A Study of The Multilevel and Dynamic Nature of Trust in E-Commerce From A Cross-Stage Perspective

International Journal of Electronic Commerce
ISSN: 1086-4415 (Print) 1557-9301 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mjec20
A Study of the Multilevel and Dynamic Nature

of Trust in E-Commerce from a Cross-Stage
Perspective
Dan J. Kim
To cite this article: Dan J. Kim (2014) A Study of the Multilevel and Dynamic Nature of Trust in E-
Commerce from a Cross-Stage Perspective, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 19:1,
11-64
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415190101
Published online: 05 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 342
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 16 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mjec20
A Study of the Multilevel and Dynamic Nature of
Trust in E‑Commerce from a Cross-Stage Perspective
Dan J. Kim
ABSTRACT: Trust in e‑commerce is a multilevel construct (intrapersonal, system, and

interpersonal), and trust building is a dynamic evolutionary process that can be adjusted
over time when additional evidence of new interactions becomes available. From a con‑
sumer’s perspective in a business-to-consumer e‑commerce context, there are at least two
trustees: the Internet as a shopping channel (the e‑channel—system level) and an Internet
selling party or Internet vendor (the e‑vendor—interpersonal level) as a business partner.
Understanding the multilevel and dynamic nature of trust in e‑commerce is important be‑
cause it not only provides practical insights that can be used to further enhance the online
experiences for both online managers and consumers but also extends our conceptual
foundations of trust. Although the multilevel and dynamic nature of trust is a crucial char‑
acteristic of trust in e‑commerce, there is little empirical research. To fill this knowledge
gap, this study proposes a multilevel model of e‑channel and e‑vendor trust, including trust
propensity (intrapersonal level) from a cross-stage (pre- and postpurchase) perspective.
This study also proposes a relatively new construct, the consumer’s perceived delivery
fulfillment in e‑commerce. Implications of the findings for theory and practice as well as
limitations and avenues for future study are discussed.
KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: Delivery fulfillment, dynamic trust model, e‑channel trust,
e‑commerce trust, e‑vendor trust, multilevel trust, trust.
Trust plays a vital role in almost any commerce transaction involving mon-
etary exchanges [70, 77]. The issue of trust may be even more critical in
electronic commerce because the degree of uncertainty of an e‑commerce
transaction is higher than that in a traditional commerce transaction. In a
business-to-consumer e‑commerce context, additional psychological bar-
riers need to be overcome before an online consumer will engage in an
e‑commerce transaction. This is due to a number of unusual characteristics
of online transactions: (1) goods and money usually are not exchanged si-
multaneously, (2) consumers have to provide information that is recorded
by vendors, and (3) the risk exists that the consumer may not get goods that
fit the on-screen description [60]. Thus, cultivating online trust is a critical
strategic imperative because the Web is now an important touchpoint to
reach out to customers.
Trust is a multilevel and dynamic construct involving multiple objects
(e.g., salesperson, product, and company) [30]. In the e‑commerce context,
online transactions involve trust between not only the consumer and the
selling party but also the consumer and the e‑commerce system through
which the monetary transactions are executed [60]. McKnight et al. [103]
distinguished trust by three different dimensions: intrapersonal-level (or
dispositional) trust, system-level trust, and interpersonal-level trust. From an
online consumer’s perspective, there are at least two trustees in e‑commerce:
the Internet as a shopping channel (hereafter e‑channel) and an Internet
International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Fall 2014, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 11–64.
Copyright © 2014 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 1086–4415 (print) / ISSN 1557–9301 (online)
DOI: 10.2753/JEC1086-4415190101
12 Dan J. Kim
selling party or Internet vendor (hereafter e‑vendor), including the Web site,
as a business partner. At a system or institutional level, if a consumer has a
fear of using the Internet as a new shopping channel, the consumer is not
likely to use the e‑channel. Trust in an e‑channel is especially important for
first-time Internet shoppers because most of them are unfamiliar with using
the Internet as their shopping channel. Furthermore, because an e‑commerce
transaction requires a consumer’s sensitive personal and financial information
(e.g., address, phone number, and credit card number), if the consumer does
not have a certain level of trust in the selling party, obviously the consumer
will be reluctant to make a transaction with the selling party. In addition,
trust is not a static construct that remains invariant over time; rather, trust
derives from an interactive process that alters the amount of information
and the depth of the relationship between the trustor and trustee [147]. In
other words, trust should not be viewed as just a single point in time but also
as encompassing the formative stages of trust. A trust relationship evolves
based on new experience or information (e.g., security breaches), so that
individuals constantly update their information base and their decision to
trust [75, 150].
Although previous research on trust in e‑commerce has well elucidated the
essential role of trust and its antecedents in building long-term relationships,
one critical limitation is that the multilevel and dynamic nature of trust has
not been considered at the same time from a longitudinal perspective. The
dynamic and multilevel nature of trust should be taken into consideration
when studying trust in e‑commerce [75, 147]. Because trust is a precious asset
for businesses, particularly for those operating on the Web, it is critical for
them to formulate well-thought-out trust-building strategies for potential
trust adjustment events (e.g., trust violation). In addition, understanding
the multilevel, dynamic nature of trust in e‑commerce not only provides
practical insights that can be used to further enhance the online experiences
for both online managers and consumers but also extends our conceptual
foundations of trust.
Thus, to fill this knowledge gap, this study examines the multilevel nature
of trust (i.e., intrapersonal, system, and interpersonal) through causal link-
ages between trust propensity (intrapersonal level), e‑channel trust (system
level), and e‑vendor trust (interpersonal level) across pre- and posttransaction
phases in the business-to-consumer (B2C) e‑commerce setting. More specifi-
cally, this study addresses the following research questions: What levels of
trust are involved in e‑commerce transactions? What relationships exist
between trustees in e‑commerce transactions? How can the level of trust be
adjusted across pre- and posttransaction phases of e‑commerce?
To answer these research questions, the next section reviews theories and
literature related to the multilevel and dynamic nature of trust as the theo-
retical background of the study. The third section proposes a research model
integrating multiple levels of trust and the dynamic process of trust with a
longitudinal design. The fourth section discusses research methodology and
data collection. The result of the data analysis and a post hoc analysis follows
in the fifth section. Last, the sixth concludes the study with discussions of the
findings as well as the contributions, limitations, and future directions.
International journal of electronic commerce 13
Literature Review and Theory Background
Trust Dynamics
A review of the current literature reveals two insufficiencies: (1) theorywise,

there is no examination of the exact inner workings of trust-forming dynamics;
and (2) there is a related lack of longitudinal study design. Trust can be viewed
as a supplemental control mechanism to deal with uncertainty regarding the
trustee’s behavior [131]. The building of initial trust allows the trustor to take a
risky action and be vulnerable, based on certain perceived characteristics (e.g.,
trustworthiness) of the trustee, without detailed information on the trustee.
This appears to be the focus of current trust literature (e.g., [100, 105]), whose
primary interest appears to be a number of key traits of the trustee (e.g., abil-
ity, benevolence, and integrity) that form the basis of the trustworthiness of
the trustee. As suggested in the current literature, if a trustor perceives these
desirable traits, the trustor will then form trust in the trustee. In other words,
a linkage between traits and a trust chain is the primary theorization in the
current literature.
However, in an online B2C transaction that involves the exchange of money
and goods, this seems to be a simplistic picture of trust dynamics. The con-
sumer (trustor) may develop trust in the trustee the first time the consumer
makes a purchase from the vendor (trustee). If, however, the vendor fails
to deliver on the quality of the goods, then it is unlikely that the consumer
will trust the vendor in the future. Trust is not a static construct that remains
invariant over time. Rather, trust derives from an interactive process that alters
the amount of information and the depth of relationship between the trustor
and trustee [147]. Thus, trust building is an evolutionary process that can be
adjusted when additional evidence (i.e., experience) through new interactions
becomes available; and the trust relationship evolves constantly with updated
information [75, 150]. Unfortunately, although some previous studies on
interpersonal relationships have shown that trust develops and changes over
time based on ongoing interactions [79, 92, 127], the extant literature has not
examined to any substantial extent exactly how trust may continue to evolve
beyond the formation of initial trust (the initial purchase decision). Therefore,
such dynamics of trust should be considered [75, 147].
In terms of study design, it is not surprising that longitudinal studies are
lacking if one considers that the current literature largely assumes the traits →
trust causality. In their influential paper, Mayer et al. [100] theorized a feedback
loop of trust but did not offer any in-depth description of the loop. Choudhury
and Karahanna [29] suggested that trust is a dimension of relative advantage
of an online channel over the traditional brick-and-mortar one. They studied
the transaction as a multistage process that goes from requirement determi-
nation through after-sales service. Their study, however, remains essentially
cross-sectional because its examination stops at the end of the transaction
and its focus is an individual’s perception of the relative advantage of an
e‑channel.
Gefen et al. [55] presented an agenda for future research to extend the con-
ceptual foundations of trust to improve the practice in online environments.
14 Dan J. Kim
They mentioned that trust is not only about one-time interactions. Since trust
develops gradually over time, “future research could opt for longitudinal
studies of trust in online environments to uncover the unexplored nature
and effects of trust over time” [55, p. 277]. This is a crucial omission, because
consumers’ postpurchase process differs qualitatively from the prepurchase
process—they already have prior experiences. Additional or different theoreti-
cal insights are needed to understand the repurchase process and long-term
relationships in computer-mediated transactions.
At least five meta-analytic studies have confirmed the lack of longitudinal
studies in this area.1 Along with the five meta-analytic studies, a comprehen-
sive literature review (see Appendix A) of empirical studies investigating
the multilevel (intrapersonal, system, and interpersonal level) and dynamic
(changing over times) nature of trust in e‑commerce has been conducted (see
Appendix B).2 The result reveals that the large majority of empirical studies
focus on consumer trust propensity and e‑vendor trust. A small number of
papers (five papers) deal with the e‑channels, and a very limited number of
papers focus on the dynamic nature of trust in e‑commerce. Surprisingly,
despite the importance of the multilevel and dynamic nature of trust, none of
the empirical studies deals with consumer trust propensity, e‑channel trust,
e‑vendor trust, and the dynamic nature of trust simultaneously. This is a criti-
cal omission in this area of study.
With the current lack of understanding of the exact mechanisms through
which trust is formed initially and, more importantly, cultivated and reinforced
into continued trust that facilitates further transactions, the extant literature
offers little insight into how trust can help improve e‑commerce. We are of
the view that in B2C commerce trust is built over time primarily through
the interactions of the consumer’s expectations and the vendor’s success, or
lack thereof, in fulfilling those expectations. We therefore take the perspec-
tive of expectation-confirmation theory. This is because “repeated cycles of
exchange, risk taking, and successful fulfillment of expectations strengthen
the willingness of trusting parties to rely upon each other and expand the
resources brought into the exchange” [131, p. 399]. In the online purchase
context, the consumer’s expectations and the vendor’s fulfillment of those
expectations together determine the degree to which the consumer is satisfied
after the consumer makes the decision to purchase online from the vendor.
Consumers’ repeated satisfactory experiences with the selling party increase
the level of trust they have. In other words, trust will be dynamically adjusted
or accumulated over time based on ongoing interactions and lead to a long-
term cooperative (i.e., loyal) relationship [42, 50, 106].
Multilevel Dimensions of Trust in E‑Commerce
McKnight and Chervany [102] posited trust in e‑commerce as integrating three

dimensions: intrapersonal, system, and interpersonal. As a consumer-specific
and intrapersonal-level trust, trust propensity is defined as a customer’s indi-
vidual-level traits that lead to expectations about trustworthiness. Consumers
differ in their inherent propensity to trust because of their different develop-

mental experiences, personality types, and cultural backgrounds [142].
System-level trust is the belief that the needed structural conditions are
present (e.g., in the Internet) to enhance the probability of achieving a suc-
cessful outcome in an endeavor such as e‑commerce [103]. Choudhury and
Karahanna [29] distinguished two aspects of institutional (system) trust as
informational trust (i.e., a user’s beliefs about the reliability, credibility, and
accuracy of information gathered through the Web) and structural assurance
(i.e., a user’s beliefs about the Internet technology being secure from hackers
and unauthorized theft of personal information). Consistent with the concept
of institutional trust by Choudhury and Karahanna [29] and related transaction
risk with e‑channel [22], this study mainly focuses on the concept of e‑channel
trust3 that primarily relates to a system-specific transaction risk of using open
technological infrastructures (i.e., the Internet) for monetary transactions.
Grabner-Kräuter and Kaluscha defined system-dependent uncertainty (equiva-
lent to system-specific transaction risk) as exogenous or environmental uncer-
tainty that relates to “potential technological sources of errors and security
gaps, or, to put it economically, to technology-dependent risks that cannot be
avoided by an agreement or a contract with another actor who is involved in
the transaction” [60, p. 785].
As the most common approach to trust, interpersonal trust is a social tie
between trustor and trustee. In the e‑commerce context, the trustee is a person
or company serving as a transactional partner. As an interpersonal form of
trust, e‑vendor trust is associated with a partner-specific transaction risk that
results from the decisions of the partner and the partner’s ability, integrity,
and willingness to perform.
Mayer et al. [100] established a dyadic model of trust formation, positing
trust as a construct distinct from cooperation or confidence in that trust, imply-
ing that the trustor is willing to accept a degree of risk exposure despite the
perceived risk. In the context of online purchases, a consumer’s switch from
the comfort zone of brick-and-mortar stores to the new, unknown, untested
channel of online shopping entails risk. Trust in the e‑channel is essential for
the consumer to make the switch. Afterward, however, trust in a particular
vendor (e‑vendor) is needed for the consumer to select the vendor despite all
the uncertainties inherent in dealing with an unknown business party. Mayer
et al. thus identified trust as a reason why a consumer is willing to take a risky
action. They also modeled trust propensity as an antecedent to trust.
More interestingly, Mayer et al. [100] suggested that trust may evolve as the
trustor and trustee interact. Hence, the outcomes from a trusting act may go
through a feedback loop that feeds into future trust acts. Extended to online
purchases, it means that the successful completion of the initial transaction is
an important first step in an e‑commerce relationship, but the long-term rela-
tionship depends not only on the factors that fostered trust in the prepurchase
phase but also on the outcomes of the prepurchase decision [112]. However,
Mayer et al. did not explicate exactly how this feedback loop works. Neither
did they empirically test it. In fact, the entire trust-forming dynamics is treated
as a “black box” in the current literature.
16 Dan J. Kim
Postpurchase
Figure 1. Expectation–Confirmation/Disconfirmation Theory
The Expectation-Confirmation Theory and a

