Researchnecessity
Researchproblems
Theresearchtopicofsubjectivewell- beinghasgeneratedgreatinterestamongconsumerresearchersandhasbeeninvestigatedacrosssever aldisciplinessuchasmarketingor psychology in terms of anti- or over-consumption and at the micro or macro level (e.g.,Lee & Ahn,
2016) Studying shoppers’ subjective well-being based on their shoppingactivities has recently emerged as an area of interest (e.g., Ekici, Sirgy, Lee, Grace,
&Bosnjak,2018),whereshoppingis considered asa“necessaryandan inevitableactivity”ofhumanlife(Ekicietal.,2018,p.335).Itspositivecontributionhasbeenwidely acknowledged, as shopping results in, for example, pleasure and arousal (Liao, To, Wong,Palvia,&Kakhki,2016)orsatisfaction(Kesari&Atulkar,2016).Thesepositiveconseque nces contribute significantly to shoppers’ overall quality of life, which is bestrepresentedby the concept of shopping well-being (Ekici etal., 2018).
Notethatadualityapproachconsideringtwodifferentmentalsystems–cognitionandaffect – has been widely applied in consumer research (e.g., Chen & Lee, 2008; Hofmann,Friese,&Strack,2009;Watson,Clark,&Tellegen,1988).Thisdual-processperspectivehasbeen used to investigate positive and negative affect (Watson et al., 1988), hedonic versusutilitarian shopping motivation (Babin,
Darden, & Griffin, 1994), hedonic and utilitariandimensionsofconsumerattitudes(Voss,Spangenberg,&Grohmann,2003)andimpulseandself- control (Hofmann et al., 2009) The duality approach has also helped to explain howhedonic and utilitarian shopping values influence online shopping preferences, attitudes,intentions,engagementorbehaviour(Chen&Lee,2008;Overby&Lee,2006).Thu s,this approach has strong potential to explain shopping well-being The literature has indicatedthatshoppingactivitiesareboth workandfun(Babinetal.,1994)orhedonicandutilitarian(Hirschman&Holbrook,1982).Inotherwords,c onsumersaredrivenbybothutilitarianandhedonic shopping values and, thus, shopping decisions are made based not only on rationaldeliberationsformaximizingcost-benefitefficiencyorproductutility,butalsoonemotionalbenefits like playfulness or pleasure These cognitive and affective benefits of shoppingsignificantly contribute to consumers’ shopping well-being (El Hedhli, Zourrig, & Chebat,2016).
The literature has indicated that online shopping is characterized by inherent risks(Ariffin,Mohan,&Goh,2018;Kim&Koo,2016)signifyingthecriticalroleoftrust.Thereisnouni versallyaccepteddefinitionforonlinetrustinexistingstudieswhileitisconsideredtobemulti- facetedandincorporatesdifferentdimensionsacrossdifferentresearchdisciplines(e.g.,Punyato ya,2019).Giventhat,alackoftrustisconsistentlyreportedasoneof the biggest barriers to online purchasing (e.g., Beldad,
2010).Thus,trustisoneofthesignificantfactorsfacilitatingconsumers’participationandpositively determining their satisfaction in online shopping In fact, almost all previousstudies of trust in e-commerce have focused on how trust influencesonline attitudes,satisfaction,intention andbehaviouralloyaltyindicators (Kim& Peterson,2017). Besides, impulse buying, considered as unplanned and sudden purchasing behaviorthat is strongly promoted by pleasure or excitement (Verplanken & Herabadi,
2001), is apopularshoppingmotiveinonlineenvironment(e.g.,Wu,Chen,&Chiu,2016;Akram,Hui,Khan, Hashim, &Saduzai, 2018) While consumers shop because of shopping values(e.g.,Babinetal.,1994), thesebenefits candrive consumers tobuy impulsively.For ins tance,
In addition, the impact of this spontaneous shopping motive on consumers remainscontroversial while it can be either positive or negative Specifically, Xiao and Nicholson(2013) consider impulse buying as a beneficial way of shopping, whereas impulse buyingmay lead to “financial problems, post-purchase dissatisfaction, and lower self- esteem”(Boonchoo&Thoumrungroje,2017,p.5).Itcanbeinferredthatimpulsebuyingcanimpactshopp ing well-being either positively or negatively Thus, in the online shopping context,impulsebuying’sconsequencecanbeexplainedbyexaminingits’associationwithshoppingwell- being.Therefore,intheonlineshoppingcontext,trustandimpulsebuyingarepotentiallymediatingfa ctorsoftheassociationbetweenshoppingvalueandonlineshoppingwell-being.
As previously noted, online shopping well-being may be significantly determined byshopping values via mediation of trust and impulse buying In the extant literature, trust ismainly considered as a determinant of shopping values (e.g., Chai, Malhotra, &Alpert,2015), which has led to a lack of studies examining the predicting role of shopping valuesfortrust.Existingresearchhasnotedthattreatingdifferentfacetsofvaluesasantecedentsoftrust is a possibility (see Kim & Peterson, 2017 for a recent review) Different theoreticalperspectives and theories are also used in different research disciplines such as philosophy,psychology, management, or marketing to study shopping values and trust (Beldad et al.,2010; Punyatoya, 2019) For example, Chiu, Wang, Fang, and Huang (2014) use a mean-end chain theory (Gutman, 1997) and argue that utilitarian and hedonic values are the finalgoalsthattriggeronlineintentionandbehaviour.Otherstudies(e.g.,Chen&Lee,2008;Al-Debei,Akroush,&Ashouri,2015)u s e a value–attitude–behaviour(VAB)framework
(Homer & Kahle, 1988) positing that online shopping values flow through attitudes thatinfluence behaviour Following this approach, this study argues that trust is a mediatorbetween shopping values and online shopping well-being Further, existing studies havevalidatedthepredictingroleofhedonicshoppingvaluetoimpulsebuying(e.g.,Yu&Bastin,2010). The predictive role of the Big Five personality traits has been strongly validated inconsumer research (e.g., Choi, Oh, & Colbert, 2015; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Ul Islam,Rahman, & Hollebeek, 2017) For instance, the Big Five traits significantly determine anindividual’s impulse buying tendency (Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001) In another research,extraversion,conscientiousnessandneuroticismsignificantlypredictimpulsebuyingtende ncywhiletheinfluencesofagreeablenessandopennesstoexperiencearenotsignificant(Olsen,T udoran,Honkanen,&Verplanken,2016).However,firstly,themoderating role of personality traits on shopping values in an online shopping context hasrarelybeenperformedexistingstudies.Tothebestofourknowledge,thestudyofChenandLee(200
8)istheonly research findingthatagreeablenessand conscientiousnessweremorefavourableforelicitingutilitarianshopping,whereasconsumerswithhi gherlevelsofemotional stability, openness and extraversion were more critical in facilitating hedonicshopping values.
Note that among the Big Five personalities, extraversion is the most important traitpredicting online consumer engagement (Ul Islam et al., 2017) while self-control is of thekeyfactorsdrivingconsumers’buyingbehaviors(Yim,2017)and,thus,itcanbetterexplainimpulse buying (Lucas & Koff, 2017) Further, while impulse buying has been intensivelyinvestigatedintheofflinecontext,“theonlineshoppingenvironmentisnowmoreconducivetoimp ulse-buyingbehavior”(Chan,Cheung,&Lee,2017,p.204).Infact,therehave been
5 many impulse buying studies taking the online shopping context into consideration. Giventhat, existing studies only adopt either the offline (e.g., Sohn & Lee, 2017) or the onlineenvironment (e.g., Lim, Lee, & Kim, 2017) to study this buying motive This leads to thelackofstudiesspecificallyfiguringoutthedifferencesofimpulsebuyingbetweentheofflineand theonlineshopping context.
Researchgaps
1.1.2.1 Theassociationbetweenshoppingvaluesandtrust,andbetweenshoppingvaluesandimpuls e buying via the dualprocessesremains unexamined
In the extant literature, the associations between shopping values and trust have beeninconclusive and require further evaluation (Beldad et al., 2010) In existing studies, trust ismainly considered as a determinant of shopping values (e.g Chai et al., 2015), which hasled to a lack of studies examining the predicting role of shopping values for trust Theresearch has noted that treating differentfacets of values as antecedents of trust is apossibility(seeKim& Peterson, 2017for a recentreview).
On the other hand, the intensive literature on impulse buying has shown that thisbuying motive is mainly affect-based (e.g Weinberg & Gottwald, 1982) Specifically, theauthors consider impulse buying as thoughtless action and argue that such buying motive isaffected by strong emotions While hedonic value focuses on emotional gain (Babin &Babin, 2001) from buying or consuming a product, consider impulse buying as an outcomeofhedonicvalueisapopularapproachusedinimpulsebuyingstudies.Forinstance,YuandBasti n (2010) validate the predicting role of hedonic value to impulse buying Similarly,hedonic value is widely proposed to be closely associated with impulse buying behavior ofconsumers(Verplanken&Sato,2011;Chen&Wang,2016).Recently,whileonlineretailing experiencesitsprominentproliferationandimpulsebuyingresearchhaschangeditsorientation to this emerging channel, few researchers start to adopt such approach forstudyingin online shopping context (Chen & Wang, 2016).
Giventhat,impulsebuyingisalsodeterminedcognitivelywhile“cognitivedeliberation plays a part in the impulse buyers’ decision” (Coley & Burgess, 2003, p 284).The authors propose that impulse buying has two components including affective andcognitive in which cognitive components are cognitive deliberation, unplanned buying anddisregard for the future.In another foundational impulse buying study, Weinberg andGottwald
(1982) identify three determinants of impulse buying process including reactive,affectiveandcognitivecomponent.Thecognitiveprocessofimpulsebuyingisalsoimplied byRookandFisher(1995)whentheybelievethatthetendencytomakeimpulsivepurchaseisdrivenbyc onsumers’pastexperiences.Inanotherresearch,Burroughs(1996)arguesthatimpulse buying decision is more cognitively affected by consumers’ information analyzingprocess than previously reported by scholars Similarly, Chen, Su, and Widjaja (2016) positthat “although the literature might seem to indicate that impulse buying implies lack ofrationality or alternative evaluation, this is not necessarily true” (p 60) It is believed thatimpulse buying does involve logical decision (Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010) and is aresult of cognitive deliberation process (Rook & Fisher, 1995; McNeal, 1973) Impulsebuying is also considered as consequence of information processing (Xiao & Nicholson,2013;Verhagen & Van Dolen, 2011; Shen & Khalifa,2012).
Infact,mostofexistingstudiesshowthattheimpulsebuyingisnegativelydeterminedinthecognitiv eprocess.Forinstance,inthecontextofshoppingonline,LeeandLee(2003)have foundthatconsumers’buyingimpulsivenessisnegativelyaffectedbyutilitarianbrowsing.H o w e v e r , t h e i m p a c t o f s h o p p i n g v a l u e o n i m p u l s e b u y i n g v i a t h e c o g n i t i v e
7 process is potentially positive, especially in the online shopping context This emergingshopping channel is considered as efficient environment for consumers to go shopping dueto various functional benefits such as convenience or time saving
Gilly,2000;Monsuwéetal.,2004;Kim&Eastin,2011).Assuch,OverbyandLee(2006)indicatethat utilitarian value is more strongly related to preference towards a retailer and intentionstomakeapurchaseonline.Besides,consumersinherentlyrelyoncognitiveconsiderationtoanalyz etheproductinformationbeforemakinganypurchase(Peter&Olson,2010).Further,available information posted in retailing website results in online consumers’ cognitivejudgments (Parboteeah, Valacich, & Wells, 2009) that are important to impulse buyingprocess (Weinberg & Gottwald, 1982) Note that shopping can meet not only hedonic butalsoutilitariandemandofshoppers(Babinetal.,1994).Thus,inthecognitiveprocessofthedualityappro ach,impulsebuyingcanbepositivelypredictedbyshoppingvalue.Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, existing studies have rarely examined thispositivecontribution of shopping value, especially inonline shopping.
1.1.2.2 Shoppingwell-beinghasrarelybeenexplainedbythedualprocessesfromshopping value,trust and impulsebuying
In existing studies, shopping well-being has been primarily studied by adopting thebottom-up spillover hierarchy of life satisfaction For instance, Lee, Sirgy, Gurel-atay, andBahn(2014)utilizethebottom- upspilloverprocesstoinvestigatetheimpactofshoppingonconsumers’life.Similarly,thisapproachhasalso beenadoptedintheresearchofEkicietal.
(2018)inwhichtheinfluenceofshoppingonshoppers’overallsenseofwell-beinghasbeenclassified into positive and negative Besides, existing studies have also identified severalfactorsdeterminingshoppingwell- beingofconsumersincludingexternalfactors(e.g.,store layout or stock-outs), social or cultural attitudes, values, personality or self-related factors(ElHedhli,Chebat,&Sirgy,2013;Lee&Sirgy,2004).Situationfactors(retailers’activity),personal factors (i.e attitudes or needs), social and cultural factors have also been thesignificant predictors of shopping well-being (Lee et al., 2014) For instance, El Hedhli etal (2013) validate the significant impacts of mall’s functionality, convenience, safety,leisure,atmospherics,and self-identification on shopping well-being.
(Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982) In other words, consumers are driven by bothutilitarian and hedonic shopping values and, thus, shopping decisions are made based notonly on rational deliberations for maximizing cost-benefit efficiency or product utility, butalso on emotional benefitslike playfulness orpleasure.These cognitive andaffectivebenefitsofshoppingsignificantlycontributetoconsumers’shoppingwell- being(ElHedhli,2016) It can be inferred that online consumers’ shopping well-being can be explained bycognitive and affective process that is the core logic of the duality approach This approachconsidering two different mental systems – cognition and affect – has been widely appliedin consumer research (e.g., Chen & Lee, 2008; Hofmann et al., 2009; Watson et al., 1988).Specifically,thisdual- processperspectivehasbeenusedtoinvestigatepositiveandnegativeaffect (Watson et al., 1988), hedonic versus utilitarian shopping motivation (Babin et al.,1994), hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitudes (Voss et al., 2003) andimpulse and self-control (Hofmann et al., 2009) The duality approach has also helped toexplain how hedonic and utilitarian shopping values influence online shopping preferences,attitudes, intentions, engagement or behaviour (Chen & Lee, 2008; Overby & Lee, 2006).Given that,this approach has rarely been adopted in studying online shopping well- being,especiallyasanoutcomeofshoppingvalueintheonlineshoppingcontext.Tothebe stof
9 ourknowledge,theassociationsbetweenshoppingvalueandshoppingwell-beinghavebeenonly examinedin thecontext of mall shopping (e.g ElHedli, 2016).
Besides, the literature has indicated that online shopping is characterized by inherentrisks (Ariffin et al., 2018; Kim & Koo, 2016) signifying the critical role of trust.
A lack oftrustisconsistentlyreportedasoneofthebiggestbarrierstoonlinepurchasing(e.g.,Beldadetal.,2010 ).Thus,trustisoneofthesignificantfactorsfacilitatingconsumers’participationand positively determining their satisfaction in online shopping In fact, almost all previousstudies of trust in e-commerce have focused on how trust influencesonline attitudes,satisfaction,intentionandbehaviouralloyaltyindicators(Kim&Peterson,2017).Therefore,trust potentiallyhelpstoenhancetheextent towhich onlineshopping positively contributesto consumers’ overall quality of life In addition, while online shopping well-being can beexplained by the duality approach, trust also comprises cognitive and affective components(Ha et al., 2016) Thus, the dual associations between trust and online shopping well-beingare highly potential Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of studiesexaminingthepredicting roleoftrusttoshoppingwell-beingin theonlineshoppingcontextviacognitiveand affective process.
In addition, as previously noted, impulse buying is considered as one of the popularshopping motives of consumers (Akram et al., 2018) that has been widely investigated inconsumerbehaviorliterature.However,theimpactofimpulsebuyingonconsumersremainscontroversial while it can be either positive or negative Specifically, impulsive consumersmay experience negative consequences such as financial risk, guilty, and shameful feelings(Chen&Wang,2016).Consumersmayregretfortheproductsthatareimpulsivelypurchas ed(Xiao&Nicholson,2013).Similarly,BoonchooandThoumrungroje(2017,p.5)arguet h a t t h e c o n s u m e r s w h o b u y i m p u l s i v e l y m a y s u f f e r “ f i n a n c i a l problems,post- purchase dissatisfaction, and lower self-esteem” In addition, impulse buying may result incompulsive buying that is considered as harmful behavior (Pradhan, Israel, & Jena, 2018).In contrast, impulse buying is considered as a beneficial way of shopping and characterizedby affect-based (e.g., Chan et al., 2017; Pornpitakpan et al., 2017) For instance, makingimpulsivepurchasesprovidesself- indulgent,goodandsatisfiedfeelingtoshoppers(Xiao&Nicholson, 2013) Similarly, impulse buying provides novelty and surprise experience thatmake consumers satisfied rather than regretted (Gardner & Rook, 1988). Besides, Georgeand Yaoyuneyong (2010) shows that consumers who are high in impulse buying tendencyexperience less cognitive dissonance phase due to more arousal or pleasure In addition,RookandFisher(1995)interestinglyindicatethatthereareonly20percentoftheirparticipant s report negative evaluation for their impulse purchases Consequently, it can beinferred that the consequence of impulse buying remains unclear in the extant literature Inaddition, in the extent literature, to the best of our knowledge, impulse buying has rarelybeen considered as an antecedent of shopping well-being Therefore, the dual associationsbetween impulse buying and shopping well-being need further investigations, especially inthe online shopping context.
1.1.2.3 Moderating effects of extraversion and self-control trait and differences acrossthe onlineversus the offline shopping contexts are unexplored
The predictive role of the Big Five personality traits has been strongly validated inconsumer research (e.g., Choi et al., 2015; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Ul Islam et al.,2017).For instance, the Big Five traits significantly determine an individual’s impulse buyingtendency(Verplanken&Herabadi,2001).Inanotherresearch,extraversion,conscientiousnessa ndneuroticismsignificantlypredictimpulsebuyingtendencywhilethe
11 influences of agreeableness and openness to experience are not significant (Olsen et al.,2016) Similarly, self-control has been found to be a determinant of impulse buying (e.g.,Baumeister, 2002; Lo et al., 2016) Unfortunately, the moderating role of personality traitsonshoppingvaluesinanonlineshoppingcontexthasrarelybeenperformedexistingstudies.Tothebest ofourknowledge,thestudyofChenandLee(2008)istheonlyresearchfindingthat agreeableness andconscientiousness weremore favourablefor eliciting utilitarianshopping,whereasconsumerswithhigherlevelsofemotionalstability,opennessandex traversion were more critical in facilitating hedonic shopping values Similarly, althoughself-control has been found to be a determinant of impulse buying (e.g., Baumeister, 2002;Lo et al., 2016), to the best of our knowledge, little is known about its moderating role inimpulse buying studies Note that among the Big Five personalities, extraversion is asignificantfactordriving consumer attitudeand behavior(e.g.,Chen&Lee, 2008;Ul Islamet al., 2017) while self-control is of the key factors driving consumers’ buying behaviors(Yim,2017)and,thus, itcan betterexplainimpulse buying(Lucas &Koff,2017).
Ononehand,extravertedconsumersarerecreationalshopperswhoaremoreinterestedin hedonic values suchas entertainment or enjoyment (Huang & Yang, 2010) Beingemotion- driven,theyperceiveonlineshoppingtobemoreemotionallybeneficial.Extraversion also enhances an individual’s willingness to engage in the online environment(Mai&Olsen,2015)andresultsinapositiveattitudeaboutonlineshopping(Huang&Yang,2 010).Theextraversiontraitcanthereforeleveragetheextenttowhichhedonicvalueaffectsconsumers’ affective trust in e-tailers Although risks are inherent in the online shoppingcontext (e.g., Kim & Koo, 2016), extroverts are risk- takers (Nicholson, Soane, Fenton-O’Creevy, & Willman, 2005) who are less concerned with such threats Thus, onlineshopperswhoareextrovertsaremorewillingtobecognitivelydependentone-tailers.Itcan beinferredthatthetraitofextraversioncanalsoleveragetheextenttowhichutilitarianvalueaffects onlineconsumers’cognitive trust.
Ontheotherhand,thebuyerswhoarelowatself-controltendtobuyinconsistentlytowhat have been initially planned Further, impulse buying is considered as the consequenceof self-control failure (Lo et al., 2016) For instance, the discounted products become morevaluabletotheshoppersbecauseofthehighereconomicbenefit(Vohs&Faber,2007).Thus,shoppers whoare lowonself-controlare more likelytoperceive expensive productsinexpensive In contrast, strong self-control makes consumers more rational in makingpurchasedecisionsleadingtolessimpulsivebuying.Therefore,thedualassociationsbetwe enshoppingvaluesandimpulsebuyingaresubjecttovaryunderthemoderatingeffectofconsumers’ self- control.
Researchobjectives
Researchobjectives ofstudy1
Underlinedbythedualityapproach,thestudy1mainlyfocusedontheonlineshoppingcontextofVietn am andaimed to:
Researchobjectives ofstudy2
Thestudy2alsoadoptedthedualityapproachandfocusedonboththeonlineand offlineshopping contextof Vietnam to:
• Investigate the impacts of cognitive and affective impulse buying on shopping well- being;
• Examinet h e m o d e r a t i n g e f f e c t o f s e l f - c o n t r o l i n t h e d u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n shoppingvalues and impulse buying; and
• Comparethe studied associations intheoffline to theonline shopping context.
Overallresearchmethods
Researchcontext
Researchmethods
This study adopted existing validated measuresthat were unidimensional for allconstructs Specifically, the dual shopping values were measured by scales borrowed fromVossetal.
(2003):fiveitemsforutilitarianvalueandsixitemsforhedonicvalue.Cognitiveandaffectivetrustwer emeasuredbyfiveitemseach,adoptedfromDabholkar,vanDolen,
&deRuyter(2009).Onlineshoppingwell-beingwasmeasuredbythreeitemsadoptedfromEkicietal. (2018).Extraversionwasmeasuredbyeightitems,basedonBenet-
MartínezandJohn(1998).Fouritemsmeasuringcognitiveimpulsebuyingandanother4itemsmeasuring affective impulse buying were borrowed from the scale used by Verplanken and Herabadi(2001) There were 5 items adopted from Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone (2004) used tomeasureself-control.
Convenience sampling and self-administered method were adopted to collect surveydata To achieve the above-mentioned objectives, this thesis conducted two main studies.Thestudy1wastocollectdatafromonlineconsumersinHoChiMinhCity(Nd8).Thisdatase twereusedtovalidatethemeasuresofutilitarianvalueandhedonicvalue(antecedents); cognitive trust, affective trust (mediators); extraversion (moderator); and,online shopping well- being (outcome) On the other hand, the study 2 was to collect datafrom 266 offline shoppers and 263 online consumers in Ho Chi Minh City (N = 529). Thisdatasetwereusedtovalidatethemeasuresofutilitarianvalueandhedonicvalue(antecedents)
; cognitive impulse buying, affective impulse buying (mediators); self- control(moderator);and,shoppingwell-being(outcome).Inbothstudy1andstudy2,confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA) was employed to validate the measures, whereas Structural EquationModellingwas conducted to test the model and hypotheses.
Researchcontributions
This thesis, firstly, contributed to the existing consumer literature by digging deeperintotheprocessesbetweenshoppingvalues,trustandimpulsebuying.Specifically,thedualasso ciationsb et we en shoppingvalueandtrust, andbetweenshoppingvalueand impulse buyingwerevalidated.Therefore,thisstudyisoneofthefirstvalidatingtheappropriatenessof the duality approach in explaining consumer value – attitude relationship (Chen & Lee,2008; Chiu et al., 2014; Overby & Lee,
2006) and in clarifying that impulse buying is notonlyan affect-based butacognition-based shopping behavior as well.
Secondly, this study revealed a significantly positive relationship between affectivetrust and online shopping well-being This strengthens the significance of the hedonic oraffective aspect, rather than the utilitarian or cognitive aspect, of shopping activity As aresult,thisstudyshednewlightandcontributessignificantlytotheextantliteratureononlineshoppingwell- being.
In addition, this study clarified the relationship between shopping and consumers’subjective well-being by proving the positive impact of shopping to subjective well- being.Thisisshowedbythesignificantpositiveassociationbetweenimpulsebuyingandshoppingwell- being via both cognitive and affective process Note that the consequence of impulsebuying remains controversial in existing research (e.g Xiao & Nicholson, 2013; Boonchoo& Thoumrungroje, 2017) Therefore, the research findings also contributed to existingliteratureby validating thepositiveconsequenceof impulse buying.
Finally, the moderating role of both extraversion and self-control were validated.While moderating role of consumer traits was understudied, this study is one of the firststudies to validate the moderating effect of both extraversion and self-control to contributesto the literature onpersonalitytraits Besides,by comparing the offline to theonlineshopping contexts, this research demonstrated key differences and similarities among theassociationsamong shopping value, impulsebuying and shopping well-being.
Thefindingsofthisstudyprovidedvaluableinsightsforpolicymakersandpractitioners in the e-commerce industry This study found that shopping values enhancetrustintheonlineshoppingandimpulsebuyinginbothonlineandofflineshoppingcontexts.Thus,re tailersshouldbeawareofincreasingbothutilitarianandhedonicvaluetoconsumersforsuccessfully building trust and driving consumerstobuy moreimpulsively.
Besides, the results identified that affective trust plays a significant role in onlineconsumers’shoppingwell-being.Thus,e- retailingmanagerscanenhanceconsumers’perceptionoftrustbyshowingtheirwillingnesstoservec onsumers.Besides,e-tailersmightalso be encouraged to make use of online consumers’ extraversion because it can leveragethe dual impacts of shopping values on trust On the other hand, how much impulsivepurchases are increased by shopping values is dependent on self-control trait of consumersregardless of shopping contexts Thus, online and offline retailers may need to developappropriatesolutionstolessenthenegativeimpactofconsumers’self- controlintheinfluenceof shopping values on impulse buying.
Thesisstructure
The first section of the thesis, Chapter 1 – Introduction, generally introduces theresearchproblems, existinggaps, researchmethods andoverallresearchcontributions.
In Chapter 2, theoretical background of the research is intensively reviewed anddiscussed that help to develop the research model Specifically, the overall research modelpresents the proposed associations among shopping value, trust, impulse buying,onlineshopping well-being, extraversion and self-control The 2 sub-models that are separatelyinvestigatedin the Study1 and Study2 are also introduced at theend ofChapter 2.
The paper of the study 1 published in the Marketing Intelligence and Planning ispresented in the third section of the thesis (Chapter 3) Thus, the chapter 3 includes all thekeycontents of aresearch publication.
Similarly,Chapter4presentsthelatest revisionofthestudy2thatissubmittedforthe2ndreviewing round of the Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics.
In the final section of the thesis, key conclusions of the research are presented.Specifically, the overall research findings are discussed that is followed by theoretical andpractical implications At the end of this Chapter 5, some limitations and future researchdirectionsareintroduced.
Researchconstructsandtheoreticalbackground
Subjective well-being has been studied across several research approaches From theperspective of hedonism, subjective well-being reflects a situation in which an individualevaluates all aspects of his or her life positively in a cognitive and/or affective manner(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) Thus, subjective well-being is considered theindividual’ssatisfactionwithlifeandismeasuredbytheSatisfactionwithLifeScale(Dieneret al., 1985). However, Pavot and Diener (2008) argue that satisfaction with life solelyrepresentsthecognitiveaspect,whiletheaffectiveaspectalsocontributestosubjectivewell- being.Specifically,theseauthorsidentifiedthreemaincomponentsofsubjectivewell-being,including life satisfaction, the presence of positive affect or mood and the absence ofnegative affect or mood The extant literature has also introduced several constructs relatedtowell- being,includinghappinessandmeaningfulness(Baumeister,Vohs,Aaker,&Garbinsky, 2013), hedonic well-being (hedonia) and eudaimonic well-being (eudaimonia – Disabato,Goodman, Kashdan, Short, &Jarden, 2016).
In a more specific approach to the individual’s shopping life, El Hedhli et al. (2013)discuss the construct of shopping well-being, which reflects the contribution of shopping toshoppers’ overall sense of well-being Recently, the contribution of shopping has beenclearly classified into positive and negative, which are represented by shopping well-beingand shopping ill- being, respectively (Ekici et al., 2018) The authors define shopping well-being as the degree to which shopping contributes positively to consumers’ quality of life,whereass h o p p i n g i l l - b e i n g r e f e r s t o t h e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f s h o p p i n g a c t i v i t y A l t h o u g h shoppingactivitymayresultindifferentorevenoppositeoutcomes(e.g.,Ekicietal.,2018),thepositive consequencesof shoppinghavebeenrepeatedlyechoedintheextantliterature.Fori n s t a n c e , s h o p p i n g c o n t r i b u t e s t o p l e a s u r e a n d a r o u s a l ( L i a o e t a l , 2 0 1 6 ) , h e d o n i c enjoyment(Babi netal.,1994),satisfaction(Kesari&Atulkar,2016)andflow(Bilgihan,2016).Basedo ntheapproachofEkicietal.(2018),thisstudyconsidersonlineshopping well- beingasthepositivecontributionofonlineshoppingtoonlineshoppers’qualityoflife.Existing shopping well-being research has determined some key predictors, includingexternalfactors(e.g.,storelayoutorstock- outs),socialorculturalattitudes,values,personalityorself- relatedfactors(ElHedhlietal.,2013;Lee&Sirgy,2004).Forinstance,El Hedhli et al (2013) validate the significant impacts of mall’s functionality, convenience,safety,leisure,atmospherics,and,self- identificationonshoppingwell- being.Amongthesefactors,shoppingvaluesserveasstrongpossibledeterminantsofshop pingwell-being.ElHedhlietal. (2016)providestrongevidencetosupportthesignificantinfluenceofshoppingvaluesonshoppingwel l- beinginthemallshoppingcontext.Unfortunately,tothebest ofourknowledge,thisass ociationhasseldombeenexploredintheonlineshoppingcontext. Thiss t u d y t h e r e f o r e e x a m i n e s o n l i n e s h o p p i n g w e l l - b e i n g a s t h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f d u a l shopping values (utilitarian and hedonic) in theonlineshopping context.
Answeringthequestionwhypeoplemakepurchaseshasattractedmuchattentionfromresearchers. While the utility of the purchases has been considered as the primary reason,the experiential aspects of consumption contribute to a more thorough explanation of suchquestion This facet, referred as hedonic consumption, relates to “the multi-sensory, fantasyandemotiveaspectsofone’sexperiencewithproduct”(Hirschman&Holbrook,1982,p.
92) In other words, consumers are not only motivated by the maximized utility but also bytheiremotionaldesires.Theliteraturehasshownthatpeoplebuyproductsbecauseofseveralconsumptionvalu es(Sheth,Newman,&Gross,1991).Specifically,theauthorsidentifyfivemainvaluesincludingfunctional value,emotionalvalue,conditionalvalue,socialvalueandepistemic value These values reflect cognitive, affective, situational, social and noveladvantagesofconsumption respectively (Shethetal., 1991).
In a more specific approach, consumption activities relate to two main types of valueincludingutilitarianandhedonicvalue(Babinetal.,1994).Thesetwovaluesareshopping’srewardst hat“maintainabasicunderlyingpresenceacrossconsumptionphenomena”(Babinet al., 1994, p 644) While utilitarian value represents for the “work” aspect, hedonic valuerefers to the “fun” side of shopping Specifically, utilitarian value serves as the cognitivebenefits of shopping resulted from “conscious pursuit of an intended consequence” (Babinet al., 1994, p 645) Consumers who target to the utilitarian value will pay much attentionto the shopping’s utility On the other hand, hedonic value reflects “shopping's potentialentertainment and emotional worth” (Babin et al., 1994, p 646) It can be inferred that,during the shopping process, shoppers are not only driven by owning the products, but arealso aroused by emotional attractions (Chen & Wang, 2016) In other words, consumers goshoppingforbothutilitarianandhedonicvalue.Thus,buyers’perceptionandbehaviorsvarydependent on the values they desire to gain from shopping process This influential role ofshopping values can be explained by the Value – Attitude – Behavior (VAB) framework(Homer & Kahle, 1988) In general, the model shows that people are driven by their valuestojustifytheirattitudesandthen,decidewhattheydobasedonsuchattitudes(Maio&Olson,1994) It can be inferred that, in online shopping, different ultimate shopping goals lead todifferentp e r c e p t i o n a b o u t m a k i n g p u r c h a s e o n l i n e t h a t , i n t u r n , r e s u l t i n d i v e r s e b u y i n g
22 behaviors (Voss et al., 2003; Mai & Olsen, 2015) As such, online consumers’ trustingattitude and impulse buying behavior can be significantly explained by their shoppingvalues.
The significance of these shopping values has been highlighted in several recentstudies(e.g.,Giovanis&Athanasopoulou,2017;Sarkar,Sarkar,Sreejesh,&Anusree,2018;Varshne ya, Das, & Khare, 2017) These are the main dual processes used in several studies(e.g., Kesari & Atulkar, 2016) In addition, the extant literature has shown that hedonicversus utilitarian shopping values, identified by the duality approach, are used to explainboth offline (Kesari & Atulkar, 2016) and online (Chiu et al., 2014) shopping motivationsandb e h a v i o u r F o r e x a m p l e , B a t r a a n d A h t o l a
(1)consummatoryaffective(hedonic)gratification(fromsensoryattributes),and(2)instrumental,utilitaria nreasonsconcernedwithexpectationsofconsequences”.Thus,intheonline shopping context, this study considers utilitarian and hedonic shopping values ascognitive and affectivebenefits ofonlineshopping.
Trustisbelievedtobeoneofthemostimportantfactorsinmarketing(Morgan&Hunt,1994;Walsh& Mitchell,2010)thatreflectsthedependencesamongpartiesinarelationship.Inotherwords,trustservesasth ewillingnessofapersontobevulnerableduetotheactionsof others, irrespective of the ability to monitor and control the latter
&Schoorman,1995).Itcanbeinferredthattrustispeople’sbehavioralrelianceonothersonacondition of risk(Curral & Judge, 1995) The extant literature shows that trust is a multi- facetedattitudeconstruct(e.g.,Beldadetal.,2010;Rempel,H o l m e s , &Zanna,1985)in whichtwodistinctiveforms:cognition-basedandaffect- basedtrusthavebeenwidelyagreedamongr e s e a r c h e r s (McAllister,1 9 9 5 ; Morrow,Hansen,
&Pearson,2 0 0 4 ) T h e s e arecognitiveandaffectivecomponentoftrust(Ha,John,John,&Chu ng,2016).Ononehand,trustisconsidered astheoutcomeofcognitiveprocessinwhichin dividualsrelyontheirrationalappraisals todecide whether totrustapartyornot(Hanse n,Morrow,&Batista, 2002;Lewis&Weigert,1985).Thisknowledge- driventrust(Johnson&Grayson,2005)isconsideredmoreobjectivebecauseitisbasedonrationala ndmethodologicaljudgmentonapartner’sreliability(Hansenetal.,2002).Ontheotherhand,aff ectivecomponentoftrustattituder e f e r s t o t h e e m o t i o n a l b o n d t h a t i s c o n s i d e r e d r e c i p r o c a l t o t h e c o g n i t i v e t r u s t (Lewis& W e i g e r t , 1 9 8 5 ) T r u s t i s f o r m e d n o t o n l y b a s e d o n c o g n i t i v e a p p r a i s a l s o f a n individualregardinganotherpartybutbasedonemo tionalbondintherelationship(McAllister,1995).Accordingly,theemotionalinvestmentshelpt oreducecomplexityanduncertaintythatresultinmoreconfidentapartyperceivesabouttheother’sgood will(Basso,Goldberg,Greenspan,&Weimer,2001).Thisaffectivetrustisbased onthetrustors’mood,feelingsoremotionwhenassessingthepartnerintheassociation(Hansenetal.,2002).
Thus,affectivetrustisemotion- drivenandmoresubjectivethatdoesnotrelyonevidenceorreasonfortrustingtheother.Inotherword,thistrustty peisnotderivedfromrationalconsideration,butf r o m t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a n i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s s e c u r e d a n d c o m f o r t a b l e a b o u t h i s / h e r dependenceonthetrustee(Komiak&Benbasat,2004;Karimov,Brengman,&Hove,2011).Inshopping activity,consumers’cognitivetrustistypicallydefinedastheirrationalexpectationabo uttheretailers’competence,reliabilityandpredictability (Chopra&Wallace,2 0 0 3 ; J o h n s o n & G r a y s o n , 2 0 0 5 ) W h i l e t h e c o n s u m e r s c o g n i t i v e l y a s s e s s t h e abilityo f t h e r e t a i l e r i n f u l f i l l i n g i t s o b l i g a t i o n s , t h e y a l s o e x p e c t t h e s e l l e r s t o p e r f o r m consistentbehaviorsacrosssituationsthatreflecttheirreliability.Thus,thecognitivetrust
24 reflects consumers’ confidence that retailers are “honest, accurate, and dependable, andkeepspromises”(Dabholkaretal.,2009,p.149)thatisformedbasedonconsumers’rationalexpectations (Punyatoya, 2019) On the other hand, Punyatoya (2019) also argues that trustis also built on the basis of positive affect that reflects the emotional attachment betweenbuyersandproviders.Itistheemotion-drivencomponentoftrustthatisbasedonthepositivefeeling the consumers have experienced through purchasing transaction with the retailers(Johnson&Grayson,2005).Forinstance,affectivetrustisformedwhenconsumersfeelthattheretail ersarewilling to act beneficially tothem(Chhetri, 2014).
In the online shopping context, consumers inherently face risks that are caused by theuncertain behaviours of e-tailers and/or the uncertain environment (Kim & Koo, 2016) Forinstance, risks related to payment, product, information, time and psychology can have anegative impact on online shoppers’ purchase intention (Ariffin et al.,
2018) Fortunately,the literature shows that trust not only significantly reduces perceived risks (Kim &
Koo,2016),butalsoleveragesonlineconsumers’purchaseintention,satisfactionorloyalty(Kim&Pe terson,2017).Thus,trustiscriticallyimportantforonlineconsumersthatisconsideredas an attitude (Beldad et al.,
2010) Adopting the duality perspective in the online shoppingcontext, trust reflects the willingness of online consumers to be cognitively and affectivelydependent on e-tailers Specifically, cognitive trust is formed based on online consumers’rational evaluations of e-tailers, including the assessment of reputation (Mansour, Kooli, &Utama, 2004) Affective trust is the online shoppers’ emotional base that increases theirpositive perception about the e-tailers’ trustworthiness (McCole, Ramsey, &
Williams,2010).Inthisstudy,cognitiveandaffectivetrustareconsideredtwoseparatecomponentsofon lineconsumers’ willingness tobedependent one-tailers.
Impulse buying, considered as a popular shopping motive (e.g., Akram et al., 2018),hasbeenreferredtoanunplannedbuyingbehavior.Specifically,itreferstothesituationthatconsumers makepurchasebecauseofanimmediate,powerfulandpersistenturgeinsteadofprepared purchasing plan
(Rook, 1987) Thus, impulse buying is a reactionary behaviorwhenconsumersconfrontwithvariousstimulus(externalandinternal).Further,itisconsidered as unreflective and sudden buying decision that is less relied on “a great deal ofevaluation” (Jones, Reynolds, Weun, & Beatty, 2003, p 506) Given the variations in thesedefinitions,impulsebuyingisconsistentlycharacterizedbyintensefeelingsdrivingshopperstobuyspont aneously.Therefore,impulsepurchasesaredominantlydrivenbyemotionslikepleasure feeling or excitement. This affect-based characteristic of impulse buying is widelyagreed by scholars (e.g., Vohs & Faber, 2007; Chan et al., 2017; Pornpitakpan, Yuan,
Although impulse buying is mainly affect-based, “cognitive deliberation plays a partin the impulse buyers’ decision” (Coley & Burgess, 2003, p 284) The cognitive process ofimpulse buying has been noted in the extant literature For instance, impulse buying doesinvolvelogicaldecision(Hawkins&Mothersbaugh,2010)andisnotfreefromindividual’sdeliberati onandcognitiveprocess(Rook&Fisher,1995;Shen&Khalifa,2012).Similarly,Xiao and Nicholson (2013) argue that impulse buying is the consequence of cognitivelyinformation processing Thus, impulse buying is also driven by shoppers’ cognition.
Thiscognitiveaspectofimpulsebuyingisbestrepresentedbytheconstructof cognitiveimpulsebuying that refers to the absence of deliberation, thinking, and planning (Verplanken &Herabadi,2001).
Theextantliteraturehasindicatedthatonlinechannelservesasanefficientenvironment for consumers to go shopping due to various functional benefits such asconvenience or time saving (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2000; Monsuwé, Dellaert & De Ruyter,2004; Kim & Eastin, 2011) As such, Overby and Lee (2006) indicate that utilitarian valueis more strongly related to preference towards a retailer and intentions to make a purchaseonline.Besides,consumersinherentlyrelyoncognitiveconsiderationtoanalyzetheproductinfo rmationbeforemakinganypurchase(Peter&Olson,2010).Assuch,availableinformation posted in retailing website results in online consumers’ cognitive judgments(Parboteeahetal.,2009)thatareimportanttoimpulsebuyingprocess(Weinberg&Gott wald, 1982) This argument is strongly evidenced by a recent literature review analysisof online impulse buying (Chan et al., 2017) By adopting the Stimulus – Organism –Response framework, the authors indicate that cognitive and affective reactions are twotypes of organism reflecting consumers’ internal evaluation under the impacts of stimulus.Whileemotionalresponsesafterbeingexposedtothetriggersareaffectivereactionssuchaspleas ure or enjoyment, cognitive reactions are identified as mentally assessments on theconstraints online consumers have to deal with to buy impulsively (Parboteeah et al., 2009;Chan et al., 2017) Cognitive product involvement, cognitive state, normative evaluations,perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are examples of cognitive reactions that canboth stimulateor deterimpulsive buying decision (Hoch & Loewenstein,1991). Chan et al (2017) also prove the influence of cognitive reactions on the emotionalresponse theoretically and empirically This relationship is underlined by the logic thatconsumers first analyze the information provided by the retailing website and then theiraffectiveappraisalsareformed(Parboteeahetal.,2009).Itisconsistentwiththefindingsofsomepr eviousresearch(Chih,Wu,&Li,2012;Verhagen&VanDolen,2011).Ontheother hand, by analyzing the impulse buying definitions of existing studies, Chan et al. (2017)figure out an approach in which the authors highlight the effects of cognitive reactions onimpulsebuying.Consequently,itcanbeinferredthat,tosomeextent,thedeliberateconsiderationsare associatedtoimpulsebuying, especially in onlineshoppingcontext.
Based on existing theoretical foundations, in the online shopping context, this studyconsidersimpulsebuyingastheoutcomeofbothcognitiveandaffectiveprocessesandtakesits’ two separate components, cognitive impulse buying and affective impulse buying, intoconsideration These two components of impulse buying are adopted in some studies
(e.g.,Coley&Burgess,2003;Sohn&Lee,2017).Forinstance,inthecontextofshoppingatduty- freeshop,SohnandLee(2017)findthatpositiveandnegativeemotionsoftouristssignificantlyinfluence their cognitive and affective impulsebuying.
Theliteratureonindividualdifferencessuggeststhatpersonalitytraitshelptodetermine a person’s cognitive, affective and behavioural style (Ul Islam et al., 2017).Amongpersonalitytraits,extraversiondeterminesanindividual’sinterestinsocialinterac tions(e.g.,Choietal.,2015;Costa&McCrae,1992).Extrovertsarecharacterizedassociable,talkative,a ctiveandenthusiastic.Intheshoppingcontext,extraversionisaprominentfactorpredictingconsume rs’shoppingattitudeandbehaviour(Chen&Lee,2008;Ul Islam et al., 2017) For instance, Chen and Lee (2008) show that extraversion is highlyrelevantinexplainingconsumers’hedonic- seekingbehaviour.Consumerswhoareextrovertspaymoreattentiontotheexcitementandstimul ationofshoppingactivity.Comparedtootherpersonalitytraits,extraversionhasthestrongestin fluenceonconsumer
Overallresearchmodel
This study adopted a duality approach to propose the associations among consumers’shopping value, trust, impulse buying and shopping well-being These associations wereinvestigated from both cognitive and affective process since they inherently co-exist andunderline consumers’ tendency (Kim & Eastin, 2011), attitude (Sparks & Browning,2011),orchoice(Pai&Arnott,2012).Specifically,bothutilitarianandhedonicvaluedetermi ned consumers’cognitiveandaffectivetrustthat,inturn,influencedtheircognitiveandaffectiveimpulsebuying.I naddition,thisstudyalsoconsideredshoppingwell-beingastheconsequence of the dual trust and dual impulse buying In addition, in the research model,extraversionandself- controlpersonalitytraitswerealsoincludedthatpotentiallymoderatedtherelationshipsamong shopping value, trust and impulse buying (Figure2.1).
In order to meet the research objectives, the overall research model are divided intoseveralstudies.Amongthem,thereweretwomainstudiesincludingthestudy1andstudy2investigatin g thetwo sub-models presented in figure2.2 below:
Figure 2.2: Researchmodels of study 1 and study 2
CHAPTER 3 – STUDY 1: SHOPPING VALUE, TRUST AND ONLINE SHOPPINGWELL-
Introduction
Subjectivewell-beinghasreceivedmuchattentionofconsumerresearchersinwhichstudying shoppers’ subjective well-being based on their shopping activities has recentlyemerged as an area of great interest (e.g. Ekici et al., 2018) Shopping is considered as a“necessary and an inevitable activity” of human life (Ekici et al., 2018, p 335) and itspositive contribution has been widely acknowledged such as pleasure and arousal (Liao etal., 2016) or satisfaction (Kesari & Atulkar, 2016) These positive consequences contributesignificantly to shoppers’ overall quality of life, which is best represented by the concept ofshoppingwell-being (Ekici et al., 2018).
Note that the duality approach considering two different mental systems – cognitionandaffect–hasbeenwidelyappliedinconsumerresearch(e.g.Chen&Lee,2008;Hofmannet al., 2009; Watson et al., 1988) This approach has been used to investigate positive andnegative affect (Watson et al., 1988), hedonic versus utilitarian shopping motivation (Babinet al., 1994), hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitudes (Voss et al., 2003)and impulse buying and self-control (Hofmann et al., 2009) The approach has also helpedtoexplainhowhedonicandutilitarianshoppingvaluesinfluenceonlineshoppingpreferen ces, attitudes, intentions, engagement or behaviour (Chen & Lee, 2008; Overby
&Lee,2006).Theliteraturehasindicatedthatshoppingactivitiesarebothworkandfun(Babinet al., 1994) or hedonic and utilitarian (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982) In other words,consumers are driven by both utilitarian and hedonic shopping values and, thus, shoppingdecisionsa r e m a d e b a s e d n o t o n l y o n r a t i o n a l d e l i b e r a t i o n s f o r m a x i m i z i n g c o s t - b e n e f i t efficiency or product utility, but also on emotional benefits like playfulness or pleasure.These cognitive and affective benefits of shopping significantly contribute to consumers’shopping well-being (El Hedhli et al., 2016) However, to the best of our knowledge, theduality approach has not been adopted to study shopping well-being as an outcome ofshoppingvalue, especially intheonlineshopping context.
The literature has indicated that online shopping is characterized by inherent risks(Ariffin et al., 2018; Kim & Koo, 2016), and lack of trust is one of the biggest barriers toonlinepurchasing(e.g.Beldadetal.,2010).Itisalsoproblematicthatthereisnouniversallyaccepteddefinit ionforonlinetrust,whichisconsideredtobemulti-facetedandincorporatesdifferent dimensions across different research disciplines (e.g Punyatoya, 2019) Further,almost all previous studies of trust in e-commerce have focused on how trust influencesonline attitudes, satisfaction, intention and behavioural loyalty indicators (Kim & Peterson,2017) This study contributes to the existing literature on online shopping by studying theimpacts of dualtrust (cognitive and affective)on onlineshopping well-being.
Aspreviouslynoted,onlineshoppingwell-beingmaybesignificantlydeterminedbyshopping values and trust However, studies on the associations between shopping valuesand trust have been inconclusive and require further evaluation (Beldad et al., 2010) In theextantliterature,trustismainlyconsideredasadeterminantofshoppingvalues(e.g.Chaietal.,2015),w hichhasledtoalackofstudiesexaminingthepredictingroleofshoppingvaluesfortrust.Existingresearchhasn otedthattreatingdifferentfacetsofvaluesasantecedentsoftrust is a possibility (see Kim & Peterson, 2017 for a recent review).Different theoreticalperspectives are also used in different research disciplines such as philosophy,psychology,management,ormarketingtostudyshoppingvaluesandtrust(Beldadetal.,2010;Punyat oya,2019).Forexample,Chiuetal.(2014)useamean-endchaintheoryandargue
34 that utilitarian and hedonic values are the final goals that trigger online intention andbehaviour.Otherstudies(e.g.Chen&Lee,2008;Al-Debeietal.,2015)useavalue–attitude– behaviour(VAB)frameworkpositingthatonlineshoppingvaluesflowthroughattitudesthatinfluence behaviour. Following this approach, this study argues that trust is a mediatorbetweenshopping valuesand onlineshopping well- being.
The predictive role of the Big Five personality traits has been strongly validated inconsumer research (e.g Choi et al., 2015; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Ul Islam et al., 2017).Besides,themoderatingroleofconsumers’personalitieshasbeeninvestigatedintheofflinepurcha sing context (e.g Menidjel, Benhabib, & Bilgihan, 2017) Unfortunately, to the bestof our knowledge, this role of consumer traits has seldom been examined in the onlineshopping context, especially on the association between online shopping values and trust.Note that among the Big Five personalities, extraversion is a significant factor explainingonline consumer beliefs toward hedonic value (e.g Chen & Lee, 2008) Furthermore,extraversion is the most important trait predicting consumer engagement in online brandcommunitiesand determines onlineshopping intention (Ul Islametal., 2017).
This study adopts the duality approach and focuses on the online shopping contextofanemergingeconomy–Vietnam–to:(1)examinethecognitiveandaffectiveassociationsbetween shopping values and trust; (2) investigate the influences of cognitive and affectivetrust on online shopping well-being; and
(3) explore the moderating role of extraversion onthedualrelationshipsbetweenshoppingvaluesandtrust.UsingStructuralEquationModelling(SEM), this study validates the dual associations between shopping values andtrustthat,inturn,positivelypredictonline shoppingwell-being.Theremainderofthepaperpresents the theoretical background, hypotheses, research method, data analysis, and resultsfollowedby discussions and implications.
BackgroundandLiteraturereview
3.2.1 Thepositiveconsequence ofonline shopping:Online shoppingwell-being
Subjectivewell-beinghasbeenstudiedacrossseveralresearchapproaches.Fromtheperspective of hedonism, subjective well-being reflects a situation in which an individualevaluates all aspects of his or her life positively in a cognitive and/or affective manner(Diener et al., 1985) Thus, subjective well-being is considered the individual’s satisfactionwithlifeandismeasuredbytheSatisfactionwith LifeScale(Dieneretal.,1985).However,Pavot and Diener (2008) argue that satisfaction with life solely represents the cognitiveaspect, while the affective aspect also contributes to subjective well-being. Specifically,these authors identify three main components of subjective well-being: life satisfaction, thepresence ofpositiveaffectormood and the absenceofnegativeaffectormood.
In a more specific approach to the individual’s shopping life, El Hedhli et al. (2013)discuss the construct of shopping well-being, which reflects the contribution of shopping toshoppers’ overall sense of well-being Recently, the contribution of shopping has beenclearlyclassifiedintopositiveandnegative(Ekicietal.,2018).Theauthorsdefineshoppingwell-being as the degree to which shopping contributes positively to consumers’ quality oflife,whereasshoppingill- beingreferstothenegativeeffectsofshoppingactivity.Althoughshoppingactivitymayresultinevenopp ositeoutcomes(e.g.Ekicietal.,2018),thepositiveconsequencesofshoppinghavebeenrepeatedlyechoedin theextantliterature.Forinstance,shopping contributes to pleasure and arousal (Liao et al., 2016), hedonic enjoyment (Babinet al.,
1994), satisfaction (Kesari & Atulkar, 2016) and flow (Bilgihan, 2016) Based on theapproach of Ekici et al (2018), this study considers online shopping well-being as thepositivecontribution of online shopping toonlineshoppers’ quality of life.
Existingshoppingwell- beingresearchhasdeterminedsomekeypredictors,includingexternalfactors(e.g.storelayoutorstoc k-outs),socialorculturalattitudes,values,personality or self-related factors (El Hedhli et al., 2013; Lee & Sirgy, 2004) Among thesefactors, shopping values serve as strong possible determinants of shopping well-being ElHedhlietal. (2016)providestrongevidencetosupportthesignificantinfluenceofshoppingvalues on shopping well-being in the mall shopping context Unfortunately, to the best ofour knowledge, this association has seldom been explored in the online shopping context.This study therefore examines online shopping well-being as the consequence of dualshopping values (utilitarian and hedonic) in theonlineshopping context.
&Wang,2016).Inotherwords,consumersgoshoppingforbothutilitarianand hedonic value Utilitarian value consists of the cognitive benefits characterized byconsumers’ conscious pursuit of an intended consequence, while hedonic value refers toaffective states (e.g fun, playfulness) that may result from making a purchase Hirschman& Holbrook (1982) indicate that, along with primary utilitarian benefits, consumers alsohave a demand for feeling, aesthetics, emotion and enjoyment. Voss et al (2003) classifyconsumer attitudes into utilitarian and hedonic dimensions, which reflect the functionsperformed by the product and the sensation of experiencing the product, respectively.
Thesignificanceofthesedualshoppingvalueshasbeenhighlightedinseveralrecentstudies(e.g.Giovanis& Athanasopoulou, 2017; Sarkar etal., 2018; Varshneyaetal., 2017).
The extant literature has shown that hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values,identifiedbythedualityapproach,areusedtoexplainbothoffline(Kesari&Atulkar,2016) and online (Chiu et al., 2014) shopping motivations and behaviour For example, Batra andAhtola (1991, p 159) argue that “consumers purchase goods and services and performconsumptionbehavioursfortwobasicreasons:
(1)consummatoryaffective(hedonic)gratification (from sensory attributes), and (2) instrumental, utilitarian reasons concernedwithexpectationsofconsequences”.Thus,intheonlineshoppingcontext,thisstudyconsiders utilitarian and hedonic shopping values as cognitive and affective benefits ofonline shopping.
Trust reflects an individual’s willingness to depend on the behaviours of the partnerin a relationship and is a multi-faceted attitude construct (e.g Beldad et al., 2010; Ha et al.,2016).Infact,researchershavewidelyagreedthattrusthastwodistinctiveforms:cognition-basedandaffect- basedtrust(McAllister,1995;Morrowetal.,2004);trustisadualconstructconsisting of a cognitive and an affective component (Ha et al., 2016) Applying thisapproach to shopping activity, the first component, cognitive trust, reflects consumers’confidencethatretailersare“honest,accurate,anddependable,andkeepspromises”( Dabholkar et al., 2009, p 149) In fact, trust is formed based on consumers’ rationalexpectations, whereas positive affect reflecting the emotional attachment between buyersand providers also builds trust (Punyatoya, 2019) The second component, affective trust,referstothepositivefeelingconsumershaveduringanexperiencewiththeretailers(Johnson&Grayson , 2005).
Int h e o n l i n e s h o p p i n g c o n t e x t , c o n s u m e r s i n h e r e n t l y f a c e r i s k s c a u s e d b y t h e uncertain behaviours of e-tailers and/or the uncertain environment (Kim & Koo, 2016) Forinstance,risksrelated topayment,product,information,timeandpsychologyimpactonline
Thedualperspectiveoftrust: Cognitiveandaffective trust
Moderator: Extraversion
Personalitytraitsdetermineaperson’scognitive,affectiveandbehaviouralstyles(UlIslametal.,201 7).AmongtheBigFivetraits,extraversionreferstoanindividual’sinterestsin social interactions (e.g Choi et al., 2015; Costa & McCrae, 1992), thus extroverts arecharacterised as sociable, talkative, active and enthusiastic In the online shopping context,extraversion is a prominent factor explaining consumers’ shopping values, attitudes andbehaviours (Chen & Lee, 2008; Ul Islam et al., 2017) For instance, extraverted consumersare more critical in searching for hedonic shopping values that, in turn, result in a positiveattitude toward online shopping (Chen & Lee, 2008).
Further, among personality traits,extraversionhasthestrongestinfluenceonconsumerengagementinanonlinebrandcommunit y, leading to more online purchase intention (Ul Islam et al., 2017) Thus, onlineconsumers’e x p e c t e d s h o p p i n g v a l u e s a n d a t t i t u d e s m a y v a r y d u e t o t h e i r e x t r a v e r s i o n
Consequently,extraversionispotentiallyasignificantfactormoderatingthecognitivean daffectiveassociationsbetween shoppingvaluesandtrustin theonline shoppingcontext.
ModelDevelopmentandResearchHypotheses
Drawinguponthedualityapproachintheonlineshoppingcontext,thisstudyexplores the dual associations between shopping values and trust Specifically, cognitivetrust in online retailers may be predicted mainly by utilitarian value, whereas hedonic valueprimarilyinfluencesconsumers’affectivetrust.Bothcognitiveandaffectivecomponentsoftrustare hypothesizedtopositivelyaffect online shoppingwell-being.Extraversionisproposed as a moderator of the dual associations between shopping values and trust. Theconceptualmodel presentedin Figure3.1 illustratesthese relationships.
The associations between online shopping values and trust have been underlined bythe VAB framework (Homer & Kahle, 1988), which argues for close connections betweenindividuals’valuesandattitudes.Theseauthorsassertthatthevaluespeoplepurs uedrive
40 how they perceive and, ultimately, behave in certain circumstances Adapting this logic totheonlineshoppingcontext,consumerattitudesaboute-tailerspotentiallydependonshopping values Both utilitarian and hedonic features of a retailing website can increaseonlineshoppers’trust(Bilgihan,2016).Similarly,theassociationsbetweenshoppingvaluesand trust have been supported by a recent meta-analysis (Kim & Peterson, 2017) in whichonline consumers’ trust in e-tailers can be significantly determined by different values (e.g.perceived quality or usefulness) Within the duality approach, it can therefore be proposedthatutilitarianvaluesenhanceonlineconsumers’cognitivetrust,whereashedonicvaluesarepositively associated with onlineconsumers’ affective trust.
Althoughthecognitiveandaffectivecomponentsofaconstructmayhighlycorrelatewitheachot her,they aredifferentinhowtheypredictorareinfluencedby otherfactorsandbehaviour (e.g Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994) This is because cognitive linkages arecognition-based, whereas affective associations are emotion- driven Even when includingboth the cognitive and affective component of a construct in a research model, researchersmay wish to consider them separately (Herbst, Gaertner, & Insko, 2003) In this study, thecross-over effects of shopping values and online consumer trust (i.e utilitarian value–affective trust, and hedonic value–cognitive trust) are proposed to be non-significant Theassociations between shopping values and trust, based on the duality approach, in onlineshopping aretherefore hypothesizedas follows:
H1 Utilitarian value positively affects cognitive trustH2.Hedonic valuepositivelyaffects affective trust
H3 The impact of utilitarian value on affective trust is non- significantH4 Theimpact ofhedonicvalue oncognitive trust isnon- significant
In online shopping, trust is a crucial factor that positively influences consumers’evaluationsoftheironlinepurchases(Kim&Peterson,2017).Onlineshopperswithahigherl eveloftrustperceiveonlineshoppingtobemorebeneficial(e.g.Kim,Xu,&Gupta,2012).Similarly,online shoppingisalsoconsideredpositiveintermsofbothcognitiveandaffectiveaspectsoftrust(Haetal.,201 0),andmoretrustisassociatedwithreducedriskandmore transaction intention (Kim & Koo, 2016) Furthermore, satisfaction and loyalty areprominent outcomes of online trust (Kim & Peterson, 2017), implying that once trust hasbeen successfully built, online shopping becomes more advantageous to online consumers.In other words, trust can cognitively and affectively leverage the extent to which onlineshopping positively determines consumers’ quality of life Therefore, adopting the dualityapproach, this study proposes that cognitive and affective trust significantly contribute toonlineshopping well-being.
H5 Cognitive trust positively affects online shopping well- beingH6.Affectivetrustpositivelyaffectsonlineshoppingwell-being
Extraversion determines the extent to which an individual is interested in socialinteractions and looks for excitement and stimulation (e.g Choi et al., 2015; Costa
&McCrae,1992).Althoughpreviousstudieshavelargelyadoptedextraversionasadeterminant( e.g.UlIslametal.,2017),itsmoderationontheassociationsbetweenshoppingvalues and trust attitude in the online shopping context is highly potential Extravertedconsumers are recreational shoppers who are more interested in hedonic values such asentertainmentorenjoyment(Chen&Lee,2008).Comparedtoothertraitsinthewell-knownBig Five, extraversion is the most influential factor determining consumer engagement inonline brand communities, which in turn determines online purchase intention (Ul Islam etal.,2017) F ur th er , e x t r a v e r s i o n is as ig ni fi ca n t emotion- related fa ct or (Watson &C la rk ,
1997) explaining online consumer attitudes toward hedonic value (e.g Chen & Lee,
2008).Beingemotion-driven,extravertedconsumers prefer tolookforhedonic value,whichpositively predicts affective trust Consequently, extraversion can leverage the extent towhichhedonicvalueaffectsconsumers’affectivetrustine-tailers.Inaddition,althoughrisksare inherent in the online shopping context (e.g Kim & Koo, 2016), extroverts are risk-takers (Nicholson et al., 2005) who are less concerned with such threats Thus, onlineshoppers who are extroverts are more willing to be cognitively dependent on e-tailers.Therefore, extraversion can also leverage the extent to which utilitarian value affects onlineconsumers’cognitivetrust.Basedonthesearguments,thisstudyproposesthatthecognitiveandaffect iveassociationsbetweenshoppingvaluesandtrustaremoderatedbyextraversion.Specifically,
Researchmethods
The Vietnamese e-commerce market has reached a high growth rate of over 25% in2017 that is estimated to remain high in following years (Vietnam E-business Index, 2018).In this context, the growth rate of business-to-consumer
(B2C) sales remarkably reached35% in 2017 Thus, online shopping has been widespread and become a popular shoppingchannel for Vietnamese consumers Based on the E-Business Index report, Ho Chi
MinhCity(HCMC)istheleaderamongallprovincesandcitiesofVietnamintermsoftheB2C componentindexin2017(VietnamE-businessIndex,2018).Thisindicatesthattheconsumersin HCMC arequite familiarwithonline purchasing.
A self-administered survey using convenience sampling was conducted in HCMC – Vietnam Specifically, a hard copy of the questionnaire was delivered to consumers. Ascreeningquestionwasincludedforselectingappropriaterespondents(i.e.,onlineconsumers had purchased at least once in three months) See Appendix 3A for the EnglishandAppendix3BfortheVietnameseversionofthequestionnaire.Atotalof950questionn airesweredistributedand872onlineconsumersresponded,resultinginaresponserate of 91.80% This preliminary data set was then refined and 224 questionnaires wereexcludedduetomissingmorethan10%ofvalues.Thefinaldataset,including648completed questionnaires, was used for further analysis This sample consisted of 65.70%females and 34.30% males Most of the participants were between 25 and 40 years of age,accounting for 51.10% of respondents, while 46.70% participants were 25 years old oryounger and 2.20% of participants were over 40 years of age (Appendix 3C) This surveydata were employed to validate the measures via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and totestthe model and hypotheses by SEM.
This study adopted existing validated measures that were unidimensional for allconstructs, including utilitarian value, hedonic value, cognitive trust, affective trust, onlineshopping well-being and extraversion Dual shopping values were measured by scalesborrowed from Voss et al (2003): five items for utilitarian value and six items for hedonicvalue.C o g n i t i v e a n d a f f e c t i v e t r u s t w e r e m e a s u r e d b y f i v e i t e m s e a c h , a d o p t e d f r o m
Dabholkar et al (2009) Online shopping well-being was measured by three items adoptedfromEkicietal.(2018).Extraversionwasmeasuredbyeightitems,basedonBenet-Martínezand John
(1998) See Appendix 3D for the measurement scales adopted A 7-point Likert-type scale (1, strongly disagree, and 7, strongly agree) was used for the items measuringcognitivetrust,affectivetrustandonlineshoppingwell-being.A7- pointsemanticdifferentialscalewasusedforitemsmeasuringutilitarianshoppingvalue,hedonicshop pingvalue and extraversion These items were randomly placed in the questionnaire The use ofdifferent scaling methods and random assignments sought to reduce the agreement biastendency.
DataAnalysis and Results
CFA was employed to validate the measures, and the results indicated that thesaturatedmodelyieldedanacceptablefittothedata:χ2(df79)i0.53,χ2/df=1.82(p 97) These results indicatethatevenifacommonmethodbiaswerepresent,itdidnotposeaseriousthreatinthisstudy.
Inthisstudy,extraversionwasproposedasamoderatortothecognitiveandaffectiveassociations between shopping values and trust A single-step estimation approach that wasconsidered more conceptually and operationally straightforward (Cortina, Chen, & Dunlap,2001) was therefore adopted Two interaction terms were first calculated by multiplyingmean-deviated values of the corresponding constructs (utilitarian value and hedonic valueby extraversion) to avoid multicollinearity (Cronbach, 1987) These interactions were thenincluded in the SEM model, and all variables were analysed simultaneously Maximumlikelihoodestimates forstructural paths are shownin Table3.3.
The SEM results indicate that the proposed model showed acceptable fit to the data:χ2(242)p3.21(p=.000),GFI=.92,CFI=.95,TLI=.94andRMSEA=.05.Theresults also suggest that all hypotheses were statistically significant, except for H5. Specifically,H1, proposing a positive relationship between utilitarian value and cognitive trust, wassupported (p < 001) The positive impact of hedonic value on affective trust was alsosignificant(p 26 and p > 20), reflecting no associations between utilitarian value andaffectivet r u s t o r b e t w e e n h e d o n i c v a l u e a n d c o g n i t i v e t r u s t T h e p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e o f
48 affectivetrustononlineshoppingwell-beingwasalsofound,supportingH6(p