Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Similarities to Previous Buyers on Trust and Intention to Buy from E-Commerce Stores: An Experimental Study Based on the SVS Model

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
IT Enabled Services

  • 963 Accesses

Abstract

There is widespread interest in the question of how to ensure consumer trust in the face of the social uncertainties characteristic of e-commerce. Enrichment or sophistication of a site’s internal components alone does not necessarily lead to greater customer trust, indicating a need for e-commerce stores to offer consumers further external information. Based on the salient value similarity model of trust, we presented subjects with external information about salient consumer values and attributes of previous buyers and manipulated these variables to investigate their effects on trust-building processes. We found that salient consumer value similarity indirectly increased intention to buy by building trust in a site, while attribute similarity did not. This paper discusses the practical implications of these findings and the direction of future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To be exact, the trustworthiness scale indirectly considers the effects of external information, such as the presence or absence of links to external sites. However, because these links are presented on the website, it is appropriate to count them as internal components.

  2. 2.

    This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (PI: Hitoshi Okada, # 20402034).

  3. 3.

    The mock e-commerce site shown to subjects is available from the authors upon request.

  4. 4.

    A manipulation check was conducted after the dependent variables were measured. Respondents were asked, “Of the previous buyers who previously bought crab from this store, do you believe that there are many people who are similar to you, or do you believe that there are more people who are dissimilar to you, based on the criteria below?” We eliminated the subjects who responded “dissimilar” to at least one of the two salient values although they were assigned to the similar salient consumer value condition, as well as subjects who responded “similar” to at least one of the two salient values although they were assigned to the dissimilar salient consumer value condition. Sixty-six subjects were eliminated by this manipulation check. This may be because of an interval of up to 2 weeks between the presurvey and experimental survey and possible differences in evaluation criteria used for food products in general in the presurvey and for crab only in the experimental survey.

References

  • Cheskin Research (2000) Trust in the wired Americas. www.debmcdonald.com/trust.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2010

  • Cheskin Research and Studio Archetype/Sapient (1999) eCommerce trust study. www.cheskin.com/cms/files/i/articles//17__report-eComm%20Trust1999.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2010

  • Cook J, Wall T (1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment, and personal need nonfulfillment. J Occup Psychol 53(2):39–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbitt BJ, Thanasankit T, Yi H (2003) Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumer perceptions. Electron Commer Res Appl 2(3):203–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corritore CL, Kracher B, Wiedenbeck S (2003) On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 58(6):737–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovich G, Nakayachi K (2007) Trust in a high-concern risk controversy: a comparison of three concepts. J Risk Res 10(2):223–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1986) A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Unpublished doctoral thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doney PM, Cannon JP (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships. J Mark 61(2):35–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll JW (1978) Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Acad Manage J 21:44–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle TE (2004) Thinking aloud about trust: a protocol analysis of trust in risk management. Risk Anal 24(1):169–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle TE, Cvetkovich G (1995) Social trust: toward a cosmopolitan society. Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle TE, Cvetkovich G (1997) Culture, cosmopolitanism, and risk management. Risk Anal 17(1):55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogg BJ (2002) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogg BJ, Tseng H (1999) The elements of computer credibility. In: Proceedings of the 1999 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Pittsburgh, pp 80–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogg BJ, Marshall J, Laraki O et al. (2001) What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Seattle, pp 61–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogg BJ, Soohoo C, Danielson DR, Marable L, Stanford J, Tauber ER (2003) How do users evaluate the credibility of websites? A study with over 2,500 subjects. In: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on designing for user experiences, San Francisco, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta D (1988) Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta D (ed) Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations. Basil Blackwell, New York, pp 213–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D (2000) E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Omega 28(6):725–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub DW (2004) Consumer trust in B2C e-commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-products and e-services. Int J Manage Sci 32(6):407–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003a) Inexperience and experience with online stores: the importance of TAM and trust. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 50(3):307–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003b) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quart 27(1):51–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabner-Kräuter S, Kaluscha EA (2003) Empirical research in on-line trust: a review and critical assessment. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 58:783–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman DL, Novak TP, Peralta M (1999) Building consumer trust online. Commun ACM 42(4):80–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland CI, Weiss W (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin Quart 15:635–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelly HH (1953) Communication and persuasion. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL, Tractinsky N, Saarinen L, Vitale M (1999) Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross-cultural validation. J Comput-Mediat Commun 5(2). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue2/jarvenpaa.html. Accessed 22 Sept 2010

  • Jarvenpaa SL, Tractinsky N, Vitale M (2000) Consumer trust in an internet store. Inf Technol Manage 1(1–2):45–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kee HW, Knox RE (1970) Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust. J Conflict Resol 14:357–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollock P (1999) The production of trust in online markets. Adv Gr Process 16:99–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Koufaris M, Hampton-Sosa W (2004) The development of initial trust in an online company by new customers. Inf Manage 41(3):377–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kover SE, Burke KG, Kover BR (2000a) Consumer response to the CPA WebTrust assurance. J Inf Syst 14(1):17–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Kover SE, Burke KG, Kover BR (2000b) Selling WebTrust: an exploratory examination of factors influencing consumers' decisions to use online distribution channels. Rev Accoun Inf Syst 4(2):39–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim KH, Sia CL, Lee MKO, Benbasat I (2001) How do I trust you online, and if so, will I buy? An empirical study on designing web contents to develop online trust. Working paper, University of British Columbia

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim KH, Sia CL, Lee MKO, Benbasat I (2006) Do I trust you online, and if so, will I buy? An empirical study of two trust-building strategies. J Manage Inf Syst 23:233–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Vance A, Moody G, Beckman B, Read A (2008) Explaining and predicting the impact of branding alliances and web site quality on initial consumer trust of e-commerce web sites. J Manage 24(4):199–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev 20:709–734

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnies E, Ward CD (1980) Better liked than right: trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 6(3):467–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH (2001) What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. Int J Electron Commer 6(2):35–59

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Chervany NL (2001) What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. Int J Electron Commer 6(2):35–59

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Chervany NL (2002) Conceptualizing trust: a typology and e-commerce customer relationships model. In: Proceedings of the 34th annual Hawaii international conference on system science (HICSS-34), Maui. www.hicss.hawaii.edu/HICSS_34/PDFs/INCRM04.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2010

  • McKnight DH, Cummings LL, Chervany NL (1998) Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad Manage Rev 23(3):473–490

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13(3):334–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou PA (2003) Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int J Electron Commer 7(3):69–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou PA, Gefen D (2004) Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inf Syst Res 15(1):37–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2006) Prior attitudes, salient value similarity and dimensionality: towards an integrative model of trust in risk regulation. J Appl Soc Psychol 36:1673–1699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichheld FF, Schefter P (2000) “E-loyalty”: your secret weapon on the web. Harv Bus Rev 78(4):105–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross L, Greene D, House P (1977) The false consensus effect: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution process. J Exp Soc Psychol 13(3):297–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salam AF, Iyer L, Palvia P, Singh R (2005) Trust in e-commerce. Commun ACM 48(2):72–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott CL III (1980) Interpersonal trust: a comparison of attitudinal and situational factors. Hum Relation 33:805–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro SP (1987) The social control of impersonal trust. Am J Sociol 93(3):623–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich GT (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20:713–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich GT, Gutscher H (2001) Shared values, social trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk Anal 21:1047–1053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (2003) Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Anal 23:705–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle TC (2005) Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. J Risk Res 8(2):145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart KJ (2003) Trust transfer on the world wide web. Organ Sci 14(1):5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Lee MKO, Wang C (1998) Consumer privacy concerns about internet marketing. Commun ACM 41(3):63–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westland JC (2010) Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron Commer Res Appl 9(6):476–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1993) Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J Law Econ 34:453–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker LG (1986) Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Res Organ Behav 8:53–111

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Informatics, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Tetsuro Kobayashi & Hitoshi Okada

Authors
  1. Tetsuro Kobayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hitoshi Okada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tetsuro Kobayashi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Graduate School Business Administration, Matsuyama University, Ehime, Japan

    Shiro Uesugi

Appendix

Appendix

2.1.1 Scale Items

2.1.1.1 Perceived Store Trustworthiness

(1. Agree, 2. Somewhat agree, 3. Somewhat disagree, 4. Disagree)

  1. 1.

    This store is trustworthy.

  2. 2.

    This store wants to be known as one that keeps its promises and commitments.

  3. 3.

    I trust this store to keep my best interests in mind.

  4. 4.

    I find it necessary to be cautious with this store.

  5. 5.

    The retailer of this store has more to lose than to gain by not delivering on its promises.

  6. 6.

    This store’s behavior meets my expectations.

2.1.1.2 Perceived Benevolence

(1. Agree, 2. Somewhat agree, 3. Somewhat disagree, 4. Disagree)

  1. 1.

    I believe that this store would act in my best interest.

  2. 2.

    If I required help, this store would do its best to help me.

  3. 3.

    This store is interested in my well-being, not just its own.

2.1.1.3 Perceived Integrity

(1. Agree, 2. Somewhat agree, 3. Somewhat disagree, 4. Disagree)

  1. 1.

    This store is truthful in its dealings with me.

  2. 2.

    I would characterize this store as honest.

  3. 3.

    This store would keep its commitments.

  4. 4.

    This store is sincere and genuine.

2.1.1.4 Perceived Competence

(1. Agree, 2. Somewhat agree, 3. Somewhat disagree, 4. Disagree)

  1. 1.

    This store is competent and effective in selling crabs.

  2. 2.

    This store performs its role of selling crabs very well.

  3. 3.

    Overall, this store is a capable and proficient Internet crab seller.

  4. 4.

    In general, this store is very knowledgeable about crabs.

2.1.1.5 Intention to Buy

(1. Agree, 2. Somewhat agree, 3. Somewhat disagree, 4. Disagree)

  1. 1.

    Given the chance, I would consider buying crabs from this store in the future. [Item 1]

  2. 2.

    I probably would not buy from this store. [Item 2]

  3. 3.

    It is likely I would consider purchasing from this store. [Item 3]

  4. 4.

    It is unlikely I would return to this store before making a purchase decision. [Item 4]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kobayashi, T., Okada, H. (2013). The Effects of Similarities to Previous Buyers on Trust and Intention to Buy from E-Commerce Stores: An Experimental Study Based on the SVS Model. In: Uesugi, S. (eds) IT Enabled Services. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1425-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1425-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-1424-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-1425-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation