices from several different sellers is either extremely (42%) or somewhat (44%) important, while a similar share say that being able to ask questions is extremely (42%) or somewhat (41%) important.
Other factors that Americans consider important include the ability to buy from stores or sellers they are familiar with (34% of Americans describe this as extremely important); the ability to read ratings or reviews that other people have posted online (32%); the ability to look at or try out the product in person (30%); and the ability to get advice or recommendations from people they know (23%). The ability to buy online â without having to make a trip to the store â ranks as the least important factor: just 42% of Americans say that this is at least somewhat important to them when buying something for the first time, and only 10% describe it as extremely important.
Regardless of their demographic characteristics, when buying something for the first time most Americans assign greater importance to being able to look at or try the product in person than they do to being able to buy online without making a trip to the store. However, frequent online shoppers are one of the few groups who place more importance on being able to buy online. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of weekly online shoppers say that being able to buy online without having to make a trip to the store is important to them when buying something for the first time (20% say it is extremely important). Meanwhile, a slightly smaller share (66%) says it is important to be able to try something out in person (with 15% saying this is extremely important).
Today cellphone ownership is nearly ubiquitous, and roughly two-thirds of Americans have smartphones. And as the reach of these mobile devices have expanded, many consumers are using them to augment and assist with their physical and in-person purchasing experiences.
The survey asked about four different ways that people might utilize their mobile phones while making purchasing decisions inside physical stores and found that calls for advice and assistance are especially common: Nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) say that they have used their cellphones to call or text someone while inside a store to discuss purchases they are thinking of making. Just under half (45%) have used their phones while inside a store to look up online reviews or to try and find a better price online for something they are thinking of purchasing. And a relatively small share of Americans (12%) have used their cellphones to physically pay for in-store purchases.
As noted above, a majority of Americans under the age of 50 have used cellphones to purchase something online â and this group is also especially likely to utilize their cellphones while making in-store purchasing decisions. Fully 70% of 18- to 49-year-olds have used their cellphones to call or text someone from inside a store to ask for purchasing advice, while 62% have used their phones to look up online reviews of something they were thinking of purchasing or to see if they could find a better price online. And nearly one-in-five (18%) have swiped their phones at the register to pay for purchases.
Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings
Weekly updates on the world of news & information
On alternative social media sites, many prominent accounts seek financial support from audiences, majority of americans arenât confident in the safety and reliability of cryptocurrency, for shopping, phones are common and influencers have become a factor â especially for young adults, payment apps like venmo and cash app bring convenience â and security concerns â to some users, most popular.
901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries
ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Â Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.
Š 2024 Pew Research Center
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means itâs official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure youâre on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Jorge manuel diaz-gutierrez.
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Andisheh ranjbari.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, people’s online and in-store shopping behaviors changed significantly. As the pandemic subsides, key questions are why those changes happened, whether they are expected to stay, and, if so, to what extent. We answered those questions by analyzing a quasi-longitudinal survey dataset of the Puget Sound residents (Washington, U.S.). We deployed structural equation modeling (SEM) to build separate models for food, grocery, and other items shopping to explore the factors affecting such changes. The results revealed that people’s online and in-store shopping frequencies during the pandemic were affected by their perceived health risk, attitudes toward shopping, and pre-pandemic shopping frequencies. Similarly, it was shown that how frequently people expect to shop post pandemic is influenced by their attitudes toward shopping, changes during the pandemic, and their pre-pandemic frequencies. We also classified respondents into five groups, based on their current and expected future shopping behavior changes, and performed a descriptive analysis. The five groups— Increasers , Decreasers , Steady Users , Returnees , and Future Changers —exhibited different trends across online and in-store activities for shopping different goods. The analysis results showed that, while 25% of the respondents increased their online shopping, only 8% to 13% decreased their in-store activities, implying that online shopping did not completely substitute in-store shopping. Moreover, we found that online shopping is a substitution for in-store shopping for groceries, while it complements in-store shopping for food and other items. Additionally, more than 75% of new online shoppers expect to keep purchasing online, while 63%–85% of in-store Decreasers plan to return to their pre-pandemic frequencies.
The rise of e-commerce, busy lifestyles, and the convenience of next- and same-day home deliveries have resulted in exponential growth of online shopping in the U.S., rising from 5% of the total retail in 2011 to 15% in 2020, and it is expected to grow even further in the future ( 1 , 2 ). Worldwide, spending on e-commerce passed $4.9 trillion in 2021 and it is projected to surge to $7 trillion by 2025 ( 3 ).
In the past few years, there has been ongoing research on how this growth would change people’s travel patterns and whether its effect on in-person activities would be substitution, complementing, or modification. However, there is no single answer to this question, given different product types, regions, demographics, and primary travel modes ( 4 – 7 ).
While online purchasing had already been experiencing a growth every year before 2020, the pandemic accelerated this trend. In 2020, online shopping constituted more than 20% of total spending on consumer goods worldwide in comparison to 16.4% in 2019 and 14.4% in 2018 ( 8 ). Before COVID-19, it was predicted that total e-commerce sales in the U.S. would grow up to $674.88 billion, yet the actual number turned out to be $799.18 billion ( 9 ). With a 15.9% growth, the U.S. is among the top 10 countries with the highest growth rate in online retail shopping in 2022 ( 10 ).
Embracing digital technologies and bringing shops into homes are among the immediate impacts of the pandemic restrictions and lockdowns, with the majority of people reducing their frequency of going to stores and adopting alternative shopping approaches such as curbside pick-up and home delivery ( 11 – 13 ). Based on the reports by the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), in Nov–Dec 2020, when the penetration of the coronavirus reached its first peak in the U.S., the percentage of people who decided to shop online instead of going to stores increased by up to 10% ( 14 , 15 ). During the early pandemic, about 35% of U.S. workers switched to remote working, and from March to April 2020, the average daily number of people staying home increased by 32 million and the total number of trips decreased by 2.5B ( 16 , 17 ). Dining-in restaurants were also banned in half of the U.S. states for several months in 2020, which resulted in a significant drop in the restaurant dine-in demand and shifted people toward online food delivery services, and buying groceries online rather than going to store ( 18 , 19 ).
These changes were also influenced by socio-demographic characteristics. For instance, according to the BTS, the percentage of people with an annual income close to $125,000 who replaced their in-store shopping by online shopping in Nov–Dec 2020 was twice those with an annual income of $25,000 ( 20 ). People in the neighborhoods with higher number of positive COVID-19 cases or higher spread rate of positive new cases were more likely to change their in-store shopping to online-shopping ( 19 , 21 ). Senior people were also shown to have higher tendency to shop online compared with younger generations, perhaps because of health and safety concerns ( 22 ). It is worth noting that these changes were not the same across all products; for example, online sales of food and beverage in the U.S. doubled in 2020, while home furniture online sales only increased by about 50% ( 23 , 24 ).
Another factor that is proved to have a major effect on people’s shopping behaviors and travel patterns during the pandemic is their risk perception and fears for their health ( 13 , 25 ). Irawan et al. found that perceiving COVID-19 as a severe disease decreased people’s tendency to do in-store grocery shopping ( 26 ). Similarly, Moon et al. found out that, during the pandemic, people who considered themselves less vulnerable to the infection were less likely to use online channels for shopping ( 27 ). Several studies have mentioned that the perceived health risk varies among different groups of population and depends on region, age, gender, education, race, and marital status ( 28 – 32 ).
Moreover, people’s online and in-store shopping behaviors are affected by their socio-demographic factors and their attitudes toward the activity ( 33 – 39 ). The advantages and disadvantages of online shopping over in-store shopping play a role in attitudes toward the activity ( 40 , 41 ). The advantages, such as receiving goods without leaving home, having access to a wider variety of products and information, and being able to compare them easily and efficiently, result in a positive attitude toward online shopping, especially during the pandemic given high perceived health risk, formal penalties, or both ( 42 ). On the other hand, online shopping has some disadvantages, such as transaction security concerns and long delivery times, and in-store shopping offers specific benefits, such as the ability to see, touch, feel, and try the products, ensuring the store’s environment quality, immediate possession of the product, social interaction, and entertainment ( 5 , 41 , 43 , 44 ). Therefore, even during the pandemic, some people maintained frequent in-store shopping trips ( 41 ).
