Ej 989212

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3
INTERNET SHOPPING BEHAVIOR OF COLLEGE OF EDUCATION STUDENTS

Dr. Mübin KIYICI
Sakarya University
College of Education
Computer Education and Instructional Technology Department
mkiyici@sakarya.edu.tr
ABSTRACT
Internet is an important facilitator for human and human use this medium almost every phase. As a shopping
medium, internet attract human so attract researcher. Younger people can adapt newer technologies so they can
adapt internet as shopping tool. In this research it is tried to define college of education students’ online shopping
behavior and online shopping activities. Research results show that male students teacher are more familiar and
have more positive attitude than female student teacher. Teacher students, who have more monthly income and
have more internet self efficacy have positive attitude and intension to shop online. Participants who have credit
card, have more familiarity and less anxiety concerning internet shopping.
INTRODUCTION
Internet has become an important tool, which usage has increased and beside usage its importance has also
increased. Humans’ everyday life has influenced by information and communication technologies (ICT)
considerably (Farag, Krizek & Dijst, 2006). People use more ICT’s in their daily lives. The use more cell phone,
more computer and also use more Internet. Generally ICT, especially Internet simplifies information related
work (Forsythe, Liu, Shannon & Gardner, 2006). In early days of information age, number of web sites and
information on web sites are limited and static. Sometimes web site content had not been updated yearlong.
Increasing web usage an new internet technologies lead to en user can update web content and lead to increase
web usage. Recently internet has spread quickly and has become crucial tool all over the world (Farag,
Schwanrn, Dijst & Faber, 2007). In western countries and also in other countries people started to use Internet
via desktop computer. After invention of mobile devices accessing to Internet expanded. In the last decade,
Internet has influenced communication, entertainment and shopping experience (Miyazaki & Fernandez, 2001).
The number of applications is increased an easiness of these applications is also increased. By the way not only
experiences users but also inexperienced users can use most of the applications. Internet and internet user have
expanded internet limits and this widening has affected especially industrial sectors (Chung & Lee, 2003).
Knowledge is the most important factor in today’s life but especially in industry. Internet give opportunities to
people share their idea and improvement about their works easily so one who search specific knowledge, can
easily find over internet. User have developed many applications one of the important application is developed is
online shopping (Teo, 2006).
As a shopping media, Internet attracts people and researchers (Teo, 2006). Growing number of Internet shopping
and internet shoppers attract the researcher concerns day by day more researcher do more research concerning
internet shopping process. People, who have Internet experiences, can search and find information quickly and
most of the people do not have time to go shopping and they try to purchase their needs over internet and for
these people variety and quickness of internet shopping are valuable characteristics of internet shopping
(Järveläinen, 2007). Over recent years, U.S. shoppers has shifted from the traditional shopping to internet
shopping and they do more internet shopping over internet (Seock & Norton, 2008). Internet shopping
companies provide some options, which local companies never give. In this manner people prefer internet
shopping. Internet shopping options have changed consumers information search and shopping habits and offer
new occasion concerning shopping (Lokken, Cross, Halbert, Lindsey, Derby & Stanford, 2003). While people
use internet shopping companies to buy something, significant part of the people use these sites to read other
people comments and experience concerning products. And they decide which product is more suitable for them.
Although new occasions, risks and drawbacks concerning internet shopping has taken their place in consumer
minds (Toa, Liaob & Linc, 2007). Especially in electronic product people can pre-order what they want and get
their product before the product goes to retail store. Internet shopping changed shopping trends and shopping
without going a retail store from home or work has become popular (McKinney, 2004). People do not need to
travel store by store, they can get product from home. So they do not tired to find the product and they do not
need to deal with dealer. Internet shopping activities began to increase rapidly in the beginning of 90s (Guo-xin,
2009). Almost every store have interne shopping options. For example when one does not find the desired
product in retail store, he/she can order online and products come his/her address or to retail store and he/she can
pick product up. Besides internet shopping, shoppers search more often over internet (Soopramanien &
Robertson, 2007). Because of knowledge variety and more comments written by other consumers, people choose
to search internet shopping sites. On the other hand, people can ask question to other consumers and get retail
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

202
answer not the advertisement. Internet shopping characterizes new features and new opportunities such as
information sharing and writing comments to products and services (Swinyard & Smith, 2003). Vendors and
suppliers give more importance to constitute a web site and promote themselves over internet, through this way
they can improve companies recognition and they try to reach more consumer (Grabner-Kraeuter, 2002). Some
consumers searching information concerning the company for example they can give payment options how their
technical services are, how they provide consumer/technical service, etc.. For companies, representing
themselves over internet is easy because whenever company would like, they can add some new information to
internet site. Internet shopping usually means that consumer purchase products over internet and wire more
electronically, besides that consumer can search information concerning products and can read other consumer
comments over internet shopping sites (Shih, 2004). The differences between traditional and internet shopping
processes are: retailers and consumers use more technology in shopping and money transaction processes and
both sides can easily gather desired data (Naiyi & Yinchen, 2007). These differences should take into account, if
company want people trust them, they should serve accurate and valuable experiences to their consumers.
Internet shopping frequently observed as whole shopping process occur over web site as different procedures
(Dixon & Marston, 2002). Usually whole processes are done over web sites customer pay price over web site
and companies send the product to customer address. Whole process is easy for customer and is done without
going to outside from home by customer. After arrival and improvement of internet shopping, retailers has tried
to change the way they do business and they have been forced to change doing business (Teo, 2002). Internet
and world wide web has changed and are changing the customers behavior (Sin & Tse, 2002). Before internet
shopping age, customer had to travel store by store and spend their time to travel between stores. Sometimes
they could not find the products they were searching or they could not get necessary information concerning
product. By means of web sites consumers do not need to travel store by store and they can read plenty of
information, which are provided by other customers. Communication feature of web sites has played critical role
in shopping process (Kim, Williams & Lee, 2004). Internet has offered extraordinary chances to retailers,
through these chances stores try to expand their limits and they reach the consumers, which they could not reach
without internet (Kiang, Gilsdorf & Chi, 2004). Internet can remove almost all of the time and distance barriers.
With the help of internet, companies can reach out of their boundaries. In this era retailers should understand
what consumers would like and they should follow their competitors (Chen, Huang, Huang & Sung, 2009).
Competitiveness of internet shopping forces the companies improve customer experiences and reduce financial,
time and other risks.
Explanation and prediction of internet shoppers’ behavior is a hard process but maximizing advantages and
minimizing threats can motivate shoppers to shop online (Forsythe, Liu, Shannon & Gardner, 2006). In internet
shopping process, customer computer and internet experiences, customer internet shopping experience and web
site offerings are important factors. Privacy and security of online shopping and perceived risks are important
barriers in front of internet shopping and retailers should develop some precautions handle these drawbacks
(Miyazaki & Fernandez, 2001). Security and privacy of online shopping attracts researcher attentions
(Järveläinen, 2007).Web sites most important role is to ensure customers concerning their financial data and
private data. Most of the sites try different ways to protect customer data. They try to improve their security
precautions and payment methods. If consumer trust the internet shopping web sites their intention to purchase
would increase. The issue of payment security affects not only new Internet shoppers but also existing Internet
shoppers (Kwon & Lee, 2003). Some existing Internet shoppers avoid to shop online because of payment
security issue. And they can influence the people around them. While end users use internet regular basis,
because of security and privacy issues they abstain from internet shopping (Lian & Lin, 2008). Honfeng,
Chunjing & Jie (2008) state the factors, which are main barriers in front of internet shopping:
¾ Usefullnes and ease of use of online shopping

¾ Perceived risk of online shopping
¾ Functional service and after service of the web site
¾ Reputation related to online shopping
PURPOSE AND METHOD

This study seeks to define college of education students’ online shopping behavior and online shopping
activities. The research questions that guided the study are:
1. Is there any differences in online shopping behavior and online shopping activities
a. by gender
b. by internet connection place
c. by monthly personal income

203
d. by credit card ownership
Study data were collected by questionnaire and questionnaire consists of two main sections. First section of
questionnaire contains eight question related personal demographic data. Demographic questions are gender,
age, internet connection place how long have participant connected to internet, how frequently does participant
connect internet, connection time to internet, monthly personal income and credit card ownership.
Second section of questionnaire contains 15 sub scale and 64 questions. First four subscale named as online
shopping familiarity, online shopping anxiety, trust toward online shopping and these sub scale were adopted
form Yao & Li(xxxxx). Seven sub scale were named as shopping convenience, product selection, ease/comfort
of shopping, hedonic / enjoyment, financial risk, product risk, time / convenience risk and these seven sub scale
were adopted from Forsythe, Liu, Shannon & Gardner (2006). And last four sub scale were names as attitude,
intensions, personal innovativeness, perceived consequences and adopted form Limayem, Khalifa & Frini
(2000).
After questionnaire had formed, questionnaire administered in a College of Education in public Turkish
University. Questionnaire administered face to face, and researcher visited all classes and explained aim of the
study and questionnaire. Students were asked to participate research voluntarily. Finally 354 questionnaire were
given to students and 338 questionnaire returned from the participants. After checking questionnaire 33
questionnaire were eliminated and finally research carried with 305 questionnaires.
FINDINGS
Table 1 Research participant’s demographic data
Frequency Percent
Female 167 54,8
Gender
Male 138 45,2
18 3 1,0
19 44 14,4
20 103 33,8
Age
21 86 28,2
22 36 11,8
23 and above 33 10,8
Home 199 65,2
School 7 2,3
Internet connection
Work 2 ,7
place
Internet Cafe 71 23,3
Other 26 8,5
Less than 1 Year 13 4,3
1 - 2 Years 39 12,8
How long have you
2 - 3 Years 57 18,7
connected to internet
3 - 4 Years 58 19,0
More than 4Years 138 45,2
More than two times in a month 12 3,9
One time in a week 13 4,3
How frequently
Two times in a week 63 20,7
connect internet
One time in a day 79 25,9
More than a time in a day 138 45,2
30 min – 1 hour in a week 31 10,2
1 hour – 3 hours in a week 54 17,8
Connection time to 3 hours – 5 hours in a week 39 12,8
internet 5 hours – 10 hours in a week 56 18,3
11 hours – 20 hours in a week 56 18,3
More than 20 hours in a week 69 22,6
66 – 133 $ 54 17,7
Personal income in a 134 – 200 $ 88 28,9
month 201 – 266 $ 86 28,2
266 $ and above 77 25,2
Yes 114 37,4
Credit card ownership
No 191 62,6

204
Research participants’ demographic data can be seen in table 1. While Male participants were 167 (%54,8),
female participants 138 (%45,2). Research participants age vary between 18 and 22 and this range is similar to
Turkey’s university students age range. Research participants generally connect to internet where they reside.
%23,3 or participants connect to internet form internet café. Internet café is the popular internet connection
places and they provide computer and internet connection with small amount of money. When research
participant economical status considered, using internet cafés provide many options to participants. When
participants internet connection length examined, %45,2 of participants have connected to internet more than
four years and just %4.3 participants have connected to internet less than one year. Based on this finding it can
be said that participants are experienced internet user.
Another demographic data is internet connection frequency of participants. When participants internet
connection frequency examined, %45,2 of the participants connect to internet more than one time in a day and
%71,1 of participants connect to internet at least one time in a day. And just %3.9 of participants connect to
internet more than two times in a month. Another finding concerning internet connection is internet connection
time in a week. %59,2 of research participants connect internet more than five hours in a week. Another finding
is research participants personal income, in Turkey university students’ personal income constitute of fund sent
by family, scholarship by governmental and private foundation and salary. However most of the Turkish students
do not work and do not get salary so Turkish students’ personal income generally consist of family funding and
scholarship. %17,7 of the participants have personal income in a month 66 – 133$, %28,9 have 134 – 200$,
%28,2 have 201 – 266$ and %25,2 have 266$ or more income in a month. Last finding concerning demographic
data is credit card ownership, while %62,6 of the participants do not have credit card, just %37,4 of the
participants have credit card.
Table 2 T-test results concerning sub scales score by participants gender

Std. Sig. (2-
N Mean Deviation t df tailed)
Online shopping Female 167 2,54 1,13
-3,53 303 ,000
familiarity Male 138 3,02 1,23
Female 167 3,12 0,86
Shopping Convenience -1,98 303 ,049
Male 138 3,32 0,93
Female 167 3,49 0,65
Financial Risk 2,62 303 ,009
Male 138 3,30 0,63
Female 167 3,41 0,72
Time / convenience risk 2,31 303 ,022
Male 138 3,20 0,82
Female 167 2,75 0,92
Attitude -3,72 303 ,000
Male 138 3,16 1,02
Female 167 2,82 1,03
Intensions -3,82 303 ,000
Male 138 3,29 1,08
Perceieved Female 167 3,34 0,70
-3,10 303 ,002
Consequences Male 138 3,59 0,68
Research participants sub scale score compared by their gender and results were given in table 2. Scale has 15
sub scale but while reporting the findings just subscale which has shown significant difference were reported.
According to the results there was a significant difference in online shopping familiarity subscale score, male
participants have more sub scale score (M=3.02, SD=1.23) than female participants (M=2.54, SD= 1.13); t(303)=-
3.53,p=0.000. According to the results there was a significant difference in shopping convenience subscale
score, male participants have more sub scale score (M=3.32, SD=0.93) than female participants (M=3.12, SD=
0.86); t(303)=-1.98,p=0.049. According to the results there was a significant difference in financial risk subscale
score, female participants have more sub scale score (M=3.49, SD=0.65) than male participants (M=3.30, SD=
0.63); t(303)=2.62,p=0.009. According to the results there was a significant difference in time / convenience risk
subscale score, female participants have more sub scale score (M=3.41, SD=0.72) than male participants
(M=3.20, SD= 0.83); t(303)=2.31,p=0.022. According to the results there was a significant difference in attitude
subscale score, male participants have more sub scale score (M=3.16, SD=1.02) than female participants
(M=2.75, SD= 0.92); t(303)=-3.72,p=0.000. According to the results there was a significant difference in
intentions subscale score, male participants have more sub scale score (M=3.29, SD=1.08) than female
participants (M=2.82, SD= 1.03); t(303)=-3.82,p=0.000. According to the results there was a significant difference

205
in perceived consequences subscale score, male participants have more sub scale score (M=3.59, SD=0.68) than
female participants (M=3.34, SD= 0.70); t(303)=-3.10,p=0.002.
Table 3 Comparing online shopping familiarity subscale scores by internet connection site
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 45,724 4 11,431
Within Groups 391,621 300 1,305 8,757 ,000
Total 437,345 304
Research participants online shopping familiarity sub scale scores compared by internet connection site via one-
way-anova analysis and results can be shown in table 3. Online shopping familiarity sub scale score differ
statistically significant (F(4,300)=8,757 , p<.001). To understand which group has more online shopping familiarity
sub scale score post hoc test was done. Results show that participants, who connect internet home or workplace,
have more online shopping familiarity sub scale score than who connect internet from internet café.
Table 4 Comparing online shopping anxiety subscale scores by internet connection site
Within Groups 128,689 300 ,429 3,17 ,014
Total 134,126 304
Research participants online shopping anxiety sub scale scores compared by internet connection site via one-
way-anova analysis and results can be shown in table 4. Online shopping anxiety sub scale score differ
statistically significant (F(4,300)=3,17 , p<.05). To understand which group has more online shopping anxiety sub
scale score post hoc test was done. Results show that participants, who connect internet café, have more online
shopping anxiety sub scale score than who connect internet from home.
Table 5 Comparing trust toward online shopping subscale scores by internet connection site
Within Groups 215,445 300 ,718 4,10 ,003
Total 227,210 304
Research participants trust toward online shopping sub scale scores compared by internet connection site via
one-way-anova analysis and results can be shown in table 5. Trust toward online shopping sub scale score differ
statistically significant (F(4,300)=4,10 , p<.01). To understand which group has more trust toward online shopping
sub scale score post hoc test was done. Results show that participants, who connect from home, have more trust
toward online shopping sub scale score than who connect internet from internet café.
Table 6 Comparing shopping convenience subscale scores by internet connection site

Within Groups 233,322 300 ,778 4,22 ,002
Total 246,446 304
Research participants shopping convenience sub scale scores compared by internet connection site via one-way-
anova analysis and results can be shown in table 6. Online shopping convenience sub scale score differ
statistically significant (F(4,300)=4,22 , p<.01). To understand which group has more online shopping convenience
sub scale score post hoc test was done. Results show that participants, who connect from home and school, have
more online shopping convenience sub scale score than who connect internet from workplace.
Table 7 Comparing shopping intension subscale scores by internet connection site

Within Groups 340,477 300 1,135 3,26 ,012
Total 355,270 304

206
Research participants shopping intension sub scale scores compared by internet connection site via one-way-
anova analysis and results can be shown in table 7. Shopping intension sub scale score differ statistically
significant (F(4,300)=3,26 , p<.05). To understand which group has more shopping intension sub scale score post
hoc test was done. Results show that participants, who connect from home and workplace, have more shopping
intension sub scale score than who connect internet from internet café.
Table 8 Comparing perceived consequences subscale scores by internet connection site

Within Groups 143,510 300 ,478 3,44 ,009
Total 150,091 304
Research participants perceived consequences sub scale scores compared by internet connection site via one-
way-anova analysis and results can be shown in table 8. Perceived consequences sub scale score differ
statistically significant (F(4,300)=3,44 , p<.01). To understand which group has more perceived consequences sub
scale score post hoc test was done. Results show that participants, who connect from home, have more perceived
consequences sub scale score than who connect internet from internet café.
Table 9 Comparing online shopping familiarity subscale scores by personal income

Within Groups 416,013 301 1,382 5,15 ,002
Total 437,345 304
Research participants online shopping familiarity sub scale scores compared by personal income via one-way-
anova analysis and results can be shown in table 9. Online shopping familiarity sub scale score differ statistically
significant (F(3,301)=5,15 , p<.01). To understand which group has more online shopping familiarity sub scale
score post hoc test was done. Results show that participants, who have 266$ or more personal income, have more
online shopping familiarity sub scale score than who have 66 – 133$, 134 – 200$ and 201 – 266$ personal
income.
Table 10 Comparing shopping convenience subscale scores by personal income

Within Groups 230,157 301 ,765 7,10 ,000
Total 246,446 304
Research participants shopping convenience sub scale scores compared by personal income via one-way-anova
analysis and results can be shown in table 10. Shopping convenience sub scale score differ statistically
significant (F(3,301)=7,10 , p<.001). To understand which group has more shopping convenience sub scale score
post hoc test was done. Results show that participants, who have 266$ or more personal income, have more
shopping convenience sub scale score than who have 66 – 133$, 134 – 200$ and 201 – 266$ personal income.
Table 11 Comparing product selection subscale scores by personal income

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Within Groups 166,848 301 ,554 5,42 ,001
Total 175,861 304
Research participants product selection sub scale scores compared by personal income via one-way-anova
analysis and results can be shown in table 11. Product selection sub scale score differ statistically significant
(F(3,301)=5,42 , p<.01). To understand which group has more product selection sub scale score post hoc test was
done. Results show that participants, who have 266$ or more personal income, have more product selection sub
scale score than who have 66 – 133$, 134 – 200$ and 201 – 266$ personal income.

207
Table 12 Comparing online shopping attitude subscale scores by personal income

Within Groups 287,452 301 ,955 2,71 ,045
Total 295,223 304
Research participants online shopping attitude sub scale scores compared by personal income via one-way-anova
analysis and results can be shown in table 12. Online shopping attitude sub scale score differ statistically
significant (F(3,301)=2,71 , p<.05). To understand which group has more online shopping attitude sub scale score
online shopping attitude sub scale score than who have 134 – 200$ and 201 – 266$ personal income.
Table 13 Comparing online shopping intension subscale scores by personal income

Within Groups 337,024 301 1,120 5,43 ,001
Total 355,270 304
Research participants online shopping intension sub scale scores compared by personal income via one-way-
anova analysis and results can be shown in table 13. Online shopping intension sub scale score differ statistically
significant (F(3,301)=5,43 , p<.01). To understand which group has more online shopping intension sub scale score
online shopping intension sub scale score than who have 134 – 200$ and 201 – 266$ personal income.
Table 14 Comparing perceived consequences subscale scores by personal income

Within Groups 143,680 301 ,477 4,48 ,004
Total 150,091 304
Research participants perceived consequences sub scale scores compared by personal income via one-way-anova
analysis and results can be shown in table 14. Perceived consequences sub scale score differ statistically
significant (F(3,301)=4,48 , p<.01). To understand which group has more perceived consequences sub scale score
perceived consequences sub scale score than who have 66 – 133$, 134 – 200$ and 201 – 266$ personal income.
Table 15 T-test results concerning sub scales score by credit card ownership
Credit
Card
Owners Std. Sig. (2-
hip N Mean Deviation t df tailed)
Yes 114 3,27 1,25
Online shopping familiarity 6,06 303 ,000
No 191 2,46 1,06
Yes 114 2,73 0,69
Online shopping anxiety -2,91 303 ,004
No 191 2,95 0,64
Yes 114 3,41 0,90
Shopping Convenience 3,01 303 ,003
No 191 3,09 0,88
Yes 114 3,55 0,71
Hedonic / enjoyment 2,55 303 ,042
No 191 3,38 0,74
Yes 114 3,31 0,99
Attitude 5,36 303 ,000
No 191 2,71 0,91
Yes 114 3,44 1,10
Intensions 5,40 303 ,000
No 191 2,78 0,99
Perceieved Consequences Yes 114 3,68 0,66 4,55 303 ,000

208
Credit
Card
Owners Std. Sig. (2-
hip N Mean Deviation t df tailed)
Yes 114 3,27 1,25
Online shopping familiarity 6,06 303 ,000
No 191 2,46 1,06
Yes 114 2,73 0,69
Online shopping anxiety -2,91 303 ,004
No 191 2,95 0,64
Yes 114 3,41 0,90
Shopping Convenience 3,01 303 ,003
No 191 3,09 0,88
Yes 114 3,55 0,71
Hedonic / enjoyment 2,55 303 ,042
No 191 3,38 0,74
Yes 114 3,31 0,99
Attitude 5,36 303 ,000
No 191 2,71 0,91
Yes 114 3,44 1,10
Intensions 5,40 303 ,000
No 191 2,78 0,99
Perceieved Consequences Yes 114 3,68 0,66 4,55 303 ,000
No 191 3,32 0,69
Research participants sub scale score compared by credit card ownership and results were given in table 15.
According to the results there was a significant difference in online shopping familiarity subscale score and
participant, who have credit card, have more sub scale score (M=3,27, SD=1.25) than who do not have credit
card (M=2,46, SD= 1,06); t(303)=6,06,p=0.000. According to the results there was a significant difference in
online shopping anxiety subscale score and participant, who do not have credit card, have more sub scale score
(M=2,95, SD=0,64) than who have credit card (M=2,73, SD= 0,64); t(303)=-2,91,p=0.01. According to the results
there was a significant difference in shopping convenience subscale score and participant, who have credit card,
have more sub scale score (M=3,41, SD=0,90) than who do not have credit card (M=3,09, SD= 0,88);
t(303)=3,01,p=0.01 According to the results there was a significant difference in hedonic/enjoyment subscale
score and participant, who have credit card, have more sub scale score (M=3,55, SD=0,71) than who do not have
credit card (M=3,38, SD= 0,74); t(303)=2,55,p=0.05. According to the results there was a significant difference in
attitude subscale score and participant, who have credit card, have more sub scale score (M=3,31, SD=0,99) than
who do not have credit card (M=2,71, SD= 0,91); t(303)=5,36,p=0.000. According to the results there was a
significant difference in intension subscale score and participant, who have credit card, have more sub scale
score (M=3,44, SD=1,10) than who do not have credit card (M=2,78, SD= 0,99); t(303)=5,40,p=0.000. According
to the results there was a significant difference in perceived consequences subscale score and participant, who
have credit card, have more sub scale score (M=3,68, SD=0,66) than who do not have credit card (M=3,32, SD=
0,69); t(303)=4,55,p=0.000.

209

210
To understand correlation among sub scale scores correlation test was done and correlation results can be seen in
table 16. According to correlation results;
Positive and weak correlation between internet self efficacy sub scale scores and Online shopping familiarity,
Online shopping anxiety, Trust toward online shopping, Shopping Convenience, Product selection,
Ease/Comfort of shopping, Hedonic / enjoyment, Financial Risk, Product Risk, Time / convenience risk,
Attitude, Intensions, Personal Innovativeness, Perceived Consequences sub scale scores were found.
Positive and somewhat weak correlation between online shopping familiarity sub scale scores and Trust toward
online shopping, Shopping Convenience, Hedonic / enjoyment, Attitude, Intensions were found. Positive and
weak correlation between online shopping familiarity sub scale scores and product selection, Ease/Comfort of
shopping, Financial Risk, Product Risk, Time / convenience risk, Personal Innovativeness, Perceieved
Consequences were found. While negative and somewhat weak correlation correlation between online shopping
familiarity sub scale scores and online shopping anxiety and financial risk were found, negative and low
correlation between online shopping familiarity sub scale scores and time/convenience and risk perception were
found.
While negative and somewhat weak correlation between online shopping anxiety and attitude and intensions
were calculated, between online shopping anxiety and Trust toward online shopping, Shopping Convenience,
Product selection, Ease/Comfort of shopping, Hedonic / enjoyment, Financial Risk, Product Risk, Time /
convenience risk, Personal Innovativeness, Perceived Consequences negative and somewhat weak correlation
were calculated.
Positive and somewhat weak correlation were calculated between participants trust toward online shopping sub
scale scores and Shopping Convenience, Hedonic / enjoyment, Attitude, Intensions, Perceived Consequences sub
scale scores, positive and low correlation were calculated between participants trust toward online shopping sub
scale scores and Time / convenience risk, Personal Innovativeness sub scale scores and negative and weak
correlation were calculated between participants trust toward online shopping sub scale scores and financial risk
and product risk sub scale scores.
While positive and somewhat weak correlation were calculated between shopping convenience sub scale scores
and Product selection, Ease/Comfort of shopping, Hedonic / enjoyment, Product Risk, Time / convenience risk,
Attitude, Intensions, Personal Innovativeness, Perceived Consequences sub scale scores, negative and weak
correlation were calculated between shopping convenience sub scale scores and financial risk sub scale scores.
While positive and somewhat weak correlation were calculated between product selection sub scale scores and
Ease/Comfort of shopping, Hedonic / enjoyment, Financial Risk, Time / convenience risk, Attitude, Intensions,
Personal Innovativeness, Perceived Consequences sub scale sores, positive and weak correlation were calculated
between product selection sub scale scores and product risk sub scale scores.
Positive and somewhat weak correlation were calculated between ease/comfort sub scale scores and Hedonic /
enjoyment, Perceived Consequences sub scale scores and positive and weak correlation were calculated between
ease/comfort sub scale scores and Financial Risk, Product Risk, Time / convenience risk, Attitude, Intensions
and Personal Innovativeness sub scale scores.
Positive and somewhat weak correlation were calculated between hedonic/enjoyment sub scale scores and Time
/ convenience risk, Attitude, Intensions, Personal Innovativeness, Perceived Consequences sub scale scores.
Positive and weak correlation were calculated between hedonic/enjoyment sub scale scores and product risk sub
scale scores.
While positive and somewhat weak correlation were calculated between financial risk sub scale scores and
product risk and time/convenience risk, positive and weak correlation were calculated between financial risk sub
scale scores and attitude, intension sub scale scores.
While positive and somewhat weak correlation were calculated between product risk sub scale scores and
times/convenience risk and negative and weak correlation was calculated between product risk sub scale score
and attitude sub scale score.
Negative and weak correlation were calculated between time/convenience risk sub scale score and attitude and
intension sub scale scores.

211
Positive and somewhat weak correlation were calculated between attitude sub scale score and personal
innovativeness and perceived consequences sub scale scores.
Positive and somewhat weak correlation were calculated between online shopping intension sub scale score and
personal innovativeness and perceived consequences sub scale scores.
Positive and somewhat weak correlation was calculated between personal innovativeness and perceived
consequences sub scale score.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This research tried to define college of education students’ online shopping behavior and online shopping
activities. The results show that %54,8 of participants are female and %45,2 of participants are male. Participants
age range is 18 – 22. Most of the participants connect internet where they reside and %45,2 of the participants
have used internet more than four years and just %37,4 of the participants have credit card.
Research results show that male participants are more familiar to internet shopping, they find internet shopping
more convenient and they have more intension to shop online. Female participants financial and time risk
perceptions are higher than male participants perception. Farag, Schwanrn, Dijst & Faber (2007) state that male
participant have positive attitude towards to internet shopping and their findings support this research findings.
Different research found different internet shopping patterns, Sebastinelli, Tamimi & Rajan (2008) state that
males and females use internet shopping for different types of products and Lokken, Cross, Halbert, Lindsey,
Derby & Stanford (2003) state that shopping experience did not differ by gender.
This study results show that participants, who have more income, have more internet familiarity, find internet
shopping more convenient, have more product selection perception, have more positive attitude, have more
positive intension and their perceived consequences are high. In a research concerning students internet shopping
Norum(2008) and Soopramanien & Robertson (2007) state that students, who have more income, have more
intension to shop over internet.
Another results of this study is participants, who have credit card, have more familiarity, have less anxiety
concerning internet shopping, have more positive internet shopping convenience, find more enjoyment in
internet shopping, have more positive internet shopping attitude, have more intension and have more perceived
consequences.
This study show that there is a positive correlation between internet self efficacy and other 14 subscale. Farag,
Schwanrn, Dijst & Faber (2007) state that internet experience affect internet shopping and Teo (2006) state that
internet self efficacy decreases internet shopping anxiety. Swinyard & Smith (2003) state that computer literacy
positively correlate online shopping. These there research results support this study results.
Another result is that there is a negative correlation between participants online shopping familiarity and anxiety,
financial risk perception and time risk perception and there is a positive correlation between online shopping
familiarity and other sub scale. In a research concerning online shoppers Teo (2006) state that familiarity has
positive and direct effect on internet shopping anxiety.
Results show that participants trust toward online shopping and internet shopping anxiety have negative effect on
anciety, financial risk and time risk perception. Shih (2004) state that internet shopping attitudes have significant
and strong positive effect on acceptanve of internet shopping.

212
REFERENCES
Chen, Y. Y., Huang, H. L., Huang, W. N. & Sung, S. F. (2009). Confirmation of Expectations and Satisfaction
with an On-Line Service: The Role of Internet Self-Efficacy. Proceedings of the 2009 International
Conference on New Trends in Information and Service Science. Pp: 880-885. DOI:
10.1109/NISS.2009.60
Chung, I. K. & Lee, M. M. (2003). A study of influencing factors for repurchase intention in Internet shopping
malls. International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Proceedings. 22-26 April 2003. Pp:
1530-2075 . DOI : 10.1109/IPDPS.2003.1213440
Dixon, T. & Marston, A. (2002). U.K. Retail Real Estate and the Effects of Online Shopping. Journal of Urban
Technology. 9(3). Pp: 19 — 47. DOI: 10.1080/1063073022000044279
Farag, S., Krizek, K. J. & Dijst, M. (2006). E-Shopping and its Relationship with In-store Shopping: Empirical
Evidence from the Netherlands and the USA. Transport Reviews. 26(1). Pp: 43 — 61. DOI:
10.1080/01441640500158496
Farag, S., Schwanen,T., Dijst, M., Faber, J. (2007). Shopping online and/or in-store? A structural equation model
of the relationships between e-shopping and in-store shopping. Transportation Research Part A. 41. Pp:
125–141.
Forsythe, S., Liu, C., Shannon D., Gardner, L. C. (2006). Development of a scale to measure the perceived
benefits and risks of online shopping. Journal Of Interactive Marketing. 20 (2). Pp: 55 - 75
Grabner-Kraeuter, S. (2002).The Role of Consumers’ Trust in Online-Shopping. Journal of Business Ethics. 39.
pp: 43–50
Guo-xin, L. (2009). Profiling Internet Shoppers and Non-shoppers in Mainland China: Online Experience,
Computer Capacity, and Web-usage-related Lifestyle. 16th International Conference on Management
Science & Engineering. September 14-16, 2009 Moscow, Russia.
Gupta, N., Handa M., Gupta, B. (2008). Young Adults of India-Online Surfers or Online Shoppers. Journal of
Internet Commerce. 7 (4). pp:425 – 444
Hongfeng, P., Chunjing, W., Jie, C. (2008). An Empirical Investigation on the Adoption of Online Shopping of
University Students in China. International Seminar on Business and Information Management, 2008.
ISBIM '08. 19-19 Dec. 2008. Pp : 498 – 501. DOI: 10.1109/ISBIM.2008.26
Järveläinen, J. (2007). Online Purchase Intentions: An Empirical Testing of a Multiple-Theory Model. Journal
of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce. 17(1). Pp:53 – 74
Kiang, M.Y., Gilsdorf, J. & Chi, R.T. (2004). Understand user preference of online shoppers. IEEE International
Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service 2004. 28-31 March 2004. Pp : 123 - 130 DOI :
10.1109/EEE.2004.1287298
Kim, S., Williams, R. & Lee, Y. (2004). Attitude Toward Online Shopping and Retail Website Quality. Journal
of International Consumer Marketing. 16(1). Pp: 89 — 111. DOI: 10.1300/J046v16n01_06
Kwon, K. N., Lee, J. (2003). Concerns About Payment Security of Internet Purchases: A Perspective on Current
On-Line Shoppers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 21. Pp: 174 – 185
Lian, J. W. & Lin, T. M. (2008).Effects of consumer characteristics on their acceptance of online shopping:
Comparisons among different product types. Computers in Human Behavior. 24. Pp: 48–65.
Limayem, M., Khalifa, M. & Frini, A. (2000). What Makes Consumers Buy from Internet? A Longitudinal
Study of Online Shopping. IEEE Transactions On Systems, Man, And Cybernetics—Part A: Systems
And Humans, 30(4), 421 – 432.
Lokken, S. L., Cross, G. W., Halbert, L.K., Lindsey, G., Derby, C. & Stanford, C. (2003). Comparing online and
non-online shoppers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27 (2). pp126–133
McKinney, L. N. (2004). Internet Shopping Orientation Segments: An Exploration of Differences in Consumer
Behavior. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal. 32. Pp: 408 – 433
Miyazaki, A. D. & A. Fernandez. (2001). Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks for online
shopping. The Journal of Consumer Affairs. 35(1). Pp: 27 – 44
Naiyi Y. & Yinchen Y. (2007). Consumers' Perceived Services and the Impacts on Attitudes and Behavior
Intentions in Internet Shopping. International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management,
2007. 9-11 June 2007. Pp: 1 – 5. DOI : 10.1109/ICSSSM.2007.4280115
Norum, P. S. (2008). Student Internet Purchases. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal. 36. Pp : 373
- 288
Sebastianelli, R., Tamimi, N., Rajan, M. (2008). Perceived Quality of Online Shopping: Does Gender Make a
Difference?. Journal of Internet Commerce. 7(4). Pp:445 – 469
Seock, Y.K. & Norton, M. J. T. (2008). College students' perceived attributes of internet websites and online
shopping. College Student Journal, 42, 186-198.
Shih, H. P. (2004). An empirical study on predicting user acceptance of e-shopping on the Web. Information &
Management. 41. Pp:351–368

213
Sin, L. & Tse, A. (2002). Profiling Internet Shoppers in Hong Kong. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing. 15(1). Pp: 7 — 29. DOI: 10.1300/J046v15n01_02
Soopramanien, D.G.R. & Robertson, A. (2007). Adoption and usage of online shopping: An empirical analysis
of the characteristics of ‘‘buyers’’ ‘‘browsers’’ and ‘‘non-internet shoppers’’. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services. 14. Pp: 73–82
Swinyard, W. R. & Smith, S. M. (2003).Why People (Don’t) Shop Online: A Lifestyle Study of the Internet
Consumer. Psychology & Marketing. 20(7). Pp: 567–597
Teo, T. S. H. (2006).To buy or not to buy online: adopters and non-adopters of online shopping in Singapore.
Behaviour & Information Technology. 25 (6). Pp: 497 – 509
Teo, T. S. H.(2002). Attitudes toward online shopping and the Internet. Behaviour & Information Technology.
21(4). Pp: 259 — 271. DOI: 10.1080/0144929021000018342
Toa, P. L., Liaob, C., Linc, T. H. (2007). Shopping motivations on Internet: A study based on utilitarian and
hedonic value. Technovation 27. Pp: 774–787
Yao, G., Li, Q. (2009). The Effects of Online Shopping Familiarity and Internet Self-Efficacy on the Formation
of Trust Toward Online Shopping. International Conference on E-Business and Information System
Security, 2009. EBISS '09. 23-24 May 2009. pp: 1 - 5

214

Ej 989212

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ej 989212

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ej 989212

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

INTERNET SHOPPING BEHAVIOR OF COLLEGE OF EDUCATION STUDENTS

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

¾ Usefullnes and ease of use of online shopping

PURPOSE AND METHOD

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

d. by credit card ownership

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Table 2 T-test results concerning sub scales score by participants gender

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Table 6 Comparing shopping convenience subscale scores by internet connection site

Table 7 Comparing shopping intension subscale scores by internet connection site

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Table 8 Comparing perceived consequences subscale scores by internet connection site

Table 9 Comparing online shopping familiarity subscale scores by personal income

Table 10 Comparing shopping convenience subscale scores by personal income

Table 11 Comparing product selection subscale scores by personal income

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Table 12 Comparing online shopping attitude subscale scores by personal income

Table 13 Comparing online shopping intension subscale scores by personal income

Table 14 Comparing perceived consequences subscale scores by personal income

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

You might also like