Management Science Letters
Management Science Letters
Management Science Letters
aMarketing
Communication, London School Public Relations Institute, Jakarta, Indonesia
bManagement
Department, Binus Online Learning, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta 11530, Indonesia
CHRONICLE ABSTRACT
Article history: The aim of this research is to investigate the repurchase intention of online customers at e-com-
Received: April 8, 2020 merce merchants. The study investigates three factors; perceived risk, perceived usefulness, and
Received in revised format: online trust through collecting samples from 128 college students in the Online Learning program
April 25 2020
in Jakarta. The analysis technique used is SEM-PLS, with the guidance of the SmartPLS 3.0 pro-
Accepted: May 14, 2020
Available online: gram. The results of the study confirm that perceived risk had a negative effect on online trust and
May 14, 2020 repurchase intention. Perceived usefulness has a positive impact on online trust and repurchase
Keywords: intention. Lastly, online trust influences repurchase intention in e-commerce merchants.
Perceived risk
Perceived usefulness
Online trust
Repurchase intention
E-commerce merchants
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada
1. Introduction
Intention to repurchase by the online customers concerns academics and practitioners since it is considered as a critical success
factor in online retailing and affects the cost savings and profits for online merchants. Most studies have shown that customers
must buy four times in online stores to enjoy these practices (Chiu, Chang, Cheng, & Fang, 2009). Therefore, studying the
intentions of consumer behavior in transacting on the internet is a useful field of research in electronic marketing. Today, web
sites and mobile commerce are not only the prime tools to support business transactions, but also they have become a channel
for businesses to interact and communicate with their consumers (Al-Natour, Benbasat, & Cenfetelli, 2011). Besides the
transaction process being faster, e-commerce can cut operational costs since it does not require sellers to have a physical store.
In recent years, consumer expectations in online transactions have continued to increase. To keep loyal customers, online
businesses need to redefine strategies to meet costumers’ expectations and get customers’ trust (Gartner, 2015). Previous
investigation has shown that garnering loyal customers in the electronic market is a challenge and is considered more signif-
icant than the offline market (Harris & Goode, 2004). Building online consumers’ loyalty depends on how consumers acquire
trust in online businesses (Harris & Goode, 2004).
As in traditional markets, building customers’ trust in online markets has been essential since it deals with transaction uncer-
tainty conditions (Fang et al., 2014; Harrison, Larry, & Norman, 1998). The lack of buyer confidence prevents them from
buying online and causes consumers to delete shopping carts (Awad & Ragowsky, 2008). Trust in e-commerce activities is
very consequential since consumers are more vulnerable to transaction risks when there is a sense of uncertainty about the
quality of products or services offered by online merchants (Ba & Paul, 2002). One way to reduce the risk of uncertainty is to
create a value to increase trust between online merchants and buyers (Zeithaml, 1988). Thus, trust can be a tool for creating
income and long-term growth.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ridho.bramulya.i@binus.ac.id (R. B. Ikhsan)
Until now, exploration of online trust has always been accompanied by parts of technology adoption, such as perceived use-
fulness, perceived ease of use, and willingness to make transactions with online companies. We have given this attention on
identifying relationships between different factors (Al-Natour et al., 2011; Awad & Ragowsky, 2008; Benlian, Titah, & Hess,
2012; David, Elena, & Detmar, 2003). A large number of studies have been performed to understand what makes online
consumers to have repurchase intention from the same online seller (Dan, Donald, & Raghav, 2009; Fang et al., 2014; Gefen,
2002; Srinivasan, Anderson, & Ponnavolu, 2002) and this analysis has shown that buying experience with sellers in repurchase
situations is important and can serve as a dominant source for evaluating trust (Dan et al., 2009; Fang et al., 2014). Online
merchants can reduce the uncertainty and risk associated with online transactions through increased customer familiarity and
knowledge about transactions with online merchants (Kim & Gupta, 2009). Consumers who repeatedly make purchases have
a better understanding of the attributes of online shopping. We assume that consumers rely more on perceived value to build
trust in online merchants and make purchasing decisions (Sullivan & Kim, 2018). However, exploration of consumer trust
and repurchase intentions in conducting activities in e-commerce has not sufficiently identified how to value consumers’ feel
after initial purchase experience and how this can shape perceptions of trust and repurchase intentions (Sullivan & Kim, 2018).
2. Literature Review
2.1. Perceived Risk toward Online Trust
Risk perception is ordinarily associated with uncertainty caused by the probability of opportunistic behavior from merchants that
can rise in losses for consumers (Tamara & Paul, 2006). In e-commerce reference, the perceived risk can explain to what extent
for consumers to believe that using a website can get negative results or unsatisfactory results (Glover & Benbasat, 2010). When
connected in the online transaction process, consumers are usually conscious of the risks they face (Pavlou, 2003). Consumers
worry that the products or services they purchase on the internet may not provide the expected benefits or they are afraid that
they will face unexpected dangers when they make online transactions (Glover & Benbasat, 2010). Because getting new custom-
ers is decidedly more expensive than retaining loyal customers, reducing consumers' risk perceptions is very relevant to make
sure they will come back on online stores (David et al., 2003). Repeat costumers usually feel a lower level of confidence in
transactions with websites compared to potential customers, because of personal experience with the site (Kim, Xu, & Gupta,
2012). However, the perceived risk decreases the possibility of a trusting relationship between repeat consumers and online
buyers. One of the way to retain the consumers is to keep their trust in online stores (David et al., 2003; Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky,
& Saarinen, 1999; Pavlou, 2003). Trust plays an essential role in helping consumers to resolve risk perceptions and uncertainty
in the online environment (Lai & Tong, 2013). If consumers feel that online merchants will breach formal and informal obliga-
tions (e.g., not sending the right product at the right time as promised), they will select not to trust the website (Dan et al., 2009).
Consistently with prior literature, we hypothesize that
Past research has shown that perceived risk is a crucial factor determining online consumer purchases and repurchases (Peng,
Wang, & Cai, 2008). Although the perceived risk is known as a determining factor that affects purchase intentions in the pre-
purchase stage, perceived risk also plays an essential role in the post-purchase stage (Chang & Wildt, 1994). If an online
merchant succeeds on selling the product as promised, the risk of confusion can be minimized, and consumers will possibly
return and make repeat purchases from the same site (Pavlou, Liang, & Xue, 2007). On the other hand, if anxious buyers are
worried about online transactions that will be carried out, they will possibly avoid future repurchases with the same merchant
(C.-M. Chiu, Hsu, Lai, & Chang, 2012). Consistently with the literature, we hypothesize that
An online site with a high level of usability can support and help the consumer shopping experience and build positive atten-
tion to the online website (Zhang et al., 2011). Based on the adoption of technology by users, perceived usefulness becomes
a strong influence on the formation of use intentions (Fred, Richard, & Paul, 1989). Of course, all internet shoppers need to
get more richness and enjoy the pays of the existing marketplace, so perceived usefulness is the most important factor that
can interest returned use (Al‐Maghrabi, Dennis, & Vaux Halliday, 2011). Besides, buyers will only use online sites to shop if
they believe that using these online sites can help performance or benefit their users (Fred et al., 1989).
Users are trusted to repurchase if they felt the profits of the goods and services they receive. It was also supported by Aren,
Güzel, Kabadayı, and Alpkan (2013) from a study of 300 students who had made online purchases. The study explained that
the perception of repurchase has a positive effect on repurchase intention. Internet shoppers, of course, wish to get more
productivity by moving from an online site to another online site, so perceived usefulness is considered the most leading factor
of TAM that can involve the intention of continuing the use of buyers Al‐Maghrabi et al. (2011). So, it can be concluded that
perceived usefulness involves a significant effect on repurchase intention. Consistently with the literature, we hypothesize
that
In the online setting, trust is a belief that can positively affect one's desires in managing online activities. It builds trust based on
the stages of interaction that arise between buyers and merchants (Chen & Rau, 2014). Trust results from past e-retail use expe-
rience because it can help buyers to predict different undesirable events but may arise when making activities online. A quality
relationship between buyer and seller can only arise if previous interactions are favorable so that there can be a possibility of
future repurchases (Zhang et al., 2011). Therefore building trust with buyers is significant for the success of e-retail store in the
form of business-to-consumer (Murphy & Tocher, 2011). Thus, it can be concluded that trust in an online site has a direct impact
on the wish to make repeat purchases from the same online website. Consistently with the literature, we hypothesize that
3. Methodology
It took all measurement items from past studies. We adapted the questions of perceived risk and repurchase intention from
Rezaei and Amin (2013). We changed details for perceived usefulness and online trust from Sullivan and Kim (2018). It
measures all constructs using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The ques-
tionnaire was designed from past research and we distributed to students of the Online Learning Program in DKI Jakarta,
Indonesia. The reason was because they were usually interacting with the internet. The student population is infinity, so we
use the Lemeshow method to take sample size. Count results with a margin of error of 7 percent of 196 people. From the
consequences of the questionnaire distribution, we only collected 128 data, so the success rate in data collection was 65
percent.
By viewing at the theoretical framework, this investigation was for testing the theory so that the data test procedure applied
in this analysis was quantitative study with SEM based on component or variance approach, which is well known as Partial
Least Square (PLS). PLS is applied to explain the presence or absence of relationships between latent variables (prediction).
3092
PLS can also confirm theories (Chin & Newsted, 1999). PLS analysis comprises two models, i.e., the measurement model
(measurement model), or we called the outer model and the structural model, or we called the inner model.
Evaluation the results of the measurement model using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is accomplished by testing the
validity and reliability of latent constructs. Measurement of the model by confirmatory factor analysis uses the MTMM (Multi-
Portrait-Multi-Method) method by checking the convergent and discriminate validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Evaluation of
the Structural Model (Inner model) looks at the R-square value. Furthermore, the significance test by bootstrapping, cross-vali-
dated redundancy (Q2), path coefficients, and the effect size (f2) (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Volker, 2014).
Table 1
Measurement Items
Construct Item
Perceived Risk PR1. If I want to purchase products online, I fear that the purchase is overpriced
PR2. I fear wasting time when shopping online
PR3. I fear not getting the desired results when I want to purchase products or services online
PR4. I am fearful that the products bought online will not be what I want
Perceived Usefulness PU1. Using this e-commerce site can increase my shopping performance
PU2. Using this e-commerce site can increase my shopping productivity
PU3. Using e-commerce sites is useful
Online Trust OT1. Based on my knowledge with online merchants in the past, I know that site is fair.
OT2. Based on knowledge, I want to continue to accept online merchants to buy products because they care about customers.
OT3. Based on my knowledge with online merchants in the past, I know they will fulfill their promises to customers.
OT4. According to my knowledge with online merchants in the past, I know this store can be trusted.
Repurchase Intention RI1. If pleasant, I want to continue with e-commerce merchants to buy products.
RI2. I will likely continue to buy products from e-commerce merchants in the future.
RI3. I think to continue to buy products from e-commerce merchants in the future.
4. Result
All students we surveyed made purchases online for both the website and mobile application. The frequency they make pur-
chases online from 1 to 4 times per one month was 35 percent and the remaining 65 percent purchased over five times. While
online transactions, 25 percent have been fooled, and 75 percent always succeed in online sales. Before making an online
purchase, 40 percent still read past buyer reviews, and 60 percent trusted the seller's credibility listed on the website.
Evaluation of the measurement model comprises three steps, i.e., the convergent validity test, discriminant validity test, and
composite reliability test.
Table 2
Convergent validity and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Construct Item Sample Mean (M) Loading Factor T-Statistics AVE Result
Perceived Risk PR1 0.838 0.835 14.946 Valid
PR2 0.855 0.861 21.311 Valid
0.627
PR3 0.694 0.729 5.365 Valid
PR4 0.698 0.733 5.548 Valid
Perceived Usefulness PU1 0.906 0.906 47.925 Valid
PU2 0.907 0.908 37.892 0.784 Valid
PU3 0.834 0.840 18.999 Valid
Online Trust OT1 0.828 0.829 21.405 Valid
OT2 0.909 0.909 55.394 Valid
0.794
OT3 0.908 0.906 52.614 Valid
OT4 0.919 0.918 57.586 Valid
Repurchase Intention RI1 0.936 0.936 68.388 Valid
RI2 0.968 0.968 121.860 0.895 Valid
RI3 0.932 0.934 39.233 Valid
Source: Own Calculation. 2020
According to Chin and Newsted (1999), a correlation can meet the convergent validity if it has a loading value greater than
0.5. The output of Table 2 shows that the loading factor gives a value above the recommended value 0.5 so that the indicators
used in this study have achieved convergent validity. Based on Table 2, all variables have AVE values greater than 0.5, so
convergent validity is good. AVE value for perceived risk is 0.672, which shows that 67.2% of the information in the four
S. Lukito and R. B. Ikhsan / Management Science Letters 10 (2020) 3093
indicators can reflect by the perceived risk. AVE value for perceived usefulness is 0.784, which shows that 78.4% of the infor-
mation in the three indicators can reflect by the perceived usefulness. AVE value for online trust is 0.794, which shows that
79.4% of the information in the four indicators can reflect by online trust. Finally, AVE value for repurchase intention is 0.895,
which shows that 89.5% of the information in the three indicators can reflect by repurchase intention. It shows that on average
their respective variables can represent more than 50 percent of the information contained in the indicator.
Table 3
Discriminant Validity
Perceived Risk Perceived Usefulness Online Trust Repurchase Intention
PR1 0.835 -0.154 -0.247 -0.263
PR2 0.861 -0.117 -0.237 -0.310
PR3 0.729 -0.021 -0.113 -0.180
PR4 0.733 -0.045 -0.163 -0.126
PU1 -0.090 0.906 0.463 0.535
PU2 -0.110 0.908 0.385 0.528
PU3 -0.127 0.840 0.428 0.467
OT1 -0.102 0.364 0.829 0.381
OT2 -0.221 0.430 0.909 0.439
OT3 -0.288 0.451 0.906 0.508
OT4 -0.263 0.461 0.918 0.471
RI1 -0.349 0.528 0.504 0.936
RI2 -0.277 0.535 0.477 0.968
RI3 -0.215 0.575 0.462 0.934
Source: Own Calculation. 2020
Based on Table 3, all indicators in each construct have the highest relationship compared to the value of loading other constructs,
so we can conclude it that discriminant validity is good. The reliability testing method uses Composite reliability (CR) and the
Alpha-Cronbach method. Questionnaire is reliable if CR value greater than 0.7 and Alpha-Cronbach above 0.6. The following
result from reliability testing.
Table 4
Reliability Test
Construct Composite Reliability Cronbach's Alpha Decision
Perceived Risk 0.870 0.814 Good
Perceived Usefulness 0.916 0.861 Good
Online Trust 0.939 0.914 Good
Repurchase Intention 0.962 0.914 Good
Source: Own Calculation. 2020
Table 4 shows that all latent variables measured in this study have Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability values greater
than 0.7 so we can conclude it that all latent variables are reliable, or all indicators have consistency in measuring their latent
variables.
Testing the inner model is the development of concept-based models and theories to analyze the relationship between exoge-
nous and endogenous variables that have been described in the conceptual framework. It shows the results of the bootstrapping
estimates for each variable in the structural model in the following Fig. 3.
3094
It carries evaluation of structural models in SEM with PLS out by conducting R-squared tests and significance tests through
path coefficient estimates.
Table 5
R-Square and Hypothesis Testing
Model Path Path coefficient (Standardized) T-statistics P Values Decision R-Square
PR → OT -0.198 2,51 0.006 H1: Support (-)
First 0,271
PU → OT 0,458 6.51 0.000 H2: Support (+)
PR → RI -0,180 2.38 0.011 H3: Support (-)
Second PU → RI 0.432 4.65 0.000 H4: Support (+) 0,433
OT → RI 0.255 2.84 0.003 H5: Support (+)
Source: Own Calculation. 2020
Based on Table 5, the first model has an R-Square value of 0.271. We can interpret it that the construct variability of perceived
risk and perceived usefulness by 27.1 percent can explain the variability of online trust constructs. Whereas in the second
model, the R-Square value is 0.433. We can interpret it that the construct variability of the perceived risk, perceived usefulness,
and online trust can explain the variability of the repurchase intention construct by 43.3 percent.
The first hypothesis is accepted that is perceived risk has a negative and significant influence on the online trust of 0.198 with
a significant value of 0.006. The smaller the perceived risk perceived, the higher the consumer's trust when shopping online.
Second hypothesis is accepted, i.e., perceived usefulness has a positive and significant effect on online trust of 0.458 with a
significant value of 0.000. The higher the perceived usefulness perceived by consumers, the greater the consumer's confidence
in conducting transactions at e-commerce merchants. Third hypothesis is accepted, i.e., perceived risk has a negative and
significant effect on repurchase intention of 0.180 with a significant value of 0.011. The more consumers have a small risk
perception, the more consumers will make repeat purchases at e-commerce merchants. Fourth hypothesis is accepted, i.e.,
perceived usefulness has a positive and significant effect on repurchase intention of 0.432 with a significant value of 0.000.
The more consumers have well-perceived convenience, the more likely consumers are to make repeat purchases at e-com-
merce merchants. Finally, fifth hypothesis is accepted that online trust has a positive and significant effect on repurchase
intention of 0.255 with a significant value of 0.003. The more consumers feel confident to make transactions, the more likely
consumers are to make repeat purchases at e-commerce merchants.
Table 6
Effect Size (f2)
Model Path R-Square Exclude f-Square (f2) Cut-off Result
PR → OT 0.23 0.056 0.02 Small
First
PU → OT 0.07 0.275 0.15 Medium
PR → RI 0.40 0.058 0.02 Small
Second PU → RI 0.29 0.252 0.15 Medium
OT → RI 0.39 0.07 0.02 Small
Source: Own Calculation. 2020
S. Lukito and R. B. Ikhsan / Management Science Letters 10 (2020) 3095
Based on Table 6, we can conclude: first, perceived risk has a minor effect on online trust. Second, perceived usefulness has
a medium influence on online trust. Third, perceived risk has minor effect on repurchase intention. Fourth, perceived useful-
ness gives a medium effect on repurchase intention. Fifth, online trusts have minor effect on repurchase intention. Based on
the results of the Q-square (Q2) calculation, the value of 0.586 is greater than 0 so we can conclude it that the structural model
got has a prediction of relevance.
For e-retail merchants, the outcomes confirm that there is a significant correlation between perceived usefulness and repurchase
intentions. Most consumers depend on the perceived usefulness because they recognize the quality of the products or service to
build trust in e-retail merchants. Online retailers who suggest the research will accept that the component of acceptance of an e-
commerce website is related to repurchase intentions. Based on the study, e-retail merchants must concentrate on optimizing
their quality by website layout. Our study adds to the current research by recommending that online trade tries to increase con-
sumer value must link to product and website elements.
Based on the hypothesis, trust is the primary determinant of what buyers expect in business transactions. Trustworthiness and
security in meeting formal and informal responsibilities is the key to increasing consumer retention. The findings disclose that
perceived usefulness can guarantee trust in shopping online. In the singular, we help online merchants to maximize the achieve-
ment of buyer confidence by establishing friendly relationships with buyers. The results also present several important implica-
tions for designing business-to-customer e-commerce sites. Although past studies have suggested that perceived usefulness is an
essential element of technology acceptance, a sustainable relationship between buyers and sellers online is not achievable without
trust.
Finally, to keep buyers, online businesses need to sustain high-quality products by a reputable website. The seller can promote
their website by highlighting the products and services offered on their website. In the long period, buyers might remember
purchases and use experiences more than the facts or information presented on the site. Overall, a trusted site, conducted by a
perception of a low standard of risk, will cause a successful online firm.
References
Al-Natour, S., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. (2011). The adoption of online shopping assistants: Perceived similarity as an
antecedent to evaluative beliefs. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(5), 347.
Al‐Maghrabi, T., Dennis, C., & Vaux Halliday, S. (2011). Antecedents of continuance intentions towards e‐shopping: the case
of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 24(1), 85-111.
Aren, S., Güzel, M., Kabadayı, E., & Alpkan, L. (2013). Factors Affecting Repurchase Intention to Shop at the Same Website.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 536-544.
Awad, N., & Ragowsky, A. (2008). Establishing Trust in Electronic Commerce Through Online Word of Mouth: An
Examination Across Genders. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 101-121.
Ba, S., & Paul, P. (2002). Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and
Buyer Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243-268.
Benlian, A., Titah, R., & Hess, T. (2012). Differential Effects of Provider Recommendations and Consumer Reviews in E-
Commerce Transactions: An Experimental Study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(1), 237-272.
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
Chang, T.-Z., & Wildt, A. (1994). Price, product information, and purchase intention: An empirical study. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 16-27.
Chen, N., & Rau, P.-L. P. (2014). Effects of Trust on Group Buying Websites in China. International Journal of Human–
Computer Interaction, 30(8), 615-626.
Chin, W., & Newsted, P. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares.
Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, 1(1), 307-341.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., Lai, H., & Chang, C.-M. (2012). Re-examining the influence of trust on online repeat purchase
intention: The moderating role of habit and its antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 835-845.
Chiu, C. M., Chang, C. C., Cheng, H. L., & Fang, Y. H. (2009). Determinants of customer repurchase intention in online
shopping. Online Information Review, 33(4), 761-784.
Dan, K., Donald, F., & Raghav, R. (2009). Trust and Satisfaction, Two Stepping Stones for Successful E-Commerce
Relationships: A Longitudinal Exploration. Information Systems Research, 20(2), 237-257.
David, G., Elena, K., & Detmar, S. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q., 27(1), 51–90.
Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., McCole, P., Ramsey, E., & Lim, K. H. (2014). Trust, Satisfaction, and Online Repurchase
Intention: The Moderating Role of Perceived Effectiveness of E-Commerce Institutional Mechanisms. MIS Quarterly,
38(2), 407-A409.
Fred, D., Richard, B., & Paul, W. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.
Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
3096
Gartner. (2015, April, 9). The Gartner Digital Commerce Vendor Guide, Analyst(s): Penny Gillespie, Gene Alvarez, Yanna
Dharmasthira, David Kohler, Jason Daigler, Chris Fletcher.
Gefen, D. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 3(1), 2.
Glover, S., & Benbasat, I. (2010). A comprehensive model of perceived risk of e-commerce transactions. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(2), 47-78.
Hair, F., Joe, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Volker, K. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM):
An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121.
Harris, L., & Goode, M. (2004). The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study of online service dynamics.
Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 139-158.
Harrison, M., Larry, C., & Norman, C. (1998). Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 473-490.
Jarvenpaa, S., Tractinsky, N., & Saarinen, L. (1999). Consumer Trust in an Internet Store: a Cross-Cultural Validation.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00337.x
Kim, H.-W., & Gupta, S. (2009). A comparison of purchase decision calculus between potential and repeat customers of an
online store. Decision Support Systems, 47(4), 477-487.
Kim, H.-W., Xu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2012). Which is more important in Internet shopping, perceived price or trust? Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 11(3), 241-252.
Lai, I., & Tong, V. (2013). The Impact of Company, Subject, and System Characteristics on the Trust Factors Affecting the
Adoption of Internet-based Interorganizational Systems. Information Systems Management, 30(4), 280-292.
Murphy, G., & Tocher, N. (2011). Gender differences in the effectiveness of online trust building information cues: An
empirical examination. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 22(1), 26-35.
Pavlou, P. (2003). Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology
Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101-134.
Pavlou, P., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and Mitigating Uncertainty in Online Exchange Relationships: A
Principal-Agent Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105-136.
Peng, H., Wang, C., & Cai, J. (2008). An empirical investigation on the adoption of online shopping of university students in
China. Paper presented at the 2008 International Seminar on Business and Information Management.
Rezaei, S., & Amin, M. (2013). Exploring online repurchase behavioural intention of university students in Malaysia. Journal
for Global Business Advancement, 6(2), 92-119.
Srinivasan, S., Anderson, R., & Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an exploration of its antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 41-50.
Sullivan, Y., & Kim, D. (2018). Assessing the effects of consumers’ product evaluations and trust on repurchase intention in
e-commerce environments. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 199-219.
Sun, H. (2010). Sellers' trust and continued use of online marketplaces. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
11(4), 2.
Tamara, D., & Paul, H. (2006). An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions. Information Systems
Research, 17(1), 61-80.
Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.
Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.
Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K., Ramsey, E., McCole, P., & Chen, H. (2011). Repurchase intention in B2C e-commerce—A
relationship quality perspective. Information & Management, 48(6), 192-200.
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada. This is an open access article distrib-
uted under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).