Whether the pandemic-induced changes in online and in-store shopping are permanent is still debatable. Sheth discussed that people may find the new routine more convenient, affordable, and accessible, and therefore stick to it even after the pandemic is over ( 11 ). On the contrary, Dannenberg et al. argued that people’s motives to shop online only hold for the time of crisis, and online retailing will decline when circumstances change ( 45 ). Watanabe and Omori showed that most people used to shop online long before the pandemic, and they merely increased their frequency because of infection risk ( 46 ). So, the reasons behind the surge in online shopping might dissipate as COVID-19 recedes.
In this paper, we study how online and in-store shopping behaviors for different goods were affected during COVID-19, and whether those changes are expected to stay post pandemic. We analyze a quasi-longitudinal survey dataset from the Puget Sound region in Washington State, U.S., that includes data on people’s shopping behavior before and during pandemic, as well as their expected shopping behavior after pandemic. The dataset also contains information on socio-demographic characteristics, as well as psychometric questions about COVID-19 risk perception and attitudes toward shopping. Through descriptive analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM), we explore the factors that directly or indirectly affected people’s three shopping activities (online and in-store), for food, grocery, and other items (clothing, home goods, etc.), and investigate the similarities and differences amongst them.
This study is distinguished in several ways from the previous ones that investigated the impacts of COVID-19 on people’s shopping behavior: (1) it applies a unique descriptive analysis by classifying respondents based on their current and expected future shopping trends and studies how socio-demographic characteristics (directly and indirectly) influence people’s shopping behaviors by analyzing the similarities and differences between those groups; (2) it models online and in-store shopping jointly, considering covariations and dependencies between those two modes; (3) it applies the same methodology and set of variables to three different shopping activities (for food, grocery, and other items) and compares and contrasts their observed/expected trends and influencing factors; and (4) in addition to socio-demographic and attitudinal variables, it considers people’s baseline shopping behaviors (how frequently they shopped online and in-store before the pandemic) as factors affecting their expected post-pandemic shopping behaviors.
Data for this research came from a quasi-longitudinal survey of the Puget Sound region residents conducted by researchers at the University of Washington during 2020 to 2021 ( 47 ). The data was collected in three waves during the early, mid, and late COVID-19 pandemic: Wave 1 in June–July 2020, Wave 2 in March–May 2021, and Wave 3 in October 2021. The original dataset contained 3,810 observations. We reviewed and cleaned the data by removing duplicate responses and responses with contradictory or impossible information (e.g., noted “no use of the private vehicle” in one section and “driving twice a week to the supermarket” in another section; or noted “using shared ride-hailing service during pandemic” while the service was not available at the time). After cleaning the dataset, we ended up with a total of 3,559 valid responses across the three waves, with Waves 1, 2, and 3 representing 36.6%, 34.8%, and 28.6% of the observations, respectively.
In Waves 2 and 3, prior respondents who provided their contact information were contacted and invited to participate again, but new respondents were also recruited to make up for attrition. Therefore, the 3,559 observations correspond to 2,548 unique respondents who participated in one or more waves of the survey: 187 (7%) participated in all three waves, 637 (25%) responded to two waves, and 1,724 (68%) answered the survey only once. Since the two- and three-wave survey respondents constitute about a third of the total sample, the dataset will not be analyzed as a panel; rather we will focus on the total responses in each wave.
The survey had three sections. The first section collected data on respondents’ socio-demographics (including age, education, gender, marital status, occupation category, annual income, race, and household composition) and the frequency of three pre-pandemic online and in-store shopping activities (for food, grocery, and other items). Other items includes clothing, home goods, and so forth. In-store food shopping refers to dining in a restaurant, and meal delivery and pickup are considered online food shopping.
The second section of the survey asked questions about online and in-store shopping frequency during and post pandemic for all three activities. The during-pandemic questions asked about the shopping frequency “in the past month,” and post-pandemic questions asked about the expected shopping frequency for “when COVID-19 is no longer a threat.”
The third section included psychometric questions in a six-point Likert Scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). These questions asked the level of agreement with a set of statements about the pandemic, and in-store and online shopping. The statements and the short variable names picked for them are as follow: “Wearing face-covering should be mandatory” (Mask Mandate), “Physical distancing is an efficient approach for controlling the coronavirus” (Physical Distancing), “Everyone should stay at home as much as possible until the coronavirus has subsided” (Stay at Home), “Shutting down businesses to prevent the spread of the coronavirus is not worth the economic damage that it causes” (Business Shutdown), “My friends and family expect me to stay at home until the coronavirus subsides” (Family Expectations), “I am concerned that my friends and family will experience serious health issues if they catch the coronavirus” (Family Risk), “Media is exaggerating the spread of the coronavirus” (Media Exaggeration), “Even if I don’t end up buying anything, I still enjoy going to stores and browsing” (Enjoy Browsing), “It is important to me to physically check out items before buying them” (Like Seeing Items), “In-store shopping is fun” (In-store Fun), “Eating in restaurants is a fun leisure activity” (Restaurant Fun), “I prefer buying groceries online rather than going to store” (Prefer Online), and “Shopping online is convenient” (Online Convenience).
Table 1 and Figures 1 and and2 2 show the distribution of variables across the sample. Table 1 summarizes the distribution of socio-demographic characteristics, which are also presented for the entire Puget Sound region population for comparison ( 48 ). As seen in the table, the sample and Puget Sound population have similar incomes, employment rates, and gender distribution. However, the sample is a bit younger, more educated, and wealthier than the Puget Sound average population. The Latino and African-American populations are underrepresented in the sample, and the White population is overrepresented. The three waves have almost similar socio-demographic distributions. However, females are more represented in Wave 3, and the percentages of students and unemployed people dropped from Wave 1 to Wave 3. Also, as vaccines rolled out in early 2021, the percentage of vaccinated people increased in the survey, rising from zero in Wave 1 to 97% in Wave 3.
Distribution of Socio-Demographic Characteristics Across the Sample
Variable | Categories | Sample | Puget Sound (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wave 1 (%) | Wave 2 (%) | Wave 3 (%) | Overall (%) | |||
Age | 18–34 years | 27.7 | 25.4 | 19.1 | 24.4 | 32.1 |
35–54 years | 42.3 | 47.9 | 44.4 | 44.8 | 34.9 | |
55–64 years | 17.9 | 16.4 | 20.9 | 18.2 | 15.5 | |
65–84 years | 12.0 | 10.3 | 15.6 | 12.4 | 15.4 | |
85 years and over | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 2.1 | |
Gender | Female | 50.6 | 53.6 | 63.4 | 55.3 | 50.1 |
Male | 48.7 | 45.3 | 34.8 | 43.5 | 49.9 | |
Other | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 1.2 | NA | |
Education | Less than high school | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 7.2 |
High school or General Educational Development (GED) degree | 4.0 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 19.1 | |
Some college or technical school | 12.7 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 11.1 | 20.4 | |
2-year college degree | 7.1 | 6.0 | 5.1 | 6.1 | 9.1 | |
4-year college degree | 38.9 | 40.6 | 43.4 | 40.7 | 26.9 | |
Graduate degree | 37.2 | 41.0 | 39.3 | 39.1 | 17.3 | |
Annual household income level | Less than $10,000 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 3.8 |
$10,000 to $14,999 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 2.5 | |
$15,000 to $24,999 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 4.9 | |
$25,000 to $34,999 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 5.2 | |
$35,000 to $49,999 | 5.0 | 4.7 | 5.7 | 5.1 | 8.7 | |
$50,000 to $74,999 | 12.2 | 11.2 | 11.4 | 11.6 | 15.0 | |
$75,000 to $99,999 | 14.7 | 14.5 | 14.4 | 14.5 | 12.6 | |
$100,000 to $149,999 | 25.1 | 23.4 | 22.2 | 23.7 | 19.9 | |
$150,000 to $199,999 | 14.4 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 13.9 | 11.1 | |
$200,000 or more | 12.8 | 15.8 | 14.4 | 14.3 | 16.3 | |
Prefer not to answer | 7.4 | 9.5 | 12.1 | 9.5 | NA | |
Race | Asian | 12.0 | 12.8 | 11.4 | 12.1 | 14.5 |
Black or African-American | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 5.9 | |
Hispanic or Latino | 3.8 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 10.4 | |
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 0.5 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | |
White | 77.9 | 77.2 | 79.2 | 78.0 | 61.7 | |
Mixed or other races | 4.5 | 4.9 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 6.8 | |
Household composition (lives with …) | No one else | 11.2 | 12.5 | 12.2 | 12.1 | 13.1 |
Husband/wife/partner | 35.4 | 35.5 | 36.9 | 35.9 | 57.1 | |
Non-household members (roommates, relatives, etc.) | 7.8 | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.4 | 27.4 | |
Children under 18 years | 22.3 | 22.3 | 20.3 | 21.7 | 27.2 | |
Employment | Employed | 67.1 | 70.5 | 67.8 | 68.4 | 64.6 |
Unemployed | 6.5 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 4.6 | 4.6 | |
Homemaker | 0.2 | 5.1 | 4.7 | 3.2 | NA | |
Retired | 13.9 | 12.8 | 19.7 | 15.2 | NA | |
Student | 7.7 | 6.0 | 3.5 | 5.9 | NA | |
Other | 4.6 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.7 | NA | |
Vaccination status | Complete | 0.0 | 35.1 | 97.0 | 40.0 | NA |
Incomplete | 0.0 | 28.5 | 0.2 | 10.0 | NA | |
Not vaccinated | 0.0 | 36.2 | 2.0 | 13.2 | NA | |
Prefer not to answer | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.3 | NA |
Note : NA = not available.
Distribution of online and in-store shopping frequency across the sample for the three activities.
Distribution of the psychometric variables across the sample.
Figure 1 shows shopping frequency for the three activities across the survey waves. The pre-pandemic and post-pandemic (expected) distributions are consistent across Waves 1, 2, and 3 for all the activities. Moreover, for in-store activities, the pre-pandemic and the expected post-pandemic frequency distributions are similar, implying that people expect to return to their pre-pandemic in-store behaviors. The same cannot be said for online activities, as the statistics show that people expect to shop online more frequently after the pandemic than before it. It is also shown that the majority of respondents (∼80%) used to shop for groceries in-store a few times a week, while about the same percentage (∼85%) never did online grocery shopping before the pandemic. During the pandemic, in-store grocery shopping decreased, and online grocery shopping increased. Another notable observation is that in-store shopping frequency for food and other items experienced a significant drop during the pandemic (compared with pre-pandemic); however, both activities started to increase gradually (Waves 2 and 3 compared with Wave 1). Interestingly, this gradual increase (between the waves) in in-store shopping for food and other items did not translate into a decrease in the corresponding online activities.
The distribution of the psychometric variables is presented in Figure 2 . In most part, the distributions are similar for the three waves. However, the Stay Home, Mask Mandate, Physical Distancing, and Family Expectations variables exhibit lower agreement rates as the pandemic subsides. Similarly, the sample is less likely to support business closures to prevent the spread of the virus in the Wave 3 compared with Waves 1 and 2.
To achieve the study’s objectives, we used descriptive analysis and SEM. SEM is a technique that considers the mediation effect and incorporates direct and indirect effects in a single model, allowing each variable to be the cause and effect simultaneously ( 50 ). The exogenous and endogenous variables can be continuous or discrete, observed, or latent ( 51 ). Observed variables can be measured directly, while latent variables are determined using scaled indicators.
SEM has been used extensively in transportation research for various applications ( 52 ). In the context of online shopping, Gould et al. used SEM to find how the travel time saved by online shopping would be allocated to other activities, and Irawan and Wirza applied SEM to understand the relationship between online searching, online shopping, and shopping trips ( 53 , 54 ). In a similar approach to that taken in the present study for analyzing shopping frequencies, SEM has been used in Chen and Chen, Ning et al., and Zeballos Rivas et al. to investigate how exogenous variables, risk perception, attitudes, and subjective norms affected preventive behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic ( 55 – 57 ).
We have applied SEM to identify the factors affecting online and in-store shopping behaviors for different goods, and to measure their impacts on shopping behavior changes during the pandemic and in the future. Moreover, to understand how people changed and expect to change their shopping behaviors throughout the pandemic, we performed a descriptive analysis by first estimating the changes in shopping frequency between the three phases of the pandemic (pre-, during-, and post-pandemic), and then classifying the respondents based on the observed change trends. The details of the SEM methodology are presented in the remainder of this section, and the descriptive analysis is further explained in the Results and Discusson – Behavior Change Groups section.
We defined eight endogenous variables for the SEM model, including two latent variables. The endogenous variables are the frequency of online and in-store shopping before, during, and after the pandemic (six variables in total), COVID risk perception (CRP) (latent variable), and attitude toward shopping (ATS) (latent variable). The latent variables (CRP and ATS) are defined using observed indicators, which are the psychometric questions (about the pandemic, in-store, and online shopping) that were mentioned in the Data section. In the model, we considered the impact of ATS on people’s shopping frequencies before, during, and after the pandemic, and the impact of CRP on people’s shopping frequency during the pandemic.
Age, education, gender, marital status, employment, income, and race are the exogenous variables in the models, and we modeled their effect on CRP, ATS, and the pre-pandemic frequencies of online and in-store shopping. The pandemic moment (early, mid, late) was also incorporated in the model as an exogenous variable to estimate the changes in people’s behavior during the pandemic and their expected changes after the pandemic.
We assumed that the pre-pandemic frequencies of online and in-store shopping affected the corresponding frequencies during the pandemic, and that those, in turn, will affect both expected online and in-store shopping frequencies after the pandemic.
SEM has two components: the measurement model and the structural model. The measurement model estimates the power of each indicator to present the corresponding latent variable. The structural model configures the relationships among the latent variables and new observed variables ( 58 , 59 ).
To build the measurement model, we applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) ( 60 ). CFA assumes there is a latent variable (i.e., a factor) that influences a set of indicators, interconnecting their variances and covariances. The indicators’ variances can be divided into unique and common. The unique variance corresponds to the natural dispersion of each observed variable, while the common variance is the dispersion shared by all the indicators as they are all under the influence of the same latent variable. CFA analyzes these unique and common variances to form a latent variable and to evaluate the pre-established theoretical relationships between the latent variable and indicators ( 58 , 61 , 62 ).
Equation 1 shows the relationship between latent variables (factors) and the corresponding indicators in the CFA methodology:
X ji = the matrix of indicator values, for any observation i and observed variable j ,
F ki = the matrix of factor values, for any observation i and latent variables k ,
λ jk = the loading for each factor, and
e ij = the error term ( 63 ).
The estimation of the factor loadings ( λ jk ) and the error term ( e ji ) is done through the maximum likelihood method as shown in Equation 2 ( 57 ). The maximum likelihood method is an iterative process that minimizes the differences between the variance-covariance matrices of the hypothesized model ( Σ ) and the observed sample ( S ) :
trace = the sum of the diagonal values in the covariance-variance matrix, and
p = the number of indicators ( 64 , 65 ).
The predicted value of a latent variable ( LV Score ) is calculated through Equations 3 and 4 :
f i = the factor weight for observation i , and
( x i − x i ¯ ) = the normalized value of each indicator variable.
To build the structural model, we employed path analysis (PA). First, causal relationships (or paths) between the variables are hypothesized to draw influence chains in the model ( 60 , 66 ). Then, PA decomposes the correlations and covariations to establish direct and indirect effects and causality ( 66 , 67 ).
In particular, the structural model estimates coefficients for the hypothesized relationships, such that the differences between the variance-covariance matrices of the model and the sample are minimized. This process is typically done through the maximum likelihood method and may be modified slightly based on the type and probability distribution of the variables ( 52 ). In this study, we used the marginal maximum likelihood method, a variation of the maximum likelihood method that accounts for categorical, binomial, and discrete variables ( 51 , 66 , 67 ).
PA was applied to build three structural models for grocery, food, and other items shopping. We hypothesized numerous paths and relationships between indicators and latent variables, and eventually selected the best models (one model for each activity) based on the following tests. Since there is not a consensus about the acceptable threshold for the SEM indicators, we used two criteria for each test: a good-fit and a marginal-fit value, as recommended by Alhaimer, Irawan and Wirza, and Weston and Gove ( 42 , 54 , 68 , 69 ).
The selected models and the associated goodness of fit measures are reported in the Results and Discusson – SEM Results section. For this study, we used the Lavaan package in the programming tool R, version 4.1.0.
This section is divided into two subsections: the first one offers a descriptive analysis of how people changed their shopping behavior during the pandemic and how they expect to change it in the future. The second section reports the SEM results, including the CFA and PA results.
To understand how people changed and expect to change their shopping behaviors throughout the pandemic, we estimated the changes in shopping frequency between the three phases of the pandemic (pre-, during-, and post-pandemic). Frequency in this context is calculated as the number of days in a month. We defined Initial Change as the difference between reported shopping frequencies in the pre-pandemic and during-pandemic phases, and Expected Future Change as the difference between the during-pandemic reported shopping frequency and the expected shopping frequency post-pandemic. Any increase or decrease in frequency smaller than 3 days a month was considered as no change.
We then classified the respondents into five groups as follows, based on their initial and late frequency changes. The groups are also shown in Figure 3 .
Changes in shopping frequency between the three phases of the pandemic (pre-, during- and post-pandemic).
The five groups did not present significant differences in their age, income, or occupation distributions. However, for all activities, online shopping Increasers have a higher percentage of females, and online shopping Decreasers are less educated with a larger percentage of non-Whites. Moreover, we found that in-store shopping Decreasers and Returnees and online shopping Increasers had higher perceived risks of COVID.
Figure 4 shows the changes in the sample’s shopping frequency throughout the pandemic for the three online and in-store activities (grocery, food, and other items). As can be seen, in-store and online activities present different trends for all three activities: the number of Returnees is at least three times higher for in-store activities, while online shopping has a larger number of Increasers and Steady Users.
The change in sample’s shopping frequency throughout the pandemic for the three shopping activities.
On average, 25% of respondents increased their online shopping activities, but only 8%–13% decreased their in-store activities. This shows that the increase in online shopping throughout the pandemic was not merely because of the substitution of in-store activities, and that people had other reasons/motives for increasing their online shopping. Moreover, there is a notable difference between the three activities. For food and other items, the number of in-store Decreasers was about one third of the online increasers. However, the corresponding ratio was more than half for grocery items. This suggests that the substitution effect of online shopping is much larger for grocery items compared with non-grocery items, and that for food and other items online shopping plays more of a complementary role that a substitution role. This is in line with the findings of a few previous studies ( 70 – 72 ), and as Pavel (2010) argued, probably because the information and communication technology (ICT) potential to replace in-person activities reduces as the necessity of that activity decreases ( 73 ).
A majority (∼75%) of the respondents who increased their online shopping frequency during the pandemic expect to maintain the same behavior after the pandemic, while 63%–85% of the people who decreased their in-store shopping frequency during the pandemic plan to return to their pre-pandemic frequencies once the virus threat subsides.
About half the sample (41%–61%) did not change nor expect to change their pre-pandemic behaviors (i.e., Steady Users) for almost all activities, except for restaurant dine-in (in-store food shopping), for which the Steady Users represent only 20% of the sample. Dining in a restaurant had the largest percentage (58%) of Returnees, followed by in-store other items shopping (30%) and in-store grocery shopping (23%). Overall, about 60%–80% of the respondents expect to repeat their pre-pandemic behaviors after the pandemic, combining Returnees and Steady Users.
When looking at changes between the waves, the proportion of in-store Returnees constantly decreased as the pandemic subsided (i.e., between Waves 1 and 3). For example, the percentage of Returnees for in-store grocery shopping dropped from 27% to 15%. Other items and food saw a similar trend, with respective drops from 40% to 16% and from 68% to 41%. Conversely, the proportion of in-store Steady Users increased during the pandemic for all the activities. This suggests that some people who expected to return to their pre-pandemic shopping frequency after the pandemic did so sometime in the mid and late pandemic.
The change groups for online shopping for groceries and other items remained the same across the three waves. Online food shopping is the only online activity with noticeable changes between early and late pandemic: the percentage of Returnees decreased by 8%, and Steady Users and Increasers each grew by 4% during that period.
The results are presented for the three stages that were explained in the Methods – SEM Specifications section: CFA, PA, and SEM.
Table 2 shows the CFA results for the two latent variables, CRP and ATS. The indicators used to estimate CRP are the Mask Mandate, Physical Distancing, Family Expectations, Family Risk, and Media Exaggeration. We tested Stay at Home and Business Shutdown indicators as well, but discarded them because of collinearity issues with other indicators. The three models present similar CRP coefficients. The coefficient signs imply that people with higher CRP are more likely to comply with control measures and are more mindful of their close ones’ opinions and health risks. Conversely, people with low CPR believe the media exaggerated the spread of the virus.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results
Results | Latent variable | Indicators | Grocery | Other items | Food | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficients and significance | ATS | Enjoy browsing | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.45 | |||
Like seeing items | 0.78 | 0.85 | 1.00 | |||||
In-store fun | 0.51 | 0.49 | NA | |||||
Restaurant fun | NA | NA | 0.30 | |||||
Online convenience | −0.50 | −0.35 | −0.30 | |||||
CRP | Mask mandate | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.88 | ||||
Physical distancing | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.59 | |||||
Family expectations | 0.57 | 0.56 | 0.56 | |||||
Family risk | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.76 | |||||
Media exaggeration | −0.68 | −0.68 | −0.69 | |||||
Goodness of fit | ATS | CFI | 0.961 | 0.816 | ||||
TLI | 0.901 | 0.632 | ||||||
RMSEA | 0.141 | 0.227 | ||||||
SRMSR | 0.051 | 0.101 | ||||||
CRP | CFI | 0.979 | ||||||
TLI | 0.959 | |||||||
RMSEA | 0.088 | |||||||
SRMSR | 0.034 |
Note : ATS = attitudes toward shopping; CFI = comparative fit index; CRP = COVID risk perception; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMSR = standardized root mean square residual; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; NA = not applicable.
For the ATS variable, the indicators vary slightly across the three models: models for grocery and other items include the In-store Fun variable, while the food model includes the Restaurant Fun variable. Of the four indicators, the first three are associated with ATS with a positive sign, while Online Convenience has a negative sign. A higher ATS value means a larger tendency toward in-store shopping. We tested different combinations of indicators, such as separating the attitudes toward in-store and online shopping, and including Prefer Online, but the models in Table 2 are the best ones. However, while the goodness of fit measures for the latent variables in the grocery and other items models are within the desired range, the ATS latent variable in the food model did not show a good fit.
Figure 5 shows the structure of the grocery model, derived from PA. We hypothesized different causal relationships between variables, and the selected paths are as follows. People’s socio-demographic characteristics affect their CRP, ATS, and pre-pandemic in-store and online shopping frequencies. The aforementioned variables and the pandemic moment affect how people changed their shopping frequencies during the pandemic. Finally, people’s during-pandemic in-store and online shopping frequencies and their ATS affect their expected shopping frequencies post pandemic. Models for food and other items have a similar structure. The PA results for all three models are presented in the next subsection.
Structure of the grocery model, derived from the path analysis (PA).
We also hypothesized and analyzed covariation paths. Table 3 shows the covariation analysis results for all three models. We found that Enjoy Browsing and In-Store is Fun are correlated and that the pre-pandemic online and in-store shopping frequencies depend on each other. The results showed that people’s frequency of shopping in-store for other items pre-pandemic was independent of their ATS. But for all other cases, it was shown that people with higher ATS shopped more frequently in-store and less frequently online. For initial frequency change (during the pandemic), the negative and significant covariations between online and in-store variables show that as people increased online shopping, their in-store shopping decreased. Conversely, the covariations for expected future frequency change between online and in-store variables is positive (except for grocery which is statistically insignificant), suggesting that in-store and online shopping for food and other items will have a complementary impact on one another in the post-pandemic era, and people who plan to increase their in-store shopping also expect to increase their online shopping.
Structural Equation Model (SEM) Covariation Results
Analyzed variables | Coefficients and significance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grocery | Other items | Food | |||||
Enjoy browsing | In-store/restaurant fun | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.48 | |||
Pre-pandemic in-store frequency | Pre-pandemic online frequency | −0.08 | 0.13 | 0.09 | |||
ATS | Pre-pandemic in-store frequency | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.13 | |||
ATS | Pre-pandemic online frequency | −0.21 | −0.07 | −0.21 | |||
Initial change in in-store frequency | Initial change in online frequency | −0.25 | −0.13 | −0.11 | |||
Expected future change in in-store frequency | Expected future change in online frequency | −0.01 | 0.10 | 0.11 |
Note : ATS = attitudes toward shopping.
Table 4 shows the SEM results. Based on the goodness of fit indicators, all three models fit the data well and can describe the sample’s behavior. However, the Grocery model presents the best fit for the data.
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Results
Dependent variable | Independent variable | Coefficients and significance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Type | Levels | Grocery | Other Items | Food | ||||
Pre-pandemic in-store shopping frequency | Age | Continuous | NA | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |||
Graduate degree | Binary | 1: Graduate degree (e.g., MS, PhD, MBA) 0: Otherwise | −0.10 | NA | −0.03 | ||||
College degree | Binary | 1: College degree (e.g., BA, BS) 0: Otherwise | −0.06 | NA | NA | ||||
Gender | Binary | 1: Female 0: Male | NA | 0.00 | −0.20 | ||||
Marital status | Binary | 1: Married 0: Otherwise | 0.04 | 0.04 | NA | ||||
Medium income | Binary | 1: Annual household income $625K to $1.250M 0: Otherwise | −0.05 | −0.06 | 0.05 | ||||
High income | Binary | 1: Annual household income >$1.25M 0: Otherwise | −0.07 | −0.05 | 0.10 | ||||
Asian, African-American, or Latino race | Binary | 1: Asian, African-American, and Latino 0: Otherwise | 0.02 | −0.01 | NA | ||||
Mixed or other races | Binary | 1: Mixed or other races 0: Otherwise | 0.03 | 0.00 | NA | ||||
Pre-pandemic online shopping frequency | Age | Continuous | NA | 0.01 | −0.07 | −0.12 | |||
Graduate degree | Binary | 1: Graduate degree (e.g., MS, PhD, MBA) 0: Otherwise | 0.07 | NA | −0.08 | ||||
College degree | Binary | 1: College degree (e.g., BA, BS) 0: Otherwise | 0.09 | NA | NA | ||||
Gender | Binary | 1: Female 0: Male | NA | −0.14 | −0.03 | ||||
Marital status | Binary | 1: Married 0: Otherwise | −0.03 | 0.04 | NA | ||||
Medium income | Binary | 1: Annual household income $625K to $1.250M 0: Otherwise | −0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | ||||
High income | Binary | 1: Annual household income >$1,250K 0: Otherwise | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.01 | ||||
Asian, African-American, or Latino race | Binary | 1: Asian, African-American, and Latino 0: Otherwise | 0.05 | −0.06 | NA | ||||
Mixed or other races | Binary | 1: Mixed or other races 0: Otherwise | 0.01 | −0.04 | NA | ||||
ATS | Graduate degree | Binary | 1: Graduate degree (e.g., MS, PhD, MBA) 0: Otherwise | −0.11 | −0.15 | −0.12 | |||
College degree | Binary | 1: College degree (e.g., BA, BS) 0: Otherwise | −0.08 | −0.12 | −0.09 | ||||
Gender | Binary | 1: Female 0: Male | NA | NA | −0.03 | ||||
Essential workers | Binary | 1: Essential worker 0: Otherwise | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | ||||
Asian, African-American, or Latino race | Binary | 1: Asian, African-American, and Latino 0: Otherwise | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.11 | ||||
Mixed or other races | Binary | 1: Mixed or other races 0: Otherwise | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.07 | ||||
Marital status | Binary | 1: Married 0: Otherwise | −0.09 | −0.07 | −0.06 | ||||
Medium income | Binary | 1: Annual household income $625K to $1.250M 0: Otherwise | −0.06 | −0.07 | −0.06 | ||||
High income | Binary | 1: Annual household income >$1,250K 0: Otherwise | −0.06 | −0.06 | −0.06 | ||||
CRP | Age | Continuous | NA | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | |||
Graduate degree | Binary | 1: Graduate degree (e.g., MS, PhD, MBA) 0: Otherwise | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.18 | ||||
College degree | Binary | 1: College Degree (e.g., BA, BS) 0: Otherwise | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.12 | ||||
Gender | Binary | 1: Female 0: Male | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.07 | ||||
Asian, African-American, or Latino race | Binary | 1: Asian, African-American, and Latino 0: Otherwise | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | ||||
Mixed or other races | Binary | 1: Mixed or other races 0: Otherwise | −0.04 | −0.04 | −0.04 | ||||
Pandemic moment | Categorical | 1: Early pandemic 2: Mid pandemic 3: Late pandemic | −0.21 | −0.21 | −0.21 | ||||
Essential workers | Binary | 1: Essential worker 0: Otherwise | NA | 0.02 | 0.01 | ||||
Initial change in in-store frequency | CRP | Latent | NA | −0.15 | −0.15 | −0.20 | |||
Pre-pandemic in-store frequency | Continuous | NA | −0.71 | −0.68 | −0.76 | ||||
ATS | Latent | NA | 0.19 | 0.15 | 0.09 | ||||
Pandemic moment | Categorical | 1: Early pandemic 2: Mid pandemic 3: Late pandemic | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.10 | ||||
Initial change in online frequency | CRP | Latent | NA | 0.22 | 0.08 | 0.03 | |||
Pre-pandemic in-store frequency | Continuous | NA | −0.41 | −0.40 | −0.50 | ||||
ATS | Latent | NA | −0.44 | −0.13 | −0.04 | ||||
Pandemic moment | Categorical | 1: Early pandemic 2: Mid pandemic 3: Late pandemic | −0.01 | 0.00 | −0.01 | ||||
Expected future change in in-store frequency | Initial change in in-store frequency | Continuous | NA | −0.44 | −0.42 | −0.50 | |||
Initial change in online frequency | Continuous | NA | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.06 | ||||
ATS | Latent | NA | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.07 | ||||
Expected future change in online frequency | Initial change in in-store frequency | Continuous | NA | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.07 | |||
Initial change in online frequency | Continuous | NA | −0.49 | −0.41 | −0.48 | ||||
ATS | Latent | NA | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.04 | ||||
Goodness of fit | CFI | 0.903 | 0.855 | 0.855 | |||||
TLI | 0.951 | 0.928 | 0.928 | ||||||
RMSEA | 0.058 | 0.062 | 0.064 | ||||||
SRMSR | 0.073 | 0.074 | 0.081 |
The results showed that, for pre-pandemic shopping frequency, age was not a significant predictor for in-store shopping of other items or food; however, it was shown that older people did in-store grocery shopping more frequently than younger people. For online shopping, though, it is the opposite. Age did not have a significant impact on online grocery shopping frequency as, for most part, online grocery shopping was not so typical among any age group before the pandemic. Nonetheless, age is negatively correlated to food and other items online shopping frequency, meaning that younger people used to do more online shopping (other than groceries) and food ordering than older people did.
Marital status was found as a significant variable for in-store shopping frequency (grocery and other items) before the pandemic, showing married people went to stores more often than single people, but it did not turn out to be a significant predictor for any type of online shopping.
Race did not show a significant impact on pre-pandemic in-store shopping frequency, except for grocery shopping. White, Asian, African-American, and Latino people did in-store grocery shopping at similar rates and lower than other races. On the other hand, White people were more likely to shop other items online and less likely to shop groceries online compared with the other races.
It was indicated that, before the pandemic, people with medium and high income (>$625K per year) were less likely to go to stores for shopping groceries and other items compared with low-income people. Conversely, those higher-income groups used to dine in restaurants more frequently. The results also showed that, before the pandemic, men used to go to restaurants more frequently than women. They also had a higher frequency of buying items (other than grocery) online and ordering food for delivery compared with women.
Looking at the CRP variable, we found that the pandemic moment significantly affected CRP, in that CRP subsided from early to late pandemic, as the knowledge about the virus and its consequences increased, the vaccines were developed, and the virus weakened over time. Asian, African-American, and Latino people showed a higher CRP compared with White people, which reflects the disproportionately high impacts of the pandemic on people of different races. The elder population, women, and educated people (with a college degree or higher) showed a higher CRP, and, surprisingly, being an essential worker did not significantly affect people’s CRP.
For all the three shopping activities, CRP had opposite effects on in-store and online shopping behaviors during the pandemic: the higher the CRP, the larger the increase in online shopping frequency and the decrease in in-store shopping frequency. However, the impact varies across the three activities for online shopping. While the CRP for other items and food shopping was about the same, people were more likely to increase their online shopping for groceries because of a higher risk perception during the pandemic.
For the ATS variable, the results showed that White people, couples, those with higher education, and those with higher income are more inclined toward online shopping, and essential workers are more likely to purchase items in store.
When analyzing the in-store shopping frequency change between pre- and during-pandemic phases (initial change), the results show that the change is heavily dependent (presenting largest coefficient) on people’s pre-pandemic in-store shopping frequency, but people also changed their shopping frequency based on the pandemic moment, how threatened they felt by the virus (CRP), and how they felt about in-store and online shopping (ATS). The results for online shopping frequency change between pre- and during-pandemic phases (initial change) were quite different, though. While the pre-pandemic online shopping frequency was still a significantly large predictor, its impact size was not very different from those of ATS and CRP. Also, the pandemic moment did not present a significant effect in either model.
As for the expected future changes, the three models show similar coefficients for all the dependent variables. Interestingly, if people increased their online shopping during the pandemic, they expect to increase their in-store activity in the future, and vice versa. A possible explanation is the substitution effect: people increased their online shopping frequency during the pandemic partly because of COVID-related limitations which prevented them from in-store shopping, and they expect to decrease their online shopping frequency and increase their in-store shopping frequency after the pandemic. However, the coefficients for in-store activity are seven to eight times smaller than those of the online activity. Therefore, while online shopping will grow at a higher pace, neither activity will entirely substitute the other one in the future.
We used descriptive analysis and SEM to find the direct and indirect factors that determine how people changed their in-store and online shopping behaviors during the pandemic and how they expect to shop in a post-pandemic era. We modeled online and in-store shopping activities jointly for three types of goods: groceries, other items, and food.
We defined two latent variables: CRP and ATS. The CRP score was derived from people’s opinions and beliefs about the seriousness of the pandemic, effectiveness of the control measures, and friends’ and families’ expectations and health risks. Higher CRP led to a larger increase in online shopping frequency and a larger decrease in in-store shopping frequency. The CRP also declined as the pandemic subsided. The ATS score was estimated based on the joy and/or convenience that people felt about online or in-store activities, and higher ATS meant a larger tendency toward in-store shopping. The SEM model showed that pre-pandemic shopping frequencies, CRP, and ATS were affected by people’s socio-demographic characteristics. The elderly, women, non-White, and highly educated people showed a higher CRP, and White people, married couples, non-essential workers, those with higher education, and those with higher income showed a larger tendency toward online shopping. Moreover, the covariations in the model indicated that, during the pandemic, online shopping played a substitutionary role for in-store shopping across all three shopping activities, meaning people increased online shopping as they decreased in-store shopping. For a post-pandemic era, though, the substitutionary role stays for grocery shopping: in-store and online shopping activities for food and other items shopping will be complementary, and people who plan to increase their in-store shopping for those goods also expect to increase their online shopping.
The SEM models revealed that people’s in-store and online shopping frequencies are decided based on several direct and indirect factors. During the pandemic, in-store shopping frequency was influenced indirectly by people’s socio-demographic characteristics and directly by the pandemic moment (early, mid, late), people’s CRP, ATS, and, most importantly, their pre-pandemic shopping frequencies. For online shopping, though, the direct predictors were slightly different: pre-pandemic online shopping frequency, ATS, and CRP affected people’s online shopping frequency during the pandemic, but the pandemic moment did not have a significant effect on it. It can be interpreted that people decreased their in-store activities at the beginning of the pandemic but increased them again over time as the pandemic subsided. Conversely, people changed their online shopping early in the pandemic and retained those behaviors during the pandemic. The models also showed that how people expect to change their online and in-store shopping post pandemic depends on their ATS and online and in-store shopping frequencies during the pandemic.
We also classified people based on their shopping frequencies before, during, and after the pandemic into five groups—Increasers, Decreasers, Steady Users, Returnees, and Future Changers—and analyzed the similarities and differences among them for online and in-store shopping activities. The five groups did not show significant differences in relation to age, income, and occupation. However, for all types of goods, online shopping Increasers included a higher percentage of females, and online shopping Decreasers were less educated and had a larger percentage of non-Whites. Moreover, in-store Decreasers and Returnees and online Increasers showed higher perceived risks of the virus.
The analysis showed that most people plan to return to their in-store pre-pandemic shopping behaviors while continuing to shop online. At least one third of the sample changed (either increased or decreased) their in-store and online shopping frequencies during the pandemic, and more than half of the respondents (∼60%–80%) expect to maintain or return to their pre-pandemic in-store shopping behaviors post pandemic. In-store and online activities presented different trends, in that, across all three activities, the percentage of people who expect to return to their pre-pandemic behaviors post pandemic were much higher (three times or more) for in-store activities, while online shopping had a larger percentage of people who either did not/expect to not change or kept/expect to keep increasing their frequencies during and post pandemic. It was also indicated that half of the sample increased their online shopping frequency, most of whom (∼75%) expect to maintain the new increased frequency post pandemic.
Moreover, although some people decreased their in-store shopping early in the pandemic, they expect to increase that after the pandemic. Therefore, we did not observe major changes in the expected shopping frequencies for a post-pandemic era compared with stated frequencies late in the pandemic (Wave 3).
The results also showed that the decrease in in-store shopping is much smaller (one third to half) than the increase in online shopping. This shows that large increases in online shopping throughout the pandemic were not entirely because of restrictions and the high CRP which cancelled in-store shopping activities; rather, more than half the respondents who increased their online shopping frequency during the pandemic did so for other reasons, supposedly such as convenience and easy alternatives comparison. It was also indicated that neither online nor in-store activity will entirely substitute the other in the future.
The data for this research came from the Puget Sound region in Washington State, U.S., so the specific findings and statistics will probably not hold for other regions. However, we believe the findings about the hows and whys of behavior changes over time, as well as the similarities and differences between the three types of shopping, provide interesting and somewhat unique insights into people’s shopping behaviors, generally and for a post-pandemic era.
Because of the limited number of psychometric questions in the survey, we defined a single latent variable (ATS) which included both online and in-store shopping for the three activities. Including more psychometric questions in the survey could help develop separate latent variables for in-store and online shopping or for the each of the three shopping activities, which could, in turn, result in better CFA and SEM estimates.
Author Contributions: The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: J. M. Diaz-Gutierrez, A. Ranjbari; data cleaning and processing: J. M. Diaz-Gutierrez; analysis and interpretation of results: J. M. Diaz-Gutierrez, H. Mohammadi-Mavi, A. Ranjbari; draft manuscript preparation: J. M. Diaz-Gutierrez, H. Mohammadi-Mavi, A. Ranjbari. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
đ best online shopping topic ideas & essay examples, đ good online shopping topic ideas to research, đ most interesting online shopping topics to write about, â research question about online shopping.
When it comes to choosing an essay topic, online shopping has plenty ideas to offer. That’s why we present to you our online shopping topic list! Here, you will find best hand-picked essay titles and research ideas.
But that’s not all of it! In addition to our shopping essay topics, we also offer free sample papers. Check them out!
IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). 103 Online Shopping Topic Ideas & Essay Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/online-shopping-essay-topics/
"103 Online Shopping Topic Ideas & Essay Examples." IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/online-shopping-essay-topics/.
IvyPanda . (2024) '103 Online Shopping Topic Ideas & Essay Examples'. 29 February.
IvyPanda . 2024. "103 Online Shopping Topic Ideas & Essay Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/online-shopping-essay-topics/.
1. IvyPanda . "103 Online Shopping Topic Ideas & Essay Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/online-shopping-essay-topics/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "103 Online Shopping Topic Ideas & Essay Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/online-shopping-essay-topics/.
Currently, online shopping has become one of the main consumption methods, with online retail sales reaching 13.79 trillion yuan in 2022. However, not all consumers are satisfied with their online shopping experiences. This study proposed that consumersâ rational attitudes toward online shopping were an important influencing factor for their satisfaction. Additionally, consumersâ trust in online shopping platforms is a mediator in the above relationship. Two studies were conducted to investigate this proposition. In Study 1, participantsâ rational attitudes were first operationalized by a procedure to approve their decisions. Then, their rationality, trust in online shopping platforms, and consumer satisfaction were measured. It was found that participantsâ rational attitudes improved their satisfaction through the mediating role of their trust in online shopping platforms. Study 2 further examined the hypotheses by providing participants with either budget alert information or no information. The results showed that such alert information increased participantsâ rationality and supported the findings of Study 1. Based on the results, rational consumers are more likely to be satisfied with their consumption, and trust is a key mechanism. Therefore, online shopping platforms and retailers should make efforts to improve consumersâ rational attitudes and protect their rights and interests to obtain consumersâ trust and a winâwin result between themselves and consumers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Ashtar, S., Yom-Tov, G. B., Rafaeli, A., & Wirtz, J. (2023). Affect-as-Information: Customer and employee affective displays as expeditious predictors of customer satisfaction. Journal of Service Research , advance publication online. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705231194076
Article  Google Scholar Â
Ayodeji, Y., Rjoub, H., & Ozgit, H. (2023). Achieving sustainable customer loyalty in airports: The role of waiting time satisfaction and self-service technologies. Technology in Society , 72 , 102â106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102106
Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior (Vol. 803). University of Chicago Press.
Book  Google Scholar Â
Bolek, S. (2020). Consumer knowledge, attitudes, and judgments about food safety: A consumer analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology , 102 , 242â248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.03.009
Borah, P. S., Dogbe, C. S. K., & Marwa, N. (2024). Generation Zâs green purchase behavior: Do green consumer knowledge, consumer social responsibility, green advertising, and green consumer trust matter for sustainable development?. Business Strategy and the Environment , advance publication online. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3714
Bozkurt, S., Welch, E., Gligor, D., Gligor, N., Garg, V., & Pillai, K. G. (2023). Unpacking the experience of individuals engaging in incentivized false (and genuine) positive reviews: The impact on brand satisfaction. Journal of Business Research , 165 , 114077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114077
China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (2021). Notice on further regulating the supervision and administration of internet consumer loans for college students. http://www.cbirc.gov.cn/cn/view/pages/govermentDetail. html?docId=971269&itemId=4215&generaltype=1
Chinedu, A. H., Haron, S. A., & Osman, S. (2016). Competencies of Mobile Telecommunication Network (MTN) consumers in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science , 21 (11), 61â69. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2111046169
Chinelato, F. B., Oliveira, A. S. D., & Souki, G. Q. (2023). Do satisfied customers recommend restaurants? The moderating effect of engagement on social networks on the relationship between satisfaction and eWOM. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 35 (11), 2765â2784. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-02-2022-0153
Chopdar, P. K., & Balakrishman, J. (2020). Consumers response towards mobile commerce, applications: S-O-R approach. International Journal of Information Management , 53 , 102106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102106
Delvecchio, D. S., Jae, H., & Ferguson, J. L. (2019). Consumer aliteracy. Psychology & Marketing , 36(2), 89â101. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21160 .
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyerâseller relationships. Journal of Marketing , 61 (2), 35â51. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100203
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G * power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods , 41 (4), 1149â1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar Â
Feng, X. L., Huang, M. X., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Are contradictory consumersâ attitudes more susceptible to external influences: A study of the differences in the composition of different attitudes. Nankai Business Review International , 16 (1), 92â101. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-3448.2013.01.011
Fernandes, J., Segev, S., & Leopold, J. K. (2020). When consumers learn to spot deception in advertising: Testing a literacy intervention to combat greenwashing. International Journal of Advertising , 39 (7), 1115â1149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1765656
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science , 11 (2), 77â83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
Gong, X., Liu, Z., & Wu, T. (2021). Gender differences in the antecedents of trust in mobile social networking services. The Service Industries Journal , 41 (5âââ6), 400â426. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1497162
Hall, J. A., Dominguez, J., & Mihailova, T. (2023). Interpersonal media and face-to-face communication: Relationship with life satisfaction and loneliness. Journal of Happiness Studies , 24 (1), 331â350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00581-8
Hardin, R. (1992). The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics and Society , 14 (2), 152â176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329293021004006
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Journal of Educational Measurement , 51 (3), 335â337. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2007). Education and social capital. Eastern Economic Journal , 33 (1), 1â19. https://doi.org/10.3386/w7121
Honora, A., Chih, W. H., & Ortiz, J. (2023). What drives customer engagement after a service failure? The moderating role of customer trust. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 47 (5), 1714â1732. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12939
Jin, L. Y. (2007). The impact of online word of mouth information on consumer purchasing decisions: An experimental study. Economic Management , (22), 36â42. https://doi.org/10.19616/j.cnki.bmj.2007.22.008
Kazemian, A., Hoseinzadeh, M., Banihashem Rad, S. A., Jouya, A., & Tahani, B. (2023). Nudging oral habits; application of behavioral economics in oral health promotion: A critical review. Frontiers in Public Health , 11 , 1243246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1243246
Kociatkiewicz, J., & Kostera, M. (2012). Sherlock Holmes and the adventure of the rational manager: Organizational reason and its discontents. Scandinavian Journal of Management , 28 (2), 162â172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.01.003
Korotkova, N., Benders, J., Mikalef, P., & Cameron, D. (2023). Maneuvering between skepticism and optimism about hyped technologies: Building trust in digital twins. Information & Management , 60 (4), 103787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103787
Liu, G. F., & Zhang, M. (2022). A review and prospect of consumer competency. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology , 28 (2), 147â156. http://www.appliedpsy.cn/CN/Y2022/V28/I2/147
Google Scholar Â
Liu, G. F., Li, X., & Meng, Q. X. (2023). How to shop online: The construct and measurement of consumer competency in online shopping. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 17 (2), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2023-2-6
Macready, A. L., Hieke, S., Klimczuk-KochaĹska, M., SzumiaĹ, S., Vranken, L., & Grunert, K. G. (2020). Consumer trust in the food value chain and its impact on consumer confidence: A model for assessing consumer trust and evidence from a 5âcountry study in Europe. Food Policy , 92 , 101880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101880
Manuela, V. Z., Francisco, J. T. R., & Manuel, P. R. (2019). Towards sustainable consumption: Keys to communication for improving trust in organic foods. Journal of Cleaner Production , 216 , 511â519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.129
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review , 20 (3), 709â734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems , 11 (3âââ4), 297â323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00020-3
MeloviÄ, B., Ĺ ehoviÄ, D., KaradĹžiÄ, V., DabiÄ, M., & ÄiroviÄ, D. (2021). Determinants of millennialsâ behavior in online shoppingâimplications on consumersâ satisfaction and e-business development. Technology in Society , 65 , 101561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101561
Mhlanga, S., & Kotze, T. (2014). Information search, alternatives evaluation, and coping mechanisms of functionally illiterate consumers in retail settings: A developing economy context. Journal of African Business , 15 (2), 136â149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2014.925363
Min, J., Kim, J., & Yang, K. (2023). CSR attributions and the moderating effect of perceived CSR fit on consumer trust, identification, and loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 72 , 103274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103274
Mistry, T. G., Wiitala, J., & Clark, B. S. (2024). Leadership skills and the glass ceiling in event management: A social role theory approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , advance publication online. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2023-0927
Miyazaki, A. D., & Fernandez, A. (2001). Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks for online shopping. The Journal of Consumer Affairs , 35 (1), 27â54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00101.x
Namasivayam, K., & Guchait, P. (2013). The role of contingent self-esteem and trust in consumer satisfaction: Examining perceived control and fairness as predictors. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 33 , 184â195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.08.002
Olya, H., Kim, N., & Kim, M. J. (2023). Climate change and pro-sustainable behaviors: Application of nudge theory. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , advance publication online.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2201409
Rucker, D. D., Petty, R. E., & BriĂąol, P. (2008). Whatâs in a frame anyway? A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 18 (2), 137â149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.01.008
Saab, A. B., & Botelho, D. (2020). Are organizational buyers rational? Using price heuristics in functional risk judgment. Industrial Marketing Management , 85 , 141â151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.10.001
Sears, D. O., Peplau, L. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social psychology (7th ed., pp. 188â194). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Stewart, C. R., & Yap, S. F. (2020). Low literacy, policy and consumer vulnerability: Are we really doing enough? International Journal of Consumer Studies , 44 (4), 343â352. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12569
Sung, E., Chung, W. Y., & Lee, D. (2023). Factors that affect consumer trust in product quality: A focus on online reviews and shopping platforms. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 10 (1), 1â10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02277-7
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Human agency and behavioral economics: Nudging fast and slow . Springer.
Tahir, M. S., Richards, D. W., & Ahmed, A. D. (2023). The role of financial risk-taking attitude in personal finances and consumer satisfaction: Evidence from Australia. International Journal of Bank Marketing , 41 (4), 787â809. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-09-2022-0431
Tzeng, S. Y., Ertz, M., Jo, M. S., & SarigĂśllĂź, E. (2021). Factors affecting customer satisfaction on online shopping holiday. Marketing Intelligence & Planning , 39 (4), 516â532. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2020-0346
Varian, H. R. (2014). Intermediate microeconomics with calculus: A modern approach . W. W. Norton & Company.
Weiss, A., Michels, C., Burgmer, P., Mussweiler, T., Ockenfels, A., & Hofmann, W. (2021). Trust in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 121 (1), 95â114. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000334
West, T., Butler, D., & Smith, L. (2023). Sludged! Can financial literacy shield against price manipulation at the shops? International Journal of Consumer Studies , 47 (5), 1853â1870. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12959
Wu, L., Li, Z., Chen, X., & Gong, X. (2020). Dose the compromise effect exist in food consumption behavior? An empirical case study based on pork products. Journal of Agricultural Technology , (09), 102â116. https://doi.org/10.13246/j.cnki.jae.20191205.001
Xin, Z., Liu, G., & Zong, Z. (2023). Feeling and calculation: The impact of the thinking mode on mental budgeting. Current Psychology , 42 , 26514â26526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03689-5
Yoon, J. H., & Kim, H. K. (2023). Why do consumers continue to use OTT services? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications , 60 , 101285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2023.101285
Yuan, X. H., & Xiao, Y. C. (2021). Information accessibility, cognition level and consumer trust of organic agricultural products. Journal of Management , 34 (5), 92â108. https://doi.org/10.19808/j.cnki.41-1408/F.2021.0039
Download references
The data and analysis procedure can be obtained from the corresponding author.
Authors and affiliations.
School of Economics and Management, Shanghai Maritime University, No.1550 HaiGang Avenue, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, 201306, China
Yaxing Lan & Guofang Liu
You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar
Correspondence to Guofang Liu .
This study complied with APA ethical standards.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisherâs note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Lan, Y., Liu, G. Consumersâ rational attitudes toward online shopping improve their satisfaction through trust in online shopping platforms. Curr Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06622-0
Download citation
Accepted : 23 August 2024
Published : 02 September 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06622-0
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
đ best essay topics on online shopping, đ most interesting online shopping research titles, đĄ simple online shopping essay ideas.
Cite this post
StudyCorgi. (2024, September 1). 54 Online Shopping Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/online-shopping-essay-topics/
"54 Online Shopping Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 1 Sept. 2024, studycorgi.com/ideas/online-shopping-essay-topics/.
StudyCorgi . (2024) '54 Online Shopping Essay Topics'. 1 September.
1. StudyCorgi . "54 Online Shopping Essay Topics." September 1, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/online-shopping-essay-topics/.
Bibliography
StudyCorgi . "54 Online Shopping Essay Topics." September 1, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/online-shopping-essay-topics/.
StudyCorgi . 2024. "54 Online Shopping Essay Topics." September 1, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/online-shopping-essay-topics/.
These essay examples and topics on Online Shopping were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if youâre using them to write your assignment.
This essay topic collection was updated on September 9, 2024 .
COMMENTS
33 Online Shopping Questionnaire + [Template Examples]
70+ Online Shopping Questionnaire for Ecommerce ...
Assume you have 200 customers who have agreed to answer eCommerce survey questions. Split your respondents into a group of 50 or 100. You can set quotas to divide the audience into groups and control the data quality. Then, say, let the 100 customers answer the website, product catalog, ratings, and customer support questions.
70 Questions Online Shopping Survey for E-Commerce ...
55 Expert Ecommerce Survey Questions How To Ask
As you put together your ecommerce survey, it's important to think through the various stages of a customer's purchase cycle. Below, we've put together the top 50 questions you should consider adding to your ecommerce survey. 1. Pre-Purchase Ecommerce Survey Questions. Not all of your customers will complete a purchase on your website ...
eCommerce surveys can take various forms, such as multiple-choice questions, rating scales, open-ended questions, and Net Promoter Score (NPS) assessments. The data collected from these surveys is valuable for informing strategic decisions, improving the customer experience, and driving business growth in a competitive online retail landscape.
SurveyMonkey is rated 4.5 out of 5 from 18,000+ reviews on G2.com. Whether you're an online retailer or an internet advertiser, it helps to know how people use online shopping websites. With the expert-certified questions in this online shopping attitudes template, you'll get important feedback from online consumers.
Online purchasing survey template is a demographic survey template that consists of 15 plus questions related to online purchasing behavior of consumers. This sample survey template has questions that ask about the internet retailer from which buyers prefer to make regular purchases and why. This questionnaire has systematic answer options from ...
Market Research Questions: What to Ask and How
16 Consumer Behavior Survey Questions for Expert Insights
The impact of online shopping attributes on customer ...
A study on factors limiting online shopping behaviour of ...
Online Shopping and E-Commerce
The author found that the main factors that affect online shopping are convenience and attractive pricing/discount. Advertising and recommendations were among the least effective. In the study by Lian and Yen (2014), authors tested the two dimensions (drivers and barriers) that might affect intention to purchase online.
Why do people shop online? A comprehensive framework ...
Understanding the impact of online customers' shopping ...
This paper intends to examine online shopping. experiences from three aspects: the physical, ideological and pragmatic dimensions. As an exploratory research study, a qualitative research method ...
We're all shopping more online as consumer behaviour shifts
Online shopping and Americans' purchasing preferences
COVID-19 Impacts on Online and In-Store Shopping ...
When it comes to choosing an essay topic, online shopping has plenty ideas to offer. That's why we present to you our online shopping topic list! Here, you will find best hand-picked essay titles and research ideas. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts. 188 writers online.
Online shopping: Factors that affect consumer purchasing ...
Currently, online shopping has become one of the main consumption methods, with online retail sales reaching 13.79 trillion yuan in 2022. However, not all consumers are satisfied with their online shopping experiences. This study proposed that consumers' rational attitudes toward online shopping were an important influencing factor for their satisfaction. Additionally, consumers' trust in ...
đ Most Interesting Online Shopping Research Titles. Beyond the High Street: UK Online Shopping Trends. Online Shopping: Advantages Over the Offline Alternative ... These essay examples and topics on Online Shopping were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation ...