The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1066-2243.htm

Understanding
Understanding customers’ customers’
satisfaction and repurchase satisfaction
intentions
479
An integration of IS success model, trust,
and justice Received 22 August 2010
Revised 4 May 2011
Yu-Hui Fang Accepted 7 May 2011

Tamkang University, Tamsui, Taiwan

Chao-Min Chiu
National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, and
Eric T.G. Wang
National Central University, Jhongli City, Taiwan

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this study is to extend DeLone and McLean’s IS success model by introducing
justice – fair treatments received from the exchanging party – and trust into a theoretical model for
studying customers’ repurchase intentions in the context of online shopping.
Design/methodology/approach – The research model was tested with data from 219 of PCHome’s
online shopping customers using a web survey. PLS (partial least squares) was used to analyze the
measurement and structural models.
Findings – Data collected from 219 valid respondents provided support for all but one hypotheses
(with a p-value of less than 0.05). The unsupported hypothesis regards the relationship between service
quality and satisfaction (H4). The study shows that trust, net benefits, and satisfaction are significant
positive predictors of customers’ repurchase intentions toward online shopping. Information quality,
system quality, trust, and net benefits, are significant determinants of customer satisfaction. Besides,
online trust is built through distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Overall, the research
model accounted for 79 percent of the variance of repurchase intention.
Originality/value – An endeavor to extend the updated IS success model in terms of the peculiar
nature of e-commerce is needed. The study complements the updated IS success model with justice
trust perspectives, considering them a more comprehensive measure of online shopping satisfaction
and repurchase intention in an e-commerce context.
Keywords IS success model, Justice, Online shopping, Repurchase intention, Online catalogues,
Satisfaction, Home shopping, Service quality assurance, Trust, Taiwan
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce or online shopping market is growing
rapidly and has become one of the most interesting developments in e-commerce.
According to a market survey by ComScore, online sales outperform offline retail sales Internet Research
Vol. 21 No. 4, 2011
in certain key holiday categories in 2008 despite the 3 percent decline in overall sales pp. 479-503
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
(including online and offline sales) during the holiday season[1]. Clearly, online 1066-2243
shopping market provides an avenue for struggling to survive in the turbulent markets DOI 10.1108/10662241111158335
INTR of the global weak economy. As with any transaction mode, repurchase is critical to the
21,4 success of online stores. What, then, keeps buyers loyal to an online store? E-commerce
research has addressed this issue from different aspects, including explanations based
on service quality, benefits of online shopping, trust, and satisfaction (Childers et al.,
2001; Gefen et al., 2003).
Customer satisfaction is particularly important to the success of online stores as it is
480 posited as a major driver of post-purchase phenomena, such as repurchase intentions.
In early online shopping, a web presence and low prices were believed to be key drivers
of success. More recently, web site quality has become essential for improving
customer satisfaction and creating customer loyalty (Parasuraman et al., 2005). In
traditional service research and in emerging research on electronic service (e-service)
(Collier and Bienstock, 2006), several antecedents of customer satisfaction have been
proposed. Among these, web site quality figures prominently. Several researchers have
developed conceptual models for measuring B2C web site success (Liu and Arnett,
2000). They identified three major quality constructs that are critical to web site
success in e-commerce: information quality, system quality, and service quality. Those
models are consistent with the updated information systems (IS) success model
(DeLone and McLean, 2003), a research framework theorizing that information quality,
system quality, and service quality are fundamental determinants of an individual’s
satisfaction, which in turn is the determinant of repurchase intention. DeLone and
McLean (2004) argue that IS success model can be applied to study e-commerce
success. Accordingly, the study uses IS success model as the theoretical foundation for
explaining customer repurchase intention.
Trust in the seller is a vital key to building customer loyalty and maintaining
continuity in buyer-seller relationships (Anderson and Weitz, 1989). The spatial and
temporal separation between online buyers and sellers leads to asymmetry problems.
A typical type of asymmetry is information asymmetry, which refers to a situation
where one party to a transaction has more or better information than the other party
(Akerlof, 1970). Many researchers have argued that trust is a crucial enabling factor in
relations where there is uncertainty, information asymmetry, and fear of opportunism
(Pavlou et al., 2007), as is the case in online shopping (e.g. Lee et al., 2011). Accordingly,
the first objective of this research is to integrate IS success model variables with trust
and examine their relative influences on customers’ satisfaction and repurchase
intentions toward online shopping.
Justice is a fundamental basis for relationship maintainability in social exchange
(Lind et al., 1993). Justice refers to perceptions of fairness and assessment concerning
the appropriateness of performance outcomes or processes (Cropanzano and
Greenberg, 1997). According to uncertainty management theory, justice is important
for people because justice judgments are an effective and readily available device for
handling various uncertain conditions (Van den Bos and Lind, 2002). Justice can
remove trust-related uncertainty and alleviate much of the discomfort that uncertainty
would otherwise generate. Accordingly, justice theory is a framework through which
to explain and understand individuals’ feelings of trust or mistrust more fully
(Saunders and Thornhill, 2003). This study proposes an extension of justice to
buyer-seller relationships in online shopping. The logic behind the proposed extension
is that as with organizational employment relationships, the online buyer-seller
relationship also involves information or power asymmetry, and thus online
transactions are also governed by justice. A vulnerable buyer, unable to avail him or Understanding
herself of traditional safeguards against seller opportunism, must rely on the powerful customers’
seller’s sense of justice and restraint to avoid mistreatment (Anderson and Weitz,
1989). Consequently, examining the impact of justice on customers’ trust in online satisfaction
vendors is the second objective of this research. In sum, this study complements the
updated IS success model with justice and trust perspectives, considering them more
comprehensive measures of online shopping satisfaction and repurchase intention in 481
an e-commerce context.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 IS success model and e-commerce
DeLone and McLean’s (1992) model of IS success is one of the widely used models for
explaining the impact of quality on individual’s satisfaction and use of IS. The IS
success model consists of six interrelated dimensions of success:
(1) system quality;
(2) information quality;
(3) use;
(4) user satisfaction;
(5) individual impact; and
(6) organizational impact.