Dynamic Trust Model
The single traits → trust causality may explain, at least partially, the forming
of initial trust and purchase. However, to theorize beyond this initial stage
and examine how future trust is formed, this causality assumption is not
sufficient, because, as mentioned earlier, future trust is also shaped by the
consumer’s prior purchase. One path through which feedback exerts influence
on trust evolution is through a causal chain of prepurchase trust (pretrust):
expectation—confirmation/disconfirmation—satisfaction—postpurchase
trust (posttrust). Ultimately, a high level of posttrust leads to a new trusting
act (repurchase).
This causal chain is based on two theories—the expectation-confirmation
theory and the dynamic trust model. First, a satisfactory transaction experi-
ence would appear to be one requirement for the type of continued interest
in a selling party that might lead to repeat transactions. According to the
expectation-confirmation theory or expectation-disconfirmation theory (see Fig-
ure 1), satisfaction—or lack thereof—results from an individual’s compari-
son of expectation and actual outcomes from a transaction. An alignment
between expectations and outcomes (that is, confirmation) leads to satisfac-
tion, whereas a discrepancy (that is, disconfirmation) erodes satisfaction. The
expectation-confirmation theory is widely used to show the relationships
among expectation, satisfaction, reuse/repurchase intention, and behavior
from a longitudinal perspective [4, 12, 14, 35, 84, 112, 113, 115, 136, 139, 145].
The logic of the expectation-confirmation theory framework is well described
by Bhattacherjee [12] and Oliver [113]. First, consumers form an initial expec-
tation of a specific product or service prior to transaction at the prepurchase
stage. Second, after a period of initial consumption, they form perceptions
about its performance. Third, consumers assess its perceived performance
vis-à-vis their original expectation and determine the extent to which their
expectation is confirmed at the postpurchase stage. Fourth, they develop a
satisfaction level based on their confirmation level and the expectation on
which that confirmation was based. Finally, the satisfied consumers form a
repurchase intention.
The relationship between satisfaction and relationship continuation can
be further explained by the social exchange theory. An important tenet of the
Postpurchase
Figure 2. Dynamic Trust Model
theory is that a trustor–trustee relationship terminates or continues based

on the results of two types of comparisons [15, 80, 146]. The first type is the
comparison of the relationships of the trustor and the trustee with other
partners (i.e., alternative relationship comparisons). In other words, the
trustor–trustee relationship may continue unless the trustor or the trustee
finds a better relationship with someone else. The second type is the com-
parison of the relationship with the current partner (i.e., the balance or give-
and-take relationship comparison). As an indicator of how well the trustees
(e.g., vendors) provide services, satisfaction is critical because if trustors (e.g.,
customers) are satisfied with trustees’ performance, both parties will build a
mutual understanding and the relationship will be more likely to continue.
Therefore, in an e‑commerce context, as the customer’s satisfaction increases
with respect to the vendor’s performance, the customer’s trust increases
and the intention to continue the relationship with the existing vendor also
increases.
Drawing from the dyadic trust model and social exchange theory, we pro-
pose a dynamic trust model (see Figure 2). The dynamic trust model rests on
the underlying logic that both posttrust and satisfaction significantly affect
relationship retention (e.g., willingness to reuse, intention to repurchase)
in the postpurchase stage. The degree of posttrust is adjusted based on the
level of pretrust along with the satisfaction of the previous experience at
the postpurchase stage. Satisfaction also plays an important mediating role.
Pretrust at the prepurchase stage is an anchor of the adjusted level of trust
(i.e., posttrust) at the postpurchase stage.
Consistent with Ranaweera and Prabhu [125], we conceptualize relation-
ship retention as a behavioral intention to maintain an ongoing relationship
with a partner. Researchers have used the term “loyalty” [135], “future
behavioral intentions” [157], “behavioral intentions,” [84] and “customer
retention” [33] as synonymous constructs. Relationship retention in our
trust model is directly influenced by two main antecedents: satisfaction and
posttrust. Satisfaction has been regarded as a key determinant of long-term
consumer behavior [38, 110, 153] in that satisfied consumers maintain the
relationship. However, satisfaction alone does not ensure continued customer
relationship with a partner [78]; some researchers (e.g., [66]) have argued
that trust is a stronger predictor than satisfaction. Thus, both satisfaction and
posttrust are strong drivers of long-term relationship retention.
18 Dan J. Kim
Figure 3. Research Model
The Research Model and Hypotheses
Synthesizing the expectation-confirmation theory and the dynamic trust model

along with the multilevel nature (intrapersonal, system, and interpersonal
level) of trust, we propose the research model shown in Figure 3.4 Consumer
trust propensity is not based upon experience with or knowledge of a spe-
cific trusted party, but rather is the result of ongoing lifelong experience and
socialization [49, 105, 130]. In general, a consumer who has a higher level of
disposition to trust is more likely to trust the Internet as a shopping channel
and a selling party across prepost purchase phases. Therefore,
Hypothesis 1a(b): A consumer’s trust propensity is positively related to the

consumer’s pre e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust.
Hypothesis 2a(b): A consumer’s trust propensity is positively related to the

consumer’s post e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust.
An interesting intuitive relationship exists between e‑channel and e‑vendor

trust. A certain level of e‑channel trust is critical for first-time consumers and
for consumers who have had negative perceptions of the Internet as a shopping
channel. Unless they are sure about the e‑channel, they are not willing to use
this new shopping channel. It seems that e‑channel trust is a necessary condi-
tion for e‑channel adoption, and e‑vendor trust is another condition for making
a transaction with an e‑vendor. Thus, in this study we conceptualize e‑channel

trust and e‑vendor trust as separate processes and assume that e‑channel trust
is a necessary condition for e‑vendor trust.5 In other words, the trustworthiness
of the Internet as a shopping medium is a necessary but insufficient condition
for e‑commerce transactions [85, 88, 91]. This assumption actually has been
proposed and validated by a few studies: Pennington et al. [120] found that
system trust is a significant antecedent to perceived trust in vendor. Lee and
Turban [91] proposed that trustworthiness of a particular Internet shopping
medium is likely to affect consumers’ overall trust in Internet shopping (i.e.,
trust in e‑commerce). Thus, potential e‑commerce customers must develop
trust in the e‑channel first, then e‑channel trust promotes e‑vendor trust, and
together they present the necessary and sufficient conditions for e‑commerce
transactions to take place. During a consumer’s initial purchase stage via
the e‑channel, the consumer’s trust in a certain e‑vendor plays a major role,
which in turn affects the consumer’s purchase decision from that e‑vendor.
Therefore, we posit
Hypothesis 3a(b): A consumer’s pre e‑channel (post e‑channel) trust posi-

tively affects the consumer’s pre e‑vendor (post e‑vendor) trust.
Although Mayer et al. [100] proposed the feedback loop of trust in their

dyadic model of trust formation, suggesting that the outcomes from a trusting
act have a bearing on the level of trust in future transactions, they did not delve
into the exact pathways through which this influence might be realized. In
our research model, we argue that a pivotal factor in the dynamic relationship
between pretrust and posttrust is satisfaction. The feedback loop proposed by
Mayer et al. precisely works through satisfaction. The underlying logic behind
the triangular relationships between pretrust, satisfaction, and posttrust is that
posttrust (i.e., adjusted level of trust) can be influenced by two routes. One is
a direct route in which pretrust affects posttrust directly, and the other is an
indirect route in which pretrust affects posttrust indirectly through satisfac-
tion [84]. The indirect effect of pretrust through satisfaction can be decomposed
into another two paths: the direct path from pretrust to satisfaction and the
indirect path from pretrust to satisfaction through expectation. The latter path
is known as a normal consumption process of products and services [153,
154], which explains the vital formation process of satisfaction by showing
how expectation in prephase is transformed by perceived performance into
satisfaction through confirmation.
Satisfaction is an indicator of the quality of service provided by a vendor.
From the lens of social exchange theory, this is critical because if customers are
satisfied with vendor performance, both parties will build mutual understand-
ing and the relationship will be more likely to continue. As the customer’s
satisfaction increases with respect to the vendor’s performance, the customer’s
trust increases and the intention to continue the relationship with the exist-
ing vendor will also increase. In the e‑channel case, when online customers
use the Internet for the first time as a new shopping channel, it is natural for
them to have a lower degree of trust because the e‑channel involves a higher
degree of uncertainty and risk (e.g., worries regarding delivery fulfillment, the
20 Dan J. Kim
potential for theft of private or sensitive data transmitted over the Internet)
than traditional face-to-face shopping channels. However, once they have a
positive experience (i.e., satisfying experience) that contributes to building a
new level of trust in the e‑channel, they do not hesitate to reuse the e‑channel.
Thus, as a summary of the trustor’s previous experience, satisfaction will
affect posttrust, which is a prerequisite for future positive behaviors (i.e.,
reuse, repurchase).
The causal relationship between trust and satisfaction has been discussed
and tested for many years in the literature on consumer relationship man-
agement. Kim et al. [84] showed the direct and indirect effects of trust on
satisfaction and argued that trust and satisfaction are stepping stones toward
long-term relationships with consumers. Zahedi and Song also mentioned
that “trust attitude influences satisfaction both directly as well as indirectly
through the mediated impact of the extent of information use” [156, p. 241].
Balasubramanian et al. [10] showed that high levels of investor trust in a
broker lead to greater satisfaction. Ratnasingham stated, “Trust is an essen-
tial ingredient for electronic commerce in creating loyal and very satisfied
customers” [126, p. 162]. According to a survey conducted by Chakravarty
et al. [20], trust is regarded as the most important factor in determining con-
sumers’ satisfaction with their banks. Thus, it is expected that trust leads to
satisfaction as an antecedent [7, 44, 96].
In the computer-mediated e‑commerce context, a consumer has pretrust
in both an e‑vendor and the e‑channel when the consumer places the first
Internet order through the e‑vendor’s Web site. The next level of trust (i.e.,
posttrust) is revised based on the customer’s satisfaction level with the pre-
vious transaction. Consequently, when the consumer needs to make another
transaction, posttrust will play the role that pretrust did in the first transaction.
Over time, the consumer develops stable and mature trust in the trustee after
the consumer is consistently satisfied with the trustee’s performance. Drawing
from these arguments along with the arguments regarding the dynamic trust
model mentioned earlier, we hypothesize the triangular relationships as
Hypothesis 4a(b): A consumer’s pre e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust positively

affects the consumer’s post e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust.

affects the consumer’s satisfaction with the transaction via the e‑channel
(with the e‑vendor).
Hypothesis 6a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel (e‑vendor) satisfaction positively

affects the consumer’s post e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust.
The research model also explores the indirect effect of consumer pretrust
on satisfaction through the expectation and confirmation/disconfirmation
path (i.e., the postevaluation/postconsumption process). In this indirect path,
expectation plays a connector role between prepurchase and postpurchase
(evaluation) phases. Three different types of expectations have been stud-
ied in the literature: the “ideal expectation,” the “will expectation,” and the
“should expectation” [101, 144]. In line with the “will expectation” and “should
expectation” suggested by [140, 144], expectation in the prepurchase phase is
used as a criterion for comparison of performance in the postpurchase phase,
which refers to what consumers believe they should and will receive from the
shopping channel and selling parties.
In this study, expectation for an e‑vendor is conceptualized as a consumer’s
perceived delivery fulfillment, which refers to the degree to which a consumer
perceives that a product will be delivered properly and will meet the con-
sumer’s expectations as promised. In the B2C e‑commerce context, the key to
success is being able to fulfill customers’ expectations in terms of what they
want, when they want it, and how they want it, all at the lowest cost [128].
Thus, a consumer’s perceived delivery fulfillment is the key expectation before
the consumer makes the online transaction.
Higher trust leads to higher expectation. When a trustor places his or her
trust in the trustee, it is because the trustor perceives the trustee to have the
ability to deliver results [100]. If a consumer has a high level of trust in the
e‑channel when choosing to buy online, the consumer will tend to believe
that the transaction will be done on a reliable platform with infrastructural
components to guarantee secure payment, fair resolution of disputes, and so
on. Thus, the consumer’s expectation of channel performance will be high.
Similarly, if a consumer trusts an e‑vendor more, the consumer will tend to
believe that the e‑vendor will process the order promptly, deliver the goods
in a condition as described, guard the privacy of the consumer’s information
diligently, and so forth. Therefore, a higher level of trust in the e‑vendor also
means higher expectation of delivery fulfillment by the e‑vendor. Building on
these arguments, we propose

affects the consumer’s performance e-channel expectation (perceived delivery
fulfillment) via the e‑channel (via the e‑vendor).
The postpurchase process is much different from the prepurchase process,

primarily because in the postpurchase phase the consumer has substantial
and direct prior experience to draw upon. The postpurchase process can be
explained by expectation-confirmation/disconfirmation theory. In the post-
purchase evaluation process, the transaction using the e‑channel with the
e‑vendor, including the quality of the product or service from the e‑vendor,
will be evaluated in the context of the consumers’ prior expectations and the
actual performance quality of the transaction as perceived after its comple-
tion. Confirmation refers to the consumer’s evaluation or judgment of the
actual performance relative to the prepurchase comparison standard (i.e., the
expectation). Positive confirmation will occur when the consumer’s evalu-
ation is higher than the consumer’s expectations, whereas disconfirmation
(i.e., negative confirmation) will occur when the evaluation does not meet
the expectations [84].
A major source of satisfaction comes from a consumer’s expectation [4, 31,
110, 112, 113]. Theoretical support for the relationship between expectation
and satisfaction comes from adaptation-level theory [69]. The magnitude of
22 Dan J. Kim
satisfaction is a function of expectation, which is the psychological anchor

used in comparison. A higher anchor, for example, the “ideal” level, represents
a higher standard, or “adaptation level” in Helson’s [69] terminology. If the
delivered quality actually exceeds such a high standard, the pleasant “surprise”
it brings about is more welcome than when a lower anchor is used. Hamer [64]
found that a high expectation level is associated with higher perceived service
quality. Thus, satisfaction is a direct result of a consumer’ expectation [84].
A consumer’s satisfaction depends not only on current objective phenomena
but also on prior similar events and subjective expectations [69]. Individual
consumers adjust their perceptions of satisfaction in line with their prior
expectations to reduce dissonance [140]. In other words, a consumer may
maintain multiple expectation levels, formed around what the consumer
perceives as the ideal quality, the typical quality, or the most probable quality
based on his or her past experience [64, 69, 111]. This suggests that the effect
of expectations on satisfaction is twofold. First, they are an important source
of information considered (along with confirmation) to arrive at one’s level of
satisfaction. Second, individuals may adjust their satisfaction level so that it is
consistent with prior expectations. Consequently, satisfaction levels are likely
to be affected by prior expectations. Thus we posit that
Hypothesis 8a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel expectation (perceived delivery

fulfillment by the e‑vendor) affects the consumer’s confirmation/disconfirma-
tion of the transaction via the e‑channel (with the e‑vendor).
Hypothesis 9a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel expectation (perceived delivery

fulfillment by the e‑vendor) affects the consumer’s satisfaction of the transac-
tion via the e‑channel (with the e‑vendor).
Obviously, the performance of the e‑channel or the e‑vendor is the deter-

minant of confirmation or disconfirmation, and the prior expectation is used
as a performance evaluation criterion. Perceived performance is the consumer’s
perception of the quality or value of the product or service after it has been
obtained [31]. A consumer’s satisfaction is a direct result of the consumer’s
comparison of the postpurchase evaluation (i.e., perceived performance) with
the prepurchase expectations [4, 31, 47, 110, 112, 113, 114, 139, 153]. When a
consumer’s perceived performance is higher than the consumer’s perceived
expectation in the prepurchase phase, the result is positive confirmation. In turn,
positive confirmation will lead to a high level of satisfaction. When performance
is lower than expectation, the result is a negative confirmation, and, in turn, a
low level of satisfaction occurs. Building on these arguments, we propose
Hypothesis 10a(b): A consumer’s perceived performance of the e‑channel

(e‑vendor) affects the consumer’s confirmation/disconfirmation of the trans-
action via the e‑channel (with the e‑vendor).
Hypothesis 11a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel (e‑vendor) confirmation/dis-

confirmation affects the consumer’s satisfaction of the transaction via the
e‑channel (with the e‑vendor).
Adapted from Oliver’s [113] definition, satisfaction is defined in this study

as the consumer’s subjective judgment resulting from a process of post-
transaction evaluation and comparison. The level of judgment updates the
consumer’s posttrust in the e‑channel/e‑vendor, which then ultimately affects
the consumer’s intention to use the e‑channel to make other transactions in
the future [5, 31, 47, 114, 153]. If consumers are satisfied with the previous
transaction, they are more likely to continue to use the Internet as a new
shopping channel and to make other transactions through that e‑vendor’s
site. Therefore, we propose
Hypothesis 12a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel (e‑vendor) satisfaction posi-

tively affects the consumer’s intention to reuse the e‑channel (to repurchase
through the e‑vendor).
The role of trust in e‑commerce has been elevated by many studies [52, 77,
93, 102]. Trust enables customers to engage in an online transaction despite
the presence of risk. By the same token, in the repurchase stage, posttrust
(the pretrust adjusted by satisfaction) directly influences a consumer’s future
favorable intent to repurchase from the e‑vendor.
Hypothesis 13a(b): A consumer’s post e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust positively

affects the consumer’s intention to reuse the e‑channel (to repurchase through
the e‑vendor).
Research Design and Data Collection
This study used Web-based surveys in a cross-stage (pre and post) design. As
recommended by Bentler and Chou [11], each construct was measured by at
least three observable indicators. Multiple measures for each construct provide
more accurate representation of the concept of the construct; the measures are
typically downward-biased by measurement error when multiple regression
analysis is applied [24]. The items were written in the form of statements or
questions by following the suggestions of Tourangeau et al. [148]. The measure-
ment items are summarized in Appendix C. Regarding the measurement items
for online trust construct, some studies (e.g., [52, 103]) have used three belief
characteristics of the trustee (i.e., competence, benevolence, and integrity) as
subdimensions, whereas others (e.g., [41, 51, 53, 57, 104] have measured the three
belief characteristics as one dimension [53]. This study adopts the trust measure-
ment items from previous research [51, 76] that uses a single dimension.
Three rounds of surveys were distributed to a group of students enrolled
in lower-level undergraduate courses at a large public university in the north-
eastern United States. The participation was voluntary, and it took less than
15–20 minutes to complete each phase. Those who did not wish to take the
survey were given the option of doing some other work of equal value. To
increase the seriousness of participation, participants were given extra course
credit for each stage, and all participants were entered into random drawings
for a chance to win four $100 cash prizes at the final phase.
24 Dan J. Kim
Several studies [1, 89] have shown that online consumers are generally
younger and more educated than conventional consumers. A number of stud-
ies [1, 71, 90, 91] have utilized students as subjects, under the assumption that
they not only are an important segment of the broader online population but
also are likely to be representative of that broader population. Supporting this
assumption, Ahuja et al. [1] found that students and nonstudents demonstrated
nearly identical patterns of online behavior in terms of products and services
purchased.
To test the research hypotheses of the study concerning two trustees (i.e.,
e‑channel and e‑vendor) in two phases (i.e., prepurchase and postpurchase
stages), this research required relatively complex data collection. Especially
for collecting multistage data about consumers’ pretrust in the e‑channel and
the e‑vendor, self-reported data are necessary in studies of this kind. By using
student samples, we were better able to avoid attrition between data collection
points, and thereby avoid a critical threat to validity. Therefore, student subjects
for this study provided another major advantage.
All questions related to the e‑channel at the prepurchase phase and demo-
graphic information, including trust propensity, were collected from the first-
round survey. In the second round, participants were asked to visit any B2C
e‑vendor Web sites to shop for any item of their choice. If they did not have
any e‑commerce transaction experience before, they were instructed to use any
search engines or price comparison sites to find any e‑vendors to shop for their
item. Then, they were instructed to go through the entire online buying process
up to but excluding the clicking of the buy button to purchase the product. At
this point (immediately prior to clicking the buy button), students were asked to
take survey questionnaires about the site from which they were likely to make
a purchase. All questions related to e‑vendor at the prepurchase phase were
collected from the second-round survey. Right after completing the survey, stu-
dents were asked to go ahead and purchase the item from the site. Survey ques-
tions that related to the postpurchase phase (e‑channel performance, e‑vendor
performance, e‑channel confirmation, e‑vendor confirmation, e‑channel satisfac-
tion, e‑vendor satisfaction, willingness to reuse the e‑channel, and willingness
to repurchase) were collected from a third-round survey administered to the
same students three weeks later, after the respondents in the second-round
survey had received and begun using the item that they ordered.
The surveys received a total of 780 and 767 responses for the first and second
rounds, respectively, and 730 responses for the third round. After eliminating
duplicate, invalid,6 or incomplete responses, a total of 658 usable responses
were collected. After the respondents reported the URL of their very recent
B2C transaction site at the third-round survey, they were asked to answer this
question: “Was the transaction the very first with this e‑vendor?” Because this
study focuses on e‑channel/e‑vendor pretrust and posttrust, the response data
were classified based on this question. Two-hundred forty-nine respondents
reported that their transaction was the very first transaction with the e‑vendor.
The remaining respondents were the ones who had previous transaction experi-
ence with the e‑vendor. In short, 249 samples were used for data analyses and
model testing for e‑channel and e‑vendor trust models. Using the method sug-
gested by Armstrong and Overton [6], we compared early respondents with
late respondents for all constructs of the research model. None of the t‑statistics
for difference in means is statistically significant, indicating that nonresponse
bias is not an issue.
Data Analyses and Results
The proposed hypotheses were tested using SmartPLS7 2.0 M3 [129], which is
a structural modeling technique that is well suited for testing both the mea-
surement model and highly complex predictive structural models at the same
time [24, 25]. All latent variables are modeled as reflective.
Testing the Measurement Models
To ensure the appropriateness of the measurement model, it was tested for

reliability of internal consistency and for convergent and discriminant valid-
ity [17, 26]. The internal consistency for reliability of the measurement models
was tested using Cronbach’s alpha and Fornell’s composite reliability [46]. The
Cronbach reliability coefficients of all variables are higher than the minimum
cutoff score of 0.7 [108, 109], except that for e‑channel expectation, which is a
little less than 0.7 (see Table 1). Composite reliability should be greater than
the benchmark of 0.7 to be considered adequate [46]. All composite reliabili-
ties of constructs have a value higher than 0.7, indicating adequate internal
consistency [108]. All constructs have an average variance extracted (AVE) of
at least 0.5 [46]. Table 1 shows the summarized reliability indices.
Construct validity was examined in terms of convergent validity and
discriminant validity; both are considered subcategories and subtypes of
construct validity [27]. The constructs appear to have acceptable convergent
validity, because all item loadings are greater than 0.50 [151], and the items
for each construct load on only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than
1.0. The AVE can also be used for evaluating discriminant validity. The AVE
for the construct should be higher than the variance shared between the con-
struct and other constructs in the model [24, 46]. As can be seen in Table 2, in
all cases the correlations between each pair of constructs were lower than the
square root of the AVE for the relevant constructs. Using variance inflation
factors (VIFs), we also assessed the possibility of multicollinearity among
all indicators of research constructs in the model. All VIFs are around 5.0,
which is below the cutoff score of 10, indicating that multicollinearity is not
a problem. We also conducted a set of confirmatory factor analyses, although
most measures have already been proved by previous research. The results
are summarized in Appendix D.
Common Methods Bias Testing
Most behavioral science researchers [95, 123] agree that common methods vari-
ance or bias8 is a potential problem in behavioral research, because it is one of
26
Dan J. Kim
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients for Constructs.

Standard Composite Scales
Constructs Mean deviation Alpha reliability AVE adapted from
Trust propensity 4.88 1.15 0.870 0.905 0.659 [51]

Pre e-channel trust 5.41 1.04 0.791 0.862 0.610 [51, 77]
Post e-channel trust 5.70 1.02 0.924 0.938 0.656 [51, 77]
E-channel expectation 5.47 1.17 0.659 0.853 0.744 [45, 46]
E-channel perceived performance 5.13 1.09 0.873 0.912 0.722 [36, 37]
E-channel confirmation 5.08 0.980 0.823 0.883 0.654 [12, 113]
E-channel satisfaction 5.29 1.00 0.878 0.916 0.731 [136]
E-channel reuse intention 5.38 1.18 0.759 0.862 0.675 [51, 77, 99]
Pre e-vendor trust 5.34 1.06 0.847 0.887 0.568 [51, 77]
Post e-vendor trust 5.78 1.06 0.943 0.952 0.664 [51, 77]
E-vendor delivery fulfillment 5.50 1.14 0.750 0.845 0.733 New item
E-vendor perceived performance 5.13 1.09 0.903 0.932 0.775 [36, 37]
E-vendor confirmation 5.03 1.10 0.880 0.917 0.735 [12, 113]
E-vendor satisfaction 5.31 1.17 0.927 0.948 0.821 [136]
Repurchase intention 5.09 1.33 0.875 0.923 0.800 [51, 77, 99]
Table 2. Correlations of Latent Variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Trust propensity 0.817

2. Pre e-channel trust 0.083 0.781
3. E-channel expectation 0.145 0.462 0.862
4. E-channel perceived 0.110 0.266 0.382 0.850
performance
5. E-channel confirmation 0.262 0.270 0.365 0.634 0.809
6. E-channel satisfaction 0.138 0.363 0.460 0.547 0.654 0.855
7. Post e-channel trust 0.277 0.400 0.501 0.506 0.619 0.610 0.810
8. Intention to reuse 0.099 0.270 0.455 0.667 0.698 0.681 0.653 0.822
e-channel
9. Pre e-vendor trust 0.132 0.409 0.412 0.305 0.326 0.410 0.385 0.309 0.755
10. E-vendor delivery 0.121 0.293 0.482 0.316 0.360 0.413 0.339 0.351 0.572 0.856
fulfillment
11. E-vendor perceived 0.127 0.343 0.402 0.738 0.647 0.628 0.624 0.717 0.334 0.329 0.880
performance
12. E-vendor confirmation 0.158 0.308 0.398 0.554 0.787 0.623 0.623 0.640 0.359 0.366 0.732 0.858
13. E-vendor satisfaction 0.092 0.349 0.383 0.465 0.581 0.744 0.503 0.614 0.448 0.359 0.624 0.715 0.906
14. Post e-vendor trust 0.190 0.302 0.432 0.484 0.640 0.564 0.673 0.647 0.492 0.383 0.656 0.751 0.547 0.815
15. Intention to repurchase 0.065 0.253 0.350 0.511 0.563 0.615 0.504 0.712 0.367 0.416 0.689 0.706 0.567 0.674 0.894
Notes: Diagonal elements are the square root of average variance extracted. These values should exceed the interconstruct correlations for adequate discriminant validity.
International journal of electronic commerce
27
28 Dan J. Kim
the main sources of measurement errors that threaten the validity of the conclu-
sions about the relationships between measurements [123]. Thus, to reduce the
biases in this study, we followed the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. [123]
for controlling common methods bias when collecting data and tested com-
mon methods bias using a Harmon one-factor test [122]. Following Podsakoff
and Organ [122], two sets of the Harmon one-factor test were conducted on
seven conceptually separated variables in both an e‑channel trust model and
an e‑vendor trust model. The results revealed that seven distinct components
of both models were present and the most covariance explained by one factor
was 26.11 percent and 23.61 percent, respectively. Because one factor did not
explain much of the variance for each model, we can be reasonably assured
that the data do not indicate evidence of severe common methods bias.
Testing the Structural Model
Assessment of the structural models includes estimating path coefficients and

R2. Both R2 and the path coefficients show how well the model is performing
(i.e., model fit) [73]. The model fit (effectiveness) is analyzed as a measure of
the validity of the model, and statistical tests (t‑tests) of path coefficients are
used to draw conclusions regarding the research hypotheses. As shown in the
results of the e‑channel trust model in Figure 4, consumer trust propensity
has significant positive effects on both e‑channel and e‑vendor trust across the
prepurchase and postpurchase phases, which implies that a consumer who
has a high trust propensity demonstrates a consistent tendency to be willing
to depend on trustees across other situations. We also conducted effect size
analysis, and the results are summarized in Appendix E. The results of effect
size analysis generally support the hypothesis testing results.
For the e‑channel trust model, a consumer’s pre e‑channel trust shows
a strong positive effect on the consumer’s post e‑channel trust (b = 0.198,
p < 0.01). As expected, pre e‑channel trust affects the consumer’s e‑channel
satisfaction (b = 0.221, p < 0.01), and in turn, e‑channel satisfaction strongly
affects post e‑channel trust (b = 0.511, p < 0.001). All hypothesized paths
related to the e‑channel in expectation-confirmation theory are supported,
except the link between e‑channel expectation and e‑channel satisfaction. A
consumer’s e‑channel reuse intention is significantly affected by e‑channel
satisfaction and post e‑channel trust. Finally, regarding the path coefficients
of the linkages between two trustees, a consumer’s pre e‑channel trust and
post e‑channel trust have strong positive effects on pre e‑vendor trust and
post e‑vendor trust, respectively.
For the e‑vendor trust model, a consumer’s initial e‑vendor trust has
strong positive effects on both post e‑vendor trust and e‑vendor satisfaction.
A consumer’s post e‑vendor trust is strongly affected by e‑vendor satisfac-
tion in the postpurchase phase. Interestingly, the path coefficient between
perceived delivery fulfillment by the e‑vendor and e‑vendor satisfaction is not
significant, which is consistent with the result of the e‑channel trust model. All
hypothesized paths in the model are significant except H2b and H9b. Table 3
summarizes the results of the hypothesis tests.
Figure 4. Structural Model Results

* Significant at the 0.05 level; ** significant at the 0.01 level; *** significant at the 0.001 level.
Turning to how the model fits, the R2 for pre e‑channel trust, post e‑channel
trust, e‑channel expectation, e‑channel satisfaction, e‑channel confirmation,
and e‑channel reuse intention are 0.117, 0.443, 0.214, 0.496, 0.420, and 0.553,
respectively. The relatively high R2 show that the model fits well with the
data and provides a strong explanation of the variance in these variables.
For example, the R2 of e‑channel reuse intention is 0.553, indicating that the
model explains 55 percent of the variability in a consumer’s e‑channel reuse
intention.
A Post Hoc Analysis: The Mediating Effect of Satisfaction
To explicitly check whether satisfaction actually acts as a mediator between

pretrust and posttrust, we conducted a post hoc analysis using the robust
bootstrapping techniques suggested by Hayes [67]. First, the model was run
without e‑channel satisfaction and e‑vendor satisfaction. Because the direct
effects of both pretrusts (i.e., pre e‑channel trust and pre e‑vendor trust) omit-
ting the mediators were significant, the model was run with mediators. The
indirect effects are calculated as the product of two path coefficients between
pretrust → satisfaction and satisfaction → posttrust. Then, we calculated
the value of the variance accounted for (VAF) effect. The values of VAF of
the e‑channel trust model and the e‑vendor trust model are 0.381 and 0.333,
30 Dan J. Kim
Table 3. Results of Hypothesis Testing.

Hypothesis Results
H1a Trust propensity → pre e-channel trust Supported *

H1b Trust propensity → pre e-vendor trust Supported *
H2a Trust propensity → post e-channel trust Supported **
H2b Trust propensity → post e-vendor trust Not supported
H3a Pre e-channel trust → pre e-vendor trust Supported ***
H3b Post e-channel trust → post e-vendor trust Supported ***
H4a Pre e-channel trust → post e-channel trust Supported **
H4b Pre e-vendor trust → post e-vendor trust Supported **
H5a Pre e-channel trust → e-channel satisfaction Supported **
H5b Pre e-vendor trust → e-vendor satisfaction Supported **
H6a E-channel satisfaction → post e-channel trust Supported ***
H6b E-vendor satisfaction → post e-vendor trust Supported ***
H7a Pre e-channel trust → e-channel expectation Supported ***
H7b Pre e-vendor trust → e-vendor delivery fulfillment Supported ***
H8a E-channel expectation → e-channel confirmation Supported **
H8b E-vendor delivery fulfillment → e-vendor confirmation Supported *
H9a E-channel expectation → e-channel satisfaction Not supported
H9b E-vendor delivery fulfillment → e-vendor satisfaction Not supported
H10a E-channel performance → e-channel confirmation Supported ***
H10b E-vendor performance → e-vendor confirmation Supported ***
H11a E-channel confirmation → e-channel satisfaction Supported ***
H11b E-vendor confirmation → e-vendor satisfaction Supported ***
H12a E-channel satisfaction → e-channel reuse intention Supported ***
H12b E-vendor satisfaction → repurchase intention Supported **
H13a Post e-channel trust → e-channel reuse intention Supported **
H13b Post e-vendor trust → repurchase intention Supported **
* Significant at the 0.05 level; ** significant at the 0.01 level; *** significant at the 0.001 level.
respectively. The results show that 38 percent and 33 percent of the total effects
of posttrust are explained by the indirect effect in the e‑channel trust model
and the e‑vendor trust model, respectively. This result shows that satisfaction
plays a mediating role between pretrust and posttrust.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study has several key findings. First, the multilevel (i.e., intrapersonal,
system, and interpersonal) nature of trust on behavior intentions is empirically
validated. In other words, the results of structure model testing show that a
consumer’s trust propensity (i.e., an intrapersonal-level trust construct) shows
a significant influence on both e‑channel trust and e‑vendor trust across two
phases (i.e., initial and repurchase phase); and a consumer’s e‑channel trust
has a strong effect on e‑vendor trust across two phases.
Second, the triangular relationships among initial trust, satisfaction, and post-
trust in e‑channel and e‑vendor models were confirmed. This result provides
evidence that trust changes over time with the variations in the level of trust
in prepurchase phase stage and satisfaction with previous transactions. That

is, trust has a dynamic rather than static nature.
Third, the hypothesis testing results of the postpurchase phase mostly sup-
port the expectation-confirmation theory contentions that (1) a consumer’s
expectation is positively associated with the consumer’s confirmation, (2) a
consumer’s perceived performance has a strong positive influence on confirma-
tion, (3) confirmation has a strong effect on satisfaction, and (4) satisfaction is
a strong predictor of the consumer’s future behavior intentions (i.e., e‑channel
reuse and repurchase from the e‑vendor site).
Fourth, contrary to our anticipation, a consumer’s expectation did not show
a significant effect on satisfaction. Interestingly, although it conflicts with the
proposition of the expectation-confirmation theory, this result is consistent
across the two models (e‑channel trust and e‑vendor trust).
Finally, another important finding in this study is that a consumer’s
e‑channel (e‑vendor) satisfaction and post e-channel (e‑vendor) trust are
strong determinants of the consumer’s e‑channel reuse intention (repurchase
intention) in the postpurchase phase. This is consistent with the results of
consumer/user satisfaction studies in conventional user/consumer behavior
of information systems and service marketing [5, 12, 35, 110, 115, 121, 139].
From these results, a consumer’s satisfaction has a strong direct and indirect
effect on the consumer’s intention to repurchase through a mediating variable,
adjusted posttrust. In other words, satisfaction plays a significant role in adjust-
ing the level of a consumer’s posttrust, which then increases the consumer’s
intention to reuse the e‑channel (repurchase through the e‑vendor Web site).
In addition, the mediating role of trust between pretrust and posttrust is also
explicitly confirmed by a bootstrap sampling method.
Together, testing of these hypotheses reveals the dynamic process of trust
formation. As discussed earlier, some researchers have argued that trust
dynamics does not end after initial trust; rather, a more complex process
ensues after the initial trusting act (e.g., [75, 100, 147]). At the simplest level,
this is represented by a feedback loop, such as those suggested in Mayer et
al. [100] and Inkpen and Currall [75]. However, to the best of our knowledge,
no prior studies have empirically investigated this effect. Such an effect can
be captured only in a cross-stage (pre and post) design, such as the one used in
this study. Our test results show that pretrust is a significant predictor of post-
trust. In addition, we show the mechanism by which higher levels of pretrust
may feed into higher levels of posttrust, that is, the confirmation of consumer
expectations.
Theoretically, the study shows that the proposed dynamic trust model is con-
firmed and the major propositions of expectation-confirmation theory still hold
when placed in the context of trusting behaviors in online purchases. When
the e‑vendor’s performance meets the consumer’s expectation, confirmation
occurs and the consumer’s satisfaction increases accordingly. Higher satisfac-
tion in turn enhances the level of posttrust. Also, somewhat counterintuitively,
our test results confirm prior theories about the role of adaptation levels
(or standards for evaluating a seller’s performance) in satisfaction. In other
words, if the consumer holds a high level of expected vendor performance
after placing an order, and if the vendor is able to deliver such high-standard
32 Dan J. Kim
performance, the confirmation and thus satisfaction brought to the consumer

are in fact more delightful than if the consumer starts out with a low-standard
expectation. In the latter case, meeting a low standard of performance is rather
mediocre and thus not as delightful.
Contributions of the Study
Our findings have some important theoretical contributions and practical

implications. The proposed research model includes a new dynamic trust
model that deals with the triangular relationships among pretrust, satisfaction,
and posttrust across two phases. First, it breaks down the pretrust → post-
trust link into two paths: one is the direct route from pretrust to posttrust;
and the other one is the indirect route, containing satisfaction as a mediator
between pretrust and posttrust. Synthesizing the dynamic trust model and
expectation-confirmation theory, the proposed research model is extended
to include another indirect transient route showing the effect of pretrust on
satisfaction through expectation, perceived performance, and confirmation
paths across two phases (i.e., prepurchase and postpurchase). The extended
model provides a theoretical bridge of two essential facets (i.e., multilevel and
dynamic) of trust construct. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the
pioneer studies that focuses on the multilevel and dynamic nature of trust at
the same time from a cross-stage perspective.
This study also provides empirical evidence of the dynamic nature of
trust in computer-mediated commerce transactions through the e‑channel
and e‑vendor trust models. The influence of pretrust on postadjusted trust
was found to be equal across the two trustees (i.e., e‑channel and e‑vendor).
The results of the study fully confirm the dynamic trust model and the major
propositions of expectation-confirmation theory in the e‑commerce context.
This study proposes a relatively new construct, consumer’s perceived deliv-
ery fulfillment in e‑commerce, which is another theoretical contribution. As
a consumer’s expectation from e‑vendors, perceived delivery fulfilment is
a strong antecedent of e‑vendor confirmation. However, the impact of both
expectations (i.e., e‑channel expectation and e‑vendor delivery fulfilment)
on satisfaction is confirmed by neither the e‑channel nor the e‑vendor trust
models; therefore, future investigation is needed in this area on the theoretical
foundation in order to better understand the conflicting results in detail.
From a practical perspective, according to the results of the study, trust
seems to have two aspects: one is related to the current transaction, and the
other is related to adjusted trust (i.e., posttrust) mediated by satisfaction, which
affects future intention to transact. The former aspect of trust is considered
to be a point at which consumers start their initial relationship with a busi-
ness. A consumer’s initial trust strongly influences not only the consumer’s
expectation of a current transaction but also the consumer’s satisfaction with
the transaction. In turn, satisfaction leads to the intention of future behaviors.
As in traditional consumer satisfaction studies, it also holds true in electronic
commerce that consumer satisfaction is still a critical determinant of willing-
ness to perform a future behavior. Thus, trust plays a crucial role across the
prepurchase and postpurchase phases. This forms expectations for evaluating

previous experience and fosters satisfaction and posttrust, affecting future
behaviors. The latter aspect of trust can be thought to provide stability and
robustness in long-term relationships. Trust coupled with satisfaction is among
the biggest factors that determine a long-term relationship, which is impera-
tive to the success of a business. Posttrust, or adjusted trust, plays exactly the
same role as initial trust does in the earlier time frame. Thus, from a practical
perspective, Internet business managers should consider trust not just as an
output of a one-time process but as an iterative and evolving process itself.
The knowledge of trust dynamics can be invaluable to e‑vendors in this
endeavor. The study reveals that the confirmation of expected quality and
vendor/channel performance is pivotal in shaping consumers’ satisfaction
with the channel and the vendor, and hence postpurchase trust. There-
fore, ensuring quality and performance should take the central position in
e‑vendors’ business process management and customer relationship manage-
ment programs.
Moreover, this study demonstrates to vendors the importance of cultivating
consumer trust with a long-term horizon. As suggested by Shankar et al. [133],
e‑vendors should accord trust building strategic importance. Although there
is no face-to-face interaction between the consumer and the vendor in online
transactions, as Gefen and Straub [54] have pointed out, the perceived social
presence created by Web site characteristics influences a consumer’s trust in
the vendor. Therefore, it is imperative that the vendor build a relationship
with consumers with the same diligence that would go into a face-to-face
transaction. Consistency among multiple touchpoints with consumers is key
to attracting loyal customers [133].
The positive relationship between e‑channel trust and e‑vendor trust across
two stages highlights the importance of system-level e‑channel trust, which
affects interpersonal-level trust. Internet business managers should put empha-
sis on developing programs to enhance not only interpersonal-level trust
but also system-level e‑channel trust. For example, a successful educational
intervention for e‑commerce novices about how to make safe and successful
e‑commerce transactions and/or about e‑channel security features, including
managerial aspects (e.g., business assurance seal services, privacy and security
policy, spam protection policy) and technical aspects (e.g., secure hypertext
transfer protocol [HTTP], secure electronic transaction [SET] protocol, Plat-
form for Privacy Preferences [P3P] Project), can help them better understand
the Internet shopping environment and feel the e‑channel is a safe shopping
channel. In turn, it can lead to e‑vendor trust in general.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study has several limitations and provides suggestions for future research.
First, although we justify collecting data from low-level undergraduate stu-
dents, caution should still be exercised when extending the findings to the
broader population of Internet consumers. Second, in this study we focused on
direct and indirect effects of initial trust and satisfaction on posttrust. However,
34 Dan J. Kim
the argument of dynamic trust could also work if satisfaction is explicitly mod-
eled as a moderator—posttrust is less than initial trust if satisfaction is low,
but greater than initial trust if satisfaction is high. Similarly, the expectation-
confirmation argument can be modeled as a moderating relationship. Thus, an
interesting future study might compare alternative models of dynamic trust
(i.e., the direct, mediated, and moderated effects of trust models).
In addition, although we tried to control common methods bias when col-
lecting the data, this study is not free from some well-known self-reported
data limitations, such as the skewed responses due to suggestive stimuli,
idiosyncratic scale interpretations, and alteration through biases related to
cognitive consistency and social desirability. Therefore, as with most studies
that use a self-reported and limited sample, the findings of the study should
be applied with caution.
An assumption of this study is that the relationships hold regardless of the
type of goods purchased. However, previous studies have found that, depend-
ing on the type of goods and consumers’ price elasticity, the effect of trust may
be significant on some merchandise types but not on other types [133]. Future
studies are needed to examine whether the same differences are observed
over time.
Notes
1. Meta-analytic studies on trust in e‑commerce were reviewed because they

cover literature from a comprehensive perspective and help to ensure that the next
wave of primary research moves in the correct direction. The review results are
summarized in Appendix B.
2. As part of this study, empirical papers including meta-analytic studies ap-
pearing in the electronic commerce literature from 1995 to 2013 and investigating
consumer trust propensity, e‑channel trust, or e‑vendor trust were identified by
means of a computer bibliographic search with issue-by-issue searches of the major
journals related to information systems and electronic commerce.
3. Because system-specific trust and instructional trust do not refer to trust in a
vendor/company and its Web site itself but rather to the transactional structures of
the Internet legitimizing the channel environment and to trust mechanisms as ways
of encouraging one party to anticipate successful transactions with another party, in
this study e‑channel trust is considered as a broad concept of trust in the Internet for
monetary transactions, which includes the concept of institutional trust and system
trust collectively.
4. Although this study focuses on trust in both trustees (e‑channel and e‑vendor)
at the same time, for hypothesis development discussions mainly focus on e‑vendor
trust because of space limitations.
5. The opposite relationship between e‑channel trust and e‑vendor trust is
also possible—that is, if a buyer is dissatisfied with a vendor, then obviously this
reflects lack of satisfaction with the e‑channel too. In this study, however, because
we focus on the consumer group that made their first e‑commerce transaction with
an e‑vendor, the effect of their experience with the vendor on the e‑channel is not
proposed in the research model.
6. To eliminate this false reporting error, we added two validity check questions:
“Please do not answer this question—Yes/No” and “Have you answered all the
questions truthfully based on your ACTUAL experience?” Thirty-one and 20 re-
spondents were excluded who answered “Yes/No” for the first question and “No”
for the second question, respectively.
7. Compared to other structural equation modeling tools, SmartPLS is a relatively

new and easy to use software application for the design of structural equation mod-
els (SEMs) that allows graphical path modeling with latent variables.
8. Common methods bias refers to error that is attributable to the measurement
method rather than to the construct of interest.
9. f 2 = (R2included – R2excluded)/(1 – R2included).
References
1. Ahuja, M.; Gupta, B.; and Raman, P. An empirical investigation of online

consumer purchasing behavior. Communications of the ACM, 46, 12 (2003),
145–151.
2. Alam, S.S., and Yasin, N.M. What factors influence online brand trust:
Evidence from online tickets buyers in Malaysia. Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 5, 3 (2010), 78–89.
3. Andaleeb, S.S. An experimental investigation of satisfaction and com-
mitment in marketing channels: The role of trust and dependence. Journal of
Retailing, 72, 1 (1996), 77–93.
4. Anderson, E.W., and Sullivan, M.W. The antecedents and consequences
of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12, 2 (1993), 125–143.
5. Anderson, E.W.; Fornell, C.; and Lehmann, D. Customer satisfaction,
market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing,
58, 3 (1994), 53–66.
6. Armstrong, J., and Overton, T. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail
surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (1977), 396–402.
7. Armstrong, R.W., and Yee, S.M. Do Chinese trust Chinese? A study of
Chinese buyers and sellers in Malaysia. Journal of International Marketing, 9,
3 (2001), 63–86.
8. Awad, N.F., and Ragowsky, A. Establishing trust in electronic commerce
through online word of mouth: An examination across genders. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 24, 4 (spring 2008), 101–121.
9. Ba, S., and Pavlou, P.A. Evidence of the effect of trust building technol-
ogy in electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Quar-
terly, 26, 3 (2002), 243–268.
10. Balasubramanian, S.; Konana, P.; and Menon, N.M. Customer satisfac-
tion in virtual environments: A study of online investing. Management Sci-
ence, 49, 7 (2003), 871–889.
11. Bentler, P.M., and Chou, C.P. Practical issues in structural modeling.
Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 1 (1987), 78–117.
12. Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An
expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25, 3 (2001), 351–370.
13. Bhattacherjee, A. Individual trust in online firms: Scale development
and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 1 (summer
2002), 211–242.
14. Bhattacherjee, A., and Premkumar, G. Understanding changes in belief
and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and
longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28, 2 (2004), 229–254.
15. Blau, P. Exchange in Power and Social Life. New York: John Wiley, 1964.
36 Dan J. Kim
16. Bock, G.-W.; Lee, J.; Kuan, H.-H.; and Kim, J.-H. The progression of
online trust in the multi-channel retailer context and the role of product
uncertainty. Decision Support Systems, 53 (2012), 97–107.
17. Bollen, K.A. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1989.
18. Brengman, M., and Karimov, F.P. The effect of Web communities on
consumers’ initial trust in B2C e‑commerce Websites. Management Research
Review, 35, 9 (2012), 791–817.
19. Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C.; and Guinalíu, M. The generation of trust in
the online services and product distribution: The case of Spanish electron-
ic commerce. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 12, 3 (2011), 199–213.
20. Chakravarty, S.; Feinberg, R.; and Widdows, R. Reasons of their dis-
content. Bank Marketing, 29, 11 (1997), 49–52.
21. Chang, M.K.; Cheung, W.; and Lai, V.S. Literature derived reference
models for the adoption of online shopping. Information and Management,
42, 4 (2005), 543–559.
22. Chaudhury, A.; Mallick, D.; and Rao, H.R. Web channels in e‑com-
merce. Communications of the ACM, 44, 1 (2001), 99–104.
23. Chen, J., and Dibb, S. Consumer trust in the online retail context: Ex-
ploring the antecedents and consequences. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 4
(2010), 323–346.
24. Chin, W.W. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS
Quarterly, 22, 1 (1998), 7–16.
25. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. In G.A. Marcoulides (ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998, pp. 295–336.
26. Chin, W.W., and Gopal, A. Adoption intention in GSS: Relative im-
portance of beliefs. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 26, 2/3
(1995), 42–64.
27. Chin, W.W.; Gopal, A.; and Salisbury, W.D. Advancing the theory of
adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness
of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8, 4 (1997), 342–367.
28. Chiu, C.-M.; Hsu, M.-H.; Lai, H.; and Chang, C.-M. Re-examining the
influence of trust on online repeat purchase intention: The moderating
role of habit and its antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 53, 4 (2012),
835–845.
29. Choudhury, V., and Karahanna, E. The relative advantage of electronic
channels: A multidimensional view. MIS Quarterly, 32, 1 (2008), 179–200.
30. Chow, S., and Holden, R. Toward an understanding of loyalty: The
moderating role of trust. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 3 (1997), 275–298.
31. Churchill, G.A., and Surprenant, C. An investigation into the determi-
nants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 4 (1982),
491–504.
32. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
33. Cronin, J.J., Jr.; Brady, M.K.; and Hult, G.T.M. Assessing the effects of
quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural inten-
tions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76, 2 (2000), 193–218.
34. Cyr, D. Modeling Web site design across cultures: Relationships to trust,
satisfaction, and e‑loyalty. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 4
(spring 2008), 47–72.
35. Dabolkar, P.A.; Shepard, D.D.; and Thorpe, D.I. A comprehensive
framework for service quality: An investigation of critical conceptual and
measurement issues through a longitudinal study. Journal of Retailing, 76, 2
(2000), 139–173.
36. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user accep-
tance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3 (1989), 319–340.
37. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; and Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of comput-
er technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science,
35, 8 (1989), 982–1003.
38. Devaraj, S.; Fan, M.; and Kohli, R. Antecedents of B2C channel satisfac-
tion and preference: Validating e‑commerce metrics. Information Systems
Research, 13, 3 (2002), 316–333.
39. Dimitriadis, S., and Kyrezis, N. Linking trust to use intention for tech-
nology-enabled bank channels: The role of trusting intentions. Psychology &
Marketing, 27, 8 (2010), 799–820.
40. Dinev, T., and Hart, P. An extended privacy calculus model for e‑com-
merce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17, 1 (2006), 61–80.
41. Doney, P.M., and Cannon, J.P. An examination of the nature of trust in
buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 2 (1997), 35–51.
42. Dwyer, F.R.; Schurr, P.H.; and Oh, S. Developing buyer–seller relation-
ships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 4 (1987), 11–27.
43. Everard, A., and Galletta, D.F. How presentation flaws affect perceived
site quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 22, 3 (winter 2006), 55–96.
44. Flaherty, K.E., and Pappas, J.M. The role of trust in salesperson–sales
manager relationships. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 10, 4
(2000), 271–278.
45. Fornell, C. A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish
experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, 1 (1992), 6–21.
46. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 18, 1 (1981), 39–50.
47. Fornell, C., and Westbrook, R.A. The vicious circle of consumer com-
plaints. Journal of Marketing, 48, 3 (summer 1984), 68–78.
48. Fornell, C.; Johnson, M.D.; Anderson, E.W.; Cha, J.; and Bryant, B.E.
The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, purpose, and findings.
Journal of Marketing, 60, 4 (1996), 7–18.
49. Fukuyama, F. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New
York: Free Press, 1995.
50. Ganesan, S. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer–seller rela-
tionships. Journal of Marketing, 58 (April 1994), 1–19.
51. Gefen, D. E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28, 6
(2000), 725–737.
52. Gefen, D. Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness
among online consumers. ACM SIGMIS Database, 33, 3 (2002), 38–53.
38 Dan J. Kim
53. Gefen, D. What makes an ERP implementation relationship worthwhile:

Linking trust mechanisms and ERP usefulness. Journal of Management Infor-
mation Systems, 21, 1 (summer 2004), 263–288.
54. Gefen, D., and Straub, D.W. Consumer trust in B2C e‑commerce and the
importance of social presence: Experiments in e‑products and e‑services.
Omega, 32, 6 (2004), 407–424.
55. Gefen, D.; Benbasat, I.; and Pavlou, P.A. A research agenda for trust
in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 4
(spring 2008), 275–286.
56. Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; and Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in online
shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27, 1 (2003), 51–90.
57. Gefen, D.; Rose, G.M.; Warkentin, M.; and Pavlou, P.A. Cultural diver-
sity and trust in IT adoption: A comparison of potential e‑voters in the USA
and South Africa. Journal of Global Information Management, 13, 1 (2005),
54–78.
58. Geyskens, I.; Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M.; and Kumar, N. Generalizations
about trust in marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 3 (1998), 223–248.
59. Geyskens, I.; Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M.; and Kumar, N. A meta-analysis of
satisfaction in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 36 (May 1999), 223–238.
60. Grabner-Kräuter, S., and Kaluscha, E.A. Empirical research in on-line
trust: A review and critical assessment. International Journal of Human–
Computer Studies, 58, 6 (2003), 783–812.
61. Grazioli, S., and Jarvenpaa, S.L. Perils of Internet fraud: An empirical
investigation of deception and trust with experienced Internet consumers.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 30, 4 (2000), 395–410.
62. Grewal, D.; Gotlieb, J.; and Marmorstein, H.M. The moderating effects of
message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relation-
ship. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June 1994), 145–153.
63. Gupta, A.; Su, B.; and Zhiping, W. An empirical study of consumer
switching from traditional to electronic channels: A purchase-decision
process perspective. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8, 3 (spring
2004), 131–161.
64. Hamer, L.O. A confirmation perspective on perceived service quality.
Journal of Services Marketing, 20, 4 (2006), 219–232.
65. Hampton-Sosa, W., and Koufaris, M. The effect of Web site perceptions
on initial trust in the owner company. International Journal of Electronic Com-
merce, 10, 1 (fall 2005), 55–81.
66. Hart, C.W., and Johnson, M.D. Growing the trust relationship. Marketing
Management, 8, 1 (1999), 8–19.
67. Hayes, A.F. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in
the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 4 (2009), 408–420.
68. Heijden, H.; Verhagen, T.; and Creemers, M. Understanding online
purchase intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives.
European Journal of Information Systems, 12 (2003), 41–48.
69. Helson, H. Adaptation-Level Theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
70. Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T.P.; and Peralta, M. Building consumer trust
online. Communications of the ACM, 42, 4 (1999), 80–85.
71. Houston, R.W., and Taylor, G.K. Consumer perceptions of CPA
WebTrustSM assurances: Evidence of an expectation gap. International Journal
of Auditing, 3, 2 (1999), 89–105.
72. Hu, X.; Wu, G.; Wu, Y.; and Zhang, H. The effects of Web assurance seals
on consumers’ initial trust in an online vendor: A functional perspective.
Decision Support Systems, 48, 2 (2010), 407–418.
73. Hulland, J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management
research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 2
(1999), 195–204.
74. Hwang, Y., and Lee, K.C. Investigating the moderating role of uncer-
tainty avoidance cultural values on multidimensional online trust. Informa-
tion & Management, 49, 3 (2012), 171–176.
75. Inkpen, A.C., and Currall, S.C. The nature, antecedents, and conse-
quences of joint venture trust. Journal of International Management, 4, 1
(1998), 1–20.
76. Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Tractinsky, N.; and Saarinen, L. Consumer trust in an
Internet store: A cross-cultural validation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-
munication, 5, 2 (1999), 1–35.
77. Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., and Vitale, M. Consumer trust in an In-
ternet store. Information Technology and Management, 1, 1/2 (2000), 45–71.
78. Jones, T.O., and Sasser, W.E. Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard
Business Review, 89, 6 (November–December 1995), 88–99.
79. Kanawattanachai, P., and Yoo, Y. Dynamic nature of trust in virtual
teams. Strategic Information Systems, 11, 3/4 (2002), 187–213.
80. Kelly, H.H., and Thibaut, J.W. Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interde-
pendence. New York: Wiley, 1978.
81. Kim, D., and Benbasat, I. The effects of trust-assuring arguments on con-
sumer trust in Internet stores: Application of Toulmin’s model of argumen-
tation. Information Systems Research, 17, 3 (2006), 286–300.
82. Kim, D., and Benbasat, I. Trust-assuring arguments in B2C e‑commerce:
Impact of content, source, and price on trust. Journal of Management Informa-
tion Systems, 26, 3 (winter 2010), 175–206.
83. Kim, D.J. Self-perception-based versus transference-based trust deter-
minants in computer-mediated transactions: A cross-cultural comparison
study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 4 (spring 2008), 13–45.
84. Kim, D.J.; Ferrin, D.L.; and Rao, H.R. Trust and satisfaction, two step-
ping stones for successful e‑commerce relationships: A longitudinal explo-
ration. Information Systems Research, 20, 2 (2009), 237–257.
85. Kim, D.J.; Song, Y.I.; Braynov, S.B.; and Rao, H.R. A multi-dimensional
trust formation model in B-to-C e‑commerce: A conceptual framework and
content analyses of academia/practitioner perspectives. Decision Support
Systems, 40, 2 (2005), 143–165.
86. Kim, J.B. An empirical study on consumer first purchase intention in
online shopping: Integrating initial trust and TAM. Electronic Commerce
Research, 12, 2 (2012), 125–150.
40 Dan J. Kim
87. Kim, K.K., and Prabhakar, B. Initial trust and the adoption of B2C
e‑commerce: The case of internet banking. ACM SIGMIS Database, 35, 2
(spring 2004), 50–64.
88. Kini, A., and Choobineh, J. Trust in electronic commerce: Definition
and theoretical considerations. In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the
Thirty-First Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
vol. 4. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998, pp. 51–61.
89. Kotkin, J. The mother of all malls. Forbes, 161, 7 (April 6, 1998), 60–65.
90. Kovar, S.E.; Burke, K.G.; and Kovar, B.R. Consumer responses to the
CPA WebTrust assurance. Journal of Information Systems, 14, 1 (2000), 17–35.
91. Lee, M.K.O., and Turban, E. A trust model for consumer Internet shop-
ping. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6, 1 (fall 2001), 75–91.
92. Lewicki, R.J., and Bunker, B.B. Developing and maintaining trust in
work relationships. In R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organi-
zations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996,
pp. 114–139.
93. Li, D.; Browne, G.J.; and Wetherbe, J.C. Why do Internet users stick
with a specific Web site? A relationship perspective. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 10, 4 (summer 2006), 105–141.
94. Lim, K.H.; Sia, C.L.; Lee, M.K.O.; and Benbasat, I. Do I trust you on-
line, and if so, will I buy? An empirical study of two trust-building strate-
gies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 2 (fall 2006), 233–266.
95. Lindell, M.K., and Whitney, D.J. Accounting for common method vari-
ance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1
(2001), 114–121.
96. Liu, A.H., and Leach, M.P. Developing loyal customers with a value-
adding sales force: Examining customer satisfaction and the perceived
credibility of consultative salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 11, 2 (2001), 147–156.
97. Liu, C.; Marchewka, J.T.; Lu, J.; and Yu, C.-S. Beyond concern: A
privacy-trust-behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Informa-
tion and Management, 42, 1 (2004), 127–142.
98. Lowry, P.B.; Vance, A.; Moody, G.; Beckman, B.; and Read, A. Explain-
ing and predicting the impact of branding alliances and Web site quality
on initial consumer trust of e‑commerce Web sites. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 24, 4 (spring 2008), 199–224.
99. Mathieson, K. Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology
acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Sys-
tems Research, 2, 3 (1991), 173–191.
100. Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; and Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model
of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 3 (1995),
709–734.
101. McKinney, V.; Yoon, K.; and Zahedi, F. The measurement of Web-
customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach.
Information Systems Research, 13, 3 (2002), 296–315.
102. McKnight, D.H., and Chervany, N.L. What trust means in e‑com-
merce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6, 2 (winter 2001–2), 35–60.
103. McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; and Kacmar, C. Developing and vali-
dating trust measures for e‑commerce: An integrative typology. Information
Systems Research, 13, 4 (2002), 334–359.
104. McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; and Kacmar, C. The impact of initial
consumer trust on intentions to transact with a Web site: A trust building
model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 3/4 (2002), 297–323.
105. McKnight, D.H.; Cummings, L.L.; and Chervany, N.L. Initial trust for-
mation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review,
23, 3 (1998), 473–490.
106. Morgan, R.M., and Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of rela-
tionship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 3 (1994), 20–38.
107. Nicolaou, A.I., and McKnight, D.H. Perceived information quality in
data exchanges: Effects on risk, trust, and intention to use. Information Sys-
tems Research, 17, 4 (2006), 332–351.
108. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
109. Nunnally, J.C., and Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3d ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
110. Oliver, R.L. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November 1980),
460–469.
111. Oliver, R.L. What is customer satisfaction? Wharton Magazine, 5, 2
(1981), 36–41.
112. Oliver, R.L. Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction
response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 3 (1993), 418–430.
113. Oliver, R.L. Expectation processes in satisfaction formation. Journal of
Service Research, 1, 3 (1999), 196–214.
114. Oliver, R.L., and Linder, G. Effect of satisfaction and its antecedents on
consumer preference and intention. In K.B. Monroe (ed.), Advances in Con-
sumer Research, vol. 8. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,
1981, pp. 88–93.
115. Patterson, P.G.; Johnson, L.W.; and Spreng, R.A. Modeling the determi-
nants of customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional servic-
es. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 1 (1997), 4–17.
116. Pavlou, P.A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating
trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 7, 3 (spring 2003), 101–134.
117. Pavlou, P.A., and Dimoka, A. The nature and role of feedback text com-
ments in online marketplaces: Implications for trust building, price premi-
ums, and seller differentiation. Information Systems Research, 17, 4 (2006),
392–414.
118. Pavlou, P.A., and Gefen, D. Building effective online marketplaces with
institution-based trust. Information Systems Research, 15, 1 (2004), 37–59.
119. Pavlou, P.A.; Liang, H.G.; and Xue, Y. Understanding and mitigating
uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal–agent perspective.
MIS Quarterly, 31, 1 (2007), 105–136.
120. Pennington, R.; Wilcox, H.D.; and Grover, V. The role of system trust
in business-to-consumer transactions. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 20, 3 (winter 2004), 197–221.
42 Dan J. Kim
121. Pitt, L.F.; Watson, R.T.; and Kavan, C.B. Service quality: A measure of
information systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 19, 2 (1995), 173–187.
122. Podsakoff, P., and Organ, D. Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 4 (1986), 531–533.
123. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; and Podsakoff, N.P. Com-
mon method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the litera-
ture and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5 (2003),
879–903.
124. Premazzi, K.; Castaldo, S.; Grosso, M.; Raman, P.; Brudvig, S.; and
Hofacker, C.F. Customer information sharing with e‑vendors: The roles
of incentives and trust. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14, 3
(spring 2010), 63–91.
125. Ranaweera, C., and Prabhu, J. The influence of satisfaction trust and
switching barriers on customer retention in a continuous purchasing set-
ting. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14, 3/4 (2003),
374–395.
126. Ratnasingham, P. Trust in Web-based electronic commerce security.
Information Management & Computer Security, 6, 4 (1998), 162–166.
127. Rempel, J.K.; Holmes, J.G.; and Zanna, M.P. Trust in close relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1 (1985), 95–112.
128. Ricker, F.R., and Kalakota, R. Order fulfillment: The hidden key to
e‑commerce success. Supply Chain Management Review, 11, 3 (1999), 60–70.
129. Ringle, C.; Wende, S.; and Will, S. SmartPLS 2.0 M3 (available at www.
smartpls.com).
130. Rotter, J.B. Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American
Psychologist, 26, 5 (1971), 443–450.
131. Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; and Camerer, C. Not so dif-
ferent after all: A cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 3 (1998), 393–404.
132. Saeed, K.A.; Hwang, Y.; and Yi, M.Y. Toward an integrative framework
for online consumer behavior research: A meta-analysis approach. Journal
of End User Computing, 15, 4 (2003), 1–13.
133. Shankar, V.; Urban, G.L.; and Sultan, F. Online trust: A stakeholder
perspective, concepts, implications, and future directions. Journal of Strate-
gic Information Systems, 11, 3/4 (2002), 325–344.
134. Sinclaire, J.K.; Simon, J.C.; and Wilkes, R.B. A prediction model for ini-
tial trust formation in electronic commerce. International Business Research,
3, 4 (2010), 17–27.
135. Singh, J., and Sirdeshmukh, D. Agency and trust mechanisms in con-
sumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science, 28, 1 (2000), 150–167.
136. Spreng, R.A.; MacKenzie, S.B.; and Olshavsky, R.W. A reexamination
of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60, 3
(1996), 15–32.
137. Suh, B., and Han, I. Effect of trust on customer acceptance of Inter-
net banking. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, 1, 3/4 (2002),
247–263.
138. Swan, J.E.; Bowers, M.R.; and Richardson, L.D. Customer trust in the
salesperson: An integrative review and meta-analysis of the empirical litera-
ture. Journal of Business Research, 44, 2 (1999), 93–107.
139. Swan, J.E., and Trawick, I.F. Disconfirmation of expectations and satis-
faction with a retail service. Journal of Retailing, 57, 3 (1981), 49–67.
140. Szajna, B., and Scamell, R.W. The effects of information system user
expectations on their performance and perceptions. MIS Quarterly, 17, 4
(1993), 493–516.
141. Szymanski, D.M., and Henard, D.H. Customer satisfaction: A meta-
analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,
29, 1 (2001), 16–35.
142. Tan, F.B., and Sutherland, P. Online consumer trust: A multi-dimensional
model. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 2, 3 (2004), 40–58.
143. Taylor, S.A., and Hunter, G. An exploratory investigation into the ante-
cedents of satisfaction, brand attitude, and loyalty within the (B2B) eCRM
industry. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, 16 (January 2003), 19–35.
144. Teas, R.K. Expectations, performance, evaluation, and consumers’ per-
ceptions of quality. Journal of Marketing, 57, 4 (1993), 18–34.
145. Tesch, D.; Jiang, J.J.; and Klein, G. The impact of information system
personnel skill discrepancies on stakeholder satisfaction. Decision Sciences,
34, 1 (2003), 107–130.
146. Thibaut, J.W., and Kelley, H.H. The Social Psychology of Groups. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959.
147. Tomkins, C. Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships,
alliances and networks. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 2 (2001),
161–191.
148. Tourangeau, R.; Rips, L.J.; and Rasinski, K. The Psychology of Survey
Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
149. Wareham, J.; Zheng, J.G.; and Straub, D. Critical themes in electronic
commerce research: A meta-analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 20, 1
(2005), 1–19.
150. Wicks, A.C.; Berman, S.L.; and Jones, T.M. The structure of optimal
trust: Moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management Review, 24, 1
(1999), 99–116.
151. Wixom, B.H., and Watson, H.J. An empirical investigation of the factors
affecting data warehousing. MIS Quarterly, 25, 1 (2001), 17–41.
152. Wu, G.; Hu, X.; and Wu, Y. Effects of perceived interactivity, perceived
Web assurance and disposition to trust on initial online trust. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 1 (2010), 1–26.
153. Yi, Y. A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In V.A. Zeithaml
(ed.), Review of Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1990,
pp. 68–123.
154. Yi, Y., and La, S. What influences the relationship between customer
satisfaction and repurchase intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted
expectations and customer loyalty. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 5 (2004),
351–373.
44 Dan J. Kim
155. Yoon, S.J. The antecedents and consequences of trust in online-purchase

decisions. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 16, 2 (2002), 47–63.
156. Zahedi, F.M., and Song, J. Dynamics of trust revision: Using health
infomediaries. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 4 (spring 2008),
225–248.
157. Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L.; and Parasuraman, A. The behavioral conse-
quences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60 (1996), 31–46.
158. Zhang, Y.; Fang, Y.; Wei, K.K.; Ramsey, E.; McCole, P.; and Chen, H. Re-
purchase intention in B2C e‑commerce—A relationship quality perspective.
Information & Management, 48, 6 (2011), 192–200.
Appendix A: Selected Literature on E-Channel Trust and E-Vendor Trust
Variables related to
E‑channel Theoretical
Study trust* E‑vendor trust Other variables background Key findings
Kim and Prabhakar Initial trust in the Trust in bank (IV) Adoption of Internet banking Social network theory, trust Trust in e‑channel → adoption of e‑banking (+)
[87] e‑channel (MeV) (DV), propensity to trust theory Trust in bank → adoption of e‑banking (ns)
(IV), structural assurances Propensity-to-trust → trust in e‑channel (+)
(IV), word-of-mouth refer‑ Word-of-mouth referrals → trust in e‑channel (+)
rals (IV) Structural assurances → trust in e‑channel (+)
Lee and Turban Trustworthiness of Trustworthiness Consumer trust in Internet Consumer trust in Trustworthiness of Internet shopping → consumer
[91] Internet shop‑ of Internet mer‑ shopping (DV), trust pro‑ e‑commerce trust in Internet shopping (ns)
ping medium (IV) chant (IV) pensity (MoV), contextual Significant moderating effect of trust propensity
factors (IV)
Gefen et al. [56] Institution-based Trust in e‑vendor Intended use of Web site Technology acceptance Calculative-based beliefs → trust in e‑vendor (+)
structural as‑ (MeV) (DV), calculative-based model (TAM), literature Institution-based structural assurances → trust in
surances (IV), beliefs (IV), knowledge- review on trust in e‑vendor (+)
institution-based based familiarity (DV), e‑commerce Institution-based situational normality → trust in
situational nor‑ perceived ease of use e‑vendor (+)
mality (DV) (MeV), perceived useful‑ Knowledge-based familiarity → trust in e‑vendor (ns)
ness (MeV) Trust in e‑vendor → intended use of Web site (+)
Perceived ease of use → trust in e‑vendor (+)
Trust in e‑vendor → perceived usefulness (+)
Pennington et al. System trust (IV) Trust in vendor Vendor reputation (IV), Theory of reasoned action System trust → perceived trust in vendor (+)
[120] (MeV) attitude toward vendor (TRA), and institutional Vendor reputation → perceived trust in vendor (+)
(MeV), purchase intent frameworks Perceived trust in vendor → attitude toward
(DV) vendor (+)
Attitude toward vendor → purchase intent (+)
(continues)
45
46
Appendix A. Continued
Dan J. Kim
Bock et al. [16] Online trust (MeV)— Offline trust (IV)— Perceived structural assur‑ Transference-based, self- Word of mouth → online trust (+)
trust of retailer’s trust of retailer’s ance of Internet (IV), word perception-based, and Offline trust → online trust (+)
online operation physical store of mouth (IV), perceived calculus-based trust Perceived efficacy of sanctions → online trust (+)
efficacy of sanctions (IV), Web site quality → online trust (+)
perceived Web site quality Online trust → online purchase intention (+)
(IV), online purchase inten‑ Product type * word of mouth → online trust
tion (DV) Product type * offline trust → online trust
Product type * perceived efficacy of sanctions →
online trust
Product type * Web site quality → online trust
Suh and Han [137] Trust in Internet — Attitude toward using (DV), TAM Trust in Internet banking → behavioral intention to
banking (MeV) behavioral intention to use (+)
use (DV), actual use (DV), Trust in Internet banking → attitude toward using (+)
perceived usefulness (IV), Perceived usefulness → trust in Internet banking (+)
perceived ease of use (IV)
Devaraj et al. [38] E‑channel satisfac‑ — Usefulness (MeV), ease of TAM, transaction cost Usefulness → e‑channel satisfaction (+)
tion (MeV) use (IV), time (IV), price analysis, and service Ease of use → e‑channel satisfaction (+)
saving (IV), e‑channel quality Time → e‑channel satisfaction (+)
preference Price saving → e‑channel satisfaction (+)
E‑channel satisfaction → e‑channel preference (+)
Gupta et al. [63] Channel-switching — Channel risk perception (IV), TRA Channel risk perception → channel switching (–)
tendency (DV) price search intentions Price search intentions → channel switching (+)
(IV), search effort (IV), Search effort → channel switching (ns)
evaluation effort (IV), Evaluation effort → channel switching (–)
delivery time (IV) Delivery time → channel switching (–)
Dinev and Hart Internet trust (MeV) — Privacy risk (IV), privacy TRA, theory of planned Privacy risk → Internet trust (–)
[40] concerns (IV), willing‑ behavior (TPB), calculus Internet trust → willingness to provide personal
ness to provide personal of behavior information (+)
information (DV) Privacy concerns → willingness to provide personal
information (–)
Choudhury and Trust in Web-based — Relative advantage (MeV), Innovation diffusion theory Trust → relative advantage (+)
Karahanna [29] electronic chan‑ behavioral intention Relative advantage → behavioral intent Web (+)
nels in general
(IV)
Dimitriadis and Trusting beliefs in — Trusting intentions (MeV), pri‑ TAM, TRA, trust-related Channel trust → trusting intentions (+)
Kyrezis [39] e‑banking chan‑ vacy (IV), ease of use (IV), literature Trusting intention → use intention (+)
nel (IV) transaction security (IV), Usefulness → use intention (+)
usefulness (IV), familiarity Usefulness → trusting intention (+)
(IV), innovativeness (IV), Security → trusting intention (+)
stance on new technolo‑ Familiarity → use intention (+)
gies (IV), level of informa‑ Stance to new technologies → trusting intention (+)
tion (IV), use intention (DV) Stance to new technologies → trusting intention (+)
Level of information → use intention (+)
Sinclaire et al. Trust in the Internet — Social influence (IV), features Heuristic-systematic model Trust in the Internet → willingness to provide per‑
[134] (IV) of institutional trust (IV), of persuasive commu‑ sonal information (+)
features of social presence nication, elaborative Social influence of family → willingness to provide
(IV), willingness to provide likelihood model of personal information (–)
personal information (DV) persuasion Moderate level of Web site characteristics (insti‑
tutional trust and social presence) is the most
likely to lead to willingness to provide personal
information
(continues)
47
48
Dan J. Kim
Pavlou and Gefen — Trust in the com‑ Transaction intentions (DV), Dyadic trust, institution- Trust in intermediary → trust in the community of
[118] munity of sellers actual transaction behav‑ based trust, and sellers (+)
(MeV), trust in ior (DV), effectiveness of perceived risk Trust in the community of sellers → perceived risk (–)
intermediary (IV) feedback mechanism (IV), Trust in the community of sellers → transaction
escrow services (IV), credit intentions (+)
card guarantees (IV) Transaction intentions → actual behaviors (+)
Perceived risk → transaction intentions (–)
Gefen et al. [57] — E‑voter’s trust in Perceived usefulness of Calculative theory of Trust → perceived usefulness of IT (+)
agency (MeV) IT (DV), social-cultural behavior, social identity Trust → perceived usefulness of IT (USA > RSA)
similarity (IV), propensity theory Social-cultural similarity → trust (+)
to trust (CV) Social-cultural similarity → trust (RSA > USA)
Propensity to trust—partly confirmed
Liu et al. [97] — Trust (MeV) Privacy (notice, access, TRA Privacy → trust (+)
choice, security) (IV), be‑ Trust → behavioral intention (+)
havioral intention (repeat
purchase, visit again,
recommend to others, posi‑
tive remarks) (DV)
Taylor and Hunter — Trust in service Loyalty (DV), affect (IV), Literature review on eCRM Trust in service provider → satisfaction (+)
[143] provider (IV) resistance to change (IV), (electronic customer re‑ Trust in service provider → attitude (+)
value (IV), brand attitude lationship management) Trust in service provider → loyalty (ns)
(MeV), satisfaction (MeV) and loyalty
Heijden et al. [68] — Trust in online store Attitudes toward online TAM and literature review Trust in online store → attitudes toward online
(IV) purchasing (MeV), on trust purchasing (ns)
online purchase intention Trust in online store → perceived risk (–)
(DV), perceived risk (IV), Perceived risk → attitudes toward online
perceived ease of use (IV), purchasing (–)
perceived usefulness (IV)
Balasubramanian — Trustworthiness Trust disposition (IV), price TAM, service quality Trust disposition → trustworthiness (+)
et al. [10] (MeV) (IV), operational compe‑ Operational competence → trustworthiness (+)
tence (MeV), environ‑ Environmental security → trustworthiness (+)
mental security (MeV), Trustworthiness → satisfaction (+)
satisfaction (DV)
Pavlou [116] — Trust in Web retail‑ Actual transaction (DV), inten‑ TAM, TRA Trust in Web retailers → intention to transact (+)
ers (IV) tion to transact (MeV), Trust in Web retailers → perceived risk (–)
perceived risk (MeV), Trust in Web retailers → perceived usefulness (+)
perceived usefulness Trust in Web retailers → perceived ease of use (+)
(MeV), perceived ease of
use (MeV)
Bhattacherjee [13] — Trust in online firm Familiarity with online firm Literature review on trust Familiarity with online firm → trust (+)
(MeV) (IV), willingness to transact Trust → willingness to transact (+)
(DV)
Yoon [155] — Web site trust Transaction security (IV), Literature review on trust Transaction security → Web site trust (+)
(MeV) Web site properties (IV), Web site properties → Web site trust (+)
navigation functionality Navigation functionality → Web site trust (ns)
(IV), personal variables Personal variables → Web site trust (+)
(IV), Web site awareness Web site awareness → Web site trust (+)
(MeV), Web site satisfac‑ Web site satisfaction → Web site trust (+)
tion (MeV), purchase Web site trust → purchase intention (+)
intention (DV)
Ba and Pavlou [9] — Trust in seller (MeV) Feedback (IV), price premi‑ Sources of trust, types Feedback → trust in seller (+)
ums (DV), product price of trust from literature Trust in seller → higher price premiums (+)
(MoV) review Significant moderating effect of product price
(continues)
49
50
Dan J. Kim
Grazioli and — Trust in Web sites Actual purchase and willing‑ Social exchange theory, Trust → attitude toward shopping at the store (+)
Jarvenpaa [61] (MeV, MoV) ness to buy (DV), attitude literature review on trust Nonsignificant moderating effect of trust
toward shopping at the Perceived deceptiveness → trust (+)
store (MeV), risk (MeV), Trust mechanisms → trust (+)
assurance mechanisms Nonsignificant moderating effect of perceived
(IV), trust mechanisms (IV), deceptiveness
perceived deceptiveness
(IV, MoV)
Gefen [51] — Trust in vendor Disposition to trust (IV), famil‑ Literature review on famil‑ Familiarity → trust in vendor (+)
(MeV) iarity (IV), inquire (DV), iarity and trust Disposition to trust → trust in vendor (+)
purchase (DV) Trust in vendor → inquire (+)
Trust in vendor → purchase (+)
Andaleeb [3] — Trust in supplier (IV) Buyer’s satisfaction (DV), Literature on dependence Trust in supplier → satisfaction (+)
commitment (DV), depen‑ and trust Trust in supplier → commitment (+)
dence on supplier (MoV) Significant moderating effect of dependence for
commitment but not for satisfaction
Grewal et al. [62] — Postpurchase trust Repurchase intentions (DV), Literature review on fairness Internet pricing tactics → postpurchase trust (+)
(MeV) price fairness (MeV), inter‑ and trust Size of price difference → postpurchase trust (ns)
net pricing tactics (IV), cost Postpurchase trust → repurchase intentions (+)
explanation (MoV), size of Significant moderating effect of cost explanation
price difference (IV)
Hampton-Sosa and — Initial trust in com‑ Web site appeal (IV), Web TAM Web site appeal → initial trust in company (+)
Koufaris [65] pany (MeV) site usability (IV), intention Web site appeal → intention to use Web site (+)
to use Web site (DV) Initial trust in company → intention to use Web
site (+)
Li et al. [93] — Trust (MeV) Satisfaction (IV), com‑ Commitment-trust theory, Satisfaction → trust (+)
munication quality (IV), investment model Communication quality → trust (+)
opportunistic behavior Opportunistic behavior → trust (–)
(IV), commitment (MeV), Trust → commitment (+)
stickiness intention (DV) Trust → stickiness intention (+)
Commitment → stickiness intention (+)
Lim et al. [94] — Trusting beliefs Portal affiliation (IV), cus‑ Literature review on the Customer endorsement → trusting beliefs (+)
(MeV) tomer endorsement (IV), central concept of trust Trusting beliefs → attitude (+)
attitude (DV), willingness Attitude → willingness to buy (+)
to buy (DV)
Nicolaou and — Trusting beliefs Perceived information quality Literature review on the Perceived information quality → trust (+)
McKnight [107] (MeV) (IV), perceived risk (MeV), outcomes or benefits Trust → risk (–)
intention to use (DV) of interorganizational Trust → intention to use (+)
systems
Everard and — Trust in online store Perceived quality of online Impression formation, trust, Perceived quality of online store → trust (+)
Galletta [43] (MeV) store (MeV), intention to credibility Trust → intention to purchase (+)
purchase (DV)
Li et al. [93] — Trust in a Web site Stickiness intention (DV), com‑ Relationship theories, Satisfaction → trust (+)
(MeV) mitment (MeV), satisfac‑ the investment model, Communication quality → trust (+)
tion (IV), communication commitment-trust theory Opportunistic behavior → trust (–)
quality (IV), opportunistic Trust → stickiness intention (+)
behavior (IV) Trust → commitment (+)
Pavlou and Dimoka — Two dimensions of Outstanding text comments Feedback mechanism: Outstanding text comments → benevolence (+)
[117] trust: benevo‑ (IV), abysmal text com‑ word of mouth, literature Abysmal text comments → benevolence (–)
lence (MeV) and ments (IV), trust propensity review on trust Outstanding text comments → credibility (+)
credibility (MeV) (IV), buyer’s past experi‑ Abysmal text comments → credibility (–)
ence (IV), price premiums Benevolence → price premiums (+)
(DV) Credibility → price premiums (+)
(continues)
51
52
Dan J. Kim
Kim and Benbasat — Trust in an Internet Claim only (IV), claim plus Toulmin’s model of Contrast tests result for trust belief
[81] store (DV) data (IV), claim plus data argumentation Control group < claim plus data group < claim plus
and backing (IV) data and backing group
Control group < claim plus data and backing group
Claim only group < claim plus data and backing
group
Pavlou et al. [119] — Trust in Web sites Perceived information asym‑ Principal–agent perspec‑ Trust → perceived information asymmetry (–)
(IV) metry (MeV), fears of tive in buyer–seller Trust → fears of seller opportunism (–)
seller opportunism (MeV), relationships Trust → information privacy concerns (–)
information privacy con‑ Trust → information security concerns (–)
cerns (MeV), information
security concerns (MeV)
Choudhury and — Trust in the agent Relative advantage (MeV), Innovation diffusion theory Informational trust → relative advantage (+)
Karahanna [29] (IV) behavioral intent Web Relative advantage → behavioral intent Web (+)
(DV)
Kim [83] — Trust in e‑vendor Security protection (IV), pri‑ Hofstede’s five cul‑ Security protection → trust in e‑vendor (+)
(MeV) vacy concern (IV), system tural dimensions, System reliability → trust in e‑vendor (+)
reliability (IV), third-party self-perception-based vs. Trust in e‑vendor → willingness to use (+)
seal (IV), referral (IV), transference-based trust Privacy concern → trust in e‑vendor (–) for U.S.
willingness to use (DV) model
Third-part seal → trust in e‑vendor (+) for Korean
model
Referral → trust in e‑vendor (+) for Korean model
Kim et al. [84] — Trust in selling Perceived risk (MeV), Extended valence Trust → risk (–), trust → benefit (+)
party or entity perceived benefit (MeV), framework, expectation- Trust → willingness to purchase (+)
(IV) expectation (IV), willing‑ confirmation theory Willingness to purchase → purchase (+)
ness to purchase (DV), Trust → satisfaction (+)
perceived performance Expectation → willingness to purchase (+)
(IV), confirmation (MeV), Perceived performance → confirmation (+)
satisfaction (MeV), Confirmation → satisfaction (+)
e‑loyalty (DV) Satisfaction → e‑loyalty (+)
Zahedi and Song — Trustworthiness Information quality (IV), Information integration Information quality → trustworthiness beliefs (+)
[156] beliefs (ability, reputation (IV), prior ex‑ theory Reputation → trustworthiness beliefs (+)
benevolence, perience (IV), propensity Prior experience → trustworthiness beliefs (+)
integrity) (MeV), to trust (IV), satisfaction Propensity to trust → trustworthiness beliefs (+)
trust attitude (MeV) Trustworthiness beliefs → trust attitude (+)
(DV) Trust attitude → satisfaction (+)
Satisfaction → trustworthiness beliefs (+)
Trustworthiness beliefs at T1 → trustworthiness
beliefs at T2 (+)
Cyr [34] — Trust in Web site Navigation design (IV), visual Culture and trust theory Navigation design → trust in Web site (+)
(MeV) design (IV), information Visual design → trust in Web site (+)
design (IV), satisfaction Information design → trust in Web site (+)
(MeV), e‑loyalty (DV) Trust in Web site → satisfaction (+)
Trust in Web site → e‑loyalty (+)
Awad and — Trust in Web site Word-of-mouth quality TAM and word of mouth Word-of-mouth quality → trust (+)
Ragowsky [8] (MeV) (MeV), subjective norm Perceived ease of use → trust (+)
(IV), perceived ease of use Perceived usefulness → trust (+)
(MeV), perceived useful‑ Trust → intention to shop online (+)
ness (MeV), intention to
shop online (DV), gender
(CV)
(continues)
53
54
Dan J. Kim
Kim et al. [84] — Trust in e‑vendor Perceived risk (MeV), Extended valence Trust → risk (–)
(IV) perceived benefit (MeV), framework, expectation- Trust → benefit (+)
willingness to purchase confirmation theory Trust → willingness to purchase (+)
(DV), expectation (IV), Trust → satisfaction (+)
perceived performance Expectation → willingness to purchase (+)
(IV), confirmation (MeV), Expectation → confirmation (–)
satisfaction (MeV), Perceived performance → confirmation (+)
e‑loyalty (DV) Confirmation → satisfaction (+)
Satisfaction → e‑loyalty (+)
Kim and Benbasat — Trusting beliefs in Content of trust-assuring Elaboration likelihood Given that the source factor was controlled, the
[82] an Internet store arguments (IV), source of model content factor is more influential when purchasing
(DV) arguments (IV), price (IV), a high-price product.
order of visit (IV) The interaction between two types of arguments and
price is significant.
The main effects of the content factor and the source
factor are significant.
Premazzi et al. — Initial trust (high Compensation type (no com‑ Self-disclosure theories Trust * compensation → willingness to provide
[124] vs. low) in a pensation, nonmonetary, information
company Web monetary), willingness Trust * compensation → behavioral information
site (IV) to provide information, disclosure
behavioral information
disclosure, behavioral
disclosure of sensitive
information
Wu et al. [152] — Initial online trust in Disposition to trust (IV), Consumer trust model, Perceived interactivity → initial trust (+)
e‑vendor (MeV) perceived interactivity (IV), extended dual mediation Perceived interactivity → attitude toward a Web
perceived Web assurance model site (+)
(IV), perceived risk (MeV), Perceived Web assurance → initial trust (+)
attitude toward e‑vendor Perceived Web assurance → perceived risk (–)
(MeV), attitude toward Perceived Web assurance → perceived
e‑vendor’s site (MeV), interactivity (+)
purchase intention (DV) Perceived Web assurance → attitude toward a Web
site (+)
Initial trust → perceived risk (–)
Perceived risk → attitude toward an e‑vendor (+)
Attitude toward an e‑vendor → purchase
intention (+)
Initial trust → attitude toward a Web site (+)
Chen and Dibb — Trust in a Web site Web site usability (IV), secu‑ Web site quality and Web site usability → attitude toward the site (+)
[23] (MeV) rity and privacy (IV), prod‑ consumer trust Web site usability → trust (+)
uct information quality Security and privacy → trust (+)
(IV), speed of download Product information quality → trust (+)
(IV), attitudes toward the Trust → attitudes toward the site (+)
site (MeV), Web site ap‑ Attitudes toward the site → Web site approach
proach intention (DV) intention (+)
Trust → Web site approach intention (+)
Zhang et al. [158] — Distrust in vendor Perceived Web site usability Relationship marketing Distrust in vendor behavior → relationship quality (–)
behavior (IV) (IV), perceived expertise Perceived Web site usability → relationship
(IV), reputation (IV), quality (+)
relationship quality (MeV), Perceived expertise → relationship quality (+)
repurchase intention (DV) Reputation → relationship quality (+)
Perceived Web site usability → repurchase
intention (+)
Relationship quality → repurchase intention (+)
(continues)
55
56
Dan J. Kim
Brengman and — Initial trust beliefs Integration of social network Stimulus-organism-response Combination of social networking site and blog →
Karimov [18] (MeV): ability, sites (IV), integration of paradigm benevolence (+)
benevolence, corporate blog (IV), pur‑ Benevolence → purchase intention (–)
integrity chase intentions (DV) Blog → integrity (–)
Integrity → purchase intention (–)
Hwang and Lee — Online trust beliefs Social norms (IV), uncertainty Culture theories Subjective norms → benevolence (+)
[74] (MeV): ability, avoidance (MoV), pur‑ Subjective norms → integrity (+)
benevolence, chase intention (DV) Integrity → purchase intention (+)
integrity Ability → purchase intention (+)
Uncertainty avoidance * subjective norms →
integrity
Uncertainty avoidance * subjective norms → ability
Chiu et al. [28] — Trust (MeV) Familiarity (IV), value (MeV), Habit, satisfaction, trust Familiarity → habit (+)
utilitarian value (IV), hedo‑ theories Utilitarian value → value (+)
nic value (IV), satisfaction Hedonic value → value (+)
(IV), habit (MoV), repeat Value → satisfaction (+)
purchase intention (DV) Value → habit (+)
Satisfaction → habit (+)
Satisfaction → trust (+)
Trust → repeat purchase intention (+)
Habit → repeat purchase intention (+)
Habit * trust → repeat purchase intention
Kim [86] — Initial trust belief Initial trust base toward an Trust theory, TAM Initial trust base (company reputation, structural as‑
toward an e‑vendor (IV), perceived surance, trust stance) → trust belief (+)
e‑vendor (MeV) usefulness of an online Initial trust belief → initial trust attitude (+)
shopping system (MeV), Initial trust belief → perceived usefulness of online
perceived ease of use of shopping system (+)
an online shopping system Perceived ease of use of online shopping sys‑
(IV), initial trust attitude tem → perceived usefulness of online shopping
toward an e‑vendor system (+)
(MeV), usage attitude of Perceived usefulness of online shopping system →
an online shopping system usage attitude (+)
(MeV), first-purchase inten‑ Initial trust attitude → usage attitude (+)
tion (DV) Usage attitude → first-purchase intention (+)
Casaló et al. [19] — Trust (MeV) Usability (IV), satisfaction Trust, satisfaction, security Usability → trust (+)
(IV), reputation (IV), theories Satisfaction → trust (+)
perceived security in the Reputation → trust (+)
handling of privacy data SHPD trust (+)
(SHPD) (IV), commitment Trust → commitment (+)
(DV)
Alam and Yasin [2] — Online brand trust Good online experience (IV), Trust theory Good online experience (IV) → online brand trust (+)
(DV) quality of information (IV), Quality of information (IV) → online brand trust (+)
perceived risk (IV), word Perceived risk (IV) → online brand trust (–)
of mouth (IV), brand repu‑ Word of mouth (IV) → online brand trust (+)
tation (IV), security (IV) Brand reputation (IV) → online brand trust (+)
Security (IV) → online brand trust (+)
Hu et al. [72] — Initial trust in an Privacy assurance seal (IV), Trust theory, cue utilization Privacy assurance seal → trust (+) (partial support)
online vendor security assurance seal theory, cue consistency Security assurance seal → trust (+) (partial support)
(DV) (IV), transaction-integrity theory Transaction integrity assurance seal → trust (+)
assurance seal (IV) (partial support)
Privacy assurance * security assurance → trust
Privacy assurance * transaction integrity assur‑
ance → trust
Notes: *Because the concept of e‑channel trust is used as a broad concept of trust in the Internet as a marketing channel, the studies have system trust and institutional trust variables
classified as e‑channel trust. IV = independent variable, DV = dependent variable, MeV = mediating variable, MoV = moderating variable, CV = control variable, USA = United States of
America; RSA = Republic of South Africa. (+) = statistically positive, (– ) = statistically negative, ns = not significant.
57
58 Dan J. Kim
Appendix B: Summary of Five Meta-Analytic Studies
There have been at least five meta-analytic studies to date that have reviewed
and critically synthesized consumer trust and online consumer behavior in
electronic commerce context. A meta-analysis study conducted by Chang et
al. [21] reviewed 45 empirical studies on the antecedents of online shopping
and derived two reference models for online shopping adoption. According
to the findings of their study on trust, most empirical studies have tested the
direct effect of trust. Whether trust is mediated by other variables has not
been explored.
Another meta-analysis, conducted by Grabner-Kräuter and Kaluscha [60],
provides an integrative review of the empirical literature on online trust in
electronic commerce. One important argument addressed in their paper based
on the findings of the analysis is that online trust is not a static but a dynamic
phenomenon. To take into account the dynamic nature of trust, longitudinal
studies are required. However, the majority of the reviewed studies do not
specify the phase of trust from a longitudinal perspective.
A similar argument is made in another meta-analysis study conducted
by Saeed et al. [132]. By integrating previous findings of 42 online consumer
behavior research papers published in major IS journals between 1995 and 2002,
they provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of knowledge
within the domain of online consumer behavior research in the IS area. In their
study they point out that a major avenue for future research is to investigate
the relationships between Web site use, online purchase, and postpurchase
satisfaction [132].
Geyskens et al. [58] also conducted a meta-analysis on the role of trust in
marketing channels literature. Their literature search covered 24 empirical
papers in the marketing literature during the period from 1970 to 1995. Their
study found that trust as a key mediator variable influences satisfaction and
long-term orientation over and beyond the effects of economic outcomes of
the relationship. However, this finding is based on cross-sectional data. They
also argued that there is an urgent need for longitudinal studies involving the
trust–satisfaction relationship over a period of time.
Drawing on a sample of 582 articles published during 1997–2003 in both
academic and professional journals, Wareham et al. [149] conducted a meta-
analysis on critical themes in electronic commerce research. They explain that
an in-depth study of why people buy under a host of varying conditions is
called for and a firm’s marketing strategy needs to include online and physical
channels for customer interaction to create synergies.
Three more meta-analytic studies [59, 138, 141] were conducted focusing
on customer trust and satisfaction in marketing literature. However, they are
not discussed because the context foci of these meta-analytic studies do not
fit this study.
Appendix C: Measurement Items for Constructs

Constructs
(reference) Measurement items
Consumer trust I generally trust other people.

propensity [51] I tend to rely on other people.
I generally have faith in humanity.
I feel that people are generally reliable.
I generally trust other people unless they give me reasons not to.
Pre e‑channel trust When I first considered using the Internet as a shopping channel (e‑channel), I
[51, 77] thought:
The e‑channel is trustworthy.
I think the e‑channel performs as well as other technologies, such as the
telephone.
The e‑channel is available for use without interruption of service.
I was very confident that the e‑channel would perform reliably.
E‑channel expecta‑ How would you rate your overall expectations regarding the quality of the purchas‑
tion [45, 48] ing (process) via the e‑channel? (1 = absolutely low, 7 = significantly high)
How well does the e‑channel fit your personal shopping requirements/needs?
(1 = absolutely low, 7 = significantly high)
How would you rate your expectation of the things that could go wrong in buying
through the e‑channel? (1 = absolutely low, 7 = significantly high).* (dropped)
Channel perceived Using the e‑channel improved my performance in shopping (e.g., accomplish a
performance [36, shopping task more quickly than using traditional stores).
37] Using the e‑channel increased my productivity in shopping (e.g., make purchas‑
ing decisions or finding product information within the shortest time frame as
compared to other online retail sites).
Using the e‑channel enhanced my effectiveness in shopping (e.g., purchasing the
right products or making a right decision).
Overall, using the e‑channel is useful for shopping (e.g., I’ll get the best deal or find
the most information about a product).
Channel confirmation My experience with using the e‑channel was better than what I had expected.
[12, 113] The product and service purchased via the e‑channel were better than what I had
expected.
Overall, most of my expectations using the e‑channel were met.
The expectations that I have regarding the e‑channel were accurate.
Channel satisfaction How do you feel about your overall experience of the e‑channel use?
[136] Satisfaction (1 = very dissatisfied, 7 = very satisfied)
Pleasure (1 = very displeased, 7 = very pleased)
Contentedness (1 = very frustrated, 7 = very contented)
Delightedness (1 = absolutely terrible, 7 = absolutely delighted)
E‑channel reuse If I were to buy the same product again, I would likely buy it via the e‑channel.
intention I am likely to reuse the e‑channel for my next purchase.
[51, 77, 99] I am likely to make another purchase via the e‑channel in the next year.
I would be reluctant to purchase any product(s) or service(s) through the e‑channel
in the future.*
Post e‑channel trust After I purchased through the e‑channel, I thought:
[51, 77] The e‑channel is trustworthy.
The e‑channel performs as well as other technologies such as the telephone.
The e‑channel is available for use without interruption of service.
I am very confident that the e‑channel would perform reliably.
The e‑channel had the capability to provide a desired level of service in adverse
or hostile conditions (e.g., natural disasters). (dropped)
(continues)
60 Dan J. Kim
Appendix C. Continued
Constructs
(reference) Measurement items
Initial e‑vendor trust When I first considered purchasing items/service from the e‑vendor, I believed that:
[51, 77] The e‑vendor is trustworthy.
The e‑vendor is truthful in its dealings with me.
The e‑vendor is honest.
The e‑vendor is sincere and genuine.
The e‑vendor keeps promises and commitments.
The e‑vendor is competent and effective in providing its service.
E‑vendor delivery The e‑vendor of this site tells me exactly when products will be delivered (or when
fulfillment (new services will be performed).
item) When the e‑vendor of this site promises to deliver something by a certain time, I
believe it will do so.
The e‑vendor of this site provides the ability to track the shipment process.
I believe the e‑vendor of this site can deliver the exact item I ordered.
Vendor perceived Using the e‑vendor improved my performance in shopping (e.g., accomplish a shop‑
performance ping task more quickly than using traditional stores).
[36, 37] Using the e‑vendor increased my productivity in shopping (e.g., make purchasing
decisions or finding product information within a short time frame).
Using the e‑vendor enhanced my effectiveness in shopping (e.g., purchasing the
right products or making a right decision).
Overall, using the e‑vendor is useful in shopping (e.g., I’ll get the best deal or find
the most information about a product).
Vendor confirmation My experience with the e‑vendor was better than what I had expected.
[12, 113] The product and service provided by the e‑vendor were better than what I had
expected.
Overall, most of my expectations of the e‑vendor were confirmed.
The expectations that I have regarding the e‑vendor were correct.
Vendor satisfaction How do you feel about your overall experience of the purchase from this e‑vendor?
[136] Satisfaction (1 = very dissatisfied, 7 = very satisfied)
Pleasure (1 = very displeased, 7 = very pleased)
Contentedness (1 = very frustrated, 7 = very contented)
Delightedness (1 = absolutely terrible, 7 = absolutely delighted)
Repurchase intention If I were to buy the same product again, I would likely buy it from the e‑vendor.
[51, 77, 99] I am likely to return to the e‑vendor for my next purchase.
I am likely to make another purchase from the e‑vendor in the next year.
Post e‑vendor trust After I purchased from this e‑vendor, I thought that:
[51, 77] The e‑vendor is trustworthy.
The e‑vendor is truthful in its dealings with me.
The e‑vendor is honest.
The e‑vendor is sincere and genuine.
The e‑vendor keeps its promises and commitments.
The e‑vendor is competent and effective in providing its service.
Notes: Scales of measurement items not mentioned in the table were anchored with end points of strongly
disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). * = reverse coded.
Appendix D: Confirmatory Factor Analysis
E‑channel trust model
Constructs Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Trust propensity TP1 0.8687 0.1027 0.1364 0.1429 0.2740 0.1582 0.2798 0.1054
TP2 0.7112 –0.0435 0.0422 0.0437 0.1460 0.0125 0.1137 0.0497
TP3 0.8457 0.0645 0.0971 0.1030 0.2239 0.1016 0.2217 0.0902
TP4 0.8781 0.1106 0.1632 0.0712 0.2092 0.1442 0.2559 0.0629
TP5 0.8218 0.0583 0.1133 0.0631 0.1855 0.0899 0.2046 0.0856
2. Pre e-channel trust Pre-eC-T1 0.0495 0.7998 0.4943 0.1958 0.1938 0.2855 0.3586 0.1886
Pre-eC-T2 0.1645 0.7474 0.2396 0.2312 0.2106 0.2152 0.2954 0.2166
Pre-eC-T3 –0.0372 0.7326 0.2184 0.1578 0.1632 0.2848 0.2052 0.2070
Pre-eC-T4 0.0874 0.8398 0.4081 0.2438 0.2703 0.3371 0.3558 0.2387
3. E-channel expectation eC-EXP1 0.1611 0.4829 0.8886 0.2772 0.3109 0.4075 0.4597 0.3736
eC-EXP2 0.0840 0.2951 0.8359 0.3956 0.3223 0.3866 0.3996 0.4181
eC-EXP3 0.0631 0.0856 0.8218 0.2046 0.1133 0.3266 0.1855 0.3976
4. E-channel perceived eC-PER1 0.1269 0.2691 0.3352 0.8511 0.5699 0.4678 0.4389 0.5491
performance eC-PER2 0.0176 0.2140 0.2903 0.8623 0.4653 0.3977 0.3810 0.5366
eC-PER3 0.0347 0.1931 0.3211 0.8361 0.4959 0.4556 0.3717 0.5189
eC-PER4 0.1713 0.2266 0.3469 0.8502 0.6028 0.5188 0.5063 0.6461
5. E-channel confirmation eC-CONF1 0.2263 0.2940 0.3355 0.5156 0.7827 0.5400 0.5191 0.5956
eC-CONF2 0.2083 0.1387 0.2673 0.4999 0.8070 0.5201 0.4719 0.5438
eC-CONF3 0.1957 0.1451 0.2414 0.4373 0.7659 0.4681 0.3999 0.4568
eC-CONF4 0.2175 0.2815 0.3275 0.5856 0.8753 0.5771 0.5916 0.6430
(continues)
61
62
Appendix D. Continued
E‑channel trust model
Dan J. Kim
6. E-channel satisfaction eC-SAT1 0.1570 0.2759 0.3523 0.5082 0.6161 0.8486 0.4890 0.6288
eC-SAT2 0.1492 0.3385 0.4458 0.4493 0.5352 0.8828 0.5848 0.5889
eC-SAT3 0.0748 0.3396 0.3812 0.4560 0.5419 0.8358 0.5650 0.5674
eC-SAT4 0.0927 0.2797 0.3926 0.4554 0.5438 0.8528 0.4337 0.5375
7. Post e-channel trust Post-eC-T1 0.2147 0.3095 0.4529 0.4091 0.5019 0.5761 0.7807 0.5338
Post-eC-T2 0.2113 0.3375 0.3250 0.4164 0.4642 0.4564 0.7587 0.4907
Post-eC-T3 0.2609 0.3282 0.3550 0.3335 0.4521 0.4207 0.8228 0.4036
Post-eC-T4 0.2372 0.3514 0.4242 0.3783 0.5169 0.4547 0.8643 0.5080
0.1624 0.2890 0.3865 0.3603 0.4949 0.4645 0.7795 0.4910
8. E-channel reuse eC-Reuse1 0.0778 0.2062 0.3711 0.5917 0.6738 0.6567 0.5189 0.8641
intention eC-Reuse2 0.0540 0.2206 0.3538 0.5162 0.5250 0.4781 0.5235 0.7952
eC-Reuse3 0.1106 0.2415 0.3980 0.5326 0.5140 0.5295 0.5665 0.8039
E-vendor trust model
1. Trust propensity TP1 0.8687 0.1291 0.1528 0.1471 0.1458 0.0913 0.1675 0.0449
TP2 0.8457 0.1089 0.0695 0.1175 0.1499 0.1267 0.1828 0.0729
TP3 0.8781 0.1358 0.0784 0.0931 0.1616 0.0822 0.1691 0.0841
TP5 0.8218 0.0710 0.1101 0.0896 0.1149 0.0447 0.1404 0.0531
2. Pre e-vendor trust Pre-eV -T1 0.0889 0.7507 0.5096 0.2967 0.2767 0.3271 0.3842 0.3028
Pre-eV -T2 0.0447 0.7825 0.4634 0.2533 0.2501 0.2676 0.3558 0.2585
Pre-eV -T3 0.0582 0.6986 0.4349 0.2279 0.1959 0.3019 0.2727 0.2321
Pre-eV -T4 0.1972 0.8102 0.3916 0.2829 0.3259 0.4093 0.4322 0.3189
Pre-eV -T5 0.0717 0.8194 0.4358 0.2749 0.3338 0.4234 0.4508 0.3340
3. Delivery fulfillment eV -DF1 0.1483 0.5574 0.9191 0.3155 0.3731 0.3812 0.4074 0.3934
eV -DF2 0.0385 0.3983 0.7875 0.2383 0.2348 0.2056 0.2158 0.3101
eV -DF3 0.2773 0.2772 0.7392 0.4790 0.3971 0.4004 0.4207 0.2851
4. E-vendor perceived eV -PER1 0.0400 0.3013 0.2707 0.8802 0.6282 0.5521 0.5488 0.5800
Performance eV -PER2 0.1420 0.2787 0.2659 0.8937 0.6072 0.4987 0.5547 0.6183
eV -PER3 0.0722 0.3133 0.3351 0.8912 0.5480 0.5760 0.5598 0.6482
eV -PER4 0.1909 0.2797 0.2839 0.8561 0.4879 0.5658 0.6352 0.5788
5. E-vendor confirmation eV -CONF1 0.1381 0.2113 0.2330 0.5987 0.8416 0.5622 0.5798 0.5456
eV -CONF2 0.1272 0.2828 0.2936 0.5843 0.8370 0.5516 0.4368 0.5950
eV -CONF3 0.1488 0.3696 0.3595 0.5739 0.9145 0.6703 0.4917 0.6475
eV -CONF4 0.1308 0.3526 0.3595 0.6458 0.8339 0.6552 0.5583 0.6255
6. E-vendor satisfaction eV -SAT1 0.1201 0.4067 0.3470 0.5776 0.5763 0.9051 0.5897 0.5961
eV -SAT2 0.1093 0.4122 0.3028 0.5773 0.6396 0.9192 0.5705 0.6210
eV -SAT3 0.0423 0.3777 0.3103 0.5671 0.6653 0.9108 0.5838 0.6024
eV -SAT4 0.0667 0.4295 0.3452 0.5399 0.6117 0.8887 0.4607 0.5975
7. Post e-vendor trust Post-eV -T1 0.1593 0.4621 0.2845 0.4937 0.5603 0.5769 0.8107 0.5016
Post-eV -T2 0.0461 0.3380 0.2728 0.5229 0.5728 0.5330 0.7384 0.5421
Post-eV -T3 0.1216 0.3884 0.2682 0.4569 0.5341 0.5418 0.7482 0.4793
Post-eV -T4 0.1900 0.3888 0.2416 0.4714 0.5487 0.5704 0.8131 0.4958
Post-eV -T5 0.2789 0.3463 0.3013 0.4988 0.6058 0.6006 0.7340 0.4900
8. Willingness to WRP1 0.0890 0.3531 0.4029 0.5861 0.5007 0.5440 0.5647 0.9114
repurchase WRP2 0.0366 0.3253 0.3488 0.6139 0.6072 0.6055 0.5811 0.9155
WRP3 0.0478 0.3031 0.3619 0.5367 0.5787 0.5322 0.5517 0.8552
Note: Boldface items indicate that each indicator does have one substantial loading on a construct.
63
64 Dan J. Kim
Appendix E: Effect Size Analysis
The effect size of independent variables on a dependent variable can be de-

termined by comparing the R2 of the dependent variable with and without
the presence of each independent variable [25].9 The effect size is interpreted
using Cohen’s criteria [32]: for small effect size, 0.02 < f 2 ≤ 0.15; for medium
effect size, 0.15 < f 2 ≤ 0.35; and for large effect size, f 2 > 0.35.
Included Excluded f 2 Effect size
H13a 0.553 0.468 0.1902 Medium

H13b 0.515 0.445 0.1443 Small
H12a 0.552 0.428 0.2768 Medium
H12b 0.514 0.453 0.1255 Small
H11a 0.496 0.468 0.0556 Small
H11b 0.554 0.445 0.2444 Medium
H10a 0.42 0.134 0.4931 Large
H10b 0.543 0.136 0.8906 Large
H9a 0.496 0.495 0.0020 None
H9b 0.554 0.551 0.0067 None
H8a 0.42 0.402 0.0310 Small
H8b 0.543 0.532 0.0241 Small
H6a 0.443 0.22 0.4004 Large
H6b 0.688 0.517 0.5481 Large
H5a 0.496 0.484 0.0238 Small
H5b 0.554 0.523 0.0695 Small
H4a 0.443 0.41 0.0592 Small
H4b 0.688 0.678 0.0321 Small
H3a 0.117 0.018 0.1121 Small
H3b 0.688 0.599 0.2853 Medium
H2a 0.443 0.409 0.0610 Small
H2b 0.688 0.661 0.0865 Small
H1a 0.117 0.001 0.1314 Small
H1b 0.177 0.147 0.0365 Small
DAN J. KIM (dan.kim@unt.edu) is a full professor of information technology and

decision sciences at the University of North Texas. Previously, he was on the faculties
of Michigan State University and the University of Houston–Clear Lake. He earned
his Ph.D. in MIS from SUNY at Buffalo and holds an MBA with a management science
concentration and an M.S. in computer science. Dr. Kim’s research interests are in mul-
tidisciplinary areas such as information security and privacy, information assurance,
and trust in electronic commerce. His work has been published or is forthcoming in
more than 120 papers in refereed journals, peer-reviewed book chapters, and conference
proceedings, including Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Communications of the ACM, Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, Decision Support Systems, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, IEEE Transactions on Professional Com-
munication, and others. He has been awarded a National Science Foundation multi-
year grant. Dr. Kim holds several best-paper awards and was ranked twenty-second
worldwide in research productivity from 2008 to 2010 based on the top three leading
IS journals: Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information Systems,
and MIS Quarterly.

A Study of The Multilevel and Dynamic Nature of Trust in E-Commerce From A Cross-Stage Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

A Study of The Multilevel and Dynamic Nature of Trust in E-Commerce From A Cross-Stage Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Electronic Commerce

ISSN: 1086-4415 (Print) 1557-9301 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mjec20

A Study of the Multilevel and Dynamic Nature

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415190101

Published online: 05 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 342

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

ABSTRACT: Trust in e‑commerce is a multilevel construct (intrapersonal, system, and

Literature Review and Theory Background

A review of the current literature reveals two insufficiencies: (1) theorywise,

Multilevel Dimensions of Trust in E‑Commerce

McKnight and Chervany [102] posited trust in e‑commerce as integrating three

differ in their inherent propensity to trust because of their different develop-

Figure 1. Expectation–Confirmation/Disconfirmation Theory

The Expectation-Confirmation Theory and a

Figure 2. Dynamic Trust Model

theory is that a trustor–trustee relationship terminates or continues based

Figure 3. Research Model

The Research Model and Hypotheses

Synthesizing the expectation-confirmation theory and the dynamic trust model

Hypothesis 1a(b): A consumer’s trust propensity is positively related to the

Hypothesis 2a(b): A consumer’s trust propensity is positively related to the

An interesting intuitive relationship exists between e‑channel and e‑vendor

a transaction with an e‑vendor. Thus, in this study we conceptualize e‑channel

Hypothesis 3a(b): A consumer’s pre e‑channel (post e‑channel) trust posi-

Although Mayer et al. [100] proposed the feedback loop of trust in their

Hypothesis 4a(b): A consumer’s pre e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust positively

Hypothesis 5a(b): A consumer’s pre e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust positively

Hypothesis 6a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel (e‑vendor) satisfaction positively

Hypothesis 7a(b): A consumer’s pre e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust positively

The postpurchase process is much different from the prepurchase process,

satisfaction is a function of expectation, which is the psychological anchor

Hypothesis 8a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel expectation (perceived delivery

Hypothesis 9a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel expectation (perceived delivery

Obviously, the performance of the e‑channel or the e‑vendor is the deter-

Hypothesis 10a(b): A consumer’s perceived performance of the e‑channel

Hypothesis 11a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel (e‑vendor) confirmation/dis-

Adapted from Oliver’s [113] definition, satisfaction is defined in this study

Hypothesis 12a(b): A consumer’s e‑channel (e‑vendor) satisfaction posi-

Hypothesis 13a(b): A consumer’s post e‑channel (e‑vendor) trust positively

Research Design and Data Collection

Data Analyses and Results

Testing the Measurement Models

To ensure the appropriateness of the measurement model, it was tested for

Common Methods Bias Testing

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients for Constructs.

Trust propensity 4.88 1.15 0.870 0.905 0.659 [51]

1. Trust propensity 0.817

Testing the Structural Model

Assessment of the structural models includes estimating path coefficients and

Figure 4. Structural Model Results

A Post Hoc Analysis: The Mediating Effect of Satisfaction

To explicitly check whether satisfaction actually acts as a mediator between

Table 3. Results of Hypothesis Testing.

H1a Trust propensity → pre e-channel trust Supported *

Discussion and Conclusion

in prepurchase phase stage and satisfaction with previous transactions. That

performance, the confirmation and thus satisfaction brought to the consumer

Contributions of the Study