Trust in online shopping - libproject.hkbu.edu.hklibproject.hkbu.edu.hk/trsimage/hp/02006510.pdfA Study of the Trust in On-line Shopping in Hong Kong: Differences between Scholars

A Study of the Trust in On-line Shopping in Hong Kong: Differences between Scholars and Students

By

Au Yau Leung, Rex 02006510

Information System Management Option

An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the School of Business in partial Fulfillment of the Graduation

Requirement for the Degree of Business Administration (Honours)

Hong Kong Baptist University Hong Kong

April 2005

Page0


Table of Contents

Acknowledgement----------------------------------------------------------------------------------i

Abstract----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ii

1. Introduction -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P11.1. Statement of the problem----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P1 1.2. Objectives of the Study------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2

2. Literature Review---------------------------------------------------------------------------P15

2.1. The concept of Trust----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P3 2.2. Trust in E-commerce Environment ----------------------------------------------------------------------P4 2.3. The Importance of Trust ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P5 2.4. Factors of trustworthiness----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P6 2.5. Other influencing factors----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P7 2.6. Outcome------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P10

3. Research Model------------------------------------------------------------------------------P11

3.1. Statement of Hypotheses-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P11 3.1.1. Factors of trustworthiness-----------------------------------------------------------------------P11 3.1.2. Other influencing factors-------------------------------------------------------------------------P12

4. Research Methodology---------------------------------------------------------------------P15

4.1. Questionnaire Design---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P15 4.2. Sampling and Data Collection---------------------------------------------------------------------------P16 4.3. Data Analysis Method--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P17

5. Analysis and Result-------------------------------------------------------------------------P19

5.1. Primary Data analysis and Descriptive Statistics------------------------------------------------------P19 5.2. Reliability Analysis----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P20 5.3. Regression Analyses----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P21

5.3.1. Direct Effects--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P22 5.3.2. Direct Effect on Purchase Intentions-----------------------------------------------------------P22 5.3.3. Direct Effect on Trustworthiness --------------------------------------------------------------P23 5.3.4. Indirect Effects------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P24

6. Discussions and Implications-------------------------------------------------------------P26

7. Conclusions-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P29

7.1. Conclusions-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P29 7.2. Recommendations-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P29

8. Limitations-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P30

9. References--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

10. Appendix A-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6

10.1. Questionnaire---Scholars Sample--------------------------------------------------------------------------6 10.2. Questionnaire---Students Sample--------------------------------------------------------------------------8

Page1


11. Appendix B-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1011.1. Reliability---Scholars----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 11.2. Reliability---Students----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16

12. Appendix C-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21

12.1. Regression---Scholars ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 12.2. Regression---Students----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25

13. Appendix D-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------29

Page2

A Study of On-line Shopping in Hong Kong: Differences between Scholars and Students

Acknowledgement I would like to take this opportunity to thank my honours project supervisor, Dr. CHOW,

Vincent W. S. for his valuable advice and guidance throughout the research process,

which has dramatically improved the quality of this project. I truly appreciate his

valuable suggestions and endless help.

I would also like to thank my friends and anonymous helpers for their support and

valuable assistance with the data collection. Lastly, I want to express my gratitude to the

respondents for filling out the questionnaire.

Pagei


Abstract

The objective of this project is to examine the importance of trust in on-line shopping.

This project determines the importance of the factors of trustworthiness to on-line

shopping intension; it also examines the contribution of influencing factors. Trust is an

important aspect for acceptance of people or things, whether in business world or not. In

this research, trust is especially needed in the case of gaining and later retaining

consumers of Internet vendors.

The proposed model is based on the study of relationship between trust model and the

influencing factors. The trust model was adopted from Mayer and Davis’s Trust Model

(1999) and the influencing factors were modified from the Web Trust Model proposed by

McKnight, Choudhury and Kacmar (2002)b. Mayer and Davis’s trust model was

represented by five variables: ability, and benevolence, integrity, and purchase intentions.

And, influencing factors which came from McKnight, Choudhury and Kacmar’s Web

Trust Model (2002)b was referred by three factors: Internet experience, perceived site

quality and the structural assurance.

In this study, the instruments are analyzed by reliability test while the proposed model is

verified by regression analysis. Analyses are based on the data of 174 respondents of the

on-line shopper users from Hong Kong Baptist University.

The findings reveal that the ability, benevolence and integrity of the Internet vendor have

strong and positive influences to consumers’ purchase intentions. The influencing factor

of perceived site quality and the structural assurance have significant effects to factors of

Pageii


trustworthiness, but Internet experience does not have a significant effect to factors of

trustworthiness.

In addition, this project also reveals that the on-line shopping behaviour is deviated

between students and scholars.

Keywords: Trust; factors of trustworthiness; trustee; trustor

Page iii


1. Introduction ________________________________________________

1.1. Statement of the problem

Roughly starting from 1990s, consumers have changed their shopping behaviours from

conventional method to electronic commerce (e-commerce) mode. This shifting

behaviour has many distinctive advantages. For instance, purchasing convenience (time

saving), diversity of searchable production, economy of consumption (cost saving) are

some of the attributes that associated with the electronic commerce (e-commerce)

revolution. In short, e-commerce can be characterized as transactions on the Internet

which are conducted between firms to individuals (business to customers/B2C) and firms

to firms (business to business/ B2B).

Business firms find it increasingly important to show themselves on the Internet to get

more customers, increase the public’s awareness of the company and its products and –

last but not least – to sell more of its products (Sonja, 2002).Internet can offer a new set

of tools that help strengthen loyalty through providing better service and enhancing

customer understanding (Reichheld, Markey & Hopton, 2000).

One important reason why online consumers are reluctant to shop online is because of the

fundamental lack of faith that currently exists between most businesses and consumers on

the Web. It is hard to help people to build up their trust in online shopping. It was also

researched in literature that Trust is not only a short-term issue but also the most

significant long-term barriers for realizing the potential of e-commerce to consumers

(Sonja, 2002).

Page 1


1.2. Objectives of the Study

Online-shopping is popular in the western countries, like the United States, Canada and

also the European countries. How about it in Hong Kong? According to the statistics that

announced by the Census and Statistics Department in January 2005, there is only about

8% of Hong Kong population, ranging age between 15 and 60, had online-shopping

experience in 2004.

The above figure shows that there is still not many Hong Kong residents have not tried

online-shopping. What are the reasons? In my point of view, at least one of them should

relate to the trust. In order to get a deep understanding to this scenario, the objective of

this project is to investigate the level of in trust online-shopping in Hong Kong.

There are a number of similar researches have been conducted in trust in on-line

shopping. David Gefen conducted two researches in 2002 and 2004. They are “Gefen, D.

(2002). Reflections on the Dimensions of Trust and Trustworthiness among Online

Consumers.” and “Gefen, D. & Straub, W. D. (2004). Consumer Trust in B2C e-

Commerce and the Importance of Social Presence: Experiments in e-Products and e-

Services.” In those researches, the samplings included MBA students in business school

in Mid-Atlantic region of the USA. The research results could show the situation in USA.

This project is to replicate it by examining if his researches can be evenly applied in

Hong Kong environment.

In particular, this project further limits the scope to compare the difference of trust in on-

line shopping between scholars and students in Hong Kong.

Page 2


2. Literature Review ________________________________________________ Relevant literature about trust are reviewed and presented as the follows: 2.1) the concept

of Trust; 2.2) trust in e-commerce environment; 2.3) the importance of trust, 2.4) factors

of trustworthiness, 2.5) other influencing factors and 2.6) outcome.

2.1. The concept of Trust

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, trust is defined as follows: (1) to rely on or

have conviction about the quality or attribute of a person or an object; (2) to accept or

approve of something without investigation or evidence;(3) an expectation about

something;(4) attribute of reliable value; honey, credibility, loyalty.

There are several ways of defining the concept of trust. The term “trust” is used the sense

of trusting belief (Hug & Han, 2003; Droege, Anderson & Bowler, 2003). Whitener

(1998) and his colleagues defined trust as a processing of three components. First, trust

reflects expectation or conviction about the counterpart’s anticipated action in good will.

Second, counterparts cannot force or control this conviction (in other words, they must

accept the risk of expectation being unfilled). Third, one’s performance depends on the

actions of the counterpart (thus, the principle of reciprocity) Also, some others viewed

trust as an attitude toward another person (i.e., trustee) or an object held by a person (i.e.,

trustor) (Yoon, 2002; Mayer & Davis, 1995). Trust exits in uncertain and risky

environment; it reflects an aspect of predictability (Bhattacharya, Devinney & Pillutla,

1998; Sheppard & Sherman, 1998). Trust is also defined as the willingness of a person to

be vulnerable to the actions of another person based on the expectation that the trustee

will perform a particular action which important to the trustor, irrespective to the ability

Page 3


to monitor or control that other party (Mayer & Davis, 1995; Mayer & Norman, 2004).

As reviewing some researchers’ points of view, Mayer’s idea is the most suitable one

because his definition is applicable to a relationship with another identifiable party who is

perceived to act and react with volition toward the trustor.

2.2. Trust in E-commerce Environment

We can say that trust is the foundation of commerce and it is critical in many economic

interactions, especially in an electronic environment (Gefen, Rose, Warkentin & Pavlou,

2005; Hoffman, Novak & Peralta, 1999). Without trust, transactions of business cannot

process well. This situation will be different in Electronic commerce (e-commerce). E-

commerce can be characterized as transactions on the Internet which are conducted

between individuals and firms through different forms of online-linking media such as

shopping mall web sites or portals (Yoon, 2002). And, e-commerce can only succeed if

the people trust the virtual environment. Trust, therefore, is a very important issue. It is

well known that lack of trust is one of the main reasons that consumers and companies do

not engage in e-commerce. Some researchers recognized trust as a key factor in e-

commerce adaptation (Gefen, 1997).

Trust in e-commerce has been conceptualized in a variety of ways, both theoretically and

operationally, and researchers have long acknowledged the confusion in the fields.

(McKnight & Chervany, 2002) Researchers view trust as (1) a set of specific beliefs

dealing primarily with the integrity, benevolence, and ability of another party (David,

2003; Gefen & Silver, 1999; Tan & Sutherland, 2004; McKnight & Chervany, 2002), (2)

a general relief that another party can be trusted (Gefen, 2000; McKnight, 1998) or the

Page 4


willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another, (3) affect reflected in

feelings of confidence and security in caring response of the other party (Yoon, 2002;

Suh & Han, 2003) or (4) a combination of these elements (Lee & Turban, 2001).

2.3. The Importance of Trust

The actions of e-consumers are often beyond managerial control, and many business

firms remain puzzled about why consumers do not buy things even under the most

tempting of circumstances. One likely reason is that people do not trust enough in the

service providers (Gefen & Straub, 2003).

Trust is named as a prerequisite of many business interactions (Gulati, 1995). It is

because of the way it reduces the uncertainty that is created by dependency on others. In

short, trust creates the social environment in which businesses can function well (Gefen

& Straub, 2003). Trust is very important in an online environment when all consumers

have to go by is a computer system embedded in the Web pages (Gefen, 2000l; Reichheld

& Schefter, 2000; Gefen & Straub, 2003; Gefen, Rose, Warkentin & Pavlou, 2005).

Trust was identified as a crucial component in e-Commerce or related literature (Lui,

Marchewka & Yu, 2004; Kwon & Suh, 2004; Chaudhuri, 2003). It was known that

consumers make Internet purchasing decisions on the basis of trust. It is undoubted to

say, trust plays a vital role in any commercial exchange involving monetary transactions

(Kim, Song, Braynov & Rao, 2005). Consumers might afraid to provide credit card

infmation to Intent vendor, simply because they lacked enough trust to engage in business

transactions (Salam, Lyer, Palvia, & Singh, 2005).

Page 5


Therefore, the importance of trust cannot be replaced, and without trust or a lack of trust

would burden the commercial transaction between parties.

2.4. Factors of trustworthiness

Trust was defined or considered repeatedly in different literatures. Although researchers

have their own definition of trust, factors that lead to trust are similar, and be summarized

in Table 1.

Table 1: Previous trustworthiness attributes

Authors Trustworthiness attributes

Caldwell & Clapham (2003) Ability, benevolence ,and integrity

Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Tan (2000) Ability, benevolence ,and integrity

Gefen & Straub (2004) Ability, benevolence, integrity ,and predictability

Garbarino & Lee (2003) Benevolence and competence

Hart & Saunders (1997) Caring , competence, openness, and reliability

Hug & Han (2003) Authentication, confidentiality, privacy protection and data integrity

Komiak (2004) Benevolence, creditability, competence, integrity, goodwill, and predictability

Lee & Turban (2001) Ability, benevolence ,and integrity

Mayer & Davis (1995) Ability, benevolence ,and integrity

Mayer and Davis (1999) Ability, benevolence ,and integrity

Mayer & Norman (2004) Ability, benevolence ,and integrity

McCole & Palmer (2002) Availability, competence, consistency, discreetness, integrity, loyalty, openness, promise fulfillment , and receptivity

McKnight & Chervany (2002) Benevolence, competence, integrity, and predictability

Maccoby (2003) Competence and integrity

Mukherjee & Nath (2003) Share value, communication, and opportunistic behaviour

Pavlou (2003) Goodwill trust (benevolence) and creditability(integrity, honesty, and reliability)

Tan and Theon (2001) Personal experience, understanding, and communality

Page 6


As summarizing the above attributes of trustworthiness it is observed that there are three

main characteristics of trustee appear often in the literature: ability, benevolence, and

integrity. As a set of those three characteristics appear to explain a great portion of trust.

Each of them contributes a unique perceptual perspective from which to consider the

trustee, while the set provides a solid foundation for the empirical study of the trust

(Mayer & Davis, 1995).

Ability

Ability is thought to have an important an effect on purchase intentions. The trust

attribute of ability is the assessment that trustors understand theirs job and that kind of

knowledge reduces the uncertainty that is involved the trusting party (Gefen & Straub,

2004). Since a lack of ability to perform the tasks properly should affect the trustee’s

expected outcome in the case of e-Commerce, therefore, ability should be a significant

predictor of purchase intentions.

Benevolence

Benevolence deals with the belief that the trustee cares about the trustor sincerely. Caring

as an aspect of emphatic good service generally increases customer satisfaction and

retention (Gefen, 2002). Also, benevolence reduces social uncertainty by allowing the

trustor to rule out undesirable behaviours, is called the possibility that the trustee will act

with a short-term profit motive while the trustor is behaving with a long-term orientation

(Gefen & Straub, 2004).

Page 7


Integrity

The definition of the integrity of the Internet vendor should be a belief convincing the

consumers that their expected results or outcomes from the interaction will be fulfilled.

So, integrity, be a significant dimension of trust (Gefen & Straub, 2004) usually, by

reducing social uncertainty involved and preventing promises are broken.

Moreover, a dishonest Internet vendor may make inappropriate use of credit card and

personal information and could track purchase activity without customers’ approval first.

The real situations of those threats can be observed in Websites that automatically track

e-Commerce shopping and then use the information generated inappropriately (Gefen &

Straub, 2004).

Integrity is the belief that the Internet vendor will act in an honest fashion and adhere to

an accepted set of principles and standards (Tan & Sutherland, 2004). And, integrity also

means that trustor believes that the trustee makes good faith agreement, tells the truth,

acts ethically, and fulfills promises (McKnight & Chervany, 2002a; Suh & Han, 2003).

One might think that if a lack of one of those three factors, it could not cause a decrement

in the level of trust in the other party. In fact, if lack of any one of them could cause a

decrease on the level of trust. For instance, trustee wanted to help the trustor but lack of

ability to do so. Trustee who had no benevolence to the trustee might forgo the

opportunities to help the trustor, instead to choosing the aid other parties. Also, a lack of

integrity could cause concerns about being vulnerable to the other party. In sum, if any of

these three factors of trustworthiness is lacking in a trustee, being vulnerable to trustee

raised greater concern for the trustor (Mayer & Norman, 2004).

Page 8


2.5. Other influencing factors

Factors of trustworthiness may rely on other influencing factors (Tan & Sutherland,

2004). And, as what I mentioned in the abstract, there were three influencing factors

which were adopted from the Web Trust Model proposed by McKnight, Choudhury and

Kacmar (2002)b.

Internet Experience

Internet experience is thought to have an impact on the factors of trustworthiness. If the

customer is less experienced with the Internet, not familiar with the Internet or does not

believe there are enough regulations protecting him or her in on-line shopping, his or her

trust assessment of the online vendor will also be affected (McKnight, Choudhury and

Kacmar, 2002)b.

Perceived Site Quality

If people think that the Web sites were not easy to navigate or Internet vendors do not

work technically, they are unlikely to hold a high level of trust in the Internet as a

shopping medium (Tan & Sutherland, 2004). But, if the general site quality is high

enough, such as easy to search the information, easy to navigate, and easy to contact the

Internet vendor, this will positively affect customers’ trust.

Structural Assurance

Structural assurance means that one believes that protective structures---guarantees,

contracts, regulations, promises, legal recourses, processes, or procedure (McKnight &

Chervany, 2002)b. If people feel assured that legal and technical structures protect them

from problems on the Internet, this will affect their trust to the Internet vendor (Tan &

Page 9


Sutherland, 2004). It was mentioned that secure technical infrastructure was necessary

although it was not sufficient for creating the trust to generate spontaneous electronic

transactions on the Internet (Salam, Lyer, Palvia & Singh, 2005).

2.6. Outcome

Purchase Intentions

The purchase intentions are the outcomes of the consumers online trust assessment,

which takes into account the levels of the factors of trust (Tan & Sutherland, 2004) and

other influencing factors. This attention is the willingness of the consumer to depend on

the Internet vendor (McKnight & Chervany, 2002)a.

Online purchase intention is the anticipated result of the overall intention to trust. This

behavior however is not the only result of the trust intentions; the factors like relative

price and speed of delivery should be taken into account (Tan & Sutherland, 2004).

For electronic transactions, shopping behavior depends on the consumer holding a trust

intention to the particular vendor; such as if the overall level of trust is not evident,

consumers will likely shop elsewhere with vendors they hold a greater degree of trust in.

Page 10


3. Research Model ________________________________________________ Base on a review of the literature, a conceptual model was designed to investigate the

trust in online shopping. The model includes three main parts, factors of trustworthiness,

the other influencing factors, and the purchase intentions.

Factors of TrustworthinessInternet Experience

3.1. Statement of Hypotheses

3.1.1. Factors of trustworthiness

Ability

According Mayer (1995), ability is that a group of skill, competence, and characteristic

that enables a party to have influence with some domain. The domain of the ability is

specific because the trustee may be competent in some areas, affording that person trust

on task related that area. Therefore, this project proposes that,

H1: The perceived Ability of the Internet Vendor will increase consumers’ intentions to purchase online from them.

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

Purchase Intentions

H4a

Outcomes



H4b

H4c

H5a

H5b

H5c

H6a H6b

H6c

H1

H2

H3

Figure 1 Model of Trust in Online Shopping

Page 11


Benevolence

Benevolence is the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor

(Mayer & Davis, 1995; Suh & Han, 2003). Benevolence suggests that the trust has some

specific attachments to the trustor. When looking at benevolence, the consumer (trustor)

makes a judgment on whether the vendor (trustee) is focused on making a fast profit or

has the customer’s best interests in mind (Tan & Sutherland, 2004). Benevolence is the

perception of a positive oriented of the trustee toward the trustor. In line of these points,

this project proposes,

H2: The perceived Benevolence of the Internet Vendor will increase consumers’ intentions to purchase online from them.

Integrity

The party’s past actions, creditable communications about the trustee from other parties,

belief that the trustee has a strong sense of justice, and the extent to which the party’s

actions are congruent with this or her words all affect the degree to which the party is

judged to have integrity (Mayer & Davis, 1995). Therefore, this project proposes,

H3: The perceived Integrity of the Internet Vendor will increase consumers’ intentions to purchase online from them.

3.1.2. Other influencing factors

Internet experience

Internet experience is being considered in the intension to trust. Internet experience, as

previous experiences carry a considerable weight when making judgments about a

situation. These experiences carry more significance than any assumptions an individual

Page 12


could make about the situation without experiencing it personally beforehand (McKnight,

Cummings & Chervany, 1998). If an individual is familiar with the Internet and has used

it on a regular basis, he or she likely to hold a higher level of trust in the medium than a

person who has never used the Internet before (Tan & Sutherland 2004). It is, therefore,

this project proposes that the Internet experience increases the level of factors of

trustworthiness and consequently, a lack of Internet experience decreases the level of

factors of trustworthiness.

H4a: Internet Experience will increase the level of the perceived ability of the Internet Vendor. H4b: Internet Experience will increase the level of the perceived benevolence of the Internet Vendor. H4c: Internet Experience will increase the level of the perceived integrity of the Internet Vendor. Perceived site quality

If consumers thought that it was easy to find the information they wanted and Internet

vendors clearly showed how consumers can communicate with them easily, customers

are likely to hold a high level of trust in the Internet as a shopping medium (McKnight,

Choudhury & Kacmar, 2002) b. It is therefore proposed that perceived site quality has an

impact on the level of the factors of trustworthiness. The proposed hypothesis is as

follows:

H5a: Perceived Site Quality will increase the level of the perceived ability of the Internet Vendor. H5b: Perceived Site Quality will increase the level of the perceived benevolence of the Internet Vendor. H5c: Perceived Site Quality will increase the level of the perceived integrity of the Internet Vendor.

Structural assurance

Usually, with a high level of structural assurance regarding the Internet, customers would

be more likely to believe in the goodness of Internet vendors and to rely on Internet

Page 13


vendors as the secure feeling structural assurance engenders. And, the structural

assurance will increase customers’ level of the factors of trustworthiness. Therefore, this

project proposes that,

H6a: Structural Assurance will increase the level of the perceived ability of the Internet Vendor H6b: Structural Assurance will increase the level of the perceived benevolence of the Internet Vendor. H6c: Structural Assurance will increase the level of the perceived integrity of the Internet Vendor.

Page 14


4. Research Methodology ________________________________________________ To examine the difference of trust in online shopping between scholars and students in

Hong Kong, a research questionnaire study was employed. The questionnaire design,

sampling and data collection, and data analysis method are described as follows.

4.1. Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire (see Appendix A) contained two main parts. Part A was used to collect

the demographic date. Part B covered the questions about factors of trustworthiness

(ability, benevolence, and integrity), other influencing factors (Internet experience,

perceived site quality, and structural assurance), and the outcome.

In Part B, questions 1 to 12 were used to measure the factors of trustworthiness, those

questions were adopted from David Gefen’s trust model (2002). Of these questions,

questions 1 to 4 were used to study the ability of the Internet vendor; questions 5 to 8

were used to measure the benevolence of the Internet vendor, and questions 9 to 12 were

used to study the integrity of the Internet vendor.

Questions 13 to 20 and 23 to 26 were used to measure the influencing factors that were

adopted from (McKnight, Choudhury & Kacmar, 2002). In these twelve questions,

questions 13 to 16 were used to study the perceived site quality while questions 17 to 20

were used to measure the structural assurance. And, the Internet experience was studied

in questions 23 to 26.

Lastly, questions 21 and 22 were used to measure the outcome and they were adopted

from David Gefen’s trust model (2002).

Page 15


All of the items in the questionnaire were on a Five-point Likert Scale (Mayer and Davis

1999) ranging from strongly disagree (1) through neutral (3) to strongly agree (5). The

questionnaire also collected some demographic data. All the items on the complete

questionnaire are shown in Appendix A.

4.2. Sampling and Data Collection

The data for this research was collected from Hong Kong Baptist University. The data of

this was collected from two different sampling groups for comparison. They are students

and scholars. The main reason for using students and scholars for this project is, they are

using Internet and willing to use new technology, such as on-line shopping.

Result analyses of this project were based on data collected from university students and

scholars. It is believed that the result findings of this project can be applied to reflect the

behavior of the general public in Hong Kong. As what mentioned in section 1.2-

Objectives of the Study, Similar researches were using university students as sampling

for verifying their researches. David Gefen conducted two similar researches in 2002 and

2004. Gefen (2002) used 239 students as sampling in dataset 1 pretest while Gefen

(2004) used 250 MBA students as sampling in the first experiment.

The data collected from the students were either based Web-page survey or paper-form

questionnaire. Data in student group was gathered for one and a half months which from

February 16 to March 16, 2005. For paper-form questionnaire, they were distributed by

me and my friends in persons in lecture rooms, canteens, and library on the Hong Kong

Baptist University campus. For Web-page survey, they were sent to the people either on

my ICQ contact list or email contact list.

Page 16


Six hundred and fifty paper questionnaires were sent to students, five hundred and eighty

seven were returned. Thirty-two samples were returned from the Web-page survey. That

meant in total the number was six hundred and nineteen. After inspecting the

questionnaires, the usable number was six hundred and seven. It is because there were

some missing data were found in twelve samples.

The data collected from the scholars were based on by using paper-form questionnaire. It

is important that respondents (scholars) were asked some questions that to ensure whether

they have online-shopping experience or not. Questionnaires were distributed to users

who have online-shopping experience only.

Seventy questionnaires were sent to scholars, the return number of the samples is sixty-

four. The response rate of scholars is 91.14%.

Therefore, the total sample size was 174. There were 110 from students and 64 from

scholars.

4.3. Data Analysis Method

After collected the data from the respondents, SPSS v.11.5 was used for data analysis

primary data analysis and descriptive statistics, reliability analysis and regression analysis

were applied in statistical analysis.

Primary data analysis and descriptive statistics display the sample sizes, frequencies and

percent variables. They are used for describing the demographic data. Section 5.1 will use

tables to explicitly express the primary data analysis and descriptive statistics

Page 17


Reliability analysis in section 5.2 will measures each of the items in those seven

constructs. The reliability analysis procedure calculates a number of commonly used

measures of scale and reliability also provides information about the relationships

between individual items in the scale. The acceptable reliabilities recommended as >=0.7

(Mayer & Davis, 1999; Lee & Turban, 2001)

Linear regression estimates the coefficients of the linear equation, involving one or more

independent variables, which best predict the value of the dependent variable. Examples

will be shown in section 5.3--Regression Analysis. For instance, when we measure the

direct effects of ability, benevolence and integrity on the purchase intensions, the

dependent variable would be purchase intentions and ability, benevolence and integrity

will be the independent variables.

Page 18


5. Analysis and Result

________________________________________________

5.1. Primary Data analysis and Descriptive Statistics

As mentioned in above, the questionnaire was administered to 619 (usable samples)

students and 64 scholars (usable samples).

Table 2: Usable samples

Scholars Students

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent User (Online

Shopping) 64 25.0 110 17.8

Non-user 192 75.0 509 82.2

Total 256 100.0 619 100.0 Table 3: The frequencies and percentages of the gender and faculties or schools of the users

Scholars Students

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Gender Male 43 67.2 63 57.3 Female 21 32.8 47 42.7 Total 64 100.0 110 100.0 Faculties or Schools Faculty of Arts 18 28.1 19 17.3 School of Business 12 18.8 29 26.4 School of Chinese Medicine 0 0 4 3.6

School of Communication 1 1.6 7 6.4

School of Continuing Education 4 6.3 8 7.3

Faculty of Science 12 18.8 23 20.9 Faculty of Social Science 17 26.6 17 15.5

Graduate School 0 0 3 2.7 Total 64 100.0 110 100.0

Table 2 shows that the percentages of the online-shopping users for scholars and students,

25% and 17% respectively. Both of them are much higher than the average percentage,

8% in Hong Kong.

Page 19


Table 3 shows the frequencies and percentages of the gender of the users and also the

faculties or schools they are working on. For the scholars, 67.2% of the users are male

while there are 57.3% of the students are male.

Besides, among 64 scholars, 28.1% of them are from Faculty of Arts. And, the largest

part of the students is from School of Business, it is 26.4%.

5.2. Reliability Analysis

SPSS 11.5 was used for the data analysis because it has distinct advantages and easier for

me to handle the data analysis.

Table 4: Construct Reliabilities

Reliabilities Scholars Students Construct Items

Alpha Alpha

Ability 4 0.8087 0.7462

Benevolence 4 0.7074 0.7181

Integrity 4 0.7188 0.7503

Internet Experience 4 0.3125* 0.5201*

Perceived Site Quality 4 0.7627 0.7711

Structural Assurance 4 0.7382 0.7813

Outcome--Purchase Intentions

2

0 .7022 0.7754

* Not accepted, since the acceptable reliabilities recommended as >=0.7 (Mayer & Davis 1999, Lee & Turban 2001). The results of reliability test were summarized in Table 4 and the SPSS results were

shown in Appendix B. The alpha values ranged from 0.3125 for the Internet experience

to 0.8087 for ability. According to opinions of Mayer and Davis (1999) and Lee and

Turban (2001), the acceptable reliabilities were recommended as equal or larger than 0.7.

Page 20


From the Table 4, we can see that most of the alpha values were greater than 0.7 except

one variable, the Internet experience was lower than 0.7. This situation happened in both

scholars’ samples and students’ samples.

5.3. Regression Analyses

Regression analysis was used the interrelationship among the variables. The path

coefficient and R square values are shown in Table 6 and the results are shown in Figure

2 and Figure 3 respectively. The SPSS statistical results are shown in Appendix C.

Factors of TrustworthinessInternet Experience

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

Purchase Intentions

Outcomes

* Significant at the 0.05 level **Significant at the 0.01 level *** Significant at the 0.001 Figure 2: Research Model Result for Scholars



0. 388 *** H3

0. 309 * H1

0. 194 H2

H4a

H4b

H4c

H5a

H5b

H5c

H6a H6b

H6c

0.181* H4a 0.020 H4b 0.214* H4c

0.536*** H5a 0.335*** H5b 0.152 H5c

0.305*** H6a 0.541*** H6b 0.502*** H6c

Factors of TrustworthinessInternet Experience Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

Purchase Intentions

Outcomes

* Significant at the 0.05 level **Significant at the 0.01 level *** Significant at the 0.001 Figure 3: Research Model Result for Students



0. 316 *** H3

0.074 H1

0. 253* H2

H4a

H4b

H4c

H5a

H5b

H5c

H6a H6b

H6c

0.036 H4a -0.022 H4b 0.114 H4c

0.336*** H5a 0.065 H5b 0.201* H5c

0.319*** H6a 0.469*** H6b 0.474*** H6c

Page 21


5.4. Direct Effects

The results of direct effect were obtained from regression analysis and presented in Table

5. The results are discussed as follows.

Table 5: Direct Effects Scholars Students

Dependent Independent Ability Benevolence Integrity Purchase

Intentions Ability Benevolence Integrity Purchase Intentions

Ability --- --- --- 0.309* --- --- --- 0.074 Benevolence --- --- --- 0.194 --- --- --- 0.253* Integrity --- --- --- 0.388*** --- --- --- 0.316*** Internet Experience

0.181* 0.020 0.214* --- 0.036 -0.022 0.114 ---


0.536*** 0.335*** 0.152 --- 0.336*** 0.065 0.201 ---


0.305*** 0.541*** 0.502*** --- 0.319*** 0.469*** 0.474*** ---

R2=0.619 R2=0.625 R2=0.500 R2=0.614 R2=0.294 R2=0.240 R2=0.369 R2=0.286

Direct Effect on Purchase Intentions

Table 5 reveals that the direct effects of ability (H1), benevolence (H2), and integrity (H3)

on outcome--purchase intentions. Also, it shows the direct effects of Internet experience

(H4a, H4b, and H4c), perceived site quality (H5a, H5b, and H5c), and structural

assurance (H6a, H6b, and H6c) on factors of trustworthiness.

With reference to Table 5 and look at the scholars’ samples, the results showed that

ability had a significant direct effect on purchase intentions at (Beta=0.309, p<0.05). Also,

it was shown that integrity had a very significant direct effect on purchase intentions at

(Beta=0.388, p<0.001). But, the results also revealed that benevolence did not have

significant direct effect on purchase intentions.

Page 22


For the students’ samples, the results showed that benevolence had a very significant

direct effect on purchase intentions at (Beta=0.253, p<0.05). Also, it was shown that

integrity had a very significant direct effect on purchase intentions at (Beta=0.316,

p<0.001). However, the results also revealed that ability did not have significant direct

effect on purchase intentions.

Therefore, in the research model for scholars, H1, H3 were accepted and H2 was rejected.

But, there were some differences in the research model for scholars. H2 and H3 were

accepted while H1 was rejected.

Effects on Factors of Trustworthiness

Look at the side of scholars’ samples, the results presented that Internet experience had

direct effects on the three factors of trustworthiness. Internet experience had a significant

direct effect on ability at (Beta=0.181, p<0.05), and on integrity at (Beta=0.214, p<0.05).

But, Internet experience did not have a significant effect on benevolence.

Perceived site quality had very significant direct effects on ability at (Beta=0.536,

p<0.001), and on benevolence at (Beta=0.335, p<0.001). But, it did not have a significant

effect on integrity.

Structural assurance had very significant direct effects on ability, benevolence, and

integrity at (Beta=0.305, p<0.001), at (Beta=0.541, p<0.001), and at (Beta=0.502,

p<0.001) respectively.

Therefore, in the research model for scholars, H4a, H4c, H5a, H5b, H6a, H6b and H6c

were accepted and H4b, H5c was rejected.

Page 23


Page 24

For the students’ samples, the results pointed out that Internet experience did not have

significant direct effects on ability, benevolence, and integrity.

For the perceived site quality, it had significant direct effects on ability at (Beta=0.336,

p<0.001) and integrity at (Beta =0.201, p<0.05). But, it did not have a significant effect

on benevolence.

Lastly, the structural assurance had very significant direct effects on ability, benevolence,

and integrity at (Beta=0.319, p<0.001), at (Beta=0.469, p<0.001), and at (Beta=0.474,

p<0.001) respectively.

It was observed that H5a, H5c, H6a, H6b, and H6c were accepted while H4a, H4b, H4c,

and H5b were rejected. Therefore, we can see some differences between scholars and

students. For instance, there are differences in effects that the Internet experience had

influenced the three factors of trustworthiness.

5.4.1. Indirect Effects on Purchase Intentions

Table 6 explicates the results of indirect effects of Internet experience, perceived site

quality, and structural assurance on purchase intentions.

Table 6: Indirect Effects Scholars Students

Dependent Independent Purchase Intentions Purchase Intentions Internet Experience Ability (H4a H1) 0.181* 0.309=0.056 #

Internet Experience Benevolence (H4b H2) # #

Internet Experience Integrity (H4c H3) 0.214* 0.388=0.083 #

Perceived Site Quality Ability (H5a H1) 0.536* 0.309=0.166 #

Perceived Site Quality Benevolence (H5b H2) # #

Perceived Site Quality Integrity (H5c H3) # 0.201* 0.316=0.064

Structural Assurance Ability (H6a H1) 0.305* 0.309=0.094 #

Structural Assurance Benevolence (H6b H2) # 0.469* 0.253=0.119

Structural Assurance Integrity (H6c H3) 0.502* 0.388=0.185 0.474* 0.316=0.150

# Not applicable because the direct effect is not significant


Refer to Table 6, for the scholars samples, Internet experience had an indirect effect on

purchase intentions through ability and integrity at (Beta=0.056) and (Beta=0.083)

respectively. The perceived site quality had an indirect effect on purchase intentions

through ability at (Beta=0.166). The structural assurance had an indirect influence on

purchase intentions through ability and integrity at (Beta=0.094) and (Beta=0.185)

respectively.

For the indirect effects of students samples, the perceived site quality had an indirect

effect on purchase intentions through integrity at (Beta=0.064), and the structural

assurance had an indirect influence on purchase intentions through benevolence and

integrity at (Beta=0.119) and (Beta=0.150) respectively. However, Internet experience

did not have significant indirect effect on purchase intentions via ability, benevolence and

integrity.

Page 25


6. Discussions and Implications

________________________________________________

As what was mentioned before the objective of this project is to examine the importance

factors of trustworthiness, level of trust and intension to purchase. And, from the

regression analysis, the constructs were validated. As coding from the results that listed

in analysis and result section, most of the constructs are validated and are significant. In

this section, it is going to discuss how the ability, benevolence and integrity of the

Internet vendor will increase consumers’ intentions to purchase online from them. And

also discuss how Internet experience, perceived site quality, and structural assurance

affect the level of factors of trustworthiness directly and influence consumers’ intentions

to purchase indirectly. The discussion can be separated into two main parts, (1) the

effects of ability, benevolence and integrity on purchase intentions, and (2) the effects of

Internet experience, perceived site quality, and structural assurance on factors of

trustworthiness.

6.1. The effects of ability, benevolence and integrity on customers’ trust and

purchase intentions

The ability, benevolence and integrity of the Internet vendor (trustee) had significant

direct effects on consumers’ (trustors’) trust and purchase intentions. The results matched

the previous researches (Mayer, 1995; Mayer, 1999).

But, it was shown that there were some differences between scholars and students.

Scholars thought that the benevolence of the Internet vendor might not have an important

effect on their trust and purchase intentions. Students thought that the ability of the

Internet vendor might not have a great effect on their trust and purchase intentions. These

differences might happen due to variation in their expectations.

Page 26


There was a noticeable thing; both scholars and students thought that the integrity of the

Internet vendor had a significant influence on their trust and purchase intentions. That

situation happened because of the effect of Chinese cultural. For Chinese people,

integrity of a person was very important (Child & Möllering, 2003). When people tried to

make friends with someone, integrity that person would be considered firstly. Likewise,

when Chinese people decided whether they shop on-line or not, they would think about

the integrity of the Internet vendor in advance.

6.2. The effects of Internet experience, perceived site quality, and structural

assurance on factors of trustworthiness

The Internet experiences of the customers, the perceived site quality, and the structural

assurance generally had strong influences on customers’ trust directly and the purchase

intentions indirectly. Those results showed the consistence with the ideas of some

previous researches (McKnight, 2002 a; McKnight, 2002 b; Tan & Sutherland, 2004).

In general, Internet experience was the variable that had relatively low influences on the

level factors of trustworthiness directly and the purchase intentions indirectly. Reference

to Appendix D, it was observed that the means of Internet experiences from scholars and

students are the lowest among the variables; they were 2.1094 and 2.2227 respectively.

However, there were still some differences between scholars and students. To a certain

extend, scholars thought that their Internet experiences have a relatively important effect

on their factors of trustworthiness directly and the purchase intentions indirectly while

students thought that their Internet experiences do not have a significant effect on their

factors of trustworthiness and the purchase intentions.

Page 27


These differences might happen due to variation in the nature of their Internet activities.

For the scholars, Internet activities they did on the Internet had a quite strong relationship

with the on-line shopping. And, the more time they spent on those Internet activities, the

easier they could build up the trust of the Internet vendor.

For the students, their Internet activities did not show a strong relationship with their trust

in Internet vendor and on-line shopping behaviours. This situation showed that level of

trust was built up between students and the Internet vendor cannot be reflected by the

students’ Internet activities.

There was another scenario; both scholars and students thought that the perceived site

quality and the structural assurance of the site could have strong influence on their factors

of trustworthiness and purchase intentions. That implied Hong Kong people would look

at the quality and structure of the site very much. If Internet vendor provided high quality

and structural assurance for the site, it would be easier to lead customers trust them and

make on-line purchase.

Page 28


7. Conclusions ________________________________________________

7.1. Conclusions

The main objective of this research is to investigate consumer’s trust in online-shopping

in Hong Kong. The proposed research model clearly showed factors that contribute to

trust, purchase intentions, and other influencing variables must be measured so that the

model could be fully measured.

The results showed that among the three main factors that contribute to trust, integrity is

the most important one while the other two factors vary with different respondents. Some

people might think that benevolence is important while other people might prefer the

ability.

Besides, perceived site quality and structural assurance had a great indirect influence on

customers’ purchase intentions. But, for the influence of Internet experience, it depends

on what kind of people. Those three influencing factors cannot be neglected in e-

commerce.

This study provides a quantified measure on the important role of trust in on-line

shopping. No matter in where, what culture, and at what time, trust is still playing an

important role for commerce, especially in e-commerce.

7.2. Recommendations

Trust is crucial in e-commerce, a finding known from previous researches. The current

studies have focus on consumers who have previously transacted with the Internet

vendor. Therefore, there is a great potential for that the scope of similar studies can be

expended to gain a more complete picture of trust.

Page 29


For future researches, researchers would also examine trust and trustworthiness as they

related to the information technology or apply to other industries or aspects.

8. Limitations ________________________________________________ This research has some limitations. They are including the model limitation, the

limitation of the samples size and time, and the research’s insignificance of representing

the Hong Kong general population.

First of all, it is something about the model limitation. Some influencing variables are

missing in the research model. But, those of them might have a certain influencing

power.

The study investigated consumers who were working undergraduate or as scholars in

Hong Kong Baptist University. To some extend that these consumers are typical online

consumers, the results will hold across a more general population.

The sample size of either the scholars’ group or students’ group is not large enough. It is

true that 174 samples even cannot reflect the situation in Hong Kong Baptist University;

therefore, it is suspected that it can reflect the real situation of the general public in Hong

Kong.

Page 30

References

1. Bhattacharya, R.; Devinney, T.M. & Pillutla, M.M. (1998). A Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcome. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review. Vol.23, No.3, pp.459-472.

2. Caldwell, C. & Clapham, S. E. (2003). Organizational Trustworthiness: An

International Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 47. No.4. pp. 349-364. 3. Castelfranchi, C. & Tan, Y. H. (2002). The Role of Trust and Deception in Virtual

Societies. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Vol.6. No.3, pp.55-70.

4. Chaudhuri, A; Khan, S; Lakshmiratan, A, Py, A.L. & Shah, L. (2003). Trust and Trustworthiness in a Sequential Bargaining Game. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Vol. 16, No.5, pp.331-340.

5. Child, J. & Möllering, G. (2003). Contextual Confidence and Active Trust

Development in the Chinese Business Environment. Organization Science. Vol.14, No.1, pp.69-80.

6. Davis, J.H.; F.D. Schoorman; Mayer, R. C. and Tan, H. H. (2000). The Trusted

General Manager and Business Unit Performance: Empirical Evidence of a Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal. Vol.21, No.5, pp.563-576.

7. Droege, S.B.; Anderson, J. R. & Bowler, M. (2003). Trust and Organizational

Information Flow. Journal of Business and Management. Vol.9, No.1, pp.45-59.

8. Garbarino, E. & Lee, O. F. (2003). Dynamic in Pricing in Internet Retail: Effects on Consumer Trust. Psychology & Marketing. Vol.20, No.6, pp.495-513.

9. Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: the Role of Familiarity and Trust. OMEGA. Vol. 28,

No.6, pp.725-737.

10. Gefen, D. (2002). Customer Loyalty in e-Commerce. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. Vol.3, pp. 27-51.

11. Gefen, D. (2002). Reflections on the Dimensions of Trust and Trustworthiness

Among Online Consumers. Database for Advances in Information Systems. Vol.33, No.3, ABI/INFORM Global pp.38-52.

12. Gefen, D. & Straub, D. (2003). Managing User Trust in B2C e-Services. E-Service

Journal. Vol.2, No.2, ABI/INFORM Global pp.7-24.

13. Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E. & Straub, W. D. (2003). Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Quarterly. Vol. 27, No.1, pp.51-90.

Page2

14. Gefen, D. & Straub, W. D. (2004). Consumer Trust in B2C e-Commerce and the Importance of Social Presence: Experiments in e-Products and e-Services. OMEGA. Vol.32, pp.407-424.

15. Gefen, D.; Rose, G. M.; Warkentin, M. & Pavlou, P. A. (2005). Cultural Diversity

and Trust in IT Adoption: A Comparison of Potential e-Voters in the USA and South Africa. Journal of Global Information Management. Vol.13, No.1, pp.54-78.

16. Gulati, R. (1995). Does Family Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for

Contractual Choice in Alliances. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.85-112.

17. Hart, P. & Saunders, C. (1997). Power and Trust: Critical Factors in the Adoption

and Use of Electronic Data Interchange. Organization Science. Vol.8, No. 1, pp.23- 42.

18. Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T. P. & Peralta, M. (1997). Building Consume Trust Online.

Association for Computer Machinery. Communication of the ACM. Vol.42, No.4, pp.80-85.

19. Kim, D. J.; Song, Y. I.; Braynov, S.B. & Rao, H. R. (2005). A Multidimensional

Trust Formation Model in B-to-C e-Commerce: A Concept Framework and Content Analyses of Academia / Practitioner Perspectives. Decision Support System. Vol. 40, pp 143-165.

20. Komiak, S.X. (2004). Understanding Customer Trust in Agent –Mediated

Electronic Commerce, Web-Mediated Electronic Commerce, and Traditional Commerce. Information Technology and Management.Vol.5, No.1-2, pp. 181-207.

21. Kwon, I.W.G. & Suh, T. (2004). Factors Affecting the Level of Trust and

Commitment in Supply chain Relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management. Vol. 40, No.2, pp.4-14.

22. Lee, K.O. M. & Turban, E. (2001). A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.75-91.

23. Liu, C.; Marchewka, J.T.; Lu, J. & Yu, C. S. (2004). Beyond concern: A Privacy-Trust-Behavioral Intention Model of Electronic Commerce. Information & Management. Vol.42, pp.127-142.

24. Maccoby, M. (2003). To Build Trust, Ethics Are Not Enough. Research Technology

Management. Vol. 46, No.5, pp.59-60.

25. Mayer, R. C.; Davis, H. J. & Schoorman, D. F. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review. Vol.20, No. 3, pp.709-734.

Page3

26. Mayer, R. C. (1998). Trust, an Asset in Any Field. Baloy Business Review. Fall

1998, Vol.16. No.2, ABI/INFORM Global pp.8-9.

27. Mayer, R. C. & Davis, H. J. (1999). The Effect of the Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A Field Quasi-Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 84, No.1, pp. 123-136.

28. Mayer, R. C. and Norman, P. M. (2004). Exploring Attributes of Trustworthiness:

A Classroom Exercise. Journal of Management Education. Vol.28, No.2, pp.224-249.

29. McCole, P. & Palmer, A. (2002). Transaction Frequency and Trust in Internet

Buying Behaviour. Irish Marketing Review. Vol.15, No. 2, ABI/INFORM Global, pp.35-50.

30. McKnight, D.; Cummings, L. & Chervany, N. (1998). Initial trust Formation in

New Organization Relationships. Academy of Management Review. Vol.23, No. 3, pp.473-490.

31. McKnight, D. & Chervany, N. (2002)a. What Trust Means in E-Commerce

Customer Relationship: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Vol.6, No.2, pp.35-59.

32. McKnight, H. D, Choudhury, V. & Kacmar, C. (2002)b. Developing and Validating

Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology. Information Systems Research. Sep 2002, Vol.13, No.3, pp. 334.

33. Mukherjee, A. & Nath, P. (2003). A Model of Trust in Online Relationship Banking.

The International Journal of Banking Marketing. Vol.21, No.1, pp. 5-15.

34. Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Spring 2003, Vol. 7, No.3, pp. 101-134.

35. Reichheld, F. F. & Schefter, F. (2000). E-loyalty: Your secret weapon on the Web.

Harvard Business Review. Jul/Aug 2000. Vol. 78, Iss. 4, pp. 105-113.

36. Reichheld, F.F.; Markey, R.G. & Hopton, C. (2000). E-customers Loyalty- Applying the Traditional Rules of Business for Online Success. European Business Journal. Vol.12, No.4, pp. 173-179.

37. Salam, A. F.; Lyer, L.; Palvia, P. & Singh, R. (2005). Trust in E-Commerce.

Communication of the ACM. Vol.48, No.2, pp.73-77.

38. Sheppard, B.H. & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The Grammars of Trust: A Model and

Page4

General Implications. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review. Vol.23, No.3, pp.422-437.

39. Sonja, G. K. (2002). The Role of Consumers’ Trust in Online-Shopping. Journal of

Business Ethics. Vol.39, No.1/ 2, pp.43-50.

40. Suh, B. & Han, I. (2003). The Impact of Customer Trust and Perception of Security Control on the acceptance of Electronic Commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.135-161.

41. Tan, F. B. & Sutherland, P. (2004). Online Consumer Trust: A Multi-Dimensional

Model. Journal of Electronic in Organizations. Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 40-58.

42. Tan, Y. H. & Theon, W. (2001). Toward a Generic Model of Trust for Electronic Commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Winter 2001, Vol.5, No.2, pp.61-74.

43. Yoon, S. J. (2002). The Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in Online –

Purchase Decision. Journal of Interactive Marketing. Vol. 16, No.2, pp.47-63.

Page5

Page6

Appendix A

Questionnaire---Scholars Sample

UThe difference of trust in online shopping between scholars and students in Hong Kong Baptist UniversityU

I am a Year 3 student from Hong Kong Baptist University. I am now conducting a research survey relates to on how people trust online shopping. Information collected here will be used for academic purpose only. Please kindly take a few minutes to finish the following questions. Thank you very much. Part A 1. Gender □ Male □ Female 2. Teaching □ Part-time □ Full time 3. How long have you taught in Hong Kong Baptist University? □ 0-1 Year □ 1-3 Years □ 3-5 Years □ 5-7 Years □ 7 + Years 4. Faculties or schools □ Faculty of Arts □ School of Chinese Medicine □ School of Continuing Education □ Faculty of Social Science

□ School of Business □ School of Communication □ Faculty of Science □ Graduate School

5. How long have you used the Internet? □ 0-1 Year □ 1-2 Years □ 2-3 Years □ 3-4 Years □ 4 + Years 6. How often do you use Online Shopping? (per month) □ 0-1 Time □ 1-2 Times □ 2-3 Times □ 3-4 Times □ 4 + Times Part B Please kindly evaluate the following questions according to your online shopping experience. Please circle the appropriate number on the right-hand side of the statement. Five point Likert Scale used in the instrument 1---Strongly Disagree 2---Disagree 3---Neutral 4---Agree 5---Strongly Agree

1. Online merchants are competent. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Online merchants understand the market they work in. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Online merchants know about their business. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Online merchants know how to provide excellent service. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I expect that online merchants have good intentions toward me. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I expect that online merchants’ intentions are benevolent. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I expect that online merchants put customers' interests before their own. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I expect that online merchants are well-intentioned. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Promises made by online merchants are likely to be reliable. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I do not doubt the honesty of the online merchants. 1 2 3 4 5

Page7

11. I do not doubt online merchants will keep promises they make. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I expect that the advice given by online merchants is their best judgment. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Online merchants worked very well technically. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Those sites were easy to navigate. 1 2 3 4 5 15. On those sites, it was easy to find the information I wanted. 1 2 3 4 5 16 Those sites clearly showed how I can contact or communication with them. 1 2 3 4 5 17. The Internet has enough safeguards to make me feel comfortable it to transact

personal business. 1 2 3 4 5

18. I feel assured that legal and technological structures adequately protect me from problems on the Internet.

1 2 3 4 5

19. I feel confident that encryption and other technological advances on the Internet make it safe for me to do business there.

1 2 3 4 5

20. In general, the Internet is now a robust and safe environment in which to transact business.

1 2 3 4 5

21. I would use my credit card to purchase from the online merchants. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I am very likely to buy goods from online merchants. 1 2 3 4 5 . On average, how much time per week do you spend on each of the following Internet activities. 1---0-60 mins 2---1-2 hours 3---2-4 hours 4----4-8 hours 5---8 or + hours 23. …reading newspaper on the Internet? 1 2 3 4 5 24. …reading and /or posting messages on the Internet? 1 2 3 4 5 25. …accessing information on the Internet about products and services you may

buy? 1 2 3 4 5

26. …shopping on the Internet? 1 2 3 4 5

That's the end of the questionnaire. Thank you for your kind attention.

Page8

Questionnaire---Students Sample

UThe difference of trust in online shopping between scholars and students in Hong Kong Baptist UniversityU

I am a Year 3 student from Hong Kong Baptist University. I am now conducting a research survey relates to on how people trust online shopping. Information collected here will be used for academic purpose only. Please kindly take a few minutes to finish the following questions. Thank you very much. Part A 1. Gender □ Male □ Female 2. Age □ 18 or below □ 19-22 □ 23-25 □ 26 or + 3. Year of Study □ Year 1 □ Year 2 □ Year 3 □ Year 4 or + 4. Faculties or schools □ Faculty of Arts □ School of Chinese Medicine □ School of Continuing Education □ Faculty of Social Science

□ School of Business □ School of Communication □ Faculty of Science □ Graduate School

5. How long have you used the Internet? □ 0-1 Year □ 1-2 Years □ 2-3 Years □ 3-4 Years □ 4 + Years 6. Do you have any experience in Online Shopping? □ Yes □ No ( End, thank you very much.) 7. How often do you use Online Shopping? (per month) □ 0-1 Time □ 1-2 Times □ 2-3 Times □ 3-4 Times □ 4 + Times Part B Please kindly evaluate the following questions according to your online shopping experience. Please circle the appropriate number on the right-hand side of the statement. Five point Likert Scale used in the instrument 1---Strongly Disagree 2---Disagree 3---Neutral 4---Agree 5---Strongly Agree

1. Online merchants are competent. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Online merchants understand the market they work in. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Online merchants know about their business. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Online merchants know how to provide excellent service. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I expect that online merchants have good intentions toward me. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I expect that online merchants’ intentions are benevolent. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I expect that online merchants put customers' interests before their own. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I expect that online merchants are well-intentioned. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Promises made by online merchants are likely to be reliable. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I do not doubt the honesty of the online merchants. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I do not doubt online merchants will keep promises they make. 1 2 3 4 5

Page9

12. I expect that the advice given by online merchants is their best judgment. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Online merchants worked very well technically. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Those sites were easy to navigate. 1 2 3 4 5 15. On those sites, it was easy to find the information I wanted. 1 2 3 4 5 16 Those sites clearly showed how I can contact or communication with them. 1 2 3 4 5 17. The Internet has enough safeguards to make me feel comfortable it to transact

personal business. 1 2 3 4 5

18. I feel assured that legal and technological structures adequately protect me from problems on the Internet.

1 2 3 4 5

19. I feel confident that encryption and other technological advances on the Internet make it safe for me to do business there.

1 2 3 4 5

20. In general, the Internet is now a robust and safe environment in which to transact business.

1 2 3 4 5

21. I would use my credit card to purchase from the online merchants. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I am very likely to buy goods from online merchants. 1 2 3 4 5 . On average, how much time per week do you spend on each of the following Internet activities. 1---0-60 mins 2---1-2 hours 3---2-4 hours 4----4-8 hours 5---8 or + hours 23. …reading newspaper on the Internet? 1 2 3 4 5 24. …reading and /or posting messages on the Internet? 1 2 3 4 5 25. …accessing information on the Internet about products and services you may

buy? 1 2 3 4 5

26. …shopping on the Internet? 1 2 3 4 5

That's the end of the questionnaire. Thank you for your kind attention.

Appendix B

Reliability---Scholars R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. ABI_01 2. ABI_02 3. ABI_03 4. ABI_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. ABI_01 3.6406 .5737 64.0 2. ABI_02 3.9375 .6872 64.0 3. ABI_03 3.7656 .8115 64.0 4. ABI_04 3.1563 .6719 64.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 14.5000 4.8571 2.2039 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted ABI_01 10.8594 3.2021 .6458 .7589 ABI_02 10.5625 2.8532 .6598 .7435 ABI_03 10.7344 2.7378 .5440 .8137 ABI_04 11.3438 2.8323 .6958 .7269 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .8087 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. BEN_01 2. BEN_02 3. BEN_03 4. BEN_04

Page10

Mean Std Dev Cases 1. BEN_01 3.1719 .6313 64.0 2. BEN_02 3.5469 .5615 64.0 3. BEN_03 2.7344 .5115 64.0 4. BEN_04 3.3750 .5195 64.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 12.8281 2.6525 1.6287 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted BEN_01 9.6563 1.4673 .5144 .6344 BEN_02 9.2813 1.6657 .4634 .6624 BEN_03 10.0938 1.7054 .5131 .6348 BEN_04 9.4531 1.7121 .4933 .6454 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .7074

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. INT_01 2. INT_02 3. INT_03 4. INT_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. INT_01 3.4063 .5833 64.0 2. INT_02 2.8750 .5195 64.0 3. INT_03 3.0156 .4540 64.0 4. INT_04 2.7188 .5765 64.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 12.0156 2.4918 1.5785 4

Page11

Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted INT_01 8.6094 1.4164 .5294 .6440 INT_02 9.1406 1.4244 .6433 .5746 INT_03 9.0000 1.8413 .3607 .7322 INT_04 9.2969 1.4501 .5109 .6557 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .7188 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. PSQ_01 2. PSQ_02 3. PSQ_03 4. PSQ_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. PSQ_01 3.7500 .6901 64.0 2. PSQ_02 4.2344 .6105 64.0 3. PSQ_03 4.1719 .6560 64.0 4. PSQ_04 3.9063 .6354 64.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 16.0625 3.9325 1.9831 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted PSQ_01 12.3125 2.1230 .6630 .6473 PSQ_02 11.8281 2.4621 .5729 .7017 PSQ_03 11.8906 2.5751 .4404 .7703 PSQ_04 12.1563 2.3879 .5809 .6964

Page12

Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .7627 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. SA_01 2. SA_02 3. SA_03 4. SA_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. SA_01 3.3125 .5599 64.0 2. SA_02 3.3594 .6266 64.0 3. SA_03 3.1875 .7099 64.0 4. SA_04 3.4219 .6122 64.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 13.2813 3.3482 1.8298 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted SA_01 9.9688 2.1577 .5331 .6162 SA_02 9.9219 2.1684 .4266 .6753 SA_03 10.0938 1.8641 .5056 .6303 SA_04 9.8594 2.0910 .4984 .6320 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .7022

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

Page13

1. OUT_01 2. OUT_02 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. OUT_01 3.5000 .5909 64.0 2. OUT_02 3.6563 .5968 64.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 7.1563 1.1181 1.0574 2 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted OUT_01 3.6563 .3562 .5851 . OUT_02 3.5000 .3492 .5851 . Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 2 Alpha = .7382 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. INEXP_01 2. INEXP_02 3. INEXP_03 4. INEXP_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. INEXP_01 2.5313 .7760 64.0 2. INEXP_02 1.8594 .9573 64.0 3. INEXP_03 2.5313 1.1679 64.0 4. INEXP_04 1.5156 .6665 64.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 8.4375 4.3452 2.0845 4 Item-total Statistics

Page14

Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted INEXP_01 5.9063 3.4514 .1012 .3158 INEXP_02 6.5781 3.2001 .0668 .3701 INEXP_03 5.9063 1.8958 .3374 -.0530 INEXP_04 6.9219 3.4700 .1736 .2539 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .3125

Page15

Reliability---Students

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. ABI_01 2. ABI_02 3. ABI_03 4. ABI_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. ABI_01 3.2818 .7185 110.0 2. ABI_02 3.4091 .7205 110.0 3. ABI_03 3.5636 .7959 110.0 4. ABI_04 3.1545 .7063 110.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 13.4091 4.9229 2.2188 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted ABI_01 10.1273 3.1029 .5151 .7016 ABI_02 10.0000 2.9541 .5852 .6629 ABI_03 9.8455 2.6640 .6256 .6361 ABI_04 10.2545 3.2924 .4415 .7397 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 110.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .7462 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. BEN_01 2. BEN_02 3. BEN_03 4. BEN_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. BEN_01 3.1000 .7776 110.0 2. BEN_02 3.1455 .6885 110.0 3. BEN_03 3.0273 .8179 110.0 4. BEN_04 3.3091 .7005 110.0

Page16

N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 12.5818 4.8510 2.2025 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted BEN_01 9.4818 2.8575 .5284 .6424 BEN_02 9.4364 3.2757 .4419 .6921 BEN_03 9.5545 2.7080 .5476 .6307 BEN_04 9.2727 3.0992 .5113 .6542 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 110.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .7181 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. INT_01 2. INT_02 3. INT_03 4. INT_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. INT_01 3.1727 .8335 110.0 2. INT_02 2.9364 .7814 110.0 3. INT_03 3.0455 .7589 110.0 4. INT_04 2.9818 .8012 110.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 12.1364 5.7702 2.4021 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted INT_01 8.9636 3.4115 .5405 .6961 INT_02 9.2000 3.4275 .5987 .6631 INT_03 9.0909 3.4779 .6064 .6602

Page17

INT_04 9.1545 3.7465 .4455 .7468 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 110.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .7503 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. PSQ_01 2. PSQ_02 3. PSQ_03 4. PSQ_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. PSQ_01 3.3455 .8614 110.0 2. PSQ_02 3.7364 .7861 110.0 3. PSQ_03 3.6636 .9412 110.0 4. PSQ_04 3.6182 .8457 110.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 14.3636 7.0225 2.6500 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted PSQ_01 11.0182 4.4400 .5070 .7503 PSQ_02 10.6273 4.3460 .6281 .6913 PSQ_03 10.7000 3.9000 .6017 .7019 PSQ_04 10.7455 4.3199 .5653 .7202 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 110.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .7711 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. SA_01 2. SA_02 3. SA_03

Page18

4. SA_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. SA_01 3.0091 .7956 110.0 2. SA_02 3.0364 .8119 110.0 3. SA_03 3.1545 .8035 110.0 4. SA_04 3.1636 .8298 110.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 12.3636 6.3436 2.5187 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted SA_01 9.3545 3.9741 .5475 .7476 SA_02 9.3273 3.7084 .6319 .7043 SA_03 9.2091 3.8366 .5913 .7256 SA_04 9.2000 3.7945 .5755 .7340 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 110.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .7813 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. OUT_01 2. OUT_02 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. OUT_01 3.2636 .9255 110.0 2. OUT_02 3.0636 .8270 110.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 6.3273 2.5158 1.5861 2 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item

Page19

Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted OUT_01 3.0636 .6840 .6371 . OUT_02 3.2636 .8565 .6371 . Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 110.0 N of Items = 2 Alpha = .7754 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) 1. INEXP_01 2. INEXP_02 3. INEXP_03 4. INEXP_04 Mean Std Dev Cases 1. INEXP_01 2.3364 1.3360 110.0 2. INEXP_02 2.5727 1.2883 110.0 3. INEXP_03 2.5000 1.2544 110.0 4. INEXP_04 1.4818 .7983 110.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables SCALE 8.8909 9.2724 3.0451 4 Item-total Statistics Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted INEXP_01 6.5545 5.4603 .3247 .4367 INEXP_02 6.3182 7.0630 .0803 .6514 INEXP_03 6.3909 4.6990 .5517 .1970 INEXP_04 7.4091 6.9779 .3929 .4213 Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 110.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .5201

Page20

Appendix C

Regression---Scholars Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Model Variables Entered

Variables Removed Method

1 MEAN_INT, MEAN_BEN

, MEAN_ABI(

a)

. Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: MEAN_OUT Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .784(a) .614 .595 .33656a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INT, MEAN_BEN, MEAN_ABI ANOVA(b)

Model Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 10.813 3 3.604 31.819 .000(a)

Residual 6.797 60 .113

1

Total 17.609 63 a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INT, MEAN_BEN, MEAN_ABI b Dependent Variable: MEAN_OUT Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) .135 .376 .359 .721 MEAN_ABI .296 .126 .309 2.357 .022

MEAN_BEN .252 .152 .194 1.657 .103

1

MEAN_INT .519 .146 .388 3.558 .001

a Dependent Variable: MEAN_OUT

Page21

Variables Entered/Removed(b)



1 MEAN_INE, MEAN_PS

Q, MEAN_SA(

a)

. Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: MEAN_ABI Model Summary



1 .831(a) .691 .675 .31407a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INE, MEAN_PSQ, MEAN_SA ANOVA(b)

Model Sum of


Residual 5.918 60 .099

1

Total 19.125 63 a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INE, MEAN_PSQ, MEAN_SA b Dependent Variable: MEAN_ABI Coefficients(a)



Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) -.392 .350 -1.120 .267 MEAN_PSQ .596 .098 .536 6.083 .000

MEAN_SA .367 .109 .305 3.359 .001

1

MEAN_INE .191 .081 .181 2.357 .022

a Dependent Variable: MEAN_ABI

Page22




1 MEAN_INE, MEAN_PS

Q, MEAN_SA(

a)

. Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: MEAN_INT Model Summary




Model Sum of


Residual 4.908 60 .082

1

Total 9.812 63 a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INE, MEAN_PSQ, MEAN_SA b Dependent Variable: MEAN_INT Coefficients(a)



Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) .739 .319 2.319 .024 MEAN_PSQ .121 .089 .152 1.355 .181

MEAN_SA .433 .100 .502 4.345 .000

1

MEAN_INE .162 .074 .214 2.198 .032

a Dependent Variable: MEAN_INT

Page23




1 MEAN_INE, MEAN_PS

Q, MEAN_SA(

a)

. Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: MEAN_BEN Model Summary




Model Sum of


Residual 3.918 60 .065

1

Total 10.444 63 a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INE, MEAN_PSQ, MEAN_SA b Dependent Variable: MEAN_BEN Coefficients(a)




MEAN_SA .481 .089 .541 5.408 .000

1

MEAN_INE .016 .066 .020 .238 .812

a Dependent Variable: MEAN_BEN

Page24

Regression---Students Variables Entered/Removed(b)



1 MEAN_INT, MEAN_ABI, MEAN_BEN

(a)

. Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: MEAN_OUT Model Summary



1 .535(a) .286 .266 .67936a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INT, MEAN_ABI, MEAN_BEN ANOVA(b)

Model Sum of


Residual 48.922 106 .462

1

Total 68.555 109 a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INT, MEAN_ABI, MEAN_BEN b Dependent Variable: MEAN_OUT Coefficients(a)



Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) .395 .466 .846 .399 MEAN_ABI .106 .138 .074 .769 .443

MEAN_BEN .364 .154 .253 2.364 .020

1

MEAN_INT .418 .127 .316 3.299 .001

a Dependent Variable: MEAN_OUT

Page25

Model Summary




Model Sum of


Residual 23.668 106 .223

1

Total 33.537 109 a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INE, MEAN_PSQ, MEAN_SA b Dependent Variable: MEAN_ABI Coefficients(a)



Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 1.417 .301 4.711 .000 MEAN_PSQ .281 .073 .336 3.876 .000

MEAN_SA .281 .078 .319 3.618 .000

1

MEAN_INE .026 .061 .036 .430 .668

a Dependent Variable: MEAN_ABI

Page26




1 MEAN_INE, MEAN_PS

Q, MEAN_SA(

a)

. Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: MEAN_BEN Model Summary




Model Sum of


Residual 25.114 106 .237

1

Total 33.048 109 a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INE, MEAN_PSQ, MEAN_SA b Dependent Variable: MEAN_BEN Coefficients(a)



Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 1.719 .310 5.549 .000 MEAN_PSQ .054 .075 .065 .723 .471

MEAN_SA .410 .080 .469 5.132 .000

1

MEAN_INE -.016 .063 -.022 -.255 .800

a Dependent Variable: MEAN_BEN

Page27




1 MEAN_INE, MEAN_PS

Q, MEAN_SA(

a)

. Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: MEAN_INT Model Summary




Model Sum of


Residual 24.789 106 .234

1

Total 39.310 109 a Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INE, MEAN_PSQ, MEAN_SA b Dependent Variable: MEAN_INT Coefficients(a)




MEAN_SA .452 .079 .474 5.694 .000

1

MEAN_INE .090 .062 .114 1.440 .153

a Dependent Variable: MEAN_INT

Page28

Appendix D

Descriptive Statistics---Scholars

Descriptive Statistics---Students

Page29

Documents

Trust in online shopping - libproject.hkbu.edu.hklibproject.hkbu.edu.hk/trsimage/hp/02006510.pdfA Study of the Trust in On-line Shopping in Hong Kong: Differences between Scholars