The model posits that system quality and information quality, individually and jointly,
affect user satisfaction and system use. Additionally, system use affects user
satisfaction with the reverse being true. Based on their evaluation of some important
research on IS success of the last decade, DeLone and McLean (2003) proposed an
updated IS success model as a foundation for empirical e-commerce research. The
model adds service quality, intention to use, and net benefits.
While the updated IS success model is currently regarded as a major breakthrough
in this field, there are several challenges facing it as applied to e-commerce context. An
endeavor to refine and extend the updated IS success model in terms of the peculiar
nature of e-commerce is still needed (DeLone and McLean, 2004). Therefore, this study
attempts to illuminate the challenges and to develop the e-commerce success model.
First, service quality was added to the original IS success model to reflect the
importance of the services of the IS function. Service quality is commonly defined as
how well a delivered service level matches customer expectation. The SERVQUAL
instrument[2] (Parasuraman et al., 1988) has been widely tested as a means of
measuring customer perceptions of service quality. DeLone and McLean (2003)
adopted three dimensions of SERVQUAL (i.e. responsiveness, empathy, assurance) as
the metrics for the service quality construct. However, the SERVQUAL instrument
does not embrace the unique facets of e-commerce service quality (e.g. the interactions
between customers and the web sites). Therefore, Parasuraman et al. (2005) proposed
the E-S-QUAL scale and identified seven dimensions for assessing electronic service
quality[3]. Given the unique nature of e-commerce, the measures for service quality in
the e-commerce success model should adopt the E-S-QUAL scale, rather than the
SERVQUAL instrument.
INTR Second, the net benefits are the most important success measure as they capture the
21,4 balance of the positive and negative impacts of e-commerce on customers (DeLone and
McLean, 2003). DeLone and McLean (2004) identify improved customer experience,
entertainment, reduced shopping cost, and real-time marketing offers as individual
benefits from e-commerce. These are in line with recent online shopping research that
convenience, price savings, extensive information, enjoyment, and broad product
482 selection are considered as major benefits of online shopping (Childers et al., 2001). In
addition, according to DeLone and McLean (2003), use and user satisfaction will lead to
net benefits. If repurchase is to occur, it is assumed that the net benefits from the
perspective of the customer are positive, thus influencing re-purchase intention and
satisfaction. Therefore, this study reconciles the net benefits measures with the
e-commerce context and considers them as antecedents of repurchase intention and
satisfaction, instead of as dependent variable in the updated IS success model.
Third, the updated IS success model is originally developed in the traditional setting
where the level of uncertainty is lower than that in the online environment
(Grabner-Kraeuter, 2002) and does not involve trust construct based on that the need
for trust only arises in uncertain environments (Mayer et al., 1995). In e-commerce, the
transaction-specific uncertainty is elicited by an asymmetric distribution of
information between the transaction partners (Grabner-Kraeuter, 2002). Therefore,
two of the main obstacles to directly apply the updated IS success model to measure
e-commerce success are the lack of deliberating the inherent uncertainty of e-commerce
and the exclusion of other critical factors (e.g. trust). These difficulties, however, could
be alleviated by investigating IS success along with trust. Trust is especially critical in
online transaction because trust absorbs transaction-specific uncertainty through
mitigating the negative effect of perceived information asymmetry and the resulting
possibility of encountering opportunistic behavior (Pavlou et al., 2007).
Furthermore, two important deficiencies of the updated IS success model are that it
excludes justice theory as a basis for any of its scales and its incapability to deal with
the imbalance of power and information in online transaction settings. E-commerce has
been described as the conduct of business among consumers and e-businesses, which
enable them to exchange value electronically (e.g. money, goods, services, and
information). Given the hidden information and hidden action problems in the
e-commerce context (Pavlou et al., 2007), there are power and information asymmetries
between online buyers and sellers. Justice evaluations are more likely to arise in any
exchange of value (Adams, 1965) and in asymmetrical power relationships (Lind, 2001).
Consequently, justice should not be ignored due to its valuable framework for
explaining customers’ reactions to a variety of situations.

2.2 The importance of trust in online shopping and antecedents of trust

According to Blau (1964), trust is a key element in the emergence and maintenance of
social exchange relationships. Bradach and Eccles (1989) view trust as a control
mechanism that facilitates exchange relationships characterized by uncertainty,
vulnerability, and dependence. These characteristics are reflected in the online
shopping environment, where customers are unable to personally scrutinize the
vendor, physically examine the merchandise, or collect the merchandise upon
payment. Customers have limited information and cognitive resources available, and
thus seek to reduce the uncertainty and complexity of online transactions by applying
mental shortcuts (Grabner-Kraeuter, 2002). One effective mental short cut is trust, Understanding
which can serve as a mechanism to reduce the complexity of human conduct in customers’
situations where people have to cope with uncertainty (Luhmann, 1989). Because of
limited control over the vendor and the absence of proven guarantees that the vendor satisfaction
will not engage in undesirable opportunistic behaviors, trust is a critical aspect of
online shopping (Gefen et al., 2003). Such behaviors include sale of fake or defective
products, fake photos and misleading descriptions, failure of the vendor to deliver 483
merchandise, failure to deliver in a timely manner, sending something of lesser value
than advertised, and high handling and shipping costs. Since the key to successful
economic transactions is avoiding opportunistic behavior, online customers in general
stay away from online vendors whom they do not trust (or trust to be bad) (Gefen et al.,
2003). On the other hand, trust needs to be promoted between buyers and sellers if
commerce over the web is to continue to success (Gefen et al., 2003).
Trust has been defined in various ways, in terms of the context in which it appears.
Some definitions have concentrated on the facet of risk involved, while others on the
vulnerability of one of the parties’ concerned (Everard and Galletta, 2005; Mayer et al.,
1995). Trust refers to “the willingness of the party to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other
party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). Our research considers trust as a set of specific
beliefs dealing primarily with the benevolence, competence, and integrity of the
seller/vendor. According to previous studies dealing with buyer-seller and business
interactions, this set of specific beliefs comprises the most widely used specific beliefs
in trust literature (Gefen et al., 2003). The same argument also holds with the Internet
(e.g. Gefen et al., 2003; Pavlou and Fygenson, 2006). Benevolence is the belief that the
trustee will not act opportunistically against the trustor, even given the opportunity.
Competence is the belief in the trustee’s ability to fulfill its obligations as expected by
the trustor. Integrity is the belief that the trustee will be honest and keep its
commitments. In addition, trust and trustworthiness are related constructs.
Trustworthiness refers to the perceived accuracy and goodness of the source
(Everard and Galletta, 2005). Although there are differences between these two
constructs, some scholars have viewed trust as synonymous with trustworthiness (e.g.
McKnight et al., 1998). McKnight et al. (1998) have suggested that trustworthiness is a
multifaceted construct that captures the competence of the trustee. Trustworthiness
can be considered as one component of trust (i.e. competence).
If trust is indeed an important aspect of online shopping, then understanding
antecedents of trust should be a prime concern of the online vendors. Recently,
increasing attention has been devoted toward justice as an antecedent of trust in online
contexts. For instance, Turel et al. (2008) have applied justice notions to
customer-service provider relationships and examined their impact on trust in the
e-service context. Chiu et al. (2010) have considered bidding justice as an important
antecedent of trust in online auctions. Fang and Chiu (2010) have extended the
relationship between justice and trust to the virtual communities of practice. Given
power and information asymmetries between buyers and sellers in the context of
e-commerce, justice has the potential to provide deeper insights into trust in such
context.
INTR 2.3 Justice theory
21,4 Before 1975, the study of justice was primarily concerned with distributive justice, i.e.
the fairness of outcome distributions. Homans’ (1961) simple formula for distributive
justice stressed that “a man’s rewards in exchange with others should be proportional
to his investments.” Adams (1965) used a social exchange theory framework to
evaluate fairness. According to Adams’s (1965) equity theory, an individual’s
484 perception of the fairness of exchange relationships is determined by comparing the
output/input ratio for oneself with that of referent others. A fair balance between input
and outcome leads to feelings of fairness or justice[4]. Thibaut and Walker’s (1975)
studies of disputant reactions to legal procedures led to the development of their theory
of procedural justice. Procedural justice is concerned with the processes by which
outcomes are distributed among parties to an exchange. Bies and Moag (1986)
separated out the interpersonal aspect of procedural justice, labeled as interactional
justice – the quality of the interpersonal treatment people receive during the enactment
of formal procedures.
Recently, justice theory has been applied to the IS service context (Carr, 2007) and to
buyer-seller relationships, hence we have seen a shift in patterns of justice research. As
with organizational employment relationships, buyer-seller information asymmetry is
commonplace in online marketplaces and occurs when one party to a transaction has
pertinent information that the other party lacks. Two information problems – hidden
information and hidden action (Pavlou et al., 2007) – breed the online buyer-seller
power asymmetry (imbalance). The seller is in a position of power of whether to
provide its true characteristics, deliver the product, keep the promised product quality,
comply with transaction rules, provide accurate information about products and
transaction policies, etc. Consequently, to smooth a transaction, buyers are, of
necessity, concerned about the powerful seller’s justice, and a typical question includes:
will the seller misuse his/her power to not deliver the product that a buyer paid for?
According to justice theory, when humans are engaged in any exchange of value
(e.g. a transaction), they estimate the equity of the exchange (Adams, 1965). Any
injustice treatment may stimulate a psychological contract violation between exchange
(transaction) parties (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Injustice is not only the absence of
justice (Simon, 1995). Injustice is an active event that can cause harm in many different
ways such as material harm and personal harm to individuals (Wolgast, 1987). Besides,
injustice may imply that the potential trustee is malevolent or has a hidden agenda
(Turel et al., 2008). This psychological contract violation has a destructive impact on
the trusting relationships between exchange parties. Trust is especially critical when
information or power asymmetry is present in online transactions (Pavlou et al., 2007).
Correspondingly, justice theory offers a means through which to explain and
understand buyers’ trust in the sellers in e-commerce context.

3. Research model and hypotheses

Figure 1 presents the proposed model, referred to as an e-commerce success model. The
dependent variable – repurchase intention – is posited as the primary construct to
determine customers’ repurchase behaviors. Repurchase intention refers to the
subjective probability that an individual will continue to purchase products from the
online vendor or store in the future. All key variables are explained, and their
relationship with repurchase intention is proposed as follows.
 Understanding
customers’
satisfaction

485

Figure 1.
E-commerce success
model

3.1 Satisfaction
According to Kolter (2000), satisfaction is an individual’s feelings of pleasure or
disappointment resulting from comparing the perceived performance (or outcomes) of
online shopping in relation to his or her expectations. Oliver (1980) theorizes that
satisfaction is positively associated with future intention, both directly and indirectly
via its impact on attitude. In the final step of satisfaction formation processes,
satisfaction determines intentions to patronize or not to patronize the store in the future
(Tsai and Huang, 2007). Therefore:
H1. Customers’ satisfaction positively affects their repurchase intentions.

3.2 Net benefits

Net benefits refer to the benefits of online shopping to customers against the costs (e.g.
time, effort, and money). Given the costs of online shopping, this study focuses on
benefits such as convenience, enjoyment, broad product selection, flexibility, and
effectiveness in product searching and buying (usefulness). Research supports the
notion that online shopping involves hedonic and utilitarian value (net benefits)
(Childers et al., 2001). Hedonic shopping value reflects the entertainment and emotional
worth of the shopping, while utilitarian shopping value reflects a more task-oriented,
cognitive, and non-emotional benefits of the shopping (Babin et al., 1994). Mano and
Oliver (1993) posit that affective responses arising from evaluation of the outcomes of
product/service usage and cognitive interpretation lead to satisfaction. Online
shopping gives a customer the opportunity to economize on time and effort by making
it easy to locate merchants, find items, and procure offerings (Szymanski and Hise,
2000). Prior research shows that positive perceptions of convenience, extensive product
information, and enjoyment (Bauer et al., 2006) have significant effects on customer
satisfaction with online shopping.
According to self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985), individuals are
self-determining and intrinsically motivated in online shopping when they are
interested in it. According to Davis et al. (1989), customers form intentions toward
online shopping based largely on a cognitive appraisal of how it will improve their
shopping performance, i.e. perceived usefulness. Customers who accomplished the
INTR shopping task of product acquisition in an efficient manner will be more likely to
21,4 exhibit stronger repurchase intentions (Babin and Babin, 2001). Childers et al. (2001)
consider perceived usefulness as a utilitarian benefit and enjoyment as a hedonic
benefit of online shopping and showed that they are important motivations for
individuals to engage in online shopping. Support for the role of net benefits on
customers’ satisfaction and repurchase intentions is provided by Forst et al. (2010) and
486 Jones et al. (2006). Therefore:
H2. Net benefits positively affect customers’ satisfaction.
H3. Net benefits positively affect customers’ repurchase intentions.

3.3 Information quality

Information quality refers to customers’ perceptions of the characteristics and
presentation of information in the online shopping web site. It deals with attributes
such as relevance, understandability, accuracy, completeness, and timeliness. Since a
primary role of an online store is to provide information about product, transaction,
and service, higher quality information leads to better buying decisions and higher
levels of customer satisfaction (Peterson et al., 1997). Inaccurate and out-of-date
information cause customers to become dissatisfied with an online vendor (Collier and
Bienstock, 2006). McKinney et al. (2002) posited that satisfaction with the quality of
web site’s information content is one of the two sources of web-customer satisfaction.
Therefore:
H4. Information quality positively affects customer satisfaction.

3.4 System quality

System quality refers to customers’ perceptions of the online shopping web site’s
performance in information retrieval and delivery. It measures the functionality of a
web site: ease of navigation, availability, layout, appearance, and page load speed. The
technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis et al., 1989) implies that, other things being
equal, an online shopping web site perceived to be easier to use is more likely to induce
a positive feeling toward it. Szymanski and Hise (2000) argue that the functionality of a
web site plays an important role in shaping customers’ satisfaction with online
shopping. When consumers use a web site for browsing or purchasing, function
problems (e.g. system crash) lead to unsatisfying shopping experience (Collier and
Bienstock, 2006). Prior studies (Bauer et al., 2006) have provided support for the notion
that system quality positively affects customer satisfaction. Therefore:
H5. System quality positively affects customer satisfaction.

3.5 Service quality

Service quality refers to the perception of the degree to which the service provided by
the online store meets the customer’s expectations. It includes responsiveness, contact,
and privacy. Responsiveness concerns the efficiency of handling problems and returns
through the e-commerce web site (Parasuraman et al., 2005). The concept of contact
concerns the availability of assistance through telephone and online representatives.
Providing numerous methods for customers to contact the online vendor to get
assistance is essential to improving the quality of the vendor’s online service operation,
which could prevent or minimize customers’ dissatisfaction (Collier and Bienstock, Understanding
2006). Consumers will hesitate to shop online if they do not feel assured that credit card customers’
information is secure and protected from potential hackers. Support for the role of
service quality on customer satisfaction is provided by Bauer et al. (2006). Therefore: satisfaction
H6. Service quality positively affects customer satisfaction.

3.6 Trust
487
Following Pavlou and Fygenson (2006), trust is defined as the buyer’s beliefs that
the seller will behave benevolently, capably, and ethically. According to TPB
(Ajzen, 1991), trust beliefs create favorable feelings toward the online vendor that
are likely to increase a customer’s intention to purchase products from the vendor.
Lack of trust prevents buyers from engaging in online shopping because they are
unlikely to transact with a vendor that fails to convey a sense of its trustworthiness,
mainly because of fears of seller opportunism (Hoffman et al., 1999). According to
Gefen et al. (2003), online customers in general will avoid purchasing from the
online vendor whom they do not trust, or they assume that the online vendor will
not be ethical and behave in a socially suitable manner (i.e. trust to be bad). Indeed,
prior research shows that trust plays a pivotal role in driving customer satisfaction
(Lin and Wang, 2006) and repurchase intention (Weisberg et al., 2011; Zboja and
Voorhees, 2006). Therefore:
H7. Customer trust in the online vendor positively affects customer satisfaction.
H8. Customer trust in the online vendor positively affects repurchase intention.

3.7 Distributive justice

In this study, distributive justice refers to the extent to which the customer’s
investments (e.g. invested money, time, and efforts) are fairly rewarded. Distributive
justice contains the concept of order fulfillment. According to Colquitt et al. (2006),
distributive justice is judged by gauging whether rewards are proportional to
investments (Homans, 1961), whether returns adhere to expectation (Blau, 1964), and
whether outcome/input ratios match those of a referent other (Adams, 1965). When
outcome distributions are considered fair, higher levels of trust are likely to ensue
(Pillai et al., 2001). In other words, customers’ trust in the vendor will be built when
the products they received are proportional to their investments. Support for the role
of distributive justice on trust is provided by Hubbell and Chory-Assad (2005).
Therefore:
H9. Distributive justice positively affects customer trust in the online vendor.

3.8 Procedural justice

Procedural fairness refers to the perceived fairness of policies and procedures in the
online shopping process. The transaction process is an integral part of online shopping,
thus an online vendor can enhance customers’ trust by engaging activities that
enhance their perceptions of procedural justice, such as providing detailed information
about shopping policy and procedure, applying policies consistently, clarifying
decisions about any change in the web site, and handling problems fairly. According to
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001), procedural justice perceptions are associated with
INTR trust because procedural justice indicates that the exchange party acts fairly as a rule
21,4 and hence can be trusted. Support for the role of procedural justice on trust is provided
by Pillai et al. (2001). Therefore:
H10. Procedural justice positively affects customer trust in the online vendor.

488 3.9 Interactional justice

Interactional justice refers to the quality of the interpersonal treatment a customer
received during the online shopping process. Attitudes of treating people with dignity
and respect are effective communication for increasing people’s feelings of perceived
justice (Bies and Moag, 1986). Lind (2001, p. 65) noted that “people use overall
impressions of fair treatment as a surrogate for interpersonal trust”, and interpersonal
communications that express social sensitivity can facilitate the establishment of trust
among them. Support for the role of interactional justice on trust is provided by
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001). Therefore:
H11. Interactional justice positively affects customer trust in the online vendor.

4. Research methodology
4.1. Measurement development
Measurement items were adapted from the literature wherever possible (see Appendix).
A small-scale pretest of the questionnaire was conducted using 20 graduate students
with online shopping experience to assess its logical consistencies, ease of
understanding, and contextual relevance. Finally, a large-scale pretest with 195
customers of the target online shopping store was also conducted to confirm the
measurement properties of the final items and provide preliminary evidence for the
proposed model. The results indicated that the measurement model fulfills the criteria of
reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, with composite reliability
values ranging from 0.87 to 0.95, AVE ranging from 0.61 to 0.87, and factor loadings
ranging from 0.68 to 0.95. The results of the structural path analysis indicated that 9 of
11 hypotheses were supported. The relationship between service quality and satisfaction
ðH4; t ¼ 0:72Þ was insignificant, while the relationship between trust and repurchase
intention was marginal ðH8; t ¼ 1:82Þ:
Items for measuring three justice dimensions were adapted from Anderson and
Srinivasan (2003) and Folger and Konovsky (1989) to fit the context of online shopping.
Items for measuring trust were based on Gefen et al. (2003). Items for measuring three
quality dimensions were adapted from DeLone and McLean (2003), McKinney et al.
(2002), and Parasuraman et al. (2005). Among the seven dimensions of the E-S-QUAL
scale proposed by Parasuraman et al. (2005), efficiency and system availability,
however, could be classified into the measures of system quality in this e-commerce
success model; while fulfillment could be replaced by the measures of distributive
justice. Overall, this study retained responsiveness, contact, and privacy as the
measures of service quality and did not include the compensation measure because
very few customers had compensation experience. Items for measuring net benefits
were based on Anderson and Srinivasan (2003), Childers et al. (2001), DeLone and
McLean (2003), and Devaraj et al. (2002). Items for measuring satisfaction were adapted
from McKinney et al. (2002) and Oliver (1980). Repurchase intention was adapted from
Parasuraman et al. (2005) and Pavlou and Fygenson (2006). For all the measures, a
seven-point Likert scale was adopted with anchors ranging from strongly disagree (1) Understanding
to strongly agree (7).
customers’
4.2. Survey administration satisfaction
Given that our research aimed at understanding online customers’ satisfaction and
repurchase intentions, the research model was tested with data from PCHome’s online
shopping customers. PCHome was chosen because it is the most widely used online 489
shopping store in Taiwan. A banner with a hyperlink connecting to our web survey
was published on a number of bulletin board systems (BBS), chat rooms and virtual
communities and individuals with online shopping experience with PCHome were
cordially invited to support this survey. Given that the questionnaire items of service
quality and interactional justice constructs involved issues regarding interactions
with service representatives and problem handling such as product return, for survey
results to be valid, respondents had to experience online service and contact with
service representatives of PCHome to evaluate both constructs (so-called purposive
sampling or judgment sampling). In this sampling plan, sample elements were
selected because they are believed to be representatives of the population of interest
and were expected to serve the research purpose of our study (Churchill, 1991).
Therefore, in the demographic information of our survey web page, we required
respondents to indicate whether they had experience in contacting customer service
representatives and returning products. Initially, 2,072 online respondents voluntarily
completed the survey. Since very few respondents have experience in contacting
customer service representatives and returning products, after eliminating invalid
respondents (e.g. those without service representative contacting and product-return
experience), 219 valid ones remained for our data analysis. The promise of an
incentive significantly enhanced the probability that a respondent would more fully
complete the questionnaire and make fewer errors in the responses to survey
questions (Godwin, 1979). Only 50 respondents were randomly selected from these
219 valid ones due to our limited budget. Table I lists the demographic information of
the respondents.

4.3. Data analysis

Data analysis utilized a two-step approach as recommended by Anderson and Gerbing
(1988). The first step involves the analysis of the measurement model, while the second

Measure Items Freq. Percent Measure Items Freq. Percent

Gender Male 104 47.5 Gender Female 115 52.5

Age , 20 9 4.1 Education High school 13 6.0
20-24 74 33.8 College 16 7.3
25-29 92 42.0 University 133 60.7
30 , 44 20.1 Graduate school 57 26.0
Buys in the past 6 Internet experience
months 1-2 87 39.7 (in years) ,5 8 3.6
3-5 79 36.1 5-6 47 21.5 Table I.
6-10 35 16.0 7-8 63 28.8 Demographic information
11 , 18 8.2 9, 101 46.1 of respondents (N ¼ 219)
INTR step tests the structural relationships among latent constructs. The aim of the two-step
21,4 approach is to assess the reliability and validity of the measures before their use in the
full model.
Given that our research model has involved a set of metric independent variables
and one or more metric dependent variable, structural equation modeling (SEM)
analysis and multiple regression analysis are the appropriate multivariate techniques.
490 SEM analysis was chosen over regression analysis, because SEM can simultaneously
analyze all of the paths in one analysis (Chin and Newsted, 1999). SEM can provide
fuller information about the extent to which the research model is supported by the
data than in regression techniques (see Gefen et al., 2000). Within SEM, PLS (partial
least squares) is partial-least-squares based, while LISREL represents
covariance-based SEM. PLS is more suited for exploratory research, predictive
applications, and theory building, in contrast to LISREL. PLS (PLS-Graph version 3.0)
was chosen over LISREL because this study aims at theory development instead of
theory testing. Besides, PLS places minimal restrictions on measurement scales,
sample size, and residual distribution (Chin and Newsted, 1999). According to
Tanaka’s (1984) guideline that a sample size of at least 400 or 500 is needed for SEM,
our sample size of 219 was insufficient to obtain a proper solution if we used other SEM
approaches. The PLS bootstrap technique – a resampling procedure – is a useful
strategy for evaluating replicability. Because the analysis considers so many
configurations of subjects, one use of such techniques informs the researcher
concerning the extent to which results generalize across different types of subjects
(Thompson, 1993). PLS also provides the analysis of both a measurement model and a
structural model.
4.3.1 Measurement model. The adequacy of the measurement model was evaluated
on the criteria of reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Reliability
was examined using the composite reliability values. Table II shows that all the values
were above 0.7, which is the commonly acceptable level for explanatory research.
Additionally, the convergent validity of the scales was verified by using two criteria
suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981):
(1) all indicator loadings should be significant and exceed 0.7; and
(2) average variance extracted (AVE) by each construct should exceed the variance
due to measurement error for that construct (i.e. AVE should exceed 0.50).

Constructs Composite reliability Mean AVE

Distributive justice (DJ) 0.91 4.79 0.67

Procedural justice (PJ) 0.92 4.70 0.70
Interactional justice (IJ) 0.95 5.05 0.87
Trust (TR) 0.93 4.90 0.74
Information quality (IQ) 0.89 4.83 0.61
System quality (SQ) 0.91 4.93 0.65
Service quality (SEQ) 0.89 4.86 0.64
Table II. Net benefits (NB) 0.90 5.48 0.65
Descriptive statistics of Satisfaction (SA) 0.96 4.93 0.85
constructs Repurchase intention (RI) 0.96 5.20 0.88
As shown in Table III, all items exhibited loading higher than 0.7 on their respective Understanding
construct, providing evidence of acceptable item convergence on the intended customers’
constructs. AVE ranged from 0.61 to 0.88 (see Table II). Hence, both conditions for satisfaction
convergent validity were met.

DJ PJ IJ TR IQ SQ SEQ NB SA RI 491
DJ1 0.85 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.58 0.34 0.45 0.45 0.54 0.53
DJ2 0.86 0.54 0.63 0.67 0.65 0.50 0.58 0.61 0.66 0.64
DJ3 0.86 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.56 0.33 0.49 0.45 0.55 0.52
DJ4 0.78 0.52 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.30 0.46 0.36 0.54 0.47
DJ5 0.72 0.47 0.53 0.57 0.54 0.45 0.46 0.43 0.59 0.53
PJ1 0.51 0.87 0.68 0.71 0.53 0.48 0.74 0.49 0.65 0.57
PJ2 0.50 0.77 0.59 0.58 0.46 0.47 0.59 0.57 0.52 0.57
PJ3 0.53 0.85 0.61 0.65 0.52 0.46 0.62 0.48 0.62 0.58
PJ4 0.53 0.87 0.63 0.61 0.49 0.45 0.61 0.47 0.55 0.53
PJ5 0.51 0.80 0.56 0.56 0.44 0.39 0.51 0.37 0.50 0.43
IJ1 0.61 0.70 0.93 0.74 0.56 0.48 0.73 0.59 0.70 0.67
IJ2 0.62 0.68 0.94 0.76 0.60 0.48 0.74 0.66 0.72 0.71
IJ3 0.63 0.69 0.93 0.74 0.57 0.46 0.74 0.63 0.68 0.70
TR1 0.63 0.64 0.68 0.85 0.57 0.50 0.64 0.50 0.70 0.64
TR2 0.68 0.66 0.67 0.86 0.61 0.54 0.66 0.55 0.74 0.65
TR3 0.55 0.66 0.71 0.87 0.58 0.49 0.66 0.56 0.66 0.61
TR4 0.60 0.67 0.70 0.91 0.56 0.50 0.67 0.60 0.76 0.73
TR5 0.51 0.58 0.69 0.79 0.52 0.54 0.62 0.73 0.66 0.70
IQ1 0.47 0.38 0.49 0.47 0.75 0.46 0.43 0.57 0.50 0.48
IQ2 0.47 0.45 0.52 0.50 0.80 0.50 0.49 0.57 0.54 0.50
IQ3 0.60 0.50 0.53 0.61 0.80 0.48 0.54 0.48 0.60 0.51
IQ4 0.61 0.54 0.48 0.52 0.81 0.43 0.54 0.42 0.54 0.48
IQ5 0.54 0.44 0.38 0.48 0.74 0.37 0.35 0.42 0.53 0.44
SQ1 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.46 0.44 0.82 0.40 0.44 0.52 0.48
SQ2 0.38 0.42 0.42 0.48 0.48 0.85 0.47 0.51 0.54 0.48
SQ3 0.43 0.50 0.43 0.51 0.47 0.77 0.50 0.42 0.54 0.45
SQ4 0.41 0.47 0.44 0.52 0.48 0.89 0.49 0.49 0.58 0.56
SQ5 0.36 0.39 0.36 0.42 0.40 0.72 0.42 0.55 0.49 0.50
SQ6 0.36 0.44 0.41 0.48 0.50 0.76 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.47
SEQ1 0.41 0.46 0.54 0.52 0.40 0.49 0.75 0.58 0.51 0.52
SEQ2 0.56 0.71 0.72 0.67 0.56 0.45 0.87 0.55 0.64 0.60
SEQ3 0.56 0.56 0.65 0.62 0.51 0.48 0.78 0.44 0.56 0.51
SEQ4 0.39 0.65 0.60 0.61 0.45 0.46 0.80 0.46 0.52 0.48
NB1 0.48 0.49 0.55 0.58 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.79 0.55 0.67
NB2 0.40 0.43 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.43 0.45 0.81 0.53 0.56
NB3 0.49 0.51 0.59 0.58 0.56 0.54 0.53 0.85 0.68 0.70
NB4 0.47 0.42 0.51 0.53 0.53 0.45 0.49 0.84 0.60 0.69
NB5 0.48 0.45 0.56 0.58 0.49 0.52 0.57 0.74 0.55 0.55
SA1 0.66 0.61 0.70 0.75 0.63 0.59 0.64 0.68 0.92 0.84
SA2 0.65 0.63 0.71 0.78 0.65 0.64 0.67 0.70 0.94 0.80
SA3 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.74 0.65 0.59 0.63 0.64 0.90 0.75
SA4 0.66 0.62 0.71 0.77 0.64 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.92 0.79 Table III.
RI1 0.59 0.60 0.67 0.73 0.57 0.55 0.59 0.74 0.82 0.94 PLS confirmatory factor
RI2 0.58 0.56 0.67 0.71 0.56 0.59 0.59 0.72 0.77 0.93 analysis and
RI3 0.63 0.59 0.73 0.72 0.60 0.53 0.61 0.78 0.78 0.95 cross-loadings
INTR Discriminant validity was assessed by examining cross-loadings and the relationship
21,4 between correlations among constructs and the square root of AVEs (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). An examination of cross-factor loadings (Table III) indicates good
discriminant validity, because the loading of each measurement item on its assigned
latent variable is larger than its loading on any other constructs. The other criterion is
that the square root of the AVE from the construct should be greater than the
492 correlation shared between the construct and other constructs in the model (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Table IV lists the correlations among the constructs, with the square
root of the AVE on the diagonal. All the diagonal values exceed the inter-construct
correlations, indicating satisfactory discriminant validity of all constructs. Therefore,
we conclude that the scales should have sufficient construct validity.
4.3.2 Structural model. In PLS analysis, examining the structural paths and the
R-square scores of endogenous variables assesses the explanatory power of a
structural model. The results of structural path analysis are depicted in Figure 2. Data
collected from 219 valid respondents provided support for all but one of eleven
hypotheses, exhibiting a p-value less than 0.05. The unsupported hypothesis, the
relationship between service quality and satisfaction (H4), was not significant at the
0.05 level. Tests of significance of all paths were performed using the bootstrap

DJ PJ IJ TR IQ SQ SEQ NB SA RI

DJ 0.82
PJ 0.62 0.84
IJ 0.66 0.74 0.93
TR 0.69 0.75 0.80 0.86
IQ 0.69 0.59 0.62 0.67 0.78
SQ 0.48 0.54 0.51 0.60 0.57 0.81
SEQ 0.60 0.74 0.79 0.76 0.61 0.58 0.80
Table IV. NB 0.58 0.57 0.67 0.69 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.81
AVE and correlation SA 0.71 0.69 0.75 0.83 0.70 0.66 0.70 0.72 0.92
among constructs RI 0.64 0.62 0.73 0.77 0.61 0.59 0.64 0.80 0.84 0.94

Figure 2.
SEM analysis of the
research model
resampling procedure. In addition, the model accounts for 72 to 79 percent of the Understanding
variance (R-square scores). Overall, the research model accounted for 79 percent of the customers’
variance of repurchase intention (Figure 2).
satisfaction
5. Discussion and implications
Drawing on the IS success model, trust, justice, management and marketing literature,
the study theoretically develops and empirically tests a model that explains and 493
predicts customers’ repurchase intentions toward online shopping.

5.1 Summary of results

Data from our survey suggest support for the proposed model of e-commerce success.
Results indicate that repurchase intention is most dominantly influenced by
satisfaction ðb ¼ 0:47Þ: This suggests that satisfaction is a powerful mediator
between quality perceptions and trust, and repurchase intention. The results confirm
that the significant positive impacts of net benefits on customers’ satisfaction and
repurchase intentions, validating our proposition that net benefits perception is a major
enabler for online exchange relationships.
Information quality and system quality have significant effects on satisfaction,
whereas service quality does not affect satisfaction. A possible explanation for the
insignificant relationship is that customers with limited experience in contacting
service representatives were not sufficient to evaluate service quality. Usually,
e-service quality is established through accumulated experience of interaction or
contact with service representatives (Devaraj et al., 2002). Another possible
explanation is that service quality is a hygiene factor. According to Herzberg et al.
(1959), some factors (called motivational factors) influenced satisfaction but not
dissatisfaction, while others (called hygiene factor) only influenced dissatisfaction but
not satisfaction. Similar to this line of reasoning, service quality may negatively affect
dissatisfaction towards online shopping, but may not positively affect satisfaction
towards online shopping.
Results indicate that trust has a strong effect on satisfaction ðb ¼ 0:47Þ but its effect
on repurchase intention ðb ¼ 0:13Þ is marginally significant. A possible explanation
for the relatively weak effect of trust on repurchase intention, is that trust also acts
indirectly on repurchase intention through the mediating effect of satisfaction. The
partial mediating effects of satisfaction on the relationship between trust and
repurchase intention was assessed following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedures:
.
trust has a significant effect on repurchase intention ðb ¼ 0:42Þ;
.
trust has a significant effect on satisfaction ðb ¼ 0:47Þ; and
.
satisfaction has a significant effect on repurchase intention ðb ¼ 0:47Þbut the
effect of trust on repurchase intention ðb ¼ 0:13Þ decreases to a marginally
significant level.

5.2 Implications for theory

From a theoretical perspective, our findings imply that perceptions of quality by
themselves are not sufficient in increasing customers’ satisfaction. For example,
service quality is necessary but not sufficient to create customer satisfaction. Service
quality may act as a hygiene (satisfaction maintaining) factor. That is, a customer may
INTR or may not be satisfied with an online store providing good service, but he/she will
21,4 definitely be dissatisfied with an online store providing poor service. Information
quality and system quality can contribute customers’ satisfaction to some extent, but it
is trust and net benefits that lead to greater level of satisfaction.
In addition, justice represents an additional key element of buyer-seller
relationships in online shopping that has been ignored in the literature. The
494 integration of the three distinct dimensions of justice also results in a more descriptive
model that better explains customers’ repurchase intentions toward online shopping.
Besides, the extent of explained variance in trust ðR 2 ¼ 0:72Þ implies that the three
dimensions of justice are possibly among the most important antecedents of customers’
trust in online vendors.
Furthermore, a major finding of the study is the dominant role of interactional
justice in building customers’ trust. However, some research has found that
interactional justice has less of an effect than procedural justice on trust in the
organizational context (Hubbell and Chory-Assad, 2005). Our findings imply that the
relative importance of each of the justice dimensions may be context specific. Overall,
the study extends the justice literature from employee-organization relationships to
customer-vendor relationships, shedding light on the trust-building potential of the
three dimensions of justice.

5.3 Implications for practice

Regarding the drivers of repurchase intention, the results suggest that online stores
may need to employ a combined strategy aimed at increasing satisfaction, trust, and
net benefits of online shopping. To enhance customer satisfaction, online stores can
devote valuable corporate resources to information quality and system quality of the
web sites. A successful e-commerce web site starts with good content. The information
provided in the web site has to be easy to understand, accurate, complete, timely, and
relevant to customers’ purchase decisions. From a vendor’s perspective, it would be
especially unfortunate to interpret our results to imply that service quality is not
important. The appropriate interpretation is that providing good service is not
sufficient to create customers’ satisfaction and loyalty. However, bad service is deemed
to elicit customers’ dissatisfaction. According to Desatnick (1987), each of those
unsatisfied customers will tell his or her bad experience to at least nine other people,
i.e. spreading negative word of mouth (NWOM). NWOM is likely to dissuade potential
customers from placing an order from the vendor, thus damaging the vendor’s
reputation and financial position (Holmes and Lett, 1977). For example, among 2,072
questionnaires collected from our web survey, although a majority of respondents (89
percent)[5] had not contacted service representatives due to their satisfying shopping
experience with PCHome, 219 respondents (11 percent) had such experience due to the
problem-handling issues. For a vendor, losing the opportunity to rectify unsatisfied
service or quality problems is likely to generate customers’ NWOM, thus driving
customers away and jeopardizing vendor profitability (McCollough et al., 2000). Thus,
providing good service is vital to a vendor.
An important way of increasing trust is to treat customers with respect,
friendliness, and politeness during the interaction with them. The quality of
interpersonal treatment might signal to customers that the vendor cares for their
wellbeing. This is good news for vendors, because the economic costs of interacting in
a manner that raises the dignity of customers are not likely to be as high as the costs Understanding
associated with satisfying either procedural or distributive justice. The online vendor customers’
should provide some training to customer service representatives to ensure that they
have good communication skills to provide an adequate level of service or help with satisfaction
customers’ concerns.
Besides, the strong relationship between net benefits and repurchase intention
suggests that online vendors should allocate more attention and resources to elements 495
that enhance customer convenience, merchandise variety and assortment, the richness
of product information and fun and entertainment of online shopping.

5.4 Limitations and future research

We note that our findings must be interpreted in light of the study’s limitation. First,
the data were collected from a single online shopping store, PCHome. Nonetheless, the
generality of the findings to other online stores (e.g. Amazon) requires additional
research. Second, our results may have been impacted by self-selection bias. Our
sample comprises only active online customers. Individuals who had already ceased to
purchase products from PChome might have different perceptions about the influence
of IS success model variables, trust, and the three dimensions of justice, and so could
have been differently affected by them. Therefore, the results should be interpreted as
only explaining repurchase intentions of current online shopping customers. Thus,
further research is needed to examine whether the results can be generalized to
non-customers, disaffected customers, first-purchase customers, or those customers
with multiple contact experience with service representatives. Although our web
survey may have been affected by self-selection bias, Hayslett and Wildemuth (2004)
have indicated that there are no significant differences between the demographic
backgrounds of self-selected respondents and a random sample. Self-selected
respondents also gave higher-quality responses. In summary, the influence of
self-selection bias could be minor in this study.
Third, as the data are cross-sectional and not longitudinal, the posited causal
relationships could only be inferred rather than proven. While a longitudinal analysis
would be a desired approach, solid cross sectional models must first be conducted
before future research can confirm their viability over time. Fourth, the influences of
quality dimensions on satisfaction are either insignificant or relatively weak, therefore
future research is necessary to verify whether quality dimensions exerts the influences
on repurchase intention indirectly through other mediators (e.g. value) instead of
satisfaction. Furthermore, although several factors have been considered as
antecedents of repurchase intention in our research model, further research is
encouraged to investigate whether other possible factors (e.g. laziness, habit, and/or
familiarity) affect repurchase intention.

Notes
1. www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press ¼ 2658
2. The SERVQUAL instrument contains five dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, empathy,
assurance, and tangibility (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
3. These seven dimensions for assessing electronic service quality are efficiency, fulfillment,
system availability, privacy, responsiveness, compensation, and contact (Parasuraman et al.,
2005).
INTR 4. Justice can be considered as a set of fairness perceptions (Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997).
Justice researchers generally have accepted the terms fairness and justice as
21,4 interchangeable, both implicitly and explicitly (e.g. Greenberg and Colquitt, 2005), and we
follow this tradition.
5. Percentage of respondents without contact and return experience: (2072 2 219)/2072 ¼ 89
percent; Percentage of respondents with contact and return experience: 219/2072 ¼ 11
496 percent

References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-99.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Akerlof, G.A. (1970), “The market for lemons: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism”,
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 488-500.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B.A. (1989), “Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial
channel dyads”, Marketing Science, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 310-23.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Anderson, R.E. and Srinivasan, S. (2003), “E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: a contingency
framework”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 123-38.
Babin, B.J. and Babin, L. (2001), “Seeking something different? A model of schema typicality,
consumer affect, purchase intentions and perceived shopping value”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 89-96.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 644-56.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bauer, H.H., Falk, T. and Hammerschmidt, M. (2006), “Etransqual: a transaction process-based
approach for capturing service quality in online shopping”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 59 No. 7, pp. 866-75.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”,
in Lewicki, R., Bazerman, M. and Sheppard, B. (Eds), Research on Negotiation in
Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Bradach, J.L. and Eccles, R.G. (1989), “Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plural
forms”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 97-118.
Carr, C.L. (2007), “The FIARSERV model: consumer reactions to services based on a
multidimensional evaluation of service fairness”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 107-30.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for
online shopping behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-35.
Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999), “Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples
using partial least squares”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample
Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307-41.
Chiu, C.M., Huang, H.Y. and Yen, C.H. (2010), “Antecedents of trust in online auctions”, Electronic Understanding
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 148-59.
customers’
Churchill, G. (1991), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, Dryden Press, Fort
Worth, TX. satisfaction
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.
Collier, J.E. and Bienstock, C.C. (2006), “Measuring service quality in e-retailing”, Journal of
497
Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 260-75.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Judge, T.A. and Shaw, J.C. (2006), “Justice and personality: using
integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 110-27.
Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997), “Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through
the maze”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, London, pp. 317-72.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior,
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (1992), “Information systems success: the quest for the
dependent variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: a ten-year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 9-30.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2004), “Measuring e-commerce success: applying the DeLone
& McLean information systems success model”, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-47.
Desatnick, R.L. (1987), Managing to Keep the Customer, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Devaraj, S., Fan, M. and Kohli, R. (2002), “Antecedents of B2C channel satisfaction and
preference: validating e-commerce metrics”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 316-33.
Everard, A. and Galletta, D.F. (2005), “How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, trust,
and intention to purchase from an online store”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 55-95.
Fang, Y.H. and Chiu, C.M. (2010), “In justice we trust: exploring knowledge sharing continuance
intentions in virtual communities of practice”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 235-46.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-30.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frost, D., Goode, S. and Hart, D. (2010), “Individualist and collectivist factors affecting online
repurchase intentions”, Internet Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 6-28.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping:
an integrated model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
INTR Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudrea, M. (2000), “Structural equation modeling techniques and
regression: guidelines for research practice”, Communications of the Association for
21,4 Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 1-78.
Godwin, R.K. (1979), “The consequences of large monetary incentives in mail surveys of elites”,
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 378-87.
Grabner-Kraeuter, S. (2002), “The role of consumers’ trust in online-shopping”, Journal of
498 Business Ethics, Vol. 39 Nos 1/2, pp. 43-50.
Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J. (2005), Handbook of Organizational Justice, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Hayslett, M.M. and Wildemuth, B.M. (2004), “Pixels or pencils? The relative effectiveness of
web-based versus paper surveys”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 26,
pp. 73-93.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, John Wiley,
New York, NY.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P. and Perlta, M. (1999), “Building consumer trust online”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 50-6.
Holmes, J.H. and Lett, J.D. (1977), “Product sampling and word of mouth”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 17, pp. 35-40.
Homans, G.G. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt Brace, New York, NY.
Hubbell, A.P. and Chory-Assad, R.M. (2005), “Motivating factors: perceptions of justice and their
relationship with managerial and organizational trust”, Communication Studies, Vol. 56
No. 1, pp. 47-70.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E. and Arnold, M.J. (2006), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value:
investigating differential effects on retail outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
No. 9, pp. 974-81.
Kolter, P. (2000), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ.
Lee, J., Park, D.H. and Han, I. (2011), “The different effects of online consumer reviews on
consumers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls:
an advertising perspective”, Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 187-206.
Lin, H.H. and Wang, Y.S. (2006), “An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in
mobile commerce contexts”, Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 271-82.
Lind, E.A. (2001), “Fairness heuristic theory: justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in
organizational relations”, in Greenberg, J. and Cropanzano, R. (Eds), Advances in
Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 56-88.
Lind, E.A., Kulik, C.T., Ambrose, M. and de Vera Park, M.V. (1993), “Individual and corporate
dispute resolution: using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 224-51.
Liu, C. and Arnett, K.P. (2000), “Exploring the factors associated with web site success in the
context of electronic commerce”, Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Luhmann, N. (1989), Vertrauen, ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexitaet, Enke,
Stuttgart.
McCollough, M.A., Berry, L.L. and Yadav, M.S. (2000), “An empirical investigation of customer
satisfaction after service failure and recovery”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 121-37.
McKinney, V., Yoon, K. and Zahedi, F.M. (2002), “The measurement of web-customer Understanding
satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 296-315. customers’
McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L. and Chervany, N.L. (1998), “Initial trust formation in new satisfaction
organizational relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 473-90.
Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, 499
pp. 451-65.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997), “When employees feel betrayed: a model of how
psychological contract violation develops”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 226-56.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-9.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Malholtra (2005), “E-S-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 213-35.
Pavlou, P.A. and Fygenson, M. (2006), “Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 115-43.
Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online
exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 105-36.
Peterson, R.A., Balasubramanian, S. and Bronnenberg, B.J. (1997), “Exploring the implications of
the Internet for consumer marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 329-46.
Pillai, R., Williams, E.S. and Tan, J.J. (2001), “Are the scales tipped in favor of procedural or
distributive justice? An investigation of the U.S., India, Germany, and Hong Kong (China)”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 312-32.
Saunders, M.N.K. and Thornhill, A. (2003), “Organisational justice, trust and the management of
change”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 360-75.
Simon, T.W. (1995), Democracy and Social Injustice: Law, Politics, and Philosophy, Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, London.
Szymanski, D.M. and Hise (2000), “E-satisfaction: an initial examination”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 309-22.
Tanaka, J. (1984), “Some results on the estimation of covariance structure models”, Dissertation
Abstracts International, Vol. 45, p. 924B.
Thibaut, J.W. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Thompson, B. (1993), “The use of statistical significance tests in research: bootstrap and other
alternatives”, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 361-77.
Tsai, H.T. and Huang, H.C. (2007), “Determinants of e-repurchase intentions: an integrative
model of quadruple retention drivers”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 3,
pp. 231-9.
INTR Turel, O., Yuan, Y. and Connelly, C.E. (2008), “In justice we trust: predicting user acceptance of
e-customer services”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 123-51.
21,4 Van den Bos, K. and Lind, E.A. (2002), “Uncertainty management by means of fairness
judgments”, in Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic
Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 1-60.
Weisberg, J., Te’eni, D. and Arman, L. (2011), “Past purchase and intention to purchase in
500 e-commerce: the mediation of social presence and trust”, Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 82-96.
Wolgast, E.H. (1987), The Grammar of Justice, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Zboja, J.J. and Voorhees, C.M. (2006), “An empirical examination of the impact of brand trust and
satisfaction on retailer repurchase intentions”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 381-90.

Further reading
Kernan, M.C. and Hanges, P.J. (2002), “Survivor reactions to reorganization: antecedents and
consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 916-28.
Shipley, B. (2000), Cause and Correlation in Biology: A User’s Guide to Path Analysis, Structural
Equations and Causal Inference, Cambridge University Press, Port Chester, NY.
Teo, T.S.H. and Liu, J. (2007), “Consumer trust in e-commerce in the United States, Singapore and
China”, Omega-International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T. and Creemers, M. (2003), “Understanding online purchase
intentions: contributions from technology and trust perspectives”, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 41-8.

Appendix. Questionnaire items

Distributive justice (DJ)
DJ1 I think what I got is fair compared to the price I paid.
DJ2 I think I got what I paid for from PChome.
DJ3 I think the value of the products that I received from PChome is proportional to the
price I paid.
DJ4 I think the products that I purchased at PChome are considered to be a good buy.
DJ5 I think the products that I received from PChome are the same quality as advertised.

Procedural justice (PJ)

PJ1 I think the procedures used by PChome for handling problems occurred in the
shopping process are fair.
PJ2 I think PCHome allows customers to complain and state their views.
PJ3 I think the policies of PChome are applied consistently across all affected customers.
PJ4 I think PChome would clarify decisions about any change in the Web site and
provide additional information when requested by customers.
 PJ5 I think PChome provide detailed information about shopping policies and Understanding
procedures.
customers’
satisfaction
Interactional justice (IPJ)
IPJ1 Customer service representatives of PChome treat me with respect.
501
IPJ2 Customer service representatives of PChome treat me with friendliness.
IPJ3 Customer service representatives of PChome treat me with politeness.

Trust (TR)
TR1 Based on my experience with PChome in the past, I know it is honest.
TR2 Based on my experience with PChome in the past, I know it is not opportunistic.
TR3 Based on my experience with PChome in the past, I know it keeps its promises to
customers.
TR4 Based on my experience with PChome in the past, I know it is trustworthy.
TR5 Based on my experience with PChome in the past, I know it has the ability to
complete transactions.

Information quality (IQ)

IQ1 Information provided by the PChome Web site is relevant to my purchase decisions.
IQ2 Information provided by the PChome Web site is easy to comprehend.
IQ3 Information provided by the PChome Web site is accurate.
IQ4 Information provided by the PChome Web site is complete.
IQ5 Information provided by the PChome Web site is timely.

System quality (SQ)

SQ1 The PChome Web site has a simple layout for its contents.
SQ2 The organization and layout of the PChome Web site facilitate searching for
products.
SQ3 The appearance of PChome Web site is appealing.
SQ4 The PChome Web site is easy to navigate.
SQ5 The PChome Web site is always available.
SQ6 The PChome Web site loads its pages fast.
INTR Service quality (SEQ)
21,4 SEQ1 PChome provides me with convenient options for returning products.
SEQ2 PChome takes care of my problems promptly.
SEQ3 PChome does not share my personal information with other vendors.
502 SEQ4 PChome offers the ability to speak to a live person if there is a problem.

Net benefits (NB)

NB1 I think PChome offers a broad selection of products.
NB2 I think purchasing products from PChome is flexible.
NB3 I think purchasing products from PChome is interesting.
NB4 I think purchasing products from PChome is convenient.
NB5 I think PCHome enhances my effectiveness in product searching and buying.

Satisfaction (SA)
SA1 I like to purchase products from PChome.
SA2 I am pleased with the experience of purchasing products from PChome.
SA3 I think purchasing products from PChome is a good idea.
SA4 Overall, I am satisfied with the experience of purchasing products from PChome.

Repurchase intention (LI)

CI1 If I could, I would like to continue using PChome to purchase products.
CI2 It is likely that I will continue purchasing products from PChome in the future.
CI3 I intend to continue purchasing products from PChome in the future.

About the authors

Yu-Hui Fang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Accounting at the Tamkang
University, Taiwan. She gained her PhD degree in Information Management from National
Central University and her Masters degree in Accounting from University of Houston. Her
research interests include electronic commerce, virtual communities and knowledge
management. Her research has appeared in Computers in Human Behavior, Online
Information Review, and others. Yu-Hui Fang can be contacted at: yhfang@mail.tku.edu.tw
Chao-Min Chiu is a Professor in the Department of Information Management at the National
Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan. He holds a PhD in Management from the Rutgers University.
His research interests include electronic commerce, virtual communities, and knowledge
management. His research has appeared in Decision Support Systems, Information
& Management, Information Systems Journal, International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, Computers & Education, Computers in Human Behavior, Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, Behaviour & Information Technology, Information and Software Technology, Understanding
Information Systems Management, Information Technology and Management, Journal of
Information Science, Online Information Review, and others. Chao-Min Chiu can be contacted at: customers’
cmchiu@mis.nsysu.edu.tw satisfaction
Eric T.G. Wang is Information Management Chair Professor at National Central University,
Taiwan (ROC). He gained his PhD degree in Business Administration, specialized in computer
& information systems, from the William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration,
University of Rochester. His research interests include electronic commerce, outsourcing, 503
organizational economics, and organizational impact of information technology. His research has
appeared in Management Science, Information Systems Research, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Decision Sciences, Decision Support Systems, Information & Management,
Information Systems Journal, Omega, European Journal of Information Systems, European
Journal of Operational Research, International Journal of Information Management, and others.
Eric T.G. Wang can be contacted at: ewang@mgt.ncu.edu.tw

